Hahahaha. He said he wanted to last more than a day.

Oh by the way, Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan got caught on a live mic over at MSNBC...

"It's over." "Insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson" "Political b*llsh!t." "Gimmicky."

Ouchies!!

[You can read the transcript here if it's hard to tell what they're saying.]

Hah haw!

Tenigma, who was speaking when they were saying that? Palin?

Never mind....Palin hasn't actually spoken yet.

Reading some prereleased exerpts of the speech....I liked this one.

Ok, all I've seen is that line, and I'm disgusted that she'd put down the work Obama did in the seriously stricken communities of Chicago. Tasteless. Go ahead and describe your public service but to spit on another's? This is the quote you liked? :rolleyes:

It was clearly a barb related to them slamming on her experience or lack there of, particularly with Obama now proclaiming that he has more experience than Palin - as if it matters if he does or not. She's the VP candidate, he's the candidate for President.

I do believe the dems (and don't expect me to believe that things happen in the campaign without Obama's approval) were mocking her experience as a small town mayor before she said that.

Much like the Rep's were doing to Obama about 2 weeks ago and prior?

Exactly. I don't deny it at all, nor will I be shocked at politicians being political. I don't live in a world where I think my side doesn't play politics.

With Palin's selection and the related events of the past week, the campaign has taken a strange turn. Where once it was Christian morality vs. Hollywood debauchery, now it seems that you're not a real American unless you're life is, well, Springeresque. I predict we'll hear more tawdry personal revelations about her family in the coming weeks that will be exploited towards this end. I expect McCain will appear on the platform tonight with his first wife and his old girlfriends.

The Democrats will try to respond in kind, but they won't get it right. Obama will start smoking more in public, but he'll look more like a 60's intellectual smoker than a working class smoker. He'll yell at his wife in public. Beau Biden will agree to come out as gay--even though he's really not--and Joe Biden will show up at debates drunk talking about how much he loves his gay son.

For those interested, Sarah Palin has a vlog on YouTube.

From your post to God's email address. ;)

I've been thinking about McCain and the whole torture thing. He brings it up at every possible opportunity, but I think it's possible that it makes him significantly less qualified to be pres. He was there for what...four years? That is bound to damage the psyche in a profound and irreparable way. He has my respect for enduring it, but no way do I want that kind of experience anywhere near the red button.

Not to pick nits but what he brings up is his time as a POW, but he is very careful never to use the word "torture" because what happened to him, if we use the Bush definition, is "advanced interrogation techniques" that are approved by the White House for GITMO detainees.

Holy moly -- Just heard about some woman named "Ann Kilkenny" on NPR -- she grew up in Wasilla with Palin and they attended meetings together and such... she apparently decided to "tell the truth" and sent out an email to her acquaintances who wanted to know more about Palin's years there...

She said she sent bulk email to everyone with a promise to please not forward it "to the Internet" and of course it's hit the blogosphere.

All I can say is YIKES this woman is bad news!!

She was a TERRIBLE mayor!!

Honestly, that could so easily be a hoax that I'm not even going to read it.

But dude, it's on the Internet. Posted and forwarded by random people. How much more vetted do you need your dirt?

Plus I even like the name. Isn't "Kenny" the character they always kill on South Park? Kilkenny.

I know. My bad. After all, I have a picture of Palin in a bikini holding a scoped rifle by a swimming pool as my background.

I'm weak.

Snopes did confirm that the letter does originate with a long-time Wasilla resident named Ann Kilkenny. So it isn't a hoax in that regard.

Whether the content of the letter is accurate is, of course, mostly a matter of opinion.

You're way stronger than me. I've privately sworn off political threads at least a dozen times to be back in less than an hour.

It sounds like normal City Council shyt to me. (I should've written an exposee on Larry Agran while I had the chance. ;))

Heh. Arctic meth princess.

That link doesn't work :(

And I do like the "Caribou Barbie" moniker the best ;)

It works for me. Here it is on it's own:

http://wonkette.com/402545/wasilla-i...aska-of-course

Kilkenny can be easily verified -- her name is on public records for testifying in front of various government entities as part of her community work.

They interviewed Kilkenny on NPR. She really exists. And she sounded like a pretty ordinary person.

Also, if you read her email, a lot of that information can be vetted, since she talks about things that happened, stances that Palin took, etc. and the way they are presented in Kilkenny's email, they should be easy to verify from local newspapers and council meeting minutes.

Heard this on Real Time last night...

Not that I would ever laugh at anything like that. :)

If they want the pit bull moniker, they can have it.

LSPE and I were out yesterday morning and saw a pit bull nearly kill another dog. We walked into a little cheese store and there were some dogs with their owners milling around outside. After being inside for a few minutes, one of the dogs outside, a pit bull, attacked one of the other (smaller) dogs there, latching its jaws onto the dog's face and NOT letting go. It took several minutes of several people struggling with the two dogs (the smaller dog yelping in pain and terror the whole time) before someone was able to pry the pit bull's jaws open and free the other dog. LSPE and I were seriously afraid that the smaller dog was going to have it's face ripped off, or worse. Luckily, the only damage I saw after they were separated were some puncture wounds on it's snout, but we were literally shaking for a long time afterward.

I hadn't thought of Sarah Palin calling herself a pit bull until I logged in to this thread this morning, and it was jarring. Now it sounds to me like Sarah Palin is calling herself someone who viciously attacks the weak and helpless. Someone who will explode into violence with little or no provocation. And someone who is psychotic and needs to be put down. I know she didn't mean any of these things, and I don't think them of her, but wow, that line took on a whole new meaning for me this morning.

I'm not thinking her campaign was quite meaning it in that way.

Hmm, I wonder how she defines "pit bull"...

Neither does he.

But, yeah, when considering a pit bull, what other definition is there?

I assume that Palin's pit bull comparison is meant to tell the world "if you're one of the bad guys, don't mess with me, I'll kick your ass, even though I am pretty and nice." There is a tendency that I seem to notice coming more from conservative figures (though I am sure this happens both ways round) to couch things in "good guy white hat vs. bad guy black hat" terms. For moderately wimpo/leftish types like me, this sort of rhetoric makes the speaker sound a) guilty of oversimplification and b) potentially dangerous.

Most of my family are conservative, and they are wonderful, compassionate, caring people to whom I owe my life. But I really don't get why they are so fond of political "don't mess with me, shoot the wounded, you bad guys better run" talk. Mostly just a matter of style, I guess. (i am often kidded by them for being a Mr. Softee.)

I recently had an interesting conversation with my father in law. The subject of Bill O'Reilly's "We'll do it live!" rant came up. He said that what it showed is that he's an honest man, and that eventually everyone has that kind of blow up at work sometime in their career. I said that no, I'm pretty I can say with a high degree of confidence that I will never in my entire professional life act like that. His response? "Well, any great man will." :rolleyes:

Some people think that the only way to go through life is to attack your opponents viciously and decisively. Anything else is weakness, timidness, and dishonesty. It saddens me to think that someone would look at that video and think it's something to admire. It saddens me to think that someone would look at a VP candidate compare herself to a viscious animal and admire her.

From my dog-knowledge perspective, I interpret the definition and meaning of her pitt bull description as someone who latches on to things and doesn't let go.

From my own perspective, I don't find this an admirable quality at all. But, I subscribe to the philosophy that it's better to bend a bit then to break. While I can be tenacious about things at time, I don't believe in the blanket statement that it is better to stand for something than to fall. Life is about compromises most of the time. That and one can only spend so much time imposing one's own ideals on others.

My interpretation is that she is not someone to be messed with.

I find it amusing that such a reference would be analyzed to find some deeper meaning. As if it really matters?

Of course it matters, just not very much.

I agree completely. Pres Bush is also one to attack, and to never back down (even when you're wrong) and that leaves no ground for changing information. When you learn new information, and that changes your decision, but your personal worldview says that changing your decisions is a weakness, we get the current administration, who will never back down even when it becomes clear they are wrong. "I decided, and I'm always right, so anybody else is wrong". I'm not ok with this.

I don't think changing your views and changing your mind to suit new information is a weakness. Changing your views due to polling is quite likely a bad thing, but when the information says your initial analysis is wrong, please feel free to change it.

But that's the name of the game with politics! Politicians throw out veiled statements, and everybody interprets (and misinterprets) at will. Especially in our sound-bite culture, one has to say many things with few words.

I prefer a non-sound-bite world, where I can express myself at will.

Oh, certainly. I don't pretend that my side of the aisle doesn't play politics, too, I just think this is particularly funny....I don't know if this is being played up in the media anywhere, but I could just see Chris Matthews playing this bite repeatedly with various left leaning analysts talking about her deep psychological darkness and desire to hurt the weak as demonstrated by this comment.

I think it is an attitude in many cultures that is fundamentally damaging. Fundmental Islam or fundamental Christianity are both two glaring examples of the lack of desire to let others have differing beliefs while living harmoniously with these differing beliefs.

My own rancor against fundamental Christians stems from being forced, coerced or legislated to act in a way that "they" feel is the right way, completely dismissing my own beliefs, as if I'm not American enough to matter. Islamic ideals influence my world in much lesser fashion, but usually on the greater world stage (and certainly presented in a more "evil" light).

The major difference being that fundamentalist Islam has a tendency to try to blow up the infidels. With rare exception, this is not the case when it comes to fundamentalist Christianity. Unless we have completely differing ideas of what that is.

It's certainly true that fundamentalist Christianity hasn't got nearly the ferocity and destructive power of fundy Islam. But, per the present discussion, American evangelical Christians with strong conservative political leanings often use language that is warlike, filled with militaristic metaphors, and that conveys unshakeable certainty. To some, this is a show of strength. To others, it comes off as bullying, hard-nosed and averse to reasoning.

(edited to add - yes, I know, the reverse is often true. I've been called bullheaded and reason-averse, among other things - and I hardly ever discuss politics. Of course, there is nothing I love debating more than religion, but that's not this thread.)

I think it wasn't analyzed so much as the phrase popped out at him. After our experience yesterday, watching that poor little dog yelping in pain, feeling terrified and certain that he was about to have his face ripped off, the words "pit bull" take on a different meaning to us today. While he was posting, I asked him the topic. As soon as he said "Palin's pit bull comment," I immediately knew what he was going to say about it. We thought nothing much of her joke until we saw a pit bull in action. And then, upon seeing the words again a day later, neither of us could help but think about what we'd seen. Because our experience yesterday was absolutely NOT an amusing one and is still fresh in our minds.

And, yes. It matters what Palin and/or her speech writers use to describe her. It's of interest when considering their perspective and potential campaign direction.

In the endless series of "If the shoe was on the other foot," if Obama had compared himself to a pitbull, bet the farm that we'd see ads with split screens of him and Michael Vick and his dogs.

And everyone on the left would be talking about how ridiculous it was.

Honestly, I hope this becomes a huge media issue and the Obama campaign picks up on it.

Brilliant :D

Leo, PLEASE consider writing your own political column- you seem more in touch with the "Real World Conservatives" than any of the faces/voices/bloggonauts I've seen anywhere.

I'll second that. I get a lot more from his posts than many a talking head out in the media.

I saw reference this weekend to Sarah Palin's form of religion as "Christianism" and she a "Christianist" just like the Islamic fundamentalist extremists are called "Islamists" and not "Muslim." Interesting.

I see Obama as a golden retriever.

I want a puppy!

I am currently sleeping with 3 pugs.

That was awesome:snap: :snap: :snap:

It looks like Palin's got as firm a grasp on the economy as McCain does.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_124792.html

But hey, perhaps we should just be happy she didn't try to distract us by mentioning Iraq.

I could be wrong, but doesn't the Buchanan response simply repeat what Palin said on the subject? Maybe that's the best answer we can get. (And I know you wouldn't like it if she wore an Ahmadinejad button if he ever visited Washington.)

Also, I'm not sure that the response to the librarian issue is satisfactory. Perhaps our board librarians can tell us if getting asked such questions by one's mayor or university president is a sad reality of the job. Plus, after continuing in her job, the librarian was fired. Not convinced on that one.

I'm not a librarian but I voted on a tenure issue for the librarians at the University of Wisconsin and also sat on a review board which reinstated a fired librarian. At many university libraries, librarians can earn tenure, even though they mostly do not teach. Tenure is a license to tell the truth. Librarians need tenure to allow them to do their job, which, in part, is to put controversial materials on the shelves.

Tenure can also be a license to be lazy and do nothing. I had some tenured professors who thought that it was a license for academic ineptitude and/or dishonesty.

Depends on the individual.

How could you possibly judge academic ineptitude/dishonesty unless you have the qualifications to do so? We'll talk when you have a Ph.D.

Until then, you have no informed opinion.

Since when does it take a Ph.D. to spot dishonesty?
Since when does an inept faculty member only reveal themselves to the elite?

Seems like most of the time they are the last to know.

HA! The arrogance! "I'm not a librarian, but I vote on issues for librarians, blah, blah, blah". Please tell me your qualifications to vote on these issues. Have you studied library science? Or are you just "informed"?

While we're at it, please refrain, then, from expressing your opinion on the President, the war in Iraq, or any other such issue, because your opinion, by your own ridiculous definition, means absolutely nothing.

What incredible audicity.

It's boring but here goes. The vote was whether or not to continue tenure for librarians. The committee was comprised of tenured people from a wide array of disciplines. The issue was tenure and its meaning.

Tenure allows librarians to shelve books on evolution and still keep their jobs, for example. Too many librarians have been the victims of witch hunts.

Not audacity, just reality-based, scaeagles. Unless you have a background I am not aware of, you do not have the academic qualifications or experience to pass judgement on the competence or intentions of tenured faculty. You can say whether you liked them or agreed with them but that's it.

When I say something outrageous about whatever you do for a living, I will listen.

Now, back to something much more interesting: Sarah Palin. Time has summed her up so well:

The rest of the article is here.

Well, 3894, when you show me that your education and experience includes political science, running for office, holding the office of senator, representative, mayor, President, then please feel free to express your political opinion. In fact, most journalists and pundits should then also withhold comment. What are the qualifications of the person who wrote that opinion piece of Time? Do they have degrees in psychology, or is Palin's superiority complex obvious enough that they can state those opinions with such veracity? Or because you agree with them it's OK? Perhaps they are psychic and can see into the deepest recesses of her mind. Yeah, that's it.

My statement still stands. You are perhaps the most arrogant and condescending poster here. How dare you suggest - to anyone! - that it requires a certain degree or qualification to criticize what you view as ineptitude or laziness.

Interesting that this McCain thread has become 100 per cent Palin. I don't remember another VP pick ever prompting this kind of total media attention takeover. I hope McCain shows up for office if he wins.

Heh! Spot on observation Flippy! :snap:

*Pours a bucket of water over this thread*

Gettin' hot in here...

Eh, she's an easy target and the more likely of the two to falter under the scrutiny as she's never dealt with it before.

Before Darth Cheney and his running mate took office, the VP was considered "mostly harmless" and beneath our scrutiny. Not so anymore.

To which the obvious response is, then why isn't Biden getting this kind of attention?

Despite her immense experience protecting meth labs, she's brand new to the game of federal government. More people are sampled for poll numbers every day than total votes she's ever received in an election. She's never been put on the spot in front of a national audience before and her opponents are trying to lay as much pressure on her as quickly as possible in hopes she'll stumble.

It's not a complex tactic.

...Because he's not Republican?

(I don't actually know, heheh)

Only a fool argues with a skunk, a cook, or a mule
-Old Cowboy Saying

Then it's a darn good thing I speak such good French, n'est-ce pas?

scaeagles, with all due respect, i think you should have stopped when you laid out your case for 3894 not being qualified to pass judgment. She was attempting to do the same with you as to qualifications for tenure, and she laid out hers.

You countered that she has no such rigorous qualifications for many of the other areas in which she offers an opinion, and neither do many of us.

It should have stopped there. Calling her "the most arrogant and condescending poster here" crosses the border into name-calling and personal insult.

I'm not a mod here anymore, but this would have tripped my radar. I know things got a little heated, and an errant insult that slips into the political debates is to be expected from time to time. Fortunately for the good graces of the LoT, it RARELY does.

Ugh the anti-gay rhetoric of Palin and her church... makes me sick. I've met people who have tried to be "reprogrammed" and it's a sad, miserable existence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20080908/...xgayconference

I'm disturbed by the use of Palin's church in the discussion.

I considered it irrelevant to Obama's campaign when he was attacked for his church's rhetoric and I consider it equally irrelevant to hers. The only reason I would bring it up myself is to counter anyone Rev. Wright, and only to say that it shouldn't be brought into it.

I'm not saying she doesn't hold the views, but until SHE makes a statement about what SHE believes, I don't really care what someone else she has listened to says.

Yeah, you're right, and for what it's worth, I offer my apologies to 3894 and to all here. Sincerely. I did indeed cross a line.

I do, however, take great offense at being told that my opinion is uninformed because of a lack of experience or education directly related to the topic at hand. I suppose I made that fairly obvious and indeed should not have written what you quoted above.

You are also right in saying that for the most part, no one here typically has the qualifications to offer "informed" opinions.

Again, I apologize.

And I'd been trying so hard to tone it down. :(

But in Obama's case, from what I recall it was one reverend making inane comments.

The ex-gay movement is a church-wide program. She has made her views on gay people quite clear. She has voiced opposition to domestic partnership, and only vetoed a bill which would deny rights to domestic partners in this fashion:

Her views are clear, and are clearly defined by her statements and actions. And sorry, but sometimes you can judge a member of the group by the group's actions (especially when they aren't doing anything to contradict it, either internally or to the public).

All Pro-Lifers should have their citizenships revoked and be deported to the Holy See in Rome, Italy to swell its population by millions.

The right to reproductive freedom has been the law of the land for long enough. The debate over such freedom still rages and that's fine, but how long must it take to realize the debate will NEVER end and therefore the obligation of the United States of America is to come down on the side of LIBERTY, and not on the side of religious belief if there is a permanent conflict between the liberty of our citizens and the religious beliefs of our citizens?


Similarly, it doesn't matter of it's genetic or not, I have a RIGHT to be homosexual if I so CHOOSE.



I hated it when they said it about the Reds and Commies, and I hate becoming that generation. But all you Fundie Christians who want to squelch the rights of all women and all gays and all the people who don't look and act just like you SHOULD GET THEFUK OUT OF AMERICA. NOW!


Go to some Christian Nation of Intolerance and Fear, and leave behind the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave that you have nothing but disdain for.

Like I said, I don't doubt she believes and has acted on that, but bringing her church into it is an invitation to do the same to Barack, and it's invalid either way.

People will, and have (correctly) said that the anti-American, anti-white sentiments expressed by Wright are prevalent throughout the church, not just limited to Wright. But Obama has never himself exhibited those sentiments, so why does it matter?

Palin does happen to share some of her church's more hateful views, and those views should be brought forward. Not based on what other people in the church have said and done, based on what SHE has said and done.

1. Well, shoot. You've taken away my badge of honor.

2. Sarah Palin is scheduled to give her first interview Thursday to ABC's Charles Gibson. Politico.com is asking politicos What single question would you be sure to ask if you were him?

I'd ask: Talk about a mistake in office you have learned from. Palin seems far too black/white, unwilling to learn. I'd like her to prove me wrong. What would you ask?

And you've been mostly succeeding. I'm sure the apology is appreciated.

I've been ranting up a storm in the political threads this morning, so believe me I understand how this stuff gets hot under the collar.

Thanks Scaegales for being the bigger party on this one. Despite suffering a totally uncalled for personal attack you were able to make amends, something the original offending party seems unwilling to do.

Wait, I'm supposed to apologize to scaeagles? For what?

Was that really necessary?

"Hey look, a nasty exchange that I'm not really a part of seems to be coming to a level headed reasonable end. Lemme throw a sucker punch at one of the parties!"

I'm a degree carrying librarian (though I probably will never again work in the profession). Therefore if I make a pronouncement on that issue I will automatically win. Yay.

But I'm not participating. But I will.

Public librarians deal with this kind of thing all of the time, queries from the public (and even government) about removing books. So far I have seen no evidence that Palin made any significant attempt to get books removed from the library beyond asking about how it would be handled.

I have no idea if the "librarian" in question is actually a librarian or just someone hire to run the library (not necessarily the same thing, especially in small towns) so I don't know how "political" of a position it might be in that situation. But that is moot until such time as I see evidence that Palin made an actual attempt to get books removed.

Besides, when it comes to small town libraries (and even large town libraries) there is a much simpler way to get a book removed from the collection. Check it out, "lose it," pay the fines for "losing" it. Odds are good that it will be years before the volume is replaced in kind.

You don't owe me one, per se - You owe an apology to everyone here who has ever offered an opinion without vast expertise or university sanctioned knowledge of the subject in question. Even to yourself.

If you stand by what you said, I have no problem with that. Of course, it then means what you have to offer on pretty much any subject becomes moot because of the standard you have chosen to hold opinions to.

*retrieves the half-eaten but still tasty bucket of popcorn he put into the trash, pops a few kernels in his mouth, and takes a seat*

Personally I found your use of the term "you have no informed opinion" patently offensive. It's tantamount to calling someone an ignorant fool. A personal attack. He apologized for responding in kind. You did not.

I've been avoiding this thread because it was getting too personal and downright nasty in tone. We all have strong opinions about this subject and it's inevitable that things will get heated, but personal attacks are never cool- an ad hominem attack is usually the last refuge of someone who lacks any real substance in their argument yet wants to continue on. That is not debate, discourse or anything remotely productive, and I'd like to think we were better than that.

I also agree with GD with regards to others throwing gas on this fire.

I'm voting for Alfred E. Newman.

She didn't frame it as such, but howzabout we consider that a Mod Warning ... and KNOCK IT OFF!

It's not so much that we like our sh!t stirred on the LoT, we just like the *ka-BOOM* you get when you throw a cherry bomb into an outhouse.

The stank is bonus.

Please note that personal attacks do not have to be ad hominem. Yes, I resorted to that, admittedly and unfortunately, but certainly not because it was my only thing to say to keep it going. However, I was indeed personally attacked without it being ad hominem. This is not fishing for an apology - I honestly do not need one nor do I care - I just want to point out while I participated I certainly did not start it.

Gotcha. Let's get this thread back on topic, OK?

I read the posts. You crossed the line when you personally attacked, whereas all other posts seemed to be (while hostile in tone) in line with the conversation that was taking place. You apologized, and while it might not have been met with quite the reception you may have expected, it was done and should have been over with. Then Moonie pipes in with his opinion and you were off and running again. Let it go. (And iSm is right- this is a warning.) I shouldn't have to phrase it as such, seeing how we are all adults here, but I'm getting tired of the personal nature of some of the comments in this thread.

For the record, I am the most arrogant poster here. But that's only because I'm better than all of you.

Hey, me too.

She didn't try to actually get books removed. Instead, when the librarian said her collection development policy was based on professional criteria and that she would do all she could to fight any efforts to remove some books from the collection, Palin asked for her resignation (along with a bunch of other public employees whom she felt wasn't "on her side"). How conveeeenient. The librarian fought the request to resign, and the townspeople apparently made a fuss and didn't want her fired.

Are there more librarians or lawyers on LoT at the moment? The answer to that will dictate my position on these significant issues.

John McCain says "I want to win in Iraq".

So what is that, exactly? If it's regime change, we already did that.

Edited to add: Washington Post reports Palin claimed over $40,000 in per diems she was not entitled to. She's a crook.

No, no. She's a politician.

Here's my feelings on Iraq right now:

1) We went in under dubious circumstances at best. Congress may have been for it and may have been presented with an intelligence case that was at least partly convincing, but I personally was against it from beginning to end. The story was changing daily, the evidence the public was presented was never convincing and reeked of tailoring, and it was a major distraction from a far more important matter, dismantling Al Qaeda.

2) My suspicions were born out when, over the ensuing 5+ years, the administrations distortions, lies, willful blindness, and incompetence leading up to, and running, the war were revealed. In the best cases intelligence was wrong. In the worst cases, intelligences was falsified. In most cases, intelligence was filtered through a intense desire to find an excuse for war, cherry picking the scraps that supported the case and ignoring the counter points that tempered it. "We found some metal tubes. They're not really designed to be parts for weapons of mass destruction, but could in a pinch be used as such," became, "We've found parts for weapons of mass destruction!" Generals, on the ground in the theater, were routinely ignored, their assessments and requests pushed aside because they didn't paint the picture the administration wanted, and in some cases were fired for trying to disagree.

3) The result of all of the above, plus a distressing amount of ignorance regarding what we were going to face (who the hell goes into Iraq not expecting MASSIVE sectarian violence) was a war that could not be won outright, and a country in disarray and a huge step backwards in goal-du-jour of weakening terrorism.

4) I DO think we bare a responsibility of mending the mess we made. I have never been in favor of a summary pullout of troops and I do expect that we are going to have am effectively permanent military presence there for the foreseeable future.

5) That said, I can NOT take this administration's word, or the word anyone who is as in line with this administration as McCain is, at face value. I can NOT trust anyone who still cannot tell me the difference between Suni and Shia to know the right course. I can NOT put someone in charge who is okay with continuing the lie that fighting in Iraq=fighting Al Qaeda.

If Obama gets elected, looks at the situation in Iraq, looks a the data that intelligence and the military hands him, and decides, "Okay, we are making progress in cleaning up the disaster, and we need to see that through," people will be quick to brand him a hypocrite and to say that it vindicates what we've done over the last 5+ years. Bullsh*t. If he goes in there, and that's his analysis, fine. But just because they've by chance got it right now does not change the fact that Bush and company have been lying to us and screwing it up until now and does not change the fact that they have squandered ALL credibility in my eyes on matters foreign.

That is what I mean when I say I don't want a Hillary, who to me appeared likely to go in and blindly just start reversing everything she could just because it's the opposite of what Bush would have done. I do NOT want that. I want someone who is going to look at facts and make rational decisions, even if it happens to mean that some of those decisions would be the same.

Same thing.

:D

I've yet to hear a specific definition of winning from anyone who uses the term in regard to the Iraq War or the War on Terrorism.

Actually, Obama's already started revising his stance over the course of the past year (from "pull out now!" to "we would weigh it carefully and pull out slowly"), and the right has already called him on it. I think it shows that Obama is up on the situation and is able to be flexible and adjust based on moving targets.
This may sound stupid but that is the best question I've heard in a long time. If McCain is so desirous of "winning the war in Iraq," I would like him to define what that means.

Mostly, I am afraid that a McCain presidency will result in the U.S. fighting in FOUR wars by 2012 (Iran, Iraq, Russia, Afghanistan). And skirting around with China and Pakistan. And Palin would just say it's God's will. Oy vey.

... or the War on Drugs for that matter.


As for librarian flap. I think Palin loses that one. So she didn't actually request that books be removed, but then tried to get the librarian fired when she was told there was no way to do that? Um, that seems to be Palin's M.O. Her brother-in-law, her brother-in-law's boss.

(hmmm, not unlike the treatment certain generals received in Ghoulish Delight's excellent Iraq post above.)




Palin makes me ill.

It does seem she has a record of I don't like you and/or the choices you've made, so I'm going to have you fired. Sounds like a boss we'd all be venting about.

I was reading it this morning and found it an interesting time warp. A pre-war discussion on MousePad about Iraq with many people here laying out their early views on the matter (though it eventually devolved into a "patriotism" pissing match).

iSm is really the only one opposing the war on the simple ground that Iraq and Saddam Hussein was of absolutely no real threat to the United States.

GD opposes on geopolitical grounds but did say

Lots of others.

Unfortunately, I didn't post in the thread (which is what I was looking for; examples of me expressing my pre-war view of things so that I could check against my memory).

This all then leads to what people believe was deliberate misleading or falsification of intelligence by Bush. While it is true that the intelligence was bad, I do not believe it was intentionally falsified, which is the major argument of those who were for "doing something" now base their opposition on.

Here's what I posted towards the end of the thread:
Nerd!
:D

[derail]Jeepers H. Crackers! That thread was started almost 6 freakin' years ago! Gak! I've been a discussion board geek for over 7 years.[/derail]

Wow, I had some good points.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ibnuyusuf/1271119853/


Fierce fighting lasted for 10 plus years followed by sporadic fights and riots right up into the late 1980's...........now this Nation is one of if not the most powerful economy in SE Asia.

I don't think I've said anything since inconsistent with my statements there. I said we were in Afghanistan for legitimate reasons and were turning our attention toward Iraq for illegitimate reasons.

I still think Saddam was someone that needed to be dealt with, but that was not the way to go about doing so. "Do something to nip it in the bud" never equated to military aggression in my mind.

I'm a little appalled at myself for suggesting assassination.

The Senate Intelligenc Committe disagrees with your belief.

Okay, so there's just a small sample of the willful misleading of the public. Ah, I can hear you say, but what of the Congress members who saw the itnelligence and drew their own conclusions? Surely they could not have been duped...

This is just he summary report. It rather bleakly shows a concerted effort to justify war, not to collect facts. It shows that Congress did not just see faulty information and come to the same faulty conclusion, they were fed a distorted picture of the intelligence, purposefully shielded from the full picture, and willfully influenced by Cheney and the Pentagon into drawing conclusions that weren't even supported by the bad intelligence.

All from a President who, almost 2 years before 9/11, was sitting in cabinet meetings talking about finding a way to depose Saddam.

Zero credibility.

It wasn't my intention to imply that you have. I was just differentiating your position opposing the war from iSm's and highlighting the more substantive positions stakes out there by people now here.

Well, I didn't participate in any discussions here back then but I was one of many silent masses who didn't say peep about our invasion of Iraq. While I was pretty sure Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, I was also pretty tired of his flouting of UN requests to inspect his nuclear facilities, and I felt like it was OK for us to step in and stop the bully.

Of course, I was also still relatively pro-Bush at the time.

I just chose to keep listening to talk radio and dismiss the anti-war people as kooks and hippies.

Boy was I wrong.

I love when I'm right from the very start.



I can't get too worked up about it though, since it's always been that way and always will. :p




:iSm:

Hey, that thread is the birth of General You! :D

Old threads are fun! I'd forgotten about my provocation idea. Still would've been a better plan. Wouldn't have changed the outcome any, however. But might've been better for our place in world politics.

Please forgive my lack of understanding here....how was Bush sitting in cabinet meetings for 2 years when he hadn't taken office until 9 months before it happened? I'm not trying to pick, I just didn't know if he had been privy to cabinet meetings as a Presidential candidate.

While not wishing to go through stuff again that we have debated before without anyone swaying anyone, just would like to say that yes, he was sitting in cabinet meetings (for at least 9 months) discussing how to depose Saddam. I would figure this is because the intelligence coming from the prior administration was talking up the threat Saddam posed. At that point in time, I doubt that he had the pportunity to manufacture or misrepresent the intelligence coming to him. Some cry "vengence for his father!", but I've never bought into that.

Mom?!?

Brain fart.

F*ck, I must have been listening to Giuliani too much. 2 years before the invasion of Iraq, not 9/11. Yikes.

Re: Palin's eBay story:

Palin's stories of high ethics and virtue are melting away faster than the polar ice caps.

I thought the point was that she sold the jet rather than using it. I don't see how the mechanics of the sale matter that much. She said she put it up on ebay and she did.

Being that I work in the property tax industry, including personal property, I'd like to point out that aircraft is a depreciating asset. The aircraft in question was purchased in 2005 and sold in 2007. While there are varying depreciation tables for aircraft, a common one in our system is 20% the first year, and 32% the second year. Considering they sold the plane for 22% less than the original purchase price, that's actually better than depreciation tables might suggest it should have sold for.

Also, I don't think she clained to have made a profit. It was that she got rid of it.

Edited to add - Now I see that Moonliner is beating me by mere minutes in terms of posting basically the same thing.

Yes, but she did tout it as her idea when, in fact, the article points out that the state had been doing that with large items for several years before she was in office.

The rest of the article says that it was common practice to put big ticket items on eBay, previous governors had done it before her. By not hiring an agent to sell this particular white elephant, the state of Alaska incurred $62,492.79 in payments every three months during the eight months the jet didn't sell.

Shall we talk about "Thanks, but no thanks," next?

Just wanted to acknowledge this. I have zero professional expertise in the matter. It's just that unconfronted lies and hyperbole irritate the living sh!t out of me.

The jet sale is a meh. But what about her billing the state something like 216 days for staying in her own home?

I think the issue is not the individual items that keep cropping up on a daily basis ... rather it's the very fact that items keep cropping up on a daily basis.


I've never seen a vice-presidential candidate dominate the news so much. And it's potential scandal after potential scandal. Maybe the Republican base will see Palin as beleagured, but I think Johnny Voter is going to see her as Trouble.


Perhaps it was just plain stupid to pick a nobody, whom the press is just discovering. Biden likely has just as many skeletons, but those bones have long been picked over and the press doesn't care. Palin may be no more or less crooked than any politician, but the media is having a field day digging up stuff on a new pol.


McCain is a moron. And I think this evidence of his poor decision making ability is one of the worst markers for him making a good president.

I guess I'm just slow. With all the crap there is on Palin: Anti-choice, Draconian views on sex education, and on and on....

Why are you focusing on a good thing she did? She got rid of a costly albatross.

She had the idea to put the plane on Ebay. No, it was not the first item ever offered on ebay. So what?

OK, it did not sell there. If it had how much would that have saved in broker fees?

How much per month was the state saving by not using the jet? I'll be it was more than the ~20k monthly payment.


Edited to add - Now I see that ISM is beating me by mere minutes in terms of posting basically the same thing.

You know, unless you're in the selling-airplanes-on-ebay business, your uninformed opinions are meaningless.

Like iSm says, it's just another example. I'm not focusing on the damn plane any more than her taking all the ear-marks she can get, then bemoaning ear-marks, or her per-diem scam, or her, to me at least, frightening personal religious views. It's a package. A sexy, bespectacled cinemax librarian of a package.

Don't look at what I've done, look at what I say I've done! (blows kiss)

At the risk of looking like I'm defending the barracuda...

When she was mayor of a small town she went for all the ear-marks she could get. That is part of a mayors job. I don't fault her there.

As Governor of the state she killed the bridge-to-nowhere. A $200,000,000+ pork barrel project. You can't argue with that. From what little I can see she at least attempted to use federal funds wisely rather than taking a gimme all I can get mentality.

To give her credit I believe she said she "put it up on eBay" but she never said she actually managed to sell the thing, or at a profit. McCain said that (because I don't know, someone fed him incorrect information, he just assumed it, or he's, oh I don't know, addle-minded).

Yes I can. She's on record supporting the project before it became nationally infamous as the biggest pork-barrel project in history.

Then, and only then, did she turn against it.

I think I already got in trouble for calling someone arrogant and condescending, so I'll avoid that this time. :)

In the end she did the right thing and killed it. So for me that makes it a weak argument to use against her. Especially when there are so many other good ones to use.

One of the problems I have discussing politics with people here or IRL is the black and white viewpoints people often have. If they don't like a candidate (ie Palin) then EVERYTHING about them has to be bad. Hell George Bush is in solid contention for worst president in the history of the United States but even he has his good moments. No one (except perhaps Rove) is all evil.

So I feel quite comfortable patting Palin on the back for killing a $200,000,000 bridge project or selling a unnneeded jet while at the same time blasting her for her views on abortion, sex education and scores of other topics.

I think the reason the Palin "bridge to nowhere" comment is discussed so much is because her "Thanks, but no thanks" line has become a staple of her speech - and the McCain/Palin ads. The context in which the Republicans are framing her comment is not rooted in the truth.

However, I agree that it's silly for the Dems to be focusing on this. It's clearly bait that's been laid out by Rove, er Palin, er McCain... (no... I probably mean Rove) to steer the argument away from the issues that are actually part of the two parties platforms.

bleh.

Hummmm...

Yup. That sounds like Rove. "Ok guys, the Dems are going to attack whatever we say. So let's harp on something that actually has a positive element about it. That way their argument sounds weaker."

She didn't kill sh*t. The money still went to Alaska, the money never went back, and she continued to fund the other infrastructure projects that are designed to link in to the bridge. She was for it, she paid lip service to being against it when she realized it would be politically expedient to do so, and never did squat to prevent that money from being funneled from Washington.

And spending/waste/porkbarrel is most certainly a platform issue.

I dunno, I think Cheney is 100% evil, too. :)

You're only seeing half the picture, Moonliner. She didn't say "Thanks but no thanks" until AFTER the Feds said no (and it because obvious this was a bad stance to take), but SHE KEPT THE MONEY. She just used the money earmarked for the bridge porkbarrel project for OTHER stuff in Alaska.

If she was REALLY sincere she would've not taken the money.

PS: I think part of what I find so annoying is that they've decided just to blatantly lie, and keep lying. They think Americans are stupid enough to eventually believe the lies.

So she took $200,000,000 and rather than spend it on a useless bridge she used it on other projects for the state? That bitch.

If the infrastructure projects where needed on their own then fine. However if the cash was used for trash then I'm with you. Do you have a cite for where the money went?

I expect the list of Governors who gave back big bucks ear-marked for their state is fairly small. If you include those that took the cash and then found a better use for it, it's still a short list, and adding in Governors who waited until it was politically correct to use the money for a better use probably still lands her in a better than average demographic.

And, unfortunately, they are right.

If your parents tell you they're willing to give you $1000 to get some new furniture for your place, but after a lot of people complain that your place is already fully furnished and you don't need any new furniture, should you then take that $1000 and spend it on whatever you want?

But the main point here is that one of her huge campaign slogans is "thanks but no thanks," not "thanks, I'll spend your money on something else."

If she is trying to pass herself off as a reformer, then yes. I believe she should've not taken the money.

Pisshaw! Now you are just in the realm of total fantasy.


Point well made and I guess if the McCain camp is going to make "Thanks but no thanks" a rally cry then the facts you have presented are a good counter to it.

Hmmmm... going through Snopes, there is an "iffy" entry for Sarah Palin where she is purported to have said, "So Sambo beat that b!tch" when Obama clinched the nomination.

I must admit I didn't run into many Black people on my trip to Alaska but one would have to wonder if she is that racist/sexist.

Isn't that a governor's job, to protect the best interests of their state? By, for example, grabbing as much federal funding as they can for their state?

I say keep the half truths and rumors coming. I have no doubt that I could find or even make up hundreds of unsubstantiated things I heard that Obama has said. Or even true things. Talking about "white mans' greed" in the audacity of hope.

Honestly, to even post that is laughable.

I read on a blog that someone heard Obama say that he goes out at night and kills puppies and eats their livers in a Satanic ritual. Wow.....that's just aweful.

That could be one definition. However, to do so and then claim you fought against it is generally called "lying".

I think she said "Thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere". She didn't say "I sent the money back because there was nothing valuable we could do with it". I think there is a distinction. She was against the wasteful spending aspect, bit using the federal funds to do necessary things to improve her state.

I think there is a distinction between opposing a project that becomes overwhelmingly unpopular, and then deciding on your own what to do with the money that was ear-marked for said pork barrel project. The money came from the feds--was it really kosher for her to be taking money that was approved for one project BY SOMEONE ELSE, and then taking that money and deciding on your own to spend it on something else?

Come on scaeagles, she is trying to campaign as a reformer, ergo spendthrift. Saying no to bloat. Cutting taxes. Not diverting tax money for your OWN pet projects.

I'm not saying governors can't take money earmarked for one thing to use on other projects. Well, I don't know if that's illegal... but my point is that it's something she is heavily campaigning on and I find it pretty hypocritical.

OK folks you are hearing this from me... whatever happens if it's Hillary vs. Palin in 2012 I will vote for Hillary (good lord I didn't think I'd ever say that).

I wouldn't expect anything else than you voting for Hillary, particularly if hypocrisy is such a turnoff.

Hillary vs. Palin? Scary thought indeed.

Two floaters in the bowl, which do you pick?

She said neither of those.

So, it isn't that she's opposed to earmarks it is just that she was opposed to that particular earmark?

(And yes, I seem to be really off the wagon today.)

Except for the time she spent in favor of that particular earmark.

She did indeed.

Directly from her speech at the convention -

Now, I do think she was making the point that she was against earmarks, so the very next line of her speech is problematic for me -

The first quoted line? Clearly saying they didn't need that bridge. Second quoted line? Certainly implying that she wasn't going to take the money.

She said that she said it, but she didn't say it when she says she claims to have said it. See what I'm saying?

Yes. Got it.

Funny except:

1) She doesn't support abstinence only education. She's on record as saying teaching students about condoms and other forms of birth control is ok provided abstinence is emphasized more.

2) Her daughter went to a school that did teach sex ed not abstinence.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good joke;)

And, as we can see, her daughter didn't pay attention at school.
:D

Do you have a link for that? This is the widely-cited quote that shows that she is not a fan of teaching condoms in class.

By the way, I was being ocmpletely thick headed earlier. I don't know why I couldn't see what you were saying earlier than I did.

I'm curious....does BTD get chastized for posting something she (and I) found amusing? I am, of course, referring to being raked over the coals for posting something I found amusing about Biden.

I assume you're referring to the "priceless" joke above. It's a joke, in photoshop form, no less. Hell, if you have a joke to make about Biden, I'd love to hear it, as long as it's funny :)

I suppose funny is in the eye of the beholder.

They only charge $75 for highlights in Alaska?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5768481.story


http://www.redstate.com/diaries/reds...alins-positio/

When I was in high school, I had to choose between drama or physics, and I chose drama. However, if they had offered "explicit sex" at the same time, I'm sure I would have taken that.

Hell, (snapping suspenders) I would have taught it.

Yes, but an Orange cost $5.95....;)

I wonder how much pineapples are?

Well, I hear they offer financing:D

I'm wondering where these sex-ed classes that don't mention abstinence exist. Every single sex-ed thing I've ever been presented start with, "The only 100% guarantee to avoid pregnancy and STDs is abstinence."

Scaeagles, I'd say yes, yes I did.

Dude, how many presentations do you need? I caught on after the first.:)

:D

See my post (#243) in the convention thread......even I, a stuffy old repbuclican can get a kick out of some creative anti-Palin media;)

lipstick.
Pig.
NPR.
:)

With the cheerfully illustrated books my parents kept in my room from pretty much the moment I could read, I could have conducted the first one. Believe me, it was not my choice to attend those assemblies.

You guys had Sex Ed assemblies? Geesh, I think I remember some dumb film in a darkened classroom with half the students absent because their parents objected. I'm fairly certain the film was from the WWII era.

I'm proud to say I got "the talk" before my school sex ed class.

I'm proud to say I got "the sex" before my school sex-ed class. ;)

Was it the one I had - with the 2 overweight cartoon people? Can't remember the name of it though...

Ah - Here it is.

Now I'm really confused. What kind of "explicit" programs was she referring to, if she's pro-contraception?

Eh, whatever, veep. :)

I can't really speak for Sleepy, but perhaps the kind promoted by Jocelyn Elders, who wanted masturbation taught in school to help prevent the spread of STDs. Now, I don't really know any young male that really needs to be taught it, but I think teaching masturbation (which I don't know, but in terms of stopping the spread of STDs might include mutual masturbation) might involve discussion of techniques or any other number of explicit issues.

"Oh, little Johnny, if you can't seem to excite yourself enough, you can surf the net for some porn or use any number of toys....".

Sadly, people are voting for her and not McCain. What a shock they will have if he wins and she's, you know, the VP and not the Prez.

Masturbation was discussed in my sex ed class. Nothing explicit, it was mentioned as, "It's a natural thing that people like to do and nothing to be embarassd about."

It may be a distinction without a difference, but I think "discussing" that it exists and is pretty common and "teaching" it are two different things.

Again, just theorizing.

Here's the thing. If you look just look a the rhetoric, you'd think that there are sex ed classes that somehow hide the concept of abstinence.

That statement is ridiculous. It's a straw man. Complete straw man implying that people are not just teaching kids how to protect themselves should they make the choice, but are teaching them that not having sex isn't an option. What utter horsesh*t. And so yeah, I find it hard to take the same people's word on the implication that there are classes out there showing kids how to stroke it, teaching them the joys of "the stranger", or instructing girls on the most effective use of The Rabbit.

Elders did resign soon after her statements, and I think that was because she meant for it to become pretty explicit. Just my thinking though. I'm not suggesting there are or are not classes like that. I have no idea, really.

I'll even strengthen my statement regarding Elders....I'm positive she wanted much more explicit stuff than was out there.

However, this is not a thread about Elders. I merely suggesting what I think Palin might have been referring to in her "explicit" comments.

I think the most explicit our sex-ed assembly in high school got was demonstrating putting a condom on a banana.

They did also covered that the only 100% way to be sure to not get pregnant was to not have sex but if you're going to have sex here are some things you should think about before hand - and then went into emotional readiness, peer pressure and diseases.

Exactly. I remember in my 6th grade sex ed class being taught abstinence in addition to everything else. In fact, I remember them saying that abstinence was the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy, STDs, etc. But they also taught proper use of a condom, what masturbation was, etc. and didn't say that waiting for marriage is what Jesus wants you to do. It was a more clinical thing that our parents were involved in, homework-wise. And they certainly didn't talk about best methods to straddle your vibrator, how to control your gag reflex, or what those holes in the bathroom stalls were. :rolleyes:

Everything I know about sex I learned from the episode of Happy Days where Fonzie has to teach the sex ed class.

Meanwhile, the conversation of Sex-Ed makes me think not about what Sarah Palin (not currently running for President) might think about it, but how John McCain (currently running for President) intentionally mischaracterized Obama's plan for "age specific sex education" - y'know... telling kids how to avoid "inappropriate touches" - as "sex education for kindergartners".

Please, John... you know you don't have my vote this time... but if you want my respect, please tell Rove "Thanks but no thanks" to his disgusting tactics.

From what I recall of my 10th grade sex ed classes they pretty much did hide the concept of abstinence.....yeah, they told us about it; they did say it was the best way to avoid pregnancy etc; but they spent all of two minutes(or about 1/20 the time they spent explaining how to buy a condom) on the idea.

Two minutes on abstinence out of a total of 9 weeks of sex ed to me might as well have been hiding the concept; but that's just my 2 cents.

I don't get it. What's more to say about it?

"Abstinence is not having sex until you get married. It's the only guaranteed safe choice. 100% guarantee you will not get pregnant and 100% guarantee you will not catch a disease from having sex. The decision to have sex is an important one not to be taken lightly and will have lifelong consequences no matter how safely you do it."

That's what I remember from my sex ed classes. What else is there? Do you need a textbook to illustrate how not to have sex? A scientific analysis of exactly why not having sex prevents pregnancy? Discussion of clinical trials that measure the likelihood of contracting an STD while not having sex?

As I have understood it and looked into the exact language of the bill in question, here is the exact language from the bill itself that was passed.

Here is the bill itself.

Originally the language was for 6 though 12, but that was crossed out and the bill was passed with the K in stead of the 6.

As I read that, this means that sex ed taught to kindergarteners SHALL include what followed.

scaeagles - please don't insult everyone's intelligence by refuting my post with another partial quotation.

How about this part of the same document:
I stand by my original statement.

Keep reading, it emphasizes age appropriateness:

It also doesn't say that sex ed will be offered in those grades, just requirements if it is.

Joycelyn Elders was a real champion for education, and I think she had some incredibly great ideas.

Unfortunately for her, she could never articulate things quite right. That masturbation thing was really the last straw; after that the White House never really supported her. But you know she did mean that "masturbation as a form of sexual pleasure/release should be taught as a viable alternative to direct-contact activities." Remember that she was in office in the early '90s during Clinton's first term. With Clinton in office we were finally looking at AIDS seriously, and we were trying to figure out a way to teach comprehensive sex education to kids within that context. Her suggestion would've helped prevent of a whole host of fluid-exchange problems, from pregnancy to HIV transmission.

...as it turns out, with Clinton's second term, that first problem kind of took care of itself in an unintended way, when Clinton swore up and down that "that" was *NOT* sex. Kind of sad... there's a whole generation of kids who think that's "not sex." :rolleyes:

I fully admit to not reading the whole bill. I did not have the time to in the context of this discussion and posted a link to the full document. I was not trying to hide anything, nor did I intend to insult anyone's intelligence.

As I have posted here before, it is simply NOT possible with the thoroughness of so many people here to try to mislead by leaving out information.

Leaving out stuff can make someone sound a certain way...

:D

I'm not sure what link started the sex-ed topic but this story is covering an ad McCain's campaign is running.

I am curious why Obama is called Mr. Obama while McCain is called Senator McCain.

What's wrong with teaching kindergarteners about age-appropriate information regarding sex, relationships, and reproduction?

Dr. Laura started talking to her son, Derek, about sex-related things VERY early on, just as part of his growing up. As a really young kid, when he was learning about body parts and about his normal bodily functions, she didn't mask words related to certain body parts, she just used normal words. And as he grew up she helped explain to him about how babies are created, and what happens during pregnancy, etc. and I believe he was probably only around 7 or 8 when he learned that some women have their pregnancies terminated (she let him come to his own realization that a woman ending a pregnancy meant she was having the "baby inside the mother" killed)... learning about sex and reproduction as part of life and growing up, as part of a whole, and understanding how integral relationships are to sex, was the way she chose to teach her son.

So no, if it's age-appropriate I don't have any problem with teaching kids early.

Seriously, if we are thinking of teaching kids "sex ed" for the first time when they are 14, it is often too late for many of them. Same with drug education. These things need to be introduced very early on while they are still forming their opinion about life.

Age appropriate? Nothing wrong at all. My kids were well versed in the "these are my privates and you don't mess with them" very early on.

I am at fault for not reading the whole text of the bill. I read the first paragraph and not the rest. I do believe there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the electorate by not citing the rest of the bill.

Mousepod, I do not claim to know everything, and come here in part to learn from many, many intelligent people with opposiing viewpoints. It is not my desire to simply associate with lie minded individuals. I hadn't heard much about the whole thing, and a Google search on SB0099 (easy enough to find the number) allowed me to find and read the first portion in about 2 mins. I am glad I know now that there was more to the bill than what I read, and also do agree that there is an attempt to deceive.

They're both called "Senator" at the beginning of the article and both are called "Mr." for the rest of the article...

The problem is who decides "age appropirate information"


My experince, as a parent with kids this age, is that school administrators almost always take the path of least resistance for them. At our local high school there is a "zero tolerance" for alcohol. It takes away any discretion the staff might use and the responsibility that comes along with it. For example, someone who brings a bottle of NyQuil to school would receive the same punishment as someone that brings a half dozen bottles of Jack Daniels to pass out on the school bus during an extracurricular event. (Note: That is a real example not a hypothetical).

So allowing these same administrators to determine "age appropriateness" is troublesome to me. If they make a decision on what to teach and not to teach based on age they are opening themselves up to criticism for teaching the wrong thing. If they ignore the issue and just teach everyone whatever the bill says no matter how wrong it is for a given age group they feel safer because they can sidestep responsibility by saying "It's in the mandate".

They seemed to not be shy about showing scary movies about what happens if you don't use protection.....why not show some scary movies about what happens to some kids who did use protection but somehow it failed? That could ballance out things a bit......plus, they didn't seem to mind repeating themselves over and over again about safe sex, why not repeat themselves over and over again about abstinence?

My point is....the way it was presented made it pretty clear that the adult world pretty much expected us to be having sex and that the whole "abstinence" speil might as well have been told with a wink wink.

Freudian slip? ;) :p

Thanks. My eyes must have missed that.

You had 9 WEEKS of sex ed? Wow. We had a 1/2 session I think twice - once in elementry and once in jr. high.

While the message I got out of sex ed was, "Promiscuous sex is risky. It's really risky. My god it's risky. So risky that we're going to spend hours and hours explaining what you'd need to do to protect yourself. Look, here's some horrific pictures of what happens if you fail to protect yourself. If you have sex, no matter how hard you try to be safe, this will always be a risk."

What better promotion of abstinence can there be?

They were both first referred to as Senator on first mention and then Mr. on all later mentions (of the individual, when talking about the campaign of either no title is used).

It is standard Times style.

For example, this sentence:

ETA: Whoops, missed the next page.

HA! Must be that somewhere in the deep dark recesses of my mind you guys are getting through to me.

RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

Being that this involves high school males, speaking from experience, what they hear is

"blhblha SEX sblahbakhbkl. blaablhbhabba bablb bahlb labhlhblhb ablhlhbah blbhbla blabhblb ablh h SEX sblahbakhbkl. blaablhbhabba bablb bahlb labhlhblhb ablhlhbah blbhbla blabhblb ablh h ."

I remember being taught pretty young, about bathing suit zones and what was appropriate touching and what was not appropriate touching. It was definitely in the 1st grade, kindergarten, pre-school days. AND this was at a strict Catholic school.

And when we were taught the bird and the bees in grade school, there was always the caveat of "If you're having sex..." before everything. Abstinence was taught as well as condom use. AND this was at a strict Catholic school.

Just sayin'.
:)

I am offended at your blatant linkage of teenage males to dogs! Are you equating teenage males with dogs?

OK, maybe it's not that much of a stretch.

I withdraw my outrage.:)

I'm actually shocked any adolescent male would hear

;)

5th grade it was a half day;
7th grade it was 2 or 3 weeks
10th grade it was an entire term(although it wasn't, I must admit, just about sex itself, there was the whole miracle of birth stuff in there too)

Oddly enough, drivers ed was only 2 weeks......you would think that, seeing how for every teen who has their life destroyed by sex there are hundreds more who have it snuffed out by driving that the schools would concentrate their efforts a little more on that(if saving lives really is their primary motivation)

Well, my sex ed was right during the early stages of AIDS, different times and different schools. I am sure most people have different 1st hand accounts unless they were in the same class together(and even then...)

As much as I can't stand Dr. Laura, I completely agree. At five and half, Indi is very well versed in sex because he showed an interest early on. He knows how people have sex, that sometimes men and women have sex, sometimes men and men, sometimes women and women, etc. We've talked about the difference between love and lust, some of what happens during puberty, etc. It's always been very casual and has come up naturally.

I hold no delusions that he'll wait until adulthood to start having sex. But I am pretty confident that when he's a teen we'll still be able to talk openly about sex and all that comes with it.

I'm wondering when the right will start thinking of these things in terms of solutions to problems and not what fits into their moral code that they somehow feel justified in inflicting on our whole society.

All About Palin, Yup, She's Ready on Day One
 

Palin Ready to Step in as President

Palin says she's ready to step in as president

Great news! Vote for McCain and you get the exciting Ms. Palin absoultly free. But Wait! There's more. Act now and you can also get Mr. Barack Obama! That's right three fine candidates for the price of just one! Act now this offer is limited....

Oh great, will they call themselves the 3rd Triumvirate:eek:

Is that a bad thing? He was asked. Should he have said no? Avoided it?

I think if McCain wins (curse the evil day!), Obama should ask for AG. :evil:

The answer was an obvious joke, because the next thing he said was that he wouldn't make National Service a cabinet position. Therefore the post wouldn't exist to give it to Obama.

Republicans, seriously...why are you voting for this asshole? How can it not bother you that he picked Palin to be VP?

This may be shocking to you but I actually find it easier to vote for McCain now because of the Palin pick.

Does it bother you that Obama chose a running mate who pretty much has said that Obama is not ready to be President?

;)

So was my post about it, or did that not come through?

I didn't get it. But I've been pretty dense lately.

Democrats and Obama supporters, really...why are you voting for this inexperienced and arrogant newby? Oh, wait....we're not supposed to use ad hominem attacks. My bad.

In the same manner as sleepyjeff, I think it was a brilliant choice politically that has also made me more inclined to vote for McCain, as it has with his key constituency. This shored up his base.

Are you part of the base that has been shored up by his selection of her, or are you simpy admiring an astute gesture on his part?

Is there a point at which the personal would become political for you and at which you/the base would be adrift once again? Her alleged affair? The stories about her children's drug use? The suggestion--that I knew was coming--that Track joined the military because he was a screw-up with no other options, etc.

Palin says "nuke-u-ler"

I'm curious if there is anything at this point, that could be revealed, that would cause you those of you that ARE voting McCain / Palin to NOT vote for them?

If a scandal came out - that was atrocious and seemed likely but couldn't be proved before the election, would you reconsider?

Or is it a democrat/republican thing and you would never in a million years vote for "the other side".

I am part of the republican base that has been shored up by her for two reasons.

First, I have doubts about the sincerity of McCain's recent move toward more traditionally conservative stances. Palin is much, much more so.

Secondly, I have been upset with the corruption in the party of which I am a member. She rose to governor in part because she took on incredibly corrupt republican politicians. Please note I believe corruption exists on both sides, so the corruption in my party is not enough to make me switch. I'd consider switching to libertarian if they ever had candidates that weren't....well, bordering on insane.

To address your questions, Strangler and Betty, of course there are things that could make me not vote for them. I have only recently become solidly McCain, and I have made that pretty clear over the last serveral months.

Nothing "alleged", no matter how believable some might find it, will sway me. As an example, there have been rumors that Obama is secretly Muslim. He made two misstatements about visiting all 57 states (and there's the whole thing about there being 57 Muslim states or somethig like that), and then saying "my Muslim faith" when he meant Christian. To some, that makes the rumors all the more believable, but I still don't buy it. For those offended by me bringing this up, I am saying this in direct response to questions about if of rumors (particularly the alleged affair) and if they would sway me and it is not an attempt to further spread this one in particular. No one here believes it anyway.

So, if it is proven she had an affair, I would have HUGE reservations, once again, about casting my vote for McCain. As I have admitted one of the factors in my new support for McCain is his selection of Palin, if she was shown to have had an affair and it was proven absolutely, my support would wane. I say this with one caveat....let's say the affair was 20 years ago. Not much of an impact for me. People change and no one is perfect. If it was 6 months ago, big impact.

As far as anything having to do with her children and their behavior? Nothing will make an impact there. As a high school coach I know plenty of great kids with screwed up parents, and just as many screwed up kids with great parents. As a parent, I do my best, but I know that my influence is limited and short of caging my children in the house 24/7 I cannot control every aspect of their lives.

A follow up question I'd ask (there's one bit in your response that I consider outright false but it isn't that relevant so I'll leave it be): Without engaging in comparisons to Barack Obama, I'd ask you to answer the following: Palin has no power to do the things that you like about her unless she becomes president (she may be a partner to McCain or at the first sign of disagreement he could put her in a closet to not be seen again for four years). If John McCain dies the day after inauguration, would you consider the country in capable hands?

Let's see where everyone is. The majority of LoTters are in CA.

Arizona is going to McCain
CA is going to Obama.

I think Moonie is in MD (but I may be wrong)
Steph is in NY
Couple people in WA

Where do those three states typically trend?

Short answer - No.

Slightly extended answer - No. However, I do not consider Obama capable either.

A bit more extension - This is why I love the comparisons constantly made between Palin and Obama in terms of experience.

So she can't actually follow through on the things that make you want to vote for McCain and her. And you don't think she's capable of doing the one thing she might actually have to do. And yet it makes you more likely to vote for McCain. I don't quite understand.

So, my follow up question is: If Palin is not capable leadership for the country, and she really doesn't have any power to do the things you like unless she is put in that position, why does she bolster your support for McCain? Why does "not a good president" get trumped by "says she'll root out corruption"?

Again, Barack Obama is irrelevant to the question because we already know that even if he'd spent 20 years as the governor of Alabama you'd still not consider him an acceptable choice for president for policy reasons.

Why do you hate Cheney? Please don't answer - it is intended as rhetorical. I ask because I know he is one reason that you hate the Bush administration.

Cheney, like Palin, is a counselor to the President. Someone who, yes indeed, needs to be ready, and I truly do not think it is going to take long for her to be so. McCain has chosen someone who I view to be anti corruption and a solid conservative. It encourages me, just as if he had chosen Leiberman, whom I respect immensely but is no conservative, would discourage me. I suspect Obama will surround himself with liberals. This helps be believe that McCain will surround himself with conservatives.

In terms of capability, I also do not think Obama is capable to do the things he will have to do if elected from day one. So to me, the issue of doubting readiness of Palin vs. doubting the readiness of Obama is a slam dunk in favor of voting McCain.

Oh, indeed. Hopefully my answer above may shed some light on your follow up a bit.

Yes, Obama is irrelevant to the question, but if the issue is experience and readiness of Palin, I cannot help but makes comparisons to the Presidential side of the dem ticket.

I would not have voted for Bill Clinton for policy reasons. I did not doubt his readiness.

I'd like to think I could stop--or preempt--my high school kids from doing some of the things the article says they do habitually, but that road lies ahead.

Also, if the article is true, then Track's military engagement has been presented in a false light, i.e., that he's answering the call to service and putting "country first" as opposed to being dumped there so someone could get him under control.

I assume that once it's revealed that it's all true, Palin will adjust her stance and say something like, "He had to join up to become a man," and all the solid citizens with pregnant teen daughters and out of control sons will nod knowingly and give her a pass on that, too--the same pass they probably wouldn't give a black family in the same position.

It sheds light. It doesn't seem particularly rational to me in that the logic seems very circular (I like her therefore I like her), but I do understand where you're coming from.

Ultimately, it is a Dem/Rep thing........some scandal, whether it be personal or not, won't change the fact that I believe McCain/Palin will do a better job advancing my concerns for this nation then Obama/Biden. Now, I suppose, if the "scandal" was something along the lines of McCain is secretly planning on pulling the US out of NATO or raising the tax on the top tax bracket to 50%.....then yes, I would change my vote;)

Btw: The media has shown that they will indeed "uncover" some story that can't be proved right before the eleciton......I'd bet money on it....thankfully, the public is quite use to it now and unless they really can prove it they won't fall for it.

More capable on the domestic side of things(imho).....on foreign policy, I would assume McCain will already have his team in place(unless he like dies before Christmas...in which case Bush already has people she can use) and can lean on them until she can swim on her own----worked so well with our current President.

Maryland usually goes to the Dems(I think Reagan took it in 84' but no rep since)

New York usually goes to the Dems(I think Reagan took it in 84' but no rep since;) )

Washington has gone to the Dems the last few times but the race is usually close.

Oregon(hello:) ) has gone dem since 92' I think.

Here's a good site:


http://www.electoral-vote.com



Exactly!

^That was funny I hate to admit:)

Why did this turn to racism? You could have stopped at the giving them a pass, but then had to make the implication that conservatives are racists, and I find that offensive.

I certainly don't think all conservatives are racist. However, the breakdown of the black family is viewed as a major social problem, a root cause of black crime--toughness on crime being more of a conservative issue--and a problem that blacks are expected to fix themselves.

I said it before, if it came out that right after the Democratic convention that Barack Obama had a teen daughter pregnant by a boyfriend who talked tough in a black way on his MySpace page, or that he had a hypothetical teen son who smoked crack, I doubt that all the Republican grandmothers who were sympathetic to Bristol's human plight at the Republican convention would have said similarly nice and forgiving things about Obama's family.

And we know that O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. wouldn't have.

A lot of the conservative base is racist (among other things).

:eek:
All about perception, I guess! I'm not finding or remembering much of the Bush presidency that has worked so well. But, that's me, ymmv. ;)

Really, scaeagles. Know the company you keep. Conservatives have made themselves infamous for being racist. Don't blame the rest of the world for noticing it ... or the rank hypocrisy that's greeted Palin's family problems by the Republican base.

I hate to post this... particularly since I'm not a fan of the Republican platform, ticket, or tactics... but I don't dig Strangler Lewis' hypotheticals. Why don't we argue about the platforms, the spin, the coverage...? Or at least cite some kind of substantiation when making generalizations.

I came down on scaeagles yesterday when I perceived him to be using a similar argument. I don't want to appear to be a "knee-jerk progressive" (even though I might actually be one), so I'm calling shenanigans.

I saw more people of color at the DNC than at the RNC. That goes for speakers and audience members.

I'm talking about the National Enquirer piece on Palin, which, for purposes of discussion, I am assuming will prove true. I also posited a scenario for a black candidate with similar family problems, and I made an assumption about the likely response from the right. What don't you like about any of that?

In fact, I only saw ANY people of color at the RNC after it was widely reported in the press how lily white the convention was.

In all fairness, the Republican Convention is attended primarily by hard-core base members (and, what ya know? They're all white!) ... while the Democrat Convention is attended by a much wider range of practicing democrats. Not merely the base.



Still. It painted an ugly picture. Pictures speak a thousand words. Whites Only.

I could go into many things that I believe about the democrat base but won't. It wouldn't be productive, nor would it be relevant to the conversation at hand.

The whole "If Palin were African American" doesn't hold water with me. If Palin were African American on the republican ticket she'd be branded an Uncle Tom. I do know racists. In my own (extended family). The vast and huge majority of the conservatives I know are not.

We can go through history and talk about racists in each party, or the vote count for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and who opposed and filibustered it, or who in the Senate used to be in the KKK, or who cited segregationist Fulbright as a mentor.....why pretend that racism is only on the conservative side?

I guess we could quote Howard Dean and say the only way the Rpublicans can get minorities in the audience it to bring in the hotel staff.

BTD: Last 8 election results for each state.



04 00 96 92 88 84 80 76
Alabama R R R R R R R D
Alaska R R R R R R R R
Arizona R R D R R R R R
Arkansas R R D D R R R D
California D D D D R R R R
Colorado R R R D R R R R
Connecticut D D D D R R R R
Delaware D D D D R R R D
Florida R R D R R R R D
Georgia R R R D R R D D
Hawaii D D D D D R D D
Idaho R R R R R R R R
Illinois D D D D R R R R
Indiana R R R R R R R R
Iowa R D D D D R R R
Kansas R R R R R R R R
Kentucky R R D D R R R D
Louisiana R R D D R R R D
Maine D D D D R R R R
Maryland D D D D R R D D
Massachusetts D D D D D R R D
Michigan D D D D R R R R
Minnesota D D D D D D D D
Mississippi R R R R R R R D
Missouri R R D D R R R D
Montana R R R D R R R R
Nebraska R R R R R R R R
Nevada R R D D R R R R
New Hampshire D R D D R R R R
New Jersey D D D D R R R R
New Mexico R D D D R R R R
New York D D D D D R R D
North Carolina R R R R R R R D
North Dakota R R R R R R R R
Ohio R R D D R R R D
Oklahoma R R R R R R R R
Oregon D D D D D R R R
Pennsylvania D D D D R R R D
Rhode Island D D D D D R D D
South Carolina R R R R R R R D
South Dakota R R R R R R R R
Tennessee R R D D R R R D
Texas R R R R R R R D
Utah R R R R R R R R
Vermont D D D D R R R R
Virginia R R R R R R R R
Washington D D D D D R R R
Washington, DC D D D D D D D D
West Virginia R R D D D R D D
Wisconsin D D D D D R R D
Wyoming R R R R R R R R

Alex, did you know you rock?

Thanks for the info.

Alex prefers smilies when you agree with him, Sleepyjeff.

So your only example from the last ten years purports to claim that someone who observes the obvious racism of the Republican party is a racist by virtue of uttering said observation?

Robert Byrd lingers on, but I think those old southern Democrat types are now southern Republican types.

Because I believe that elections are in many respects about voting for who 1) makes you feel good about yourself and, even moreso, 2) who makes you feel better than the other guy, I won't call shenanigans if you make generalizations about the Democrat base.

I have explained why government is a devil with two dicks, haven't I?

I was born on a day, but it wasn't yesterday;)

Your assumption about the likely response from the right to a non-existent scenario.

SL, I don't disagree with you... but I think that to have a productive argument here, these kind of remarks are unnecessary. On Wednesday, I had a problem with scaeagles repeating a Biden gaffe and then saying "Something tells me if Palin did this...".

There are so many substantial things to argue about here - I think that generalizations about potential ethical comments don't play well for either side.

For me, I'd like to talk about things like this quote from McCain (Oct 2007 - pre-Rove), where he said: "I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't governor for a short period of time."

Granted, he was trying to beat Giuliani and Romney at the time, but it seems a little... what's the word? ... hypocritical.

I'm not trying to be unproductive (except, it appears, at my day job). However, I view these threads as discussions not just about the candidates and their merits in a vacuum, but about the larger phenomenon of the election, i.e., how the candidates manipulate the people, the people manipulate the candidates and how the media manages to remain neutral through it all.

McCain was on The View this morning apparently. Poor guy, these shows with like 5 hosts must be hard to handle. But a lot of great questions were asked. When there's a link on YouTube, I'll post it. ABC has the interview, but it's all chopped up.

Can't be too hard with Elizabeth Hasslebeck drooling all over him. ;)

I'm sure Whoppi and Joy Behar gave him some hell, though.

Well at least Obama is sticking with his message.

Does it bother you that McCain had to drop his entire campaign motto ("Experience you can count on") and adopt HIS OPPONENT'S CAMPAIGN MOTTO ("We need a change in Washington") after he selected his VP pick?

Here's the thing. Obama's said publically that the reason he picked Biden was because he wanted someone to discuss things with, to provide him with opinions, to be a voice, even if it doesn't always agree. In that way by picking Biden he chose someone with a lot of experience to help Obama get a second opinion... instead of picking someone just like him, who would agree with him on everything. I mean, that's what Bush did, and now he's got an entire Cabinet full of yes-men.

That is, Obama chose Biden for the purposes of helping him with his presidency.

McCain chosen Palin because she is a fresh face, charismatic, and a fundamentalist Christianist. She brings excitement to the campaign by galvanizing the conservative core of the party, a group he was having real trouble connecting with (he's changed his views over the years but conservatives still remember him as being quite liberal on abortion, etc.).

That is, McCain chose Palin for the purposes of helping him with his election.

By the way if anyone hasn't read it yet, Eve Ensler of the Vagina Monologues has an editorial up on Huffington Post giving her view on the Palin nomination.

Personally, I think we should treat Palin like Democrats treat Karl Rove; with derision, but without elevating Rove to anything more important than an adviser.

The bottom line is it was McCain's decision to choose her. The election boils down to do we want a 72-year-old man, who has had skin cancer numerous times, and whose body was broken many times (NOT NOT NOT "tortured" mind you---just used advanced interrogation techniques on, just like in GITMO)? I am just dumbfounded that people think this is even a serious question.

Well, some of us think the issues are more important than how old the candidate is or how many times he beat cancer.

:)

Yeah... Like the fact he wants to continue Bush's policies....

And I am dumbfounded that you seem to believe there were no political calculations in selecting Biden.

Oh I'll admit I'm sure he took into consideration those voters who questioned his resume.

I guess what I wasn't clear on is that I think the choice was made to ensure people during the campaign, that the presidency would benefit from teh VP nom.

I don't think I can say the same for the McCain/Palin ticket.

Are you familiar with the group "La Raza"? Big time political activists in Arizona, who proclaim the superiority of the hispanic race. It is safe to say based on their activities locally that they support democrat candidates.

What about The Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan? NO bigger jew-hating racist on the face of the earth. I'm thinking that he and his group doesn't vote republican.

What about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their Jew hatred? They dare to stand under the umbrella of equality, and I'm sure their supporters aren't on the republican side.

Yes, I know, the RNC was white. Very white. The African American and Hispanic constituencies vote overwhelmingly with the democrat side. African Americans who dare spout conservative ideals are ostracized, called names, told they are sell outs to their race.

I was sitting in a meeting where a hispanic man used the phrase "Jew him down" in terms of trying to get a better price. Incredibly offensive.

We can go back and forth on this all day. I realize the reputation of the republicans as racists. I do not subscribe to it. I am not a racist, nor do I know many. I realize no one here is claiming that I am.

Exactly! Which is why I'm voting for Obama.

I don't know if you know, but I'm not wholly against McCain. I just think someone like Obama only comes once in a generation (nacht, TWO generations, if not more), that I would be really doing myself a disservice if I just voted the way I normally vote.

That said, with Palin on the ticket I would be voting Democrat... even if we wound up selecting Hillary. /gulp

Hillary on the ticket would throw my vote with McCain. However, put a different R on the ticket and I'd vote Libertarian.

I thought that La Raza was too big to be that silly, and it seems that they're not. (I will agree that solidarity with Latino causes makes non-Hispanics roll their Rs too much.)

A discussion.

But, if I were part of a separatist organization, I'd probably vote for the party that welcomed me the least to fuel my cause.

Ditto.

Absolutely not. After all, it was Nixon who demanded the names of "all the big Jews" to solicit their support.

In "fairness" to Jesse and Al, black/Jewish relations are not what they should be and have not been for a long time.

Don't forget the Asians. When I worked at court in San Francisco, I would review transcripts of jury selection. If the defendant was black, the prosecution would try to kick off all the blacks, and the defense would kick off all the Chinese.

What a country.

So it doesn't "boil(s) down to do we want a 72-year-old man, who has had skin cancer numerous times"?

Good, I am glad to see that. But lets be honest; if McCain were 10 years younger but still held the same views he does today you would still vote for Obama(I would hope)?

For my part, if Obama was 72 and had just as many years in the Senate as McCain I'd still vote for McCain.....because when you get right down to it, it should not "boil down" to anything except who is going to do better job at championing your causes:)

Don't know how long these will be up:

McCain on The View Pt.1

McCain on The View Pt.2

McCain on The View Pt.3

No, McCain is too old for the job in my opinion. I have no problem saying that. Reagan was too old for it. George Bush (the first) would be too old if he tried to get his second term. My grandparents are too old for it. Allan Greenspan is too old for it. Warren Buffet is too old for it. Jack Welch is too old for it. Robert Byrd is too old for it.

It has nothing to do with whether I expect him to live through his term of office (I do), but simply the fact of the odds being so against him in terms of mental and physical decline through ones 70s and 80s and I'm not talking about actual dementia or senility.

If he were 62 instead of 72 I'd be a bit more likely to consider him (though he is still ultimately disqualified simply because the Republicans have flunked in their tenure and therefore should not be rewarded with continuing to hold that particular office). But I really don't have that big an issue with McCain; we disagree on major policy but that is true with Obama as well.


ETA: I was just picking old people out of the air with that list of people who are too old in my opinion. It may turn out that some of them aren't actually as old as I think they are. Feel free to point that out but it doesn't change the point of the sentence.

Racism is everywhere. It is not a monopoly of any group of people or ethnic group or political organization or whatever. Bad and backwards people are everywhere. I do not think, however, that racism is as prevalent in our society as it was 40 years ago.

Um, are you for reals? McCain/Palin got onstage and blatantly lied about Obama's policies and the republican base swallowed it whole. Apparently, the public will fall for anything and half the country will vote for someone who doesn't even have enough confidence in their base to assume that they are educated about both sides. Which sadly, they apparently aren't.

Um not sure what you are getting at here; I was saying the media will "discover" some bit of shocking news right before the election(just like they have in at least the past two elections) and you ask if I am for real:confused:

What's McCain/Palin lying(not that I am conceding that) on stage at the convention got to do with what I said:confused:

I beleie sleepy might be referring to GHWBush flying to Iran to delay the release of the hostages, and also GWBush and the forged documents reported by Rather.

.....and the BushII DUI on the very eve of the election; yeah, it was true, but c'mon, releasing the info the night before the election was crooked pool.

I am 100% confident it will be done again too.

Yeah! Thank goodness there aren't as many racist wife-beater-shirt-wearing people who stake hand-written lawn signs in their front yards!



Yes, it says MUSLIN.

Anecdotal evidence, but disgusting indeed.

Lacasse sounds like a winner (sarcasm intended, just so there is no mistaking that). Ick.

I'll bold the part I'm in disbelief at.


Do you deny that they lied? It's not hard to find the transcripts.

Anybody can answer this that wants to but I am specifically directing my question to scaeagles since he has in the past mentioned that a big source of his problems with McCain was his immigration stance and that he doesn't particularly trust his "saw the light" conversion in the primaries.

What are your thoughts on this ad? It is a Spanish language ad* criticizing Barack Obama for not supporting his comprehensive immigration reform bill. The one that almost tanked him early in the Republican primaries and the one that he has since (in English anyway) renounced. Does this call into question the bump you got from Palin's selection (since you have stated that the selection helped you feel his position changes might be sincere)?




* The ad is in Spanish. I don't speak Spanish. So I have relied on others to convey the content of the ad. I have checked a few sources and the -- generally pro-McCain -- comments on the video and they are all pretty consistent. However, if it turns out I was misinformed I'll readily admit it.

If McCain is back on the McCain - Kennedy crap I may very well not vote (for President). This has been an issue McCain has been playing both sides of, but after his comments about how he heard what the people were saying in terms of objections I had not heard that he was playing the other side again.

You have to go with your gut. Both candidates ... heheh, ALL candidates, are liars. You can't trust what they say ... you certainly can't put any faith in what they promise.

You have to go by your instinct, their history of actions, maybe their body language ... because the words they speak are next to meaningless.


In this regard, McCain has a long history to study. But one must study the actual history, and not what the candidate or the press have said about it. McCain's history has been completely distorted and romanticized by the press throughout his tenure in the Congress. Finding the truth takes more work than 99.372% of voters want to bother with.


Obama's got a history, too. It's less lengthy, but more easily examined. The press have only romanticized the last few years.

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin/Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton on SNL
So freakin' funny... and true.

I was just coming here to post that! I laughed so hard. Man, I love Tina Fey.

I'd also like to say that it made me kind of happy that I had to search posts over 24 hours old to come up with a political thread. It upset me too much to watch what was going on and what it was doing to people everywhere arguing about it, so I haven't been reading them for several days.

Hahah, that was teh awesome.


Well, I'm frankly scared freakazoidish that McCain and Palin are being swept into the Whitehouse by the deservingly delusional American public, and that Sarah P. will be our next after next president of the United States.






But ..... it will mean years of great comedy. ;)

Would you regard me as delusional?

Yes.

Misguided.

Misguided is cool. Calling voters who choose to vote for McCain delusional I don't think is. I have made generalizations about Obama voters before - not even about all Obama voters, but just certain groups of Obama voters - and have been raked over the coals for doing so.

Most McCain voters I know have thought about the choices policy wise and pick McCain because they prefer the policies proposed by McCain over the policies proposed by Obama.

I think McCain voters are delusional if they think that with McCain at the helm things will be different from the last 8 years. You're getting another Republican leader that will continue to sink this country deeper into debt and continue to pander to the religious right and corporate run media... only older this time. McCain is not a rebel or maverick, he may think he is but he walks lockstep with Bush Jr.

What I can't understand is why any intelligent, informed voter would choose McCain's policies; which the last eight years have shown to be a resounding failure.

Actually, I was referring to Palin voters as delusional. She is what's going to sweep McCain into office. Dumbass delusional Americans love her mythos of small town anybody becoming president. They like people as stupid as they are in the White House (witness the current idiot president who can't even coherenly speak English). More overwhelmingly, they fall in love with the myth that we are living in a different century, because that's how they wish the country still was.

Palin said in her acceptance speech, "We grow good people in our small towns. I grew up with those people. They're the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food and run our factories and fight our wars."

But it's simply not true. We haven't been a country of small towns for nearly a century. It's the suburbanites and city folk who do all the fighting and hourly wage work now, and the corporations who grow our food.


I don't necessarily think you personally are delusional, scaeagles, but this is the same small town values myth that swept your hero Reagan into office. Americans hate the way their country is ... but instead of voting to change it, they vote in line with Wishing It Away.


As a group, my fellow Americans make me ill.



As for McCain: What exactly is he going to change? He says he'll continue the Bush policies in nearly every area. Americans overwhelmingly say the country is on the wrong track. Yet they will vote for him for president ... and most of them, it seems, will be doing so in the hopes that he will die soon and leave Ms. Nobody at the helm of our government.


I'm going to puke.

Eve Ensler, the American playwright, performer, feminist and activist best known for "The Vagina Monologues", wrote the following about Sarah Palin.

Drill, Drill, Drill

I am having Sarah Palin nightmares. I dreamt last night that she was a member of a club where they rode snowmobiles and wore the claws of drowned and starved polar bears around their necks. I have a particular thing for Polar Bears. Maybe it's their snowy whiteness or their bigness or the fact that they live in the arctic or that I have never seen one in person or touched one. Maybe it is the fact that they live so comfortably on ice. Whatever it is, I need the polar bears.


I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.


But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.


I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover. But what is equally disturbing is the impact that duo would have on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. In my lifetime I have seen the clownish, the inept, the bizarre be elected to the presidency with regularity.


Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves. She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As she said herself of the Iraqi war, "It was a task from God."



Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not.



She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her daughter was practicing abstinence and we know how many babies that makes.



Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference. This is a woman who could and might very well be the next president of the United States. She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth.



Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.


Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be.



I write to my sisters. I write because I believe we hold this election in our hands. This vote is a vote that will determine the future not just of the U.S., but of the planet. It will determine whether we create policies to save the earth or make it forever uninhabitable for humans. It will determine whether we move towards dialogue and diplomacy in the world or whether we escalate violence through invasion, undermining and attack. It will determine whether we go for oil, strip mining, coal burning or invest our money in alternatives that will free us from dependency and destruction. It will determine if money gets spent on education and healthcare or whether we build more and more methods of killing. It will determine whether America is a free open tolerant society or a closed place of fear, fundamentalism and aggression.



If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, "Drill Drill Drill." I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain.



Do we want a future of drilling? More holes in the ozone, in the floor of the sea, more holes in our thinking, in the trust between nations and peoples, more holes in the fabric of this precious thing we call life?





Eve Ensler

September 5, 2008

This is exactly why every time someone on the left mentions "McCain" they have been told to mention "Bush". It was absolutely amazing watching Chuck Shumer on Meet the Press, because he talked about Bush more than McCain. Those campainging on the left must convince the center that McCain equals Bush and are trying everything to to run their campaign that way...if they fail, they lose, and they know it. It would seem as if, at least at present, McCain and his campaign are doing a good job overcoming that effort.


And remember....those 8 years of "resounding failure" vary in definition of why it has been considered a resounding failure (failure, I agree - resounding I don't). I am not a Bush fan for vastly different reasons than most here are not.

I can't understand why any intelligent, informed voter would want to go in the direction that Obama has proposed in many areas - except that they're different. Different does not equal better. We can each go through a broad spectrum of exceptionally learned people who support the candidate we support and oppose the candidate we oppose. Just because your reasoning leads you to a different conclusion does not mean that intelligent and learned people do not come to different ones than you do.

And really, Eve Ensler writing in opposition to Palin certainly does not affect my viewpoints....in fact, it probably strengthens my positives for Palin.

They mention it because it's true. If you really think McCain is a maverick who will be different than Bush, then you are delusional.


Eight years of Bush policies in the White house, six of them with the cooperation of a Republican Congress.... Pray, tell us what else it could be?

Let me see if I got this right: John McCain, who has a lifetime record of being a maverick, a thorn in the side of the Republican party in general and George Bush in particular is going to be "no different than Bush"

but...

Barrak Obama, who in his very short political career has made no attempt to rock the DNC boat says he plans to make big changes.......and you believe it.


I am delusional?

Really?

So far, both men have made a single Presidential decision; one chose a long time Washington insider to be his running mate the other made a bold(some might say "maverick") choice in someone who could not be more outside the beltway.

It's really too bad both these men can't win so we can compare their respective decisions and just see who is more about change and who is more about business as usual. Since we can't, we must go by their records and I could say I believe that anyone who thinks Obama has a better record of going against the flow of things is quite Delusional but I know better than to presume my world view is the only correct view so I won't.

;) /:)

As long as the Not/Bush ticket wins, we're all better off :)

Name calling, name calling. Tsk, tsk. I didn't think we were going to do that anymore. Thankfully I have a signature line. I'll just leave it at it's really sad that you have bought the entire democrat party line and are such a echo chamber for them.

I have an idea. Let's look at where the economy was prior to the dem takeover of congress in 2006. Dow above 14K, gas just over $2 gallon, enployment at 4.5%.....Reid and Pelosi have done such a stellar job! They have such incredibly high approval numbers as well. Obama will simply empower them to do more of the same.

Let's also look at how many times Obama hasn't voted the dem party line, and how many times McCain hasn't voted his. Let's look at how many times Obama has sponsored legislation with someone from the other side of the aisle vs. how many times McCain has, if Obama has sponsored anything at all....don't really think he has. Yet Obama is supposedly the one who will work with the other side of the aisle and bring about and end to partisanship. For Obama and the dems, an end to partisanship means do it the dem way without debate. Kind of like Pelosi shutting down debate on gas prices. Why talk about it if it isn't politically expedient?

Delusional? I don't think I am.

And how fortuitous that I have come across this anaylsis of voting records...yes, I'm sure that a Bush clone would have primary cosponsors of his legislation be membors off the dem party over half the time.

The Obama camp didn't want to comment? I find that amazing. Being that he is the candidate who is willing to work with the other side of the aisle to find compromises for the American people, surely, there must be some mistake.

Looking at it from another angle, it could be that Democrats are more willing to co-sponsor a Republican bill than for the reverse to be true.

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I'd be curious as to how many Republican bills Obama has signed on as a cosponsor to.

Interesting discussion. I wonder if the country as a whole is getting past the "personality" phase and back onto the issues.

I sure hope so, Moon.

He is claiming "change".......yet has no record of offering any such thing. McCain does have a record of being a maverick.


I am so jealous of the Democrats this year: No matter which candidate wins you will get someone who is more liberal than the last 4 Presidents........throw those of us on the right a bone and at least let us have the lesser liberal of the two:cheers:

I think by his mere presence Obama will be an agent of a lot change.

You're right, McCain *does* have a record of being a maverick against the Republican Party. But he had to buck up and change his tune to try to get the party to get behind him. He sold out a long time ago.

Also, as I've said before, the "change" I'm looking for is not one of "I'll screw my party by siding with the other side a lot" but rather, "I'll change the way things are done so that it is one again possible to disagree without hatred."

I fully expect Obama to pursue political policies that I disagree with at least half of the time (and likely much more often). All I ask is that I be able to do so without having to hate them or be hated.

I have no idea if Obama will succeed in accomplishing this. I just have no reason to believe that McCain would try, especially when running country from a position of power weakness.

No, he has a reputation for being a maverick, which is not quite the same thing. Go check his record for maverickdom and let us know, huh. Oh, and while you're at it, let us know the last two times he mavericked. Because if he's voted with Bush 90% over the past 8 years, I'm betting John's maverick days extend to beyond his memory days.



Something Alex posted a while back has me snarking in that general direction. Why would anyone want anybody who'd be 76 years old at the end of their term to be in charge of the United States government? Hmmm, maybe the same morons who want a complete and utter nobody to be next in line to a 76-year old geezer as the person in charge of the United States government. Sheesh.

^^^^ THIS. I *know* I'm not going to agree with a lot of the things Obama wants. That's OK for me, because I also know that he is going to encourage a lot of discussion from all sides. One of my biggest disappointments with Bush has been (besides appointing political favorites for important positions) is the whole secrecy thing, and hiding behind homeland security. If you don't agree, you're somehow siding with the terrorists. I mean, what about FOIA? Habeas Corpus? [In plain English, if you tell me I can't board the plane because my name is on the government watch list, I want to be able to say "Hey wait, that's not me, that's somebody else!" instead of being interrogated and body cavity searched, and treated like a criminal."

WOT?!?!?! Sacrilege! She has EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE and was both a mayor AND a governor!!!! She made commanding decisions and she has national military experience with the National Guard!!!!!!!!! Plus, she is a mom to five children and we all know that moms are the toughest jobs in teh world so we all know she will make a perfect prezidenttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111!!! In fact she is overqualified for the presidency!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111 1

This is a sincere question and not meant to be rhetorical.

How do you know this?

You have to pick the candidate who you agree with the most.

Since I enjoy having the ability to choose what I do with my body, and look forward to attending weddings of my gay friends, I choose to vote for Obama. Those are the two main issues I choose a candidate on. It may be shallow but those are my biggies.

I also am finding it harder and harder to respect people who think it's ok to take away those rights because their religion or personal moral compass says it's not ok. If you think abortion is wrong, don't have one. If you think same-sex marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex. McCain's administration is going to try and take away those rights, and frankly, to me, if you're voting for his ticket you're voting to take away rights of your fellow people and I just can't bring myself to respect people who want to oppress others.

While your issues are not shallow, BTD, I was wondering how Tenigma knows that he is going to encourage a lot of discussion from all sides.

And just to add, you don't have the right to do with your body what you want. The list is lengthy of the can'ts, including prostitution, various drugs, selling your kidney, not wearing a helmet while on bicycle in various communities, not wearing a seatbelt in a car, whatever.

McCain Spokeswoman says skit is sexist

Link You have to scroll down a bit.

If I choose to, I can be a prostitute, do drugs, sell organs, not wear a helmet or a seatbelt. I may have to pay a fine or do jail time, but I can do those. TYVM.

If you think animal abuse is wrong, don't abuse one.
If you think stealing is wrong, don't steal.
If you think infanticide is wrong, don't vote for Obama.

Did Obama change his position on same-sex marriage recently?


So forcing me, at the point of a gun, to work several months each year to support programs that I neither use or think necessary isn't oppressive?

I say anyone who thinks Obama represents less oppression than McCain is ...no, I won't say it.....I am better than that, much, much, better than that:cheers:

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound with those examples? Those effect others. What I choose do to with my body effects me. You have no right to tell me what to do with my body.

I think I need to walk away before I say something I may or may not regret later. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

How does abusing an animal "effect others"?

((Yes, this is a trap))

And just for the record, I can't support any of those restrictions on what you do with your body. From your list, that's prostitution and drugs, both of which I think should be completely legalized (though likeky with some sort of regulation). Now that I think about it ... selling your kidney should be legal, as should suicide.

Helmet and seatbelt laws do NOT govern what you can do with your body, but rather what you can do with a vehicle.


Furthermore, the premise of your statement is completely wrong. These are not things we don't have the right to do. These are things that are currently illegal.

I have a right to marry the man I love in California, but if I travel to Idaho I lose that right??? Um, no. The right may not be recognized, but it exists nonetheless. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were not brought into existence by the Declaration of Independence; they were just brought to the world's attention.

fixed.

Thank you.....I don't entirely disagree with your changes:)

And yes, sleepyjeff, I call shenanigans on the list of purported rights that do harm to other living things. No one is arguing for such rights, but rather for the right to conduct ourselves and ourselves only (perhaps in concert with those whose informed consent we gain, but in no event against another's will).


Pure and total shenanigans.



Try again.

You don't think anybody is arguing for the right to abortion (which I assume is what was meant by infanticide; admittedly nobody is in favor of infanticide they just disagree on the when the infanti- part applies)?

I'm fine with almost everything mentioned that doesn't directly harm another person (and no, I don't consider an unborn child a person, I just barely consider and actually born one a person) being legal. I have discussed before the great difficulty that animal cruelty laws cause me, that I can create an argument that doesn't entirely contradict my principles, but I pretty openly admit that it is a case of me mostly twisting to get a result that I like.

My only point was that there are, many, many laws about what one can do with and to onesself, not discussing the merits or lack thereof.

Why?

Um, that wasn't an actual suggestion. That was snark.

* * * *


and scaeagles, just to be clear, you wrote "rights", not "laws." There's a big, fat difference, and I've gone on quite a bit about what that difference is.

We all type imperfectly at times. But if your point was there are laws on the books about what we can do with our own bodies, I'm afraid I don't see the point of your point.

Can you be arrested for violating a right? I'm not talking rhetorically about yelling fire or some such thing. If I have the right to do to my body whatever I choose, than how can I have violated a law? If exercising a right means violating a law, then surely those laws are unconstitutional....and yet have never been so deemed (referring to prostitution, drug usage, whatever).

Seems contradictory, but I am indeed no legal scholar.

Of course you can be arrested for violating a right. That's among the reasons for the American Revolution in the first place. Many things we consider rights were arrestible offenses under the British.

So does the U.S.A. have it completely correct and the quest for freedom to enjoy human rights without fear or punishment is over? I think not.


We don't even have the extent of rights promised to us by the American Revolution. Much less the next step beyond ... which, some 232 years later, I'd say is quite overdue.

I agree, we don't have it right yet. What is then, the cause or delay in ruling on the constitutional issues of the violating laws?

I suppose I must look at it the same way you do.....I disagree with much of what the courts rule on as well.

Palin uses Yahoo email to conduct official business. And her Yahoo account was hacked.

For the record -

I think she was profoundly stupid to use a fairly unsecured email client such as Yahoo (or gmail or anything other than an official government email) to conduct government business on. I also think it was completely fvcked up to hack into her email account.

This was reported before. Palin and her top people used private email accounts on advise of counsel (or somone advisor anyway) on the theory it wouldn't be under the same requirements (sunshine laws, retention, subpoenability) as emails through the official government channels. Of course, this is security hole is a much bigger issue once this is known to the general world.

I'm curious, though, why they revealed her husbands email address in the article. There is no reason he wouldn't be using a private email address since he has no official government business to do.

The news is that her private email account was hacked, not that she has private email or that she uses it to conduct business so that the email cannot be subpoenaed.

I don't know about her husband, other than that apparently he attended a lot of her work meetings and people have mentioned that the Alaskan residents apparently voted for a co-governorship.

Re: Palin and the Yahoo e-mail

To me, use of e-mail with ads for travel agents at the bottom of the page shows a lack of professionalism. Same thing with:
- routinely cc'ing her hubbo
- bringing the baby to work
- hiring her high school friends
-calling her audience "guys and gals"

As for McCain, Elizabeth Drew, author of Citizen McCain has an opinion piece in today's Politico. Quick Quote: