The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Gemini Cricket]

Conservatives have hope, too. They hope Jeb will follow Obama.
:D

[scaeagles]

Whether Clinton did or did not do the right thing is irrelevant in response to that inane billboard.

Hey, all I was doing was responding to JW saying that the Clinton admin warned the Bush admin about bin Laden. If Clinton had taken bin Laden there would have been no need for the warning. I'm not addressing the billboard.

But while we're at it, if it is logical to say Bush is responsible for 9/11 because the warning wasn't heeded, then it is also logical to say that Bush is reponsible for no attacks on American soil now. I'm not saying either is logical, I'm saying that I don't understand why the first is logical, as JW seems to think based on his posting.

[JWBear]

The investigation into the USS Cole attack did not conclude until 1/19/01 - the day before Bush's inauguration. Later that month, the evidence was presented to Bush, who did nothing.

Yeah... It's all Clinton's fault...

[JWBear]

On another track... I don't know why I find him fascinating, but...

Omar bin Laden, the peace advocate (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512463/Mr-Mrs-Bin-Laden-Rockers-Rome-hoping-peace-meeting-Pope.html)


But dude, that hair... Seriously!

[scaeagles]

The investigation into the USS Cole attack did not conclude until 1/19/01 - the day before Bush's inauguration. Later that month, the evidence was presented to Bush, who did nothing.

Yeah... It's all Clinton's fault...


I didn't say that. You are the one saying it is all Bush's fault. I'm saying it's all the fault of the terrorists. Clinton could have done more. Bush could have done more. Neither were involved in the attacks themselves. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist.

[Gemini Cricket]

I posted the article for the billboard and him pimping his single, btw. Didn't mean to start yet another row about Bush, 9/11 and Clinton.
:)

[Ghoulish Delight]

I didn't say that. You are the one saying it is all Bush's fault. I'm saying it's all the fault of the terrorists. Clinton could have done more. Bush could have done more. Neither were involved in the attacks themselves. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist.I'm not sure I'm seeing where JW said it was "Bush's fault". He, rightly, pointed out that Bush did not prevent 9/11, which is a perfectly salient point in response to a stupid billboard that is trying to convince people that a Republican President will make us immune to terrorist attacks.

[Alex]

The real point is that if Carter hadn't killed the Shah, then none of this would have happened.

Yes, I know that isn't historically accurate or particularly sensible. But then most of the arguments on who is to blame for allowing 9/11 suffer the same issues.

[scaeagles]

I read his "they had 7 months to do something and did nothing" comment as blame assignment.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I read his "they had 7 months to do something and did nothing" comment as blame assignment.
Read it whatever way you want, the reality is all that it means is that to claim that Democrat=death by terrorists and Republican=safe from terrorists is a load of sh*t.

[JWBear]

...If Clinton had taken bin Laden there would have been no need for the warning....

And I was just pointing out that Clinton did not have the evidence to "take" bin Laden. Bush did.

[BDBopper]

Conservatives have hope, too. They hope Jeb will follow Obama.
:D

BUZZZ!! Sorry. The answer we were looking for hope was Huckabee. But we have some nice parting gifts for you. :p

No more Bushes please. HW wasn't too bad...but W has been terrible!

[Gemini Cricket]

BUZZZ!! Sorry. The answer we were looking for hope was Huckabee. But we have some nice parting gifts for you. :p

No more Bushes please. HW wasn't too bad...but W has been terrible!
Huckabee? Really? Hmmm. Me no like Huckabee. Bad medicine.

[BDBopper]

The New JibJab Video - Time For Some Campaignin' (http://youtube.com/watch?v=adc3MSS5Ydc)!

[BDBopper]

Huckabee? Really? Hmmm. Me no like Huckabee. Bad medicine.

Of course you don't. LOL But you don't like Jeb either I bet!

[Gemini Cricket]

Of course you don't. LOL But you don't like Jeb either I bet!
No. In fact, I don't like any politicians. I think a giant rubber duck should be president.
:D

[Snowflake]

No. In fact, I don't like any politicians. I think a giant rubber duck should be president.
:D


Initially, I read that differently :D

[Gemini Cricket]

Initially, I read that differently :D
Oh that's such a stereotype that gays like big rubber decks.

[scaeagles]

And I was just pointing out that Clinton did not have the evidence to "take" bin Laden. Bush did.


Hmm....

Cause to take bin Laden (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm)


And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition.

This article, along with Clintons own voice, might suggest he did.

[JWBear]

Oh that's such a stereotype that gays like big rubber decks.

This is where iSm comes in to remind us we had a chance to elect a kitty to the White House, instead of another deck. ;)

[BDBopper]

Rubber Duckie '08 He's the One!

When should I start printing the T-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers?

[Scrooge McSam]

This article, along with Clintons own voice, might suggest he did.


Any ideas on why the 9/11 Commission rejected that assertion?

[wendybeth]

What absurd LewisCarollian logic.

Not only absurd, but also incorrect. Again, Scaeagles- I beg of you to actually read the damned report (which is co-authored by many of your con pols) and then write about it. They were actually pretty fair in their assessment that Clinton's hands were tied- the Repubs had him on the ropes about the Tripoli shelling and were accusing him of using that as a distraction from his domestic 'affairs'- to go after Bin Laden would have been (and was) not only a bit illegal at that point, but misconstrued purposefully by the very people that are now using terrorism as a threat against their own citizens. (Vote for us or you'll die!) Besides, there are no guarantees he could have been taken out- Sudan is notorious for lying to us and subsequent events in that region have not born out any better reason to trust them. Bush has had ample time, resources and the go- ahead from the world community, and he's failed.

Sheesh.

[Alex]

Well, using this part:

They were actually pretty fair in their assessment that Clinton's hands were tied- the Repubs had him on the ropes about the Tripoli shelling and were accusing him of using that as a distraction from his domestic 'affairs'- to go after Bin Laden would have been (and was) not only a bit illegal at that point, but misconstrued purposefully by the very people that are now using terrorism as a threat against their own citizens.

would support the position of the billboard guy. If a Republican had been president, Clinton's reasons for not taking out Obama wouldn't have existed.

Not that I agree with him or think this is the way in which he means the point.

[scaeagles]

Any ideas on why the 9/11 Commission rejected that assertion?

I have my thoughts on the 9/11 commission, but don't have the time to go into them now.

[scaeagles]

(Vote for us or you'll die!)

What amazes me is this is exactly the argument the DEMS are using! Saying that the Iraq war breeds more terrorism, that the Muslim world hates us more, that out policies in support of Isreal and demonizing Ahmadenijad and whatever else they accuse the republicans of have made us less safe! It is an argument of ideas - the republicans think that they have the better strategy for dealing with terrorism, and the dems do as well. Don't pull this crap of the republicans are the only ones doing it!

I see what is out there and that it is a republican strategy. Don't tell me that it isn't a dem strategy as well to say Bush and republican policies has made us less safe.

[Scrooge McSam]

I have my thoughts on the 9/11 commission, but don't have the time to go into them now.

Understood

Perhaps you could come back to that on a slow Obama news day.

[JWBear]

Not only absurd, but also incorrect. Again, Scaeagles- I beg of you to actually read the damned report (which is co-authored by many of your con pols) and then write about it. They were actually pretty fair in their assessment that Clinton's hands were tied- the Repubs had him on the ropes about the Tripoli shelling and were accusing him of using that as a distraction from his domestic 'affairs'- to go after Bin Laden would have been (and was) not only a bit illegal at that point, but misconstrued purposefully by the very people that are now using terrorism as a threat against their own citizens. (Vote for us or you'll die!) Besides, there are no guarantees he could have been taken out- Sudan is notorious for lying to us and subsequent events in that region have not born out any better reason to trust them. Bush has had ample time, resources and the go- ahead from the world community, and he's failed.

Sheesh.

Exactly. It wasn't until the investigation into the Cole attack that we had the evidence that would have made going after bin Laden in earnest acceptable and legal.

[wendybeth]

Well, using this part:



would support the position of the billboard guy. If a Republican had been president, Clinton's reasons for not taking out Obama wouldn't have existed.

Not that I agree with him or think this is the way in which he means the point.

Lol! Too true. Well, I think McCain has a worse track record in that arena than Obama does- so far as we know, anyway.

[€uroMeinke]

What absurd LewisCarollian logic.

You know of course that Lewis Carol was a logician? I even have his book on symbolic logic in my philosophy collection - a bit more dry that the Alice tales, but quite logical - I assure you

[scaeagles]

I knew he meant it as a compliment.

[scaeagles]

Understood

Perhaps you could come back to that on a slow Obama news day.

