Are there any other countries that are relatively warm and have a better political system and general standard of living than the U.S.? I'm really wanting some alternatives right about now.


I have been loathe to move away from my wonderful network of friends, but if it can work for Gemini Cricket ... I can somehow make it work for me. I want OUT of the United States, and I want to renounce my citizenship. Ugh, I need to take a shower every ten minutes in this country.


Please let's just have the election tomorrow.

Any chance of putting that picture in spoiler tags so it doesn't force horizontal scroll?

http://www.12retireinmalaysia.com/

Don't let the door ....well, you know:D

Thank you, Sen. McCain, for not choosing Mitt Romney as your running mate. :snap: His financial expertise would have made you look better during this crisis. Instead, your running mate is making you look worse.

The grass is always greener...

Or maybe that would be a good thing ;)

The problem with immigrating to another country is their immigration laws (yes, other countries actually enforce them). Also, a lot of countries give job preference to those who have citizenship/born there, so unless you have a specialty that is in high demand there you may find yourself without sustainable income.

Trust me. The snow of Nova Scotia seems really tempting sometimes... ;) but the job availability of a small fishing town is not good.

New Zealand's got no employment requirement.

There ya go Steve.

And now we'll all have a place to stay!

Hmmmm.

A New Zealander expat I know says that NZ govt is becoming more and more like US repub govt. I was talking about moving there to get away from here as well.

God totally told him he’s going to win.

No, no, no, it was Sarah Palin's ex-pastor! ;)

Jumping ship is giving up. You may just hit the water, look at the boat and say, "Hey, it's really not sinking and I'm all wet." Meanwhile, the people you left behind are contending with the issue that made you jump with one less person to help them.

While we're at it, I greatly dislike it when people say, "If you don't like America, then get out" or "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." It's okay to be unhappy with aspects of your country. That's where equality begins. No one owns the truth. Who are they to say you should leave? The response should be, "It's my country too. I want things to change."

Our friends who are currently living in Scotland (only temporarily, they'll be back here early next year) are also mentioning New Zealand if McCain wins.

To be honest, I don't know what I'd do in that possible event. I do still feel that blues should stay and fight to keep America balanced....but if in the wake of the Bush Admin we still can't elect a Democrat to the White House......???

I'm just afraid that after four years of McCain/Palin, there won't any place left in the civilized world that we won't be at war with...

So positivity, hope and change have expiration dates of 11/04/08?

The world continues on the fifth of November no matter what the outcome is. Life goes on... rah!

:)

Might I offer a 3rd way;

If you want to stay and fight move to a swing state. Otherwise might as well leave. I mean..... What can you do in California that you can't do from New Zealand or Malaysia?

Actually California is pretty much a purple state. As Alex has pointed out, local politics is red, national politics is blue.

I'm not leaving.
But I am moving as far away as I can from Washington DC and still be in the US of A.
:)

Um, wouldn't that be Alaska:D

Fair enough. But if the reason you are leaving or staying be because of the Party who is in charge of the White House........would it not be more effective to live in a swing state such as Ohio, or even Nevada?

Ex-Adviser: McCain "Blinked,"

Actually it would be the US embassy or military base nearest to the islands St. Paul and New Amsterdam.

Maybe living in Georgetown would be nice....how about Miami Beach?

http://www.penangproperties.com/

You assume the impetus is to fix things. I believer her point is that if the perceived disaster of the Bush administration isn't enough to prod a national course correction, perhaps it's time to give up.

iSm: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You'll only be trading some problems for others.

I suppose that's true.

The viability of polling has been discussed, but I will find it interesting to see what changes, or doesn't after the debate and spin this evening.

The latest polls here

I hear you can see Russia from there.
:D

And Putin rears his head over there, too.

She mentioned staying and fighting....I was offering her a way to do that more effectively.

You're just afraid that this discussion could land your but in Toledo:cool:

Unless you go to the very tip of the Aleutians, nope. And even there it's only about the same distance as Hawaii, not further.

There's a Jewish community group offering $50k to move to Alabama...

On a clear day......maybe someday they'll build a bridge. Imagine that, you could like drive from New York to Berlin via Russia:cool:

Are we there yet:eek:

There you go.....although I wouldn't consider Alabama a swing state just yet; maybe you and CP could be the vanguard.

GD & CP,

Don't.

Move.

To.

Alabama.

:D

G. Cricket, I'm curious ... technicality aside, does it feel like you're in the United States when you're living in Hawaii???

Phew, thanks for posting that. I was already packing my bags!

And remember; if you get pulled over by the Alabama Highway Patrol, just try to have a little fun with the officer, tell a few jokes, make fun of his hat....they like that kind of stuff;)

Succession!

No, no, no....then I'd have to move to Idaho.


I don't want to live in Idaho.

Then convert and move to Alabama.

In all honesty? Not really. I don't know how to describe it, but it feels like it's its own country. Maybe Lani knows how to put it...
You're welcome. That was a close call.
:D

Nope, even out at the end of the Aleutians you're about 800 miles closer to Washington, D.C., than when you're in Honolulu.

Blame Mercator.


Of course, if you include territories then Guam wins.

Governor Palin is all for that!

As the crow fly's....but what about a true straight line right thru the Earth itself?

Well, the difference in distance in that case won't be as large but by mathematical definition, assuming a perfect sphere, the line to Hawaii would still be longer.

And since the earth bulges slightly at the equator that would actually add to the Hawaii difference.

I'm trying very hard not to think of this as the "How far can we get from Moonliner" thread.

That makes sense. Thanks.

I'd need a bit more than $50,000 to move to Alabama......are there any similar programs for Lutherans to move to Rhode Island?

Ant antipodeal map:

Wow, I am impressed by the size of your, um, map.

Well, the world is a big place...

I would dig moving to Ohio to help with blueness. At least, I'd move to a blue county there. ;)

Of course, I only say this because I know nothing about Ohio. They have the Rock 'N Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. Yup, that's all I know. I don't know what a Buckeye is...

Reality check - I don't think I could live in the US and be that far from my family. Even San Fran would be too far.

In all honesty, I think I would rather live in a purple state than a red only or blue only state.

Well, with the depressed state of Ohio's economy, not to mention your proximity to beaches and any Disney park. That would scotch it, I think! ;)

oh, and that pesky "Winter" thing.

I vow never to live anywhere where it snows again.

AND to prevent the inevitable correction, yes, I know the Big Island has snow. But I mean like the Boston winter snow... which I hear is not as bad as Ohio's, Wisconsin's etc.

My daughter goes to college in Ohio. This will be her first presidential election and she's voting in Ohio. Every drop in the bucket helps.

Don't forget the football hall of fame in Canton.

Ohio has Cedar Point, King's Island, and not a single other redeeming quality.

Snow? Ah right, I forgot, I'm a spoiled Southern CA child.

I'm also too lazy to move anywhere. I like our place.

If you haven't heard about the roads in Russia, I recommend you read a book called "Investment Biker" or the follow up "Adventure Capitalist". By a guy who's actually driven around the world... twice.

Not to worry, Moonie. I'll stay here and fight. Sometimes on your side. (Just not right now ;))

This is from Cafferty's show on CNN. He rips Palin a new one. The clip he shows made me cringe. I thought watching Bush was bad!

Definately cringe-worthy.

If she weren't running for vice-president, I'd almost feel sorry for her.

What I find inexcusible is that it is becoming clearer and clearer that she is not only lacking in experience but that she also seemingly has no knowledge of current events. Does she ever read a newspaper? Does she ever watch the news (even FOX)? She should, at the very least, be marginally informed. Watching her being interviewed gives the impression that she barely even knows what is going on...let alone has any breadth of knowledge about current events. Read a damn newspaper for God's sake! :rolleyes:

Chuck Hagel for President!

Waaaaaay cuter, that Chuck Hagel. McCain is ugly and his mother dresses him funny.

Radio talk show host Ed Schultz reports:

Ouch. Seriously ouch. I almost feel sorry for Jeff and Sceagles.

I never take "unnamed" sources seriously.

However, it could be orchestrated to lower expectations and make any performance that isn't completely clueless into a victory. Very common to lower expectations.

Interesting- I seem to recall you taking the Enquirer's story on Edwards pretty seriously, and it was chock-full of 'unnamed sources' and 'close friends'.

(They are now reporting that Sarah has a secret lover!)
;)

No - nothing unnamed about the Edwards story. It was photograpahic evidence and a reporter catching him.

Be honest. Would you take something I linked to from a radio talk show host even remotely serious?

Be honest. Do you actually believe that after watching her interview with Couric that Palin remotely knows wtf she's talking about?

I read she had an affair with her husband's "business associate."

More here.


True or not, the McCain/Palin public relations problems just keep getting worse and worse.

Oh, really?

National Enquirer Edwards story

John Edwards is caught in a shocking mistress scandal that could wreck his campaign, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

Sources have come forward to charge that the "other woman" previously worked on Edwards' campaign and followed the 54-year-old candidate on trips across the U.S.

A source close to the woman, whose name is being withheld by The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, says that she confessed to having an affair in phone calls and emails, saying that her work with Edwards soon exploded into romance. The shocking allegation — if proven true — could devastate the [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Democratic[/color][/color] hopeful's campaign, especially because John's devoted wife Elizabeth is locked in a desperate battle with breast cancer.

"The affair started about 18 months ago," a friend says the woman confessed to her. "When they met at a bar, sparks flew immediately."


:D

Republicans never let the truth get in the way of a good smear.

The Enquirer has gone out on a legal limb and named names:

Palin's Affair

"Palin has vehemently de*nied cheating on her hus*band, and Hanson insisted to The NATIONAL ENQUIRER that he was never romantically in*volved with the 44-year-old Republican vice presiden*tial candidate.

However, Hanson family insider, Jim Burdett, has gone on the record and passed a rigorous polygraph test, revealing de*tails of the affair to The NATIONAL ENQUIRER in a world exclusive interview."


This time, they actually name a source......

Hmmm.

Affairs, drunk driving, drug use, vandalism, underage drinking, teenage pregnancy...

Nothing like a good, God fearing, conservative family that lives their lives based on biblical principles. :rolleyes:

And the ultra-conservatives love this woman why?




And lest you knock the fact that it's The National Enquirer reporting these stories, even The National Review admits that NE seems to get it right most of the time.

Named sources always mean more to me than unnamed.

Regarding Edwards - the reason I mentioned the story was that they had a reporter at the hotel and had cornered him in a bathroom stall after he came out of her room. I don't believe - though I might have - that I went into anything about the time line. Only that he was caught.

And JW - how is it that Edwards was smeared? Was he not caught doing exactly what he was accused of? Are you suggesting that the Enquirer has a republican slant and try to smear dems?

There have been plenty of smears regarding Palin. I guess dems never let the truth get in the way of a good smear.

Here's my plan for the V.P. debate ...
 

Every time Palin says she’s a maverick/ McCain is a maverick/ she's a reformer or mentions the word or concept of reform/ she wags her finger, I donate $5 to Obama's campaign.

Hmm, yeah, I guess it isn't a smear seeing as Edwards was guilty as charged. So was McCain, so was Clinton, so was Newt Gingrich, so have been so many of our cherished leaders. If it ends up being the case with Palin, it won't have the slightest effect on my opinion of her qualifications as VP/ potential P. really, it won't even be that much fun to snicker about. People in power fvck around - that's not very surprising or interesting. Still, I will give her the benefit of the doubt for now, while I go make a BACON lettuce and tomato sandwich.

You are right, Flippy.

I do wonder, though, but haven't the time to look for a study.....do the wealthy and/or powerful typically have affairs more often than a middle calss working Joe? Probably. I'd be curious as to the percentages.

I've heard it said that power is an aphrodisiac, so I bet that people with power have far more opportunities (and invitations) to stray than us working class shmoes.

Finally remembered to respond to this.
My next question would be - what about the days when people were ostracized for such behavior? I know that tell-all rags have been around for as long as America has existed, and that tea-rooms have been filled with lewd gossip forever...but still, when these indiscretions were aired in the newspapers, it means certain career death for those involved.....didn't it?

According to Tom Leykis - that's what women are into. Power and money.

And I have to agree to some extent - a guy can get away with being less good looking if he's got money and power. Those can definately add a certain amount of sexiness that's lacking in overall looks. So can a slight edge of danger. Or maybe that's just me the whole bad boy thing.

Lessee, I got no power, no money, I'm average looking at best - Yeah, I've really got to shake this nice guy crap. (I could start acting more like Tom Leykis - he's a real jerk.)

So, with all the debate prep she's being subject to, how come the brilliant Ms. Palin can't seem to get the Ticket's Talking Points thru her pretty skull?

In response to a question asked by a civilian on Saturday, "Do you think we should cross the border into Pakistan to fight terrorists there," she said (and I heard this in her own voice), "Absolutely. If the terrorists are in Pakistan, we should absolutely go in there and get them."


Did she not bother to watch the debate on Friday where McCain exoriated Obama for saying he'd make cross-border raids into Pakistan? Forget for a moment that he misrepresented Obama's stance, he made a big deal about what a mistake it was to SAY that OUT LOUD. Then his running mate goes and says that out loud the very next day.



She didn't even qualify it, as Obama did, to say that "if Bin Ladan, if top lieutenants of al Queda or the Taliban are in our sights, and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to act, then we should ..." No, Palin said unqualifyingly, "Absolutely, we should go in there and get them."




Go ahead, kool-aid drinkers, defend that. I dare you.

Steve, you and I both know that they'll just dismiss it or explain it away with some lame excuse; or they'll try and smear the source. That's how Republicans work nowadays; never admit you are wrong, and the truth must bend to support the party's position.

I can't. Poor thing to say. And wrong.

Although, I will admit to trying to come up with some justification just becuase you wrote "I dare you". I'm not one to shy away from such things.:)

Edited to add - and after posting this and reading JW's post, I REALLY REALLY want to say something to justify it.

Do it. I double dog dare ya.

Can a candidate dump their VP choice once the early voting beings? ie. I hear Ohio can start voting tomorrow.

Aside from Tina Fey's compulsory Palin impersonation, Saturday Night Live has sucked, imo, thus far in its first few episodes.

There have however been a few bright spots. Weekend Update is one. But there was a sketch in the James Franco show that is getting a lot of ink that I thought was hilarious and I think is getting a raw deal.

It's getting a lot of flack because it supposedly implies that Palin's husband is engaged in incest with their daughters. If you've seen the sketch, you'd know that the reality is they were trying to make fun of the NY Times, and others, for shoddy, sensationalist reporting. Unfortunately the writing for that particular joke was REALLY bad and it came off totally wrong. Dumb that people can't figure out what they really meant, but I understand what the confusion is.

But what really sucks is that the rest of that sketch was hilarious and, ironically, a pretty good jab at us liberal city dwellers. The basic premise was that the reason Palin was vetted so poorly by the media before McCain announced her was that reporters from the lower 48 were too scared to go to Alaska and survive without their lattes for 2 weeks and the absurd sterotype image they've got of Alaska. But because people have decided it's offensive to have suggested incest (even though it was really trying to show how retarded it was to suggest incest), the clip isn't available anywhere. :(

Yep, that's why I loved hearing it in her own voice, and the question came from a voter, not from the press.


Anyway, I appreciate scaeagles' response (as well as the urge to challenge the dare ;) )

Palin pretty much returns the favor. She absolutely does not represent rural people all over the United States.

I enjoyed both Fey skits and the Bill Clinton skit during Weekend Update last Saturday. But I gotta tell ya, I didn't like anything else. SNL is stinking right now. I got what they were trying to do with the NY Times skit, but I didn't find it funny. And it had nothing to do with the subject matter, it was just dull.

I can't tell if Tina Fey's portrayal of Palin is helping her or obliterating her.

Maybe it's because I've been to/have family in Alaska that I connected with it. I mean, they had me laughing immediately with, "Okay, how many of you don't know how to drive a stick shift?" Seriously dude, NY Times reporters would be toast in two days in Alaska.

But yes, really really crappy writing overall on the show. Except for the final sketch on that James Franco show (the Willem Defoe sketch). That was damn funny and I gotta wonder how much truth there was to it.

Oh, and the Of Mice and Men alternate ending. Hahahah.

She doesn't need Fey's help, she's obliterating herself quite efficiently.

I'd love to go to Alaska. Unfortunately, I can't take a cruise up there. But I'd love to see it.

The debate sketch was just okay, too. The McCain guy was dead on, the Obama guy not so much. He got the 'start every sentence with "look"' thing down but that's about it. And there was a ton of things they could have made fun of when it came to the first pres debate. 1. The whole 'I have a bracelet too' thing. 2. McCain and his Sharpie. 3. Jim Lehrer's looks to each candidate. I found a couple of them comedic. 4. McCain just barelling through not letting anyone else talk. 5. McCain's bad tie. 6. Obama's huge smile. 7. McCain's tribute to Kennedy could have been milked... So much material there unused.

I think Fred Armisen's impression was contrived during the primary season with the intention of making Obama look stupid in order to boost Hillary. Now, they're stuck with it.

I would say yes, because technically a vote is for electors committed to a particular presidential candidate, not the actual candidate.

--t

A much needed laugh for today
 

Attachment 724


:D

Great one, Snow!:snap:

So I was reading up on the 2nd Tina Fey sketch and heard that she used actual quotes from Palin. So, I looked at (listened to, actually) the full Couric/Palin interview. It was painful, painful to experience. I was so embarrassed for Falin' Palin.

Yeah, you know, I think I've finally fallen in love with a chick. Her name is Tina Fey. I want to have her babies or how ever that works.

Because