In summary, I think the 9/11 commission was government pulling a CYA for itself for all involved - previous admins and the current admin. The degree to which I think what was a CYA and for whom isn't important, I suppose.

I have a tendency to be somewhat conspiratorial, though I am not one who subscribes to the "9/11 was an iside job" idea, but I do believe that covering up ineptitude of great magnitude was a primary goal of the 9/11 commission.

[scaeagles]

It looks as if there is a largerthan previously thought and growing group of scientists who question the whole man caused global warming idea.

50000 physicists open debate on global warming (http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warmin g+Debate/article12403.htm)

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.
...
In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth.

[Alex]

Eek, unfortunately the actual APS doesn't quite agree with that. The response from the APS (http://www.aps.org/) to the story:


The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
So yes, a specific newsletter within the APS dedicated an issue to debating the topic [changed this word]. Viscount Monckton took the anti-global warming position. Others in the issue took the pro-side. You can read the editorial accompanying the issue here (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm) and find that it does not put forward a policy position.

It is worth noting that Monckton is not one of the 50,000 physicists represented by APS. He is a policy consultant and former journalist. In fact the two physicists writing in this issue are both on the pro-global warming side.

So, yes, there are scientists who disagree with the accepted theories of global warming. But the APS has not changed its official position on the issue which can be found here (http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm). All that has happened is that an online newsletter published an article by someone who disagrees with the APS position.





Really, when in a debate and presented with what appears to be a pretty significant "gotcha" is it really that hard to spend 5 minutes double checking the information provided by some blog? Amazingly, those are frequently wrong.

[scaeagles]

Really, when in a debate and presented with what appears to be a pretty significant "gotcha" is it really that hard to spend 5 minutes double checking the information provided by some blog? Amazingly, those are frequently wrong.

Indeed.

[scaeagles]

As a follow up, yeah, admittedly, I have a tendency to jump on things like that. I am a "skeptic" and have read writings of accomplished scientists who are skeptics as well, so when I read something to the effect of a growing population (or a large one ) of skeptics, I get excited.

[wendybeth]

You'll jump on an article like that, yet throw out the 9/11 report without even reading it because of a conspiracy fear? Okay....

Would you have been so quick to dismiss the commission's report if it had been more of a slam on the Dems? I can't help but wonder. Personally, I was shocked by the candor put forth by members of both parties. I found it refreshing.

[scaeagles]

I didn't say I threw it completely out. I have read it (long ago). Government watching over government and reporting on government is a concern of mine and I don't trust it.

And I admitted I was wrong to jump on that. I actually will admit when I think I was wrong about something.....it just ahppens so rarely.:)

[Alex]

Sorry to jump on it like that. When I saw the headline I pretty much knew it was likely to be bull****. I just didn't expect it to take me 30 seconds to find out it was (from going to the APS web site).

You admit your wrong and I'm fine with that and making mistakes.

Mostly I'm bothered by it because that it has been on Drudge it might as well be true as far as hundreds of thousands of people are concerned.

So, next time you're at your Conservative Club meeting and someone trots this out I expect you to say something like "I'm with ya brother, GW is a crock but you know that particular story isn't true so we should stop using it."

And then we'll just work on you thinking it is a crock.

[scaeagles]

So, next time you're at your Conservative Club meeting and someone trots this out I expect you to say something like "I'm with ya brother, GW is a crock but you know that particular story isn't true so we should stop using it."

I kept reading that as GW = GW Bush, not Global Warming, and was trying to figure out why I'd be at my conservative club meeting saying GWB was a crock. Well, he is to true conservatives, so that could happen, too.

[wendybeth]

I didn't say I threw it completely out. I have read it (long ago). Government watching over government and reporting on government is a concern of mine and I don't trust it.

And I admitted I was wrong to jump on that. I actually will admit when I think I was wrong about something.....it just ahppens so rarely.:)


Sorry, Scaeagles- I could have sworn you told me a long time ago you hadn't read it, and your prior posting about questioning the integrity of the report sort of supported it. Fair enough- if you have read it, then I will be more than willing to listen to your opinion on the subject. Drives me crazy when people shoot something down without at least looking into the subject- kind of like all the homeschool people who won't let their kid read Harry Potter because it's EVIL. They haven't read it, but their pastors assure them of the series corruptive nature and they act like even talking about it will condemn their souls to oblivion.


Might I add it's also rare that you typo? Must have been difficult writing that last line.;):p

[Alex]

Well what do you know, Drudge took down the link to the blog post scaeagles linked to. And the GW stories are still there so it isn't that he just moved on.

Of course a correction/retraction would be more than could be hoped for but at least for once he took a minor step.

[Ghoulish Delight]

OMG!! Bush is a terrorist!!!!

Diplmoacy with Iran (http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=253965)!!!

[wendybeth]

Let the Spin begin.:rolleyes:

[JWBear]

Can you say "Waffle" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ5DzhC9pa4&feature=related) Mr Bush.... I knew you could!

[scaeagles]

For the record, I completely disagree with this action.

[Alex]

Only semi-spin. But among those more intelligent critics of Obama's statements the argument was that it would be inappropriate for there to be a summit level meeting between heads of state such as the presidents of Iran and the USA and this type of thing was pretty much what they said was appropriate.

Those who read unstated nuance into Obama's initial statements also said that of course Obama would first work through lower level diplomatic channels and this would be the form of most any "meeting without demands" with enemy states.

And then there were idiots on both sides (though definitely louder on the right side).

[scaeagles]

I wonder if this (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sen_john_edwards_caught_with_mistress_and_love_chi ld_in_la_hotel/celebrity/65193) means Edwards is off Obama's short list of VP choices....I'm curious as to if it actually happened.

[Alex]

Unless it can be clearly shown as untrue (which I doubt, the rumors of this long pre-date the Enquirer story from earlier this year) I don't see any way he could be the VP choice.

But while he may have been on the shortlist it never struck me as likely he'd be chosen. So for me the question is whether it kills his chances of any position in the administration and I imagine that depends on how Elizabeth responds.

[Scrooge McSam]

I wonder if this (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sen_john_edwards_caught_with_mistress_and_love_chi ld_in_la_hotel/celebrity/65193) means Edwards is off Obama's short list of VP choices....I'm curious as to if it actually happened.

Very disappointing if so.

Does the Enquirer have a good reputation for factual reporting?

[Alex]

Actually, it has a surprisingly decent track record, at least for political scandal reporting.

[wendybeth]

I wonder if this (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sen_john_edwards_caught_with_mistress_and_love_chi ld_in_la_hotel/celebrity/65193) means Edwards is off Obama's short list of VP choices....I'm curious as to if it actually happened.


Omg. Tell me you have not resorted to the Enquirer.... You're kidding, right? Right?????


This is either a sign that the Cons are seriously on the ropes, the impending Apocalypse, or that Scaeagles has developed a sense of humor. Really sick and twisted humor, which works for me.

[scaeagles]

WB, I did put a disclaimer on it, but knowing what Alex posted is true regarding their track record on such things, I thought it worthy to post.

[Strangler Lewis]

"John Edwards's VP Ambition's Sad Last Days?"

Having an affair while your wife battles cancer does not qualify one to be first in line for the highest office in the land.

Second in line? (Cough, cough. Newt Gingrich.) No problem.

[Alex]

By the way, I should have said "surprisingly decent track record for a tabloid". It definitely has its misses but over the years it has had enough scoops that I wouldn't dismiss such things out of hand.

Though I am of the opinion that since Edwards is not in office and is not currently running for office that his affairs are not really a story of any public interest.

[Moonliner]

Unless it can be clearly shown as untrue (which I doubt, the rumors of this long pre-date the Enquirer story from earlier this year) I don't see any way he could be the VP choice.

But while he may have been on the shortlist it never struck me as likely he'd be chosen. So for me the question is whether it kills his chances of any position in the administration and I imagine that depends on how Elizabeth responds.

Mr. Edwards would you please prove you did not have an affair. Oh and while you are at it... When did you stop beating your wife?

[Moonliner]

"John Edwards's VP Ambition's Sad Last Days?"

Having an affair while your wife battles cancer does not qualify one to be first in line for the highest office in the land.

Second in line? (Cough, cough. Newt Gingrich.) No problem.

Hamilton, Harding, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton, etc... Hell it's almost a requirement for the top spot.

[Alex]

Mr. Edwards would you please prove you did not have an affair. Oh and while you are at it... When did you stop beating your wife?

In this case I think it is less "Mr. Edwards would you please prove you did not have an affair" than "Mr. Edwards would you please explain why you just spent five hours in a hotel room with a woman you have previously claimed no close personal relationship with?" Unless the Enquirer is completely making things up, which is certainly within the realm of possibility.

However, regardless of whether the allegations are true or not, fair or not, it is a simple statement of expediency that the Obama campaign would probably prefer to not attach the drama to the campaign if they can avoid it.

[scaeagles]

All I'm saying is Obama isn't going to touch him now. He's out of the running. This is regardless of what one thinks about it. And by the way, Newt was as reprehensible. My dad was screwing around on my mom while she was dying of lupus, so I have zero tolerance for such things.

Although, being that I'm basically evil at heart, I sure wish Obama had selected Edwards and this happened a couple of weeks after that. That would have been very entertaining.:evil:

[Strangler Lewis]

Hamilton, Harding, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton, etc... Hell it's almost a requirement for the top spot.

Hamilton?

[Moonliner]

Hamilton?

OK, not the best example. He might have been a president except for an affair....


Hamilton might have risen to the presidency if not for a scandal in 1797. A pamphlet published that year revealed Hamilton's affair with a woman named Maria Reynolds and linked him to a scheme by Reynolds' husband to illegally manipulate federal securities. To prove his innocence, Hamilton resorted to publishing love letters he had written to Maria Reynolds. This cleared Hamilton of financial impropriety, but badly damaged his reputation.

[wendybeth]

You can add Eisenhower and Bush Sr. to that list, Moonie.


Anyone who uses the Enquirer as a source of information cannot be taken seriously. Whether or not Edwards is messing around on his wife is not my concern, but anyone who tries to use such a rag to back up any sort of political position or to gleefully spread rumors is stooping very low indeed.


Good point about Newt, SL. Oh, and since we're flinging crap round- how about McCain dumping his disabled wife for the trophy heiress.

[scaeagles]

Indeed, WB, and another reason I don't like McCain.

However, if a story is true, a story is true regardless of where it is reported.

[Tom]

He might have been a president except for an affair....

I think, in the end, his death proved more of an obstacle to his presidential ambitions than the affair did.

[Gemini Cricket]

I think, in the end, his death proved more of an obstacle to his presidential ambitions than the affair did.
Dying ruins all future career plans.

[Tom]

Dying ruins all future career plans.

Not necessarily. It depends on what your plans are.

[Gemini Cricket]

Not necessarily. It depends on what your plans are.
True that, I guess. You could continue on as a Bodyworlds' exhibit...

[scaeagles]

Or you could haunt someone or something. That could be fun.

[JWBear]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but I just heard ablout it:

McCain's citizenship called into question (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/)

Turn about is fair play, afterall! :snap:

[scaeagles]

That happened a while ago and was dropped pretty much immediately, as I recall (I didn't read the link, but I figure it's the same thing that happened about 6 months ago or so).

I'm curious, though.....turnabout for what?

[Alex]

What's the turn about? Has anybody called Obama's citizenship and technical qualification to be president into question?


Personally, on this issue (which came up in 2000 as well), my view is that the only reasonable way to read "natural born citizen" is anybody who was legally entitled to their citizenship simply be being born. Yeah, it is ambiguous but I agree with the sentiment at the end of the article that no court is ever going to come within a mile of overturning an election on such subtle grounds (insert Bush v. Gore jokes here).

Plus, I'd point out that the citizenship qualification is natural born citizen or citizen at time the constitution was adopted. McCain clearly meets the second qualification.

But I've also long been in favor of removing all of the qualifications listed in the constitution altogether. If a 12 year old German who has never visited the United States can successfully convince the American public to elect her president then so be it.

[JWBear]

That happened a while ago and was dropped pretty much immediately, as I recall (I didn't read the link, but I figure it's the same thing that happened about 6 months ago or so).

I'm curious, though.....turnabout for what?

What's the turn about? Has anybody called Obama's citizenship and technical qualification to be president into question?


Personally, on this issue (which came up in 2000 as well), my view is that the only reasonable way to read "natural born citizen" is anybody who was legally entitled to their citizenship simply be being born. Yeah, it is ambiguous but I agree with the sentiment at the end of the article that no court is ever going to come within a mile of overturning an election on such subtle grounds (insert Bush v. Gore jokes here).

Plus, I'd point out that the citizenship qualification is natural born citizen or citizen at time the constitution was adopted. McCain clearly meets the second qualification.

But I've also long been in favor of removing all of the qualifications listed in the constitution altogether. If a 12 year old German who has never visited the United States can successfully convince the American public to elect her president then so be it.

Awhile ago, some conservative blogs were questioning Obama's qualifications for reasons that were even more ridiculous.

See here. (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm)

[BarTopDancer]

How much of Exxon's $11.68 billion profit (http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/?postversion=2008073110) is going to its shareholders and employees?

[Alex]

By definition, all of it.

[Alex]

Well, by definition, all of it is going to shareholders. Employee compensation is an expense and diminishes profit.

[BDBopper]

I am so ticked right now at the Chattering class. Over the past week they have been beating the idea into people's heads that the Huckabee supporters are bigots because we did not support the dinglecheese, Romney because Romney is a Mormon. This is complete BS and I would like to beat these morons by the side of the head with a baseball bat :mad:

[Fab]

People on both sides didn't support Romney because of the Mormonism. I don't care what religion someone is, so long as they don't try to start the apocalypse in the Middle East so that they can force Jesus to come back early; I also don't appreciate someone using their personal religion to tell me what and whom I can do stuff with in my personal life, and my body.

And that last sentence just made my former English teacher's head kerplode.

[BDBopper]

I am Not A Bigot (http://ohbabythatswhatilike.blogspot.com/2008/08/i-am-not-bigot-my-misgivings-with-mitt.html)

[Tenigma]

I am Not A Bigot

"Waiting for Bigot."

har har har.

[Gemini Cricket]

"Waiting for Bigot."

har har har.
Okay, I admit it. I lol'ed.
:D

[Alex]

To say that many people didn't vote for Romney because he is Mormon is not to say that everybody who didn't vote for him did so for that reason.

But it also isn't the case that because a lot of people had other reasons for not voting for him that it wasn't a significant issue for a different lot of people.

I know people for whom it was an issue. And I do think the nature of a candidates religious faith is a perfectly acceptable issue. After all, a large part of the reason I wouldn't vote for Huckabee is the nature of his religious faith. Now, the problem isn't so much the specifics of his belief (I don't care if he is a Trinitarian or if Romney thinks Jesus visit up-state New York on his way back to heaven) but rather I think the nature of his belief doesn't allow him to see why I shouldn't be required to fall in line with it.

[scaeagles]

Decided this post was more WTF???? and moved it there.

[BarTopDancer]

Paris Hilton released a response video (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/06/paris-hilton-gets-even-with-mccain-releases-ad-of-her-own/) to address McCain using her in his ad.

I'm no Paris fan, but I think the McCain ad was beyond inappropriate. The video is amusing.

The tongue-in-cheek video is laced with age-based insults. Hilton may not be known for her trenchant wit, but the two-minute spot is a satirical blend — part “Daily Show,” part “Legally Blonde.”

[scaeagles]

Why? Even Barack has compared himself to Paris.

[Alex]

I don't think McCain's add was inappropriate. I just think it was ill advised.

[scaeagles]

I don't even think it was ill advised. Comparing Obama's celebrity to that of (other) vacuous celebrities seems pretty smart.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Obama is very much like Paris Hilton in that he is very good at presenting the media with the image of himself that he thinks will garner him the most success. Paris is far more intelligent than her media persona lets on. I'm not saying she's a great philosopher, but she's no dummy.

I prefer the reality of who Obama is outside of his media persona, as much as can be gleened by looking beyond the surface fluff that media presents that defines that persona, over the reality of who McCain outside of his media persona. The fact that he's using his media persona to present an image that's a little more appealing to the people who need to like him to elect him is fine with me.

[BarTopDancer]

Where did he say that (seriously).


And why was the ad smart? Because he's a well known politician? Aren't most people running for office of the US known [at least by name] world wide? McCain comes across as bitter and almost whiny that people aren't paying as much attention to him as they do to Obama.

[scaeagles]

I don't currently have the exact quote, but as his celebrity grew he claimed he was giving Paris Hilton a run for her money, or some such thing.

[Alex]

Ill advised because it isn't likely (in my view but maybe it is playing well somewhere) to reap much benefit for McCain.

[scaeagles]

I find it hysterical that Pelosi's new book has sold less than 2800 copies.

I was thinking about Pelosi today (I know - creepy) and I started thinking about her former buddy Cindy Sheehan. Cindy used to get a lot of face time until she decided to run against Pelosi because of Pelosi's failure to act on the war. Being somewhat conspiratorial, I wonder if that is intentional, or if she had just become old news. When she was camping outside the Crawford ranch she was covered, but I don't see much in the media now that the focus of her protest has changed to dems who haven't followed through on what they had said they would.

[wendybeth]

I think the Hilton/Spears ad, while initially providing great fodder for humor on both sides, underscores the differences between the two candidates in a way that McCain may not have intended. He comes across as as a sort of bitter old dude that is jealous of the attention his opponent is garnering, and is grasping at straws to make himself relevant. He also drags two persons, one whom is mentally ill, into an arena that neither belongs- and appears to be denigrating them in the process. With all of our domestic and international problems, as Obama said "Is this the best he can do?" Good question. It signaled a return (not that we ever left) to Rovian attack ads and pretty much indicates what sort of strategy his team is going with.

[BarTopDancer]

I think the Hilton/Spears ad, while initially providing great fodder for humor on both sides, underscores the differences between the two candidates in a way that McCain may not have intended. He comes across as as a sort of bitter old dude that is jealous of the attention his opponent is garnering, and is grasping at straws to make himself relevant. He also drags two persons, one whom is mentally ill, into an arena that neither belongs- and appears to be denigrating them in the process. With all of our domestic and international problems, as Obama said "Is this the best he can do?" Good question. It signaled a return (not that we ever left) to Rovian attack ads and pretty much indicates what sort of strategy his team is going with.

Exactly!

[scaeagles]

I didn't interpret it that way at all. But you knew that. People who have made up their minds will certainly view that in completely different ways. The undecideds....I have no idea what impact it would make.

It was a take on the media and the celebrity/rock star status of Obama, and that just because one has celebrity does not mean they are ready for leadership.

[BarTopDancer]

How did you interpret McCain using two people who have nothing to do with politics (Paris and Brittney) in his ad (without their permission)?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

and that just because one has celebrity does not mean they are ready for leadership.

Well, thank heavens that nobody thought that way in 1980, otherwise you might not have an avatar. ;)

[JWBear]

Well, thank heavens that nobody thought that way in 1980, otherwise you might not have an avatar. ;)

Apparently, I must spread more mojo around... :snap:

[innerSpaceman]

Yep, I found that mojo-worthy myself.


Of course, scaeagles is likely to respond that RR was governor of California ... to which I will pre-retort:

Ahem, Governator anyone?

[JWBear]

Yeah... California will elect anyone as Governor, it's no qualification for leadership.

(Of course, Regan was napping, and not in charge, the whole time he was President, so it doesn't matter anyway.) ;)

[Alex]

To be fair though, by 1980 Reagan had a reasonably long record of executive leadership in private and public government.

You certainly had a longer record of Reagan as a political being than you do of Obama. I don't consider that much of an issue for Obama because I don't really have any doubt as to Obama's political persona. I'm definitely evaluating his leadership skills on less evidence than most candidates historically.

[scaeagles]

Well, thank heavens that nobody thought that way in 1980, otherwise you might not have an avatar. ;)


Hmm....gov of CA, labor union President....hmm....not much of a comparison there.

[scaeagles]

Yep, I found that mojo-worthy myself.


Of course, scaeagles is likely to respond that RR was governor of California ... to which I will pre-retort:

Ahem, Governator anyone?

Indeed I did respond in that fashion, so of course the comparison is still not very good.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh really, Labor Union President? Is that the big qualilfication difference between Ronald and Arnold??


Pulease, you make me laugh.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I think that there are times when too much emphasis is placed on experience. Reagan's strength was not in his experience, it was in his leadership abilities - ones which I suspect he possessed long before he was ever put in charge of leading anything. Experience helps, but it is not the end-all of leadership ability.

There are plenty of people who are very experienced, and yet very poor leaders. Carter had much more experience than Reagan. Both were Governors, but only one was a Navy Lieutenant and a two-term senator, not to mention already had four years in the White House.) The other was an actor. And guess what, the less experienced actor won the election, mainly because people liked him more than the more experienced guy, primarily because of his charisma and excellent ability to deliver a speech - both which would be invaluable assets during his presidency. And, with the exception of a few black marks, he is generally considered to have been an effective leader. Imagine that.

[Alex]

If you're going to talk about people getting elected on celebrity and star power then I think a better comparison would be to JFK (yes, he has political experience) than to Reagan.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

If you're going to talk about people getting elected on celebrity and star power then I think a better comparison would be to JFK (yes, he has political experience) than to Reagan.

Perhaps. I just couldn't figure out a way to work a snide remark about scaeagles' avatar into a discussion about Kennedy.

[scaeagles]

Oh really, Labor Union President? Is that the big qualilfication difference between Ronald and Arnold??

I suppose I could have listed "community activist", because that's a qualification that Obama lists.

On a side note, is Arnold better than Davis whom he replaced after the recall? I don't follow CA politics, so I don't know.

Snark all you want, MBC - he's still my hero.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Snark all you want, MBC - he's still my hero.

And I think I was rather flattering to him in my last post. I think he was perhaps one of the most charismatic and well-spoken Presidents we have had in recent history. In fact, it is a testament to how far those traits can get you in life and how effective they can be in a leadership role.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that it gives me HOPE, that better days lie ahead, once we again have a leader that can speak well for our nation, earn the respect of our allies, and inspire us to be better. We have been missing that for almost a decade, and it is painfully evident. So you see, in some ways, Obama is very much like Reagan (and that is without going into detail about Reagan raising taxes or being pro-choice while Governor.)

I assume I have made you feel more more comfortable about voting for Obama now.

[scaeagles]

Ummm....no.

The thing about Reagan is the he didn't care what those in foreign countries thought of him.

Much of the populace of Europe was dead set against how he dealt with the Soviets and did not like Reagan. They were flabbergasted when he walked out of talks with Gorby and didn't think the policy of US nukes stationed there was a good idea.

Reagan also raised taxes as President, part of a deal with Confgress that taught him a valuable lesson about making deals with Congress. They didn't keep their end, which was to cut spending by $2 for every dollar in increased taxes. Didn't work out quite that way.

I'm not confident voting for either for President.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Ummm....no.

The thing about Reagan is the he didn't care what those in foreign countries thought of him.

Much of the populace of Europe was dead set against how he dealt with the Soviets and did not like Reagan. They were flabbergasted when he walked out of talks with Gorby and didn't think the policy of US nukes stationed there was a good idea. They didn't have to like him for him to be effective, but the did have to respect him. Right now, our leaders garner no respect. That needs to change.

[scaeagles]

They respected him? Seriously you are joking. Thatcher, certainly, but Reagan was viewed as a senile old man who deperately wanted an excuse to nuke the Soviets, particularly amongst the general population, though I suppose I can't speak about any other leaders, save Mitterand, and he had no respect for Reagan. For the most part he opposed Reagan.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, no, that was what I thought of Regan, not what the Euro's thought.

[BarTopDancer]

Cyberspace attacks precede Russia/Georgia War (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/technology/13cyber.html?em)

[sleepyjeff]

Cyberspace attacks precede Russia/Georgia War (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/technology/13cyber.html?em)

Scary stuff.

[BarTopDancer]

Because Nothing Could Possibly Go Wrong (http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/08/12/are-they-really-going-to-gut-the-endangered-species-act/)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service announced Monday that they are proposing major changes to the Endangered Species Act, a move that critics say will dramatically weaken federal protection of threatened plants and animals.

The announcement came after the Associated Press obtained a draft proposal of the rule changes [PDF], which seek to bypass the review process for construction projects, such as highways, dams, and mines. Currently, under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies must consult with scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether a project is likely to affect any of the 1,353 animal and plant species listed as endangered or threatened.

The draft rules, which do not need to be approved by Congress but are subject to a 30-day public-comment period, would let each agency decide for itself whether a project would harm listed species.

[scaeagles]

Interesting theory.....It is floating around out there that should Edwards affair had been revealed early in the primaries or before them that Clinton may have won the nomination.

Whether this is true or not (who knows - I haven't tried to analyze it at all and of course it is all conjecture) isn't what I'm wondering, but discussion on that would be interesting. I'm wondering the effect of this on the rabid Clinton supporters who already are struggling with Obama having the nomination, and what that might mean for the dem convention.

[Strangler Lewis]

I would think most of them would be over that by now, especially since a vote for "maverick" John McCain is looking more and more like a vote for another George Bush term.

[scaeagles]

I think it's time for Cheney to invite Putin to Wyoming for a hunting trip.

I have come to the conclusion the Putin wishes to restore the former Soviet Union. He is former KGB, basically rewrote the Russian constitution to allow himself to still be in control of Russia after his term was over, was most likely behind the poisoning of the Ukrainian guy because he wants to stop Ukraine for joining NATO, is refusing to abide by the cease fire in Georgia (and note that I am not complete against limited military action by Russia due to Georgia's entry into South Ossetia), and other laundry lists of items.

I fear we are headed for another cold war and that this is an issue that should be well quizzed when McCain and Obama begins debates.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Aww, good ol' Pootie-poot? He's our bestest bud!

[innerSpaceman]

Just trying to demonstrate their dominance over the Caspian Sea natural gas pipelines that were built to avoid going thru Russia.

Russia's had quite a turnaround over the past 8 years, and has become perhaps the world's greatest energy power in terms of natural gas ... which sees widespread use in Europe. They're just flexing their muscles and saying, 'not so fast ... we can ultimately control everything that goes thru this region, whether it's officially our territory or not.'

[scaeagles]

Whatever you think of abortion (and this isn't intended to be a debate on that issue whatsoever), it should be pretty clear that the Catholic church has very specifically made it clear that the official doctrine of the church is that life begins at conception and abortion is not acceptable. So how is it that Pelosi, who claims to be a practicing Catholic, can go on Meet the Press and declare that the Catholic Church doesn't know what they believe about abortion?

Biden was brought on, in part, to go after the Catholic vote. With Pelosi doing this, that would seem to have a directly negative effect on that aspect of the selection. Plus, it's just stupid. The Catholic church couldn't be more clear on their doctrine.

[Alex]

I don't know, I think she's right. The leadership of the church may be pretty unified but if you view "Catholic Church" as not only the leadership by all of the people in it as well, then the American Catholic Church is deeply divided on the issue.

More than half of Americans who view themselves as Catholic label themselves as pro-choice according to some polls (the number is less in other polls but they tend to be limiting themselves to more devout Catholics). 70% say that they have no obligation to vote against a pro-choice candidate.

There are plenty of examples of pro-choice Democratic Catholic politicians who have no problem at all dominating among the Catholic vote (Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi being three obvious examples).

So I don't know how much it hurts among the Catholic laity. And it might help elsewhere if the bishops gets their collective panties in a twist. Americans generally hate it when church leaders try to overtly sway the political process...so long as the leader isn't from their own church.

[scaeagles]

Perhaps if she had directly referred to the members of the church being divided I could buy that, but when you say "the church doesn't know" I interpret that as meaing the official doctrine of the church.

[innerSpaceman]

Thanks for your interpretation. Alex gave his. They're different. How about that? Maybe Pelosi has her own, too, seeing as ... technically at least ... she's a human being.

[scaeagles]

Right. I was explaining why I thought differently than he did.

Apparently now explaining ones self is not acceptable? Did I do something wrong or offensive or say Alex was stupid? I don't think there's even one thing CLOSE to offensive or confrontational in what I posted. Unless I'm not allowed to call a politican stupid. If that's the case, then pretty much everyone here is guilty of being offensive.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Perhaps if she had directly referred to the members of the church being divided I could buy that, but when you say "the church doesn't know" I interpret that as meaing the official doctrine of the church.If I said, "America doesn't know where it stands on abortion," is that equally inaccurate. Afterall, we have very specific laws and a Supreme Court ruling that make pretty clear what the country's official stance is. As an American I should know that, there's no way I should imply that America doesn't know where it stands.

"The Church" is the people. Without its members, there is no church, there is no church leadership, there is no Pope. Yes, it is obvious what the official stance of chruch doctrine is. So obvious in fact, that it should equally obvious that there's no way Pelosi meant anything OTHER than "the whole of the Catholic people". You're either accusing her of being so stupid that she doesn't actually know what the official Catholic stance is, or you're purposely being obtuse to try to shine a bad light on her.

[scaeagles]

Well, in that case I would guess that you would regard all of the Catrholic officials being critical of her as being obtuse as well. If so, that's fine.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well, in that case I would guess that you would regard all of the Catrholic officials being critical of her as being obtuse as well. If so, that's fine.
Catholic officials obtuse?! Stop the presses!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Reality check - she knew darn well that she would stir things up with that, and the people who are pretending to be stirred up know darn well what she meant by it. It's been about 2000 years and the back and forth between "The Church" and its constituency ain't nothing new. Her use of "The Church" to refer to the fact that the opinions of the general population of Catholics is shorthand for, "The Pope and doctrine may have these rules, but try as they might they do seem to hold sway over their members on this issue, so perhaps it's time to take a look at that and adjust to reality instead of sticking to doctrine for doctrine's sake." But that's a mouthful. Yes, it's a purposeful slap in the face to church leadership, speaking to the large, and growing, population of people who do not agree with some church dogma but still identify with the church.

[scaeagles]

Goodness knows Pelosi would never say a mouthful....she was on Meet the Press, rather designed for politicians to say a mouthful.

Reality check - Pelosi has no desire to stir up Catholics when they are trying to secure a large portion of the Catholic vote, which is one thing Biden was certianly selected for, and Obama certainly doesn't want her to.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Reality check - Pelosi has no desire to stir up Catholics when they are trying to secure a large portion of the Catholic vote, which is one thing Biden was certianly selected for, and Obama certainly doesn't want her to.
She has every desire to stir up Catholic leadership and get the support of Catholic voters who are increasingly interested in being empowered beyond what official church policy wants them to think. She has every desire to convince Catholic voters that the existence of church doctrine against an issue does not mean you must de-facto vote for candidates whose positions are in line with doctrine.

Either that or she's a total moron who's just spouting things without doing any research and who doesn't know that the official stance of the Catholic church is against abortion. Yeah, that's definitely the more likely answer.

[Alex]

I'd just like to say I was in no way attempting to provide an interpretation of what Pelosi meant. I have no idea, I didn't see or hear the comment in context. I don't even know for certain that the quote here is verbatim correct.

I simply meant that regardless of the intent of the statement presented, it presents a factual truth about the Catholic Church being deeply divided (at least in America) on the issue of abortion. It is certainly possible to try and appeal to the Catholic population using positions at odds with the official church position; the death penalty, birth control, war, and border control are other areas where very large segments of the Catholic population take personal positions strongly at odds with official church positions.

But Pelosi may very well have misspoken. Though I doubt that as a Catholic (regardless of how devout), and as a pro-choice politician representing many very devout Catholics that she is unaware of the Pope's position on the issue.

[Gemini Cricket]

What bugs me about the whole Catholic Church/Biden issue is how the Archbishop of Denver, Charles Chaput, is warning Biden not to come to his church and expect to receive communion. Once again, the church is politicizing one of the sacraments. Last time I checked, communion was for every Catholic, not just the ones bishops deem "worthy Catholics'.

In fact, the Red Mass that the CC holds every year is specifically a mass for politicians, lawmakers. ie. My dad leads the Red Mass in Hawai'i. If he denied pro-choice politicians communion, not many people would be receiving it that day.

And once again, the media and Republicans are shedding light on this issue like they really cared about what the Catholic Church thinks. It's just brought to light to be a wedge issue to make Biden look bad. Just like Kerry, just like 2004.

Pelosi is right, I know a lot of "choose life" Catholics.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I just found a transcript...and it's very different than I thought based on scaeagles post. My analysis based on his reporting of it remains, but his reporting I feel is inaccurate.What she said is that the Church has held different positions throughout its history. That even though it's clear what its current position is, it hasn't always been the same. No where in there does she say, "The Church is currently not clear on when life begins." She says, "The Church has been divided in the past about it."

Here's the transcript (http://onemom.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/nancy-pelosi-meet-the-press-transcript/)

[scaeagles]

What bugs me about the whole Catholic Church/Biden issue is how the Archbishop of Denver, Charles Chaput, is warning Biden not to come to his church and expect to receive communion. Once again, the church is politicizing one of the sacraments. Last time I checked, communion was for every Catholic, not just the ones bishops deem "worthy Catholics'.


I am not a Catholc, but isn't communion in the Catholic church for those considered to be in "good standing", as in in line with the stated doctrine of the church?

[Gemini Cricket]

I am not a Catholc, but isn't communion in the Catholic church for those considered to be in "good standing", as in in line with the stated doctrine of the church?
In my 16 years of going to church as a kid, never did I see any priest stand there and refer to a clipboard first before distributing communion to someone. How would they enforce "good standing"? It's almost impossible. Communion was for everyone. I never saw anyone be denied the Eucharist...

[scaeagles]

And regarding Pelosi - she stated, and I believe if she has studied it as she says she has from the point of view of a Catholic - she said specifically that it has only been church doctrine for the last 50 years or so. This is indeed grossly inaccurate and I believe calculated to say that the Catholic doctrine has changed on this issue. It has not.

[scaeagles]

In my 16 years of going to church as a kid, never did I see any priest stand there and refer to a clipboard first before distributing communion to someone. How would they enforce "good standing"? It's almost impossible. Communion was for everyone. I never saw anyone be denied the Eucharist...

I get that. Of course there isn't a quiz. I'm just wondering, though, that if a known, say, prostitute who was out on the corner selling herself daily came in, would they serve her communion? It would be known that as a prostitute she was not in good standing. I'm wondering if that has something to do with it.

[innerSpaceman]

scaeagles, you've been outted. Bammo is the term du jour around here I think.

[scaeagles]

We've been over this. I'm not gay.

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm just wondering, though, that if a known, say, prostitute who was out on the corner selling herself daily came in, would they serve her communion? It would be known that as a prostitute she was not in good standing. I'm wondering if that has something to do with it.
In my personal opinion, if a hooker came in to a Catholic Church, she should be cut some slack. Jesus was BFF with Mary Magdeline - the once hooker and now saint.

I don't think a known prostitute would be denied communion. I ain't a priest, but I do know that all she would need to do is go to confession, clean her slate and line up for wafers.

And this whole "deny public figures communion" thing is a relatively new law. The dialogue about the new law was started (not surprisingly) on June 17, 2004. Before a certain presidential election that year... Hmmm. Political move? Yes.
Catholic World News reported on June 17, 2004: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has weighed into debate within the American hierarchy, saying that public figures who openly dissent from Church teachings should not receive Communion.
In an official letter to the US bishops, which has not been made public, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith writes that Catholics who are "living in grave sin" or who "reject the doctrine of the Church," should abstain from the Eucharist.
Cardinal Ratzinger's letter was prompted by the sharp differences among American bishops on the question. These differences have been discussed at length by US bishops and Vatican officials in recent weeks, as the American bishops made their ad limina visits to Rome.
The existence of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter was first reported by the Italian daily La Reppublica , and subsequently confirmed by informed sources at the Vatican.
The thrust of Cardinal Ratzinger's message was at odds with reports from a few American bishops, who had returned from their visits to Rome saying that Vatican officials had discouraged any effort to withhold the Eucharist from public figures who oppose Church teachings on issues such as abortion and same-sex unions.
This question has been thrown into sharp relief this year because of the presidential candidacy of John Kerry, a Catholic who has been outspoken in his support for legal abortion and has opposed Church positions on issues such as euthanasia, stem-cell research, and homosexuality. Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis has said that he would deny Communion to Kerry; several other American bishops have stated that politicians holding such views should not receive the Eucharist.
Source (http://www.tldm.org/news6/Ratzinger.htm)

[scaeagles]

Interesting, GC. I did not know that was a new thing.

[Alex]

This is indeed grossly inaccurate and I believe calculated to say that the Catholic doctrine has changed on this issue. It has not.

You are correct, the church has always officially condemned abortion. What has changed over the centuries has been exactly what constituted abortion (it wasn't always from the moment of conception onward), when abortion is better than the alternatives (allowances for the life and health of the mother have changed over the centuries) and just how significant of a sin it is (at one point in time, as measured by required penance, oral sex was a greater sin than abortion.

[JWBear]

I have a good friend who is a devout Catholic - goes every Sunday, volunteers at his church, etc. He always refers to Pope Benedict as "Joseph Ratzinger". I think that says something.

[innerSpaceman]

at one point in time, as measured by required penance, oral sex was a greater sin than abortion.
I wonder if that's because there were far fewer Catholic priests who performed abortions than there were who demanded oral sex from altar boys.

[Gemini Cricket]

There's a new icon that's showing up next to CNN.com's headlines now. It's an icon of a T-shirt. If you click on it, you can have quotes that are on CNN.com printed on a t-shirt. So weird.

Click (http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/?hash=66a904ef33142c84460850c17fa20b95&return_uri=http://www.cnn.com/video/%23/video/world/2008/08/29/grant.airline.vest.ctv)

[Tom]

Can we do that with LoT quotes?

[Gemini Cricket]

Can we do that with LoT quotes?
That would be sweet.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

There's a new icon that's showing up next to CNN.com's headlines now. It's an icon of a T-shirt. If you click on it, you can have quotes that are on CNN.com printed on a t-shirt. So weird.



That's actually been there for at least a few months now.

[Gemini Cricket]

That's actually been there for at least a few months now.
Really?
Wow.
I visit there everyday and missed it.
I notice the camera ones all the time. I avoid those. I usually want to read my news and not watch TV.
:)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hah!

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/hstrips/0/2/0/9/02092.png

[sleepyjeff]

^Excellent!

:snap: :snap: :snap:

[scaeagles]

As oil approaches $105 barrel, there is rumbling among OPEC countries about cutting production.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It's official, Fox has absolutely no fvcking integrity:

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4757/obamaby2.jpg

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, but I have to admit ... it's an awfully misfortunate-sounding combination that, frankly, the Obama campaign should have considered (and might have, for all i know).

[Gemini Cricket]

"Oh no, my name rhymes with Osama and the petty and juvenile of this country might associate me with him! I better not run."
There's no predicting what kind of muck idiots like Fox "News" will come up with. The fact that they spent news time on it makes Fox "News" even more idiotic.

[Strangler Lewis]

Yeah, but I have to admit ... it's an awfully misfortunate-sounding combination that, frankly, the Obama campaign should have considered (and might have, for all i know).

And they can't have signs highlighting the first letters of their first names or the first letters of their last names because it will just remind people of blow jobs and tampons. Republican signs, however, would remind people of wholesome things like Jesus and the military police.

[Alex]

I'm studying kabbalah. Not discussing the actual campaign at all.

The letter differences between Obama Biden and Osama bin Laden are: SNLA.

I see two possible interpretations:

1. SNLA is a hidden tribute to the Scottish National Liberation Army. The SNLA has ties to the IRA which is a terrorist organization. This proves Obama is Osama.

2. SNLA is actually Sn La. Those are the chemical symbols for tin and lanthanum. Tin-Lanthanum perchloride has interesting exothermal properties. I have no idea what that means but I suspect this ticket is conveying to Osama bin Laden the key chemical ingredient of a super bomb.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I wanted to follow up on this and point out that this appears to be a fake. When I initially found and posted it I didn't see anyone refuting its authenticity, but I sent it to someone else today and did another check and sure enough it seems to be bogus.


It's official, Fox has absolutely no fvcking integrity:

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4757/obamaby2.jpg

[scaeagles]

That's cool that you informed us. Thanks.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I've got plenty of real ammo against Faux, no sense in sullying that with frauds.

[Alex]

Well, I'm sticking by my theories. If Fox knew what numerology has shown me, then that wouldn't have been fake.

[JWBear]

Interesting column in the Advocate (http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid59205.asp) about the effects of conservative hate speech.

[sleepyjeff]

Interesting column in the Advocate (http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid59205.asp) about the effects of conservative hate speech.

Commentator Dick Morris, on a break from sucking prostitutes' toes, wrote a book that labeled liberals as "traitors" who should be decapitated.

What's the story with this guy? Wasn't he Bill's right hand man going way back to Arkansas? Wasn't he responsible for triangulating Bill into a 2-term President? Why is he now just a hair left of Micheal Savage????:confused:

[JWBear]

I think he's always been "just a hair left of Micheal Savage". If I remember correctly, President Clinton hired him to help Clinton appeal more to the right.

[sleepyjeff]

I think he's always been "just a hair left of Micheal Savage". If I remember correctly, President Clinton hired him to help Clinton appeal more to the right.

...and he has the gaul to call someone else a traiter:rolleyes:

[scaeagles]

Liberals never use hateful language. Geez, SleepyJeff, don't you know anything?

[Stan4dSteph]

Liberals never use hateful language. Geez, SleepyJeff, don't you know anything?I wouldn't say that liberals never do, but the right-wing pundits seem to have a corner on the most virulent hate speech. And they get away with it because they're "just kidding, don't you have a sense of humor?"

[dlrp_bopazot]

steph i love your avatar . I don't know why lol

[Disneyphile]

Pardon me if I've missed a post on this already, but does anyone know an online source that just lists a side-by-side comparison of what the two candidates are standing for? I'd prefer a non-biased list without all the gossipy mudslinging crap - just what each candidate states they would like to achieve.

I figure I need to start deciding now so I can give it a couple months of thought.

Thanks! :)

[innerSpaceman]

Done:

Obama. Stands for all that is good and pure.

McCain. Stands for all that is evil and dark.



You're welcome.

[Disneyphile]

Precisely why I've stayed out of political threads... I swear you should run for office.

:p

[scaeagles]

Done:

Obama. Stands for all that is good and pure.

McCain. Stands for all that is evil and dark.



You're welcome.

Disneyphile, ISM has it completely backwards.

[Disneyphile]

Looks like iSm has an opponent. :p

Anyone have a serious answer?

[Andrew]

This is sort of political: Starting in just under ten minutes, Rachel Maddow comes to MSNBC! http://rachel.msnbc.com/

[alphabassettgrrl]

http://obama-mccain.info/index-obama-mccain.php Seems reasonably neutral. Gives some vote information, says when they can't find something, and seems to be in line with what I have otherwise read about the two.

www.salon.com has some interesting articles and opinions, too.

[Disneyphile]

Thanks! :D

Now, back to your regular political banter. ;)

[innerSpaceman]

And the race for Mayor of LoT Town is on. scaeagles vs. innerSpaceman :iSm:

[€uroMeinke]

And the race for Mayor of LoT Town is on. scaeagles vs. innerSpaceman :iSm:


Hmm we could make a little hat...

[scaeagles]

I believe the polls are 94 to 6 in favor of ISM. Tough to be a conservative politician in a liberal town.:)

[Alex]

Just for information sharing purposes:

John McCain on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/john_mccain.htm).
Sarah Palin on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm).
Barack Obama on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm).
Joe Biden on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm).

[Disneyphile]

Just for information sharing purposes:

John McCain on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/john_mccain.htm).
Sarah Palin on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm).
Barack Obama on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm).
Joe Biden on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm).Thanks! :D

[alphabassettgrrl]

Great! Thanks. The more info, the better. :)

[Strangler Lewis]

Looks like Sarah Palin said "meth is great . . ."

[3894]

If we drill in the Arctic, what guarantee is there that the oil would be sold in the U.S.? Wouldn't it go to the highest bidder, which could be the Chinese or anyone at all?

[cirquelover]

Thanks Alex. I'll have to get back to it later but it's nice to have the point by point.

[Morrigoon]

3894 makes a point, it would probably be sold into the world market.

[innerSpaceman]

Not "probably," - it will most certainly be. The U.S. is a big oil exporter, and U.S.-based oil companies have no obligation to sell oil drilled for in the U.S. to the U.S. market. They don't now, and they won't if they are encouraged to "Drill Baby Drill" off the beautiful coastline of our glorious State that should secede from the union for the protection of our environment and our human rights to liberty.



Sigh, sorry for the seccession rant. Drill Baby Drill is the biggest canard being foisted by the oil companies and their Republican lackeys on the idiots that mostly comprise the American electorate who identify as Republicans, and they in turn are trying to foist that on the rest of us.


I'm getting pretty sick and tired of Obama lying down in the roadway to be trampled like Kerry before him. He may be a nice guy with some lofty ideals, but if he doesn't start to show some backbone and bare his teeth a bit, he deserves the loserdom that is heading his way.

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of Obama lying down in the roadway to be trampled like Kerry before him. He may be a nice guy with some lofty ideals, but if he doesn't start to show some backbone and bare his teeth a bit, he deserves the loserdom that is heading his way.
Exactly.

But, hey, he has hope that he won't be trampled.
;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

An interesting look into one of the factors that has shifted the polls in McCain's favor:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/poll-madness-mccain-takes_n_125158.html

[Alex]

Some other commentaries on the same topic:

FiveThirtyEight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/lets-get-few-things-straight-party-id.html)
Pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/about_that_north_carolina_poll.php)

[scaeagles]

Eh, like I have always said, pollsters make their living trying to be accurate. I don't see any grand conspiracy in attempt to manipulate, nor did I when Obama had commanding national leads.

They may very well not be accurate, I'm just sayin'.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Polls are only as good as their statistical models and things have changed pretty drastically of late. Considering that 4 years ago, Zogby, historically the most accurate, had Kerry winning the day before the election, and considering that things have changed quite a bit since then, I think the pollsters are scrambling.

[JWBear]

I found this one interesting as well (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_124772.html)

[Gemini Cricket]

I found this one interesting as well (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_124772.html)
I'm going to comment about this but I'm going to take it to the Obama thread.

[Andrew]

I wish the political reporters/commentators would just stop using national polls. They're completely worthless and they know it. What matters is state-by-state polls with regard to electoral votes. Using national polls is just an excuse to have TV talking heads arguing about the latest non-news.

Does that belong in the vent thread?

[Gemini Cricket]

Does that belong in the vent thread?
Yes and no.







:D

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Even worse economy news. (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/economists_warn_anti_bush)

[innerSpaceman]

Oh no, i never thought of that. Maybe we can quickly amend the Constitution in time for him to be unelected again.

[BDBopper]

At the annual contest, Mike Huckabee won the title of "Funniest Celebrity in Washington" (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/mike_huckabee_standup_guy.html) last night. :)

[Alex]

And in other news, Danny DeVito won the award for tallest short guy.

[sleepyjeff]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Looks like McCain's got New Mexico......and Washington State has slipped to the "barely" status for Obama. That landslide victory Obamama supporters were predicting a month ago doesn't look so likely anymore.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That landslide victory Obamama supporters were predicting a month ago doesn't look so likely anymore.
Huh? Who was predicting a landslide victory?

[innerSpaceman]

Really, what? When was a landslide victory EVER predicted?


Making things up as you go along? .... when did you become a Republican Party operative, sleepyjeff??

[scaeagles]

I hired him recently.

[Alex]

That would be me the last time we talked about electoral vote and saying that I didn't think the race was nearly so close as the press was making it seem by only reporting on national polling numbers (though I don't think I ever said landslide I did view it as comfortable).

I still stand by that as I think we'll soon see the convention bounces smooth out and it'll go back to a stability well in Obama's favor (and the couple weirdly tilted polls that have come out in the last few days will move out of the system).

But he's right, that at least at the moment the huge (rather than small) shift I said would have to happen is showing in the polls. I just don't think it will stay there but that, ultimately, is just a guess.

[sleepyjeff]

Really, what? When was a landslide victory EVER predicted?


Making things up as you go along? ....


I prefer the term "shooting from the hip"......but your point is taken; at least here on LoT no one other than Alex and BTD have really predicted a landslide.....and Alex never even used that term.

I have, however, heard several cspan callers predict such a thing but I suppose that's about as telling as asking a hobo if Thunderbird Wine is any good:D

[Ghoulish Delight]

"His lead is relatively secure at this moment" is hardly, "He's going to win in a landslide!"

[Gemini Cricket]

There are a ton of 9/11 remembrance ceremonies going on today. I think that's great. But at the same time, I can't help but wonder why there is no memorial yet at Ground Zero and wondering why no building is going up there. (Unless I'm totally wrong and there is something going on...)

[sleepyjeff]

"His lead is relatively secure at this moment" is hardly, "He's going to win in a landslide!"

I suppose so....nevertheless, the latest electoral college numbers are making me happy today:)

[innerSpaceman]

There are a ton of 9/11 remembrance ceremonies going on today. I think that's great. But at the same time, I can't help but wonder why there is no memorial yet at Ground Zero and wondering why no building is going up there.

Ineptitute, from what I understand.


BTW, no building should go up there. What a boondoggle that would be. Who would want to work above the 20th floor on the biggest Terrorist target in the known universe? Perhaps the offices of Homeland Secuity should occupy the buliding, but I don't think it would be profitable to expect many other tenants.

[mousepod]

With most of the radio and TV buzz talking about 9/11... why isn't there more attention being paid to the story in today's New York Times Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?hp). Seems to me that this is a really big deal.

[Ghoulish Delight]

There are a ton of 9/11 remembrance ceremonies going on today. I think that's great. But at the same time, I can't help but wonder why there is no memorial yet at Ground Zero and wondering why no building is going up there. (Unless I'm totally wrong and there is something going on...)They've begun work, current plan is scheduled to have it complete by 2012.

[BarTopDancer]

With most of the radio and TV buzz talking about 9/11... why isn't there more attention being paid to the story in today's New York Times Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?hp). Seems to me that this is a really big deal.

I saw that. Very scary.

[sleepyjeff]

I saw that. Very scary.

Well, at least no one is saying Bush got this idea from Obama.....yet;)

[BarTopDancer]

What?

[sleepyjeff]

What?

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

[Alex]

I do seem to recall a whole lot of "oh, what a naive young child" when Obama said that if Pakistan is where bin Ladin/al Qaeda is and Pakistan isn't helping he wouldn't rule out unilateral action into Pakistan.

[Gemini Cricket]

Well, at least no one is saying Bush got this idea from Obama.....yet;)
I could see the media spinning it that way. But it was Bush's orders.

[sleepyjeff]

I do seem to recall a whole lot of "oh, what a naive young child" when Obama said that if Pakistan is where bin Ladin/al Qaeda is and Pakistan isn't helping he wouldn't rule out unilateral action into Pakistan.

Yes, her name was Hillary Clinton(among others)

[BarTopDancer]

Eh, I don't care whose idea it was to go in there (and I'd be bashing Obama if he was President and authorized this too). I don't think we're doing ourselves any favors by "raiding" (and how is that different from invading) Pakistan. It seems like we have have massive ADD when it comes to the Middle East. Let's go to Afghanistan and find the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Ok, go! OOoo there's some bad guys in Iraq. Let's go there and spread our troops out. OOO since we don't have enough on our plates lets go find bad guys in Pakistan now. Ready, set, fall apart!

[Stan4dSteph]

There are a ton of 9/11 remembrance ceremonies going on today. I think that's great. But at the same time, I can't help but wonder why there is no memorial yet at Ground Zero and wondering why no building is going up there. (Unless I'm totally wrong and there is something going on...)There was a lot of disagreement on what the memorial should be like and who should have control. Here's an article with some comments from the mayor (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1047059620080911).

The Pentagon memorial looks very nice.

[Alex]

True, but let's not hide McCain (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/20/685452.aspx), and even Bush (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/10/bush-obama-would-attack_n_85885.html), among the "among others."

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm going to have to sit on this one.

Pakistan, our supposed ally, has not been cooperating with is on one of our more legitimate efforts. The joint chiefs just reported that the biggest threat to success in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is the unsecured border with Pakistan. So in that regard, this is a huge leap forward for Bush - actually listening to what the people actually fighting the battles are recommending. Though the joint chiefs talked about "working more closely with Pakistan" rather than raids without permission, but permission was clearly not coming.

Heh, I'd forgotten all about Obama's comments.

[JWBear]

I heard about this on Air America earlier today. (http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/09/misleading-absentee-ballot-forms-being.html) When will Americans finally say "enough is enough" to the Republican dirty tricks?

[JWBear]

Another interesting article (http://www.alternet.org/democracy/98369/2008_season_of_voting_meltdowns_begins/)

[sleepyjeff]

True, but let's not hide McCain (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/20/685452.aspx), and even Bush (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/10/bush-obama-would-attack_n_85885.html), among the "among others."


I figured they were a given.....but you have to admit no one was louder than Hillary and her supporters(still looking to see if Biden has something to say about Obama on this subject.....hard to believe he didn't).

[scaeagles]

What is the evidence that the McCain campaign is behind it? Should I post links to push polling being done by the dems, or any other number of dirty tricks from the left? Would you like me to go into the story about someone who wanted me to sign a petition to get a certain proposition and they were trying to mislead me regarding what it was about (I presume it was a democrat because of what the issue was)?

Dirty tricks are played all over the political spectrum. Please don't pretend it is unique to Republicans or that the McCain campaign is behind it.

[JWBear]

IMO, attempting to deny someone their right to vote is tantamount to treason.

[innerSpaceman]

And I'm not gonna say the McCain camp is behind this without any evidence ... but I've never even heard allegations that this was ever done to disenfranchise Republican voters. Caging and other such shenanigans have always been exclusive (again, to my knowledge) to negatively affect groups likely to vote Democratic.


As such, until anyone can provide examples to the contrary, I consider this a page strictly from the Republican Book of Dirty Tricks. If McCain's not behind it, it's being done for his benefit ... and he needs to come out forcefully against it and take demonstrable steps to stop it. Otherwise, if he benefits, he's complicit in voter fraud.

If not treason, that's high crimes and misdemeanors before he even gets a chance to officially commit some in office. ;)

[sleepyjeff]

IMO, attempting to deny someone their right to vote is tantamount to treason.

How do you feel about the whole Alice Palmer affair?

[JWBear]

How do you feel about the whole Alice Palmer affair?

What has that to do with denying someone their right to have their vote counted?

[sleepyjeff]

What has that to do with denying someone their right to have their vote counted?

Well, if your candidate is not even on the ballot due to some smart lawyering by her oposistion wouldn't you feel somewhat disenfranchised? Obama got everyone but himself kicked off the ballot.......yeah, he wanted every vote to count.........for him.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't know about this Palmer incident, but my general study of Obama's political trajectory leads me to believe he played much dirtier in Illinois politics and has gotten cleaner at the game as he's moved from Senator to presidential candidate.


It's a little simplistic to say, because John McCain hasn't always been Mr. Clean Whistle, but my following of his trajectory is that he ran a fairly clean presidential campaign last time (undone by the dirty tricksters) and is running a fairly dirty one this time around.

So Obama is rising from corrupt campaigning and McCain is descending straight down into it.

I don't consider either an angel, and don't put dirty deeds as president beyond either's reach. But clearly I don't like what McCain is becoming, while I think Obama is improving. That, in itself, is reason to vote for Obama in the contest between them.

[Tom]

I have routinely been given misleading information by those seeking signatures on ballot proposition petitions. I always assumed it was workers paid by the signature doing whatever they could for an extra buck, rather than coordinated misinformation by the campaigns.

[scaeagles]

I believe that every political candidate would eat the other if it meant victory. Those candidates who manage to stay above the fray have surrogates who do the dirty work for them, often times with blessings, sometimes without, and still at other times with a "I don't want to know" type attitude for plausible deniability.

Politics is a brutally dirty game and I don't happen to think one side is any cleaner than the other.

[JWBear]

It's one thing to try and keep your competition off the ballot. It's quite another to try and keep people from voting at all.

[sleepyjeff]

It's one thing to try and keep your competition off the ballot. It's quite another to try and keep people from voting at all.

:confused:

[CoasterMatt]

I have, however, heard several cspan callers predict such a thing but I suppose that's about as telling as asking a hobo if Thunderbird Wine is any good:D
Anybody knows that any respectable hobo prefers Night Train, or even Boone's Farm to Thunderbird.

[sleepyjeff]

Anybody knows that any respectable hobo prefers Night Train, or even Boone's Farm to Thunderbird.

Boones' Farm......I've never heard of it(hope I am not dating myself):D

[scaeagles]

It's one thing to try and keep your competition off the ballot. It's quite another to try and keep people from voting at all.


I suppose you love the elections of Castro and Saddam Hussein then. They have huge voter turnouts and win with 99.9% of the vote.

Democracy.....so great that it has been experienced under such great dictators.

[JWBear]

I suppose you love the elections of Castro and Saddam Hussein then. They have huge voter turnouts and win with 99.9% of the vote.

Democracy.....so great that it has been experienced under such great dictators.

Don't twist my words. I never said any such thing! I was talking about the United States of America.

I have to ask... Do you approve of trying to trick your fellow Americans out of their votes - commiting a crime by attempting to keep their votes from being counted - so that the candidate you support wins?

[scaeagles]

No. Nor did I support Gore trying to get military ballots not counted, but that's another story.

I do not believe I twisted your words, but I admit to a grand extrapolation. I do not in any way believe that you would support Castro or Saddam Hussein. However, they certainly keep opponents off the ballot.

[JWBear]

There is a huge difference between a legal vetting of nomination petitions and the illegal tampering with of elections.

[sleepyjeff]

There is a huge difference between a legal vetting of nomination petitions and the illegal tampering with of elections.

Does Patrick Gaspard still work for the Obama campaign?

[JWBear]

Does Patrick Gaspard still work for the Obama campaign?

I don't know. Why is that relevant?

[sleepyjeff]

I don't know. Why is that relevant?

Well, he was fined for voter fraud back during the Kerry campaign....and Obama did hire him to help run his Campaign; I honestly don't know if he still works for Obama which is why I was aksing.

[JWBear]

He was fined for having ex-cons working for his orginization in "get-out-the-vote" activities; not voter supression. Apples and oranges.

I noticed that none of the McCain supporters here have answered my question. Do you support the Republian party attempting to supress the votes of Obama supporters?

[Morrigoon]

I don't consider either an angel, and don't put dirty deeds as president beyond either's reach. But clearly I don't like what McCain is becoming, while I think Obama is improving. That, in itself, is reason to vote for Obama in the contest between them.

I have to say that I've been really enjoying following your thought process on who to vote for. I mean that in a totally non-sarcastic way, because given your original position, it's been interesting watching you decide where to go from there.

[sleepyjeff]

He was fined for having ex-cons working for his orginization in "get-out-the-vote" activities; not voter supression. Apples and oranges.

I noticed that none of the McCain supporters here have answered my question. Do you support the Republian party attempting to supress the votes of Obama supporters?

I am against ALL voter fraud....that includes voter supression(like Obama did to his State Senatorial district--he supressed the will of those who wanted to vote for his oponent).....I guess I am not sophisticated enough to say some voter fraud is ok and some isn't(and surprise surprise, the kind I don't mind too much this week is the kind my candidate has participated in:rolleyes: )


btw: I really like you and I hope to G-d my posts don't come off as if I don't....because I do:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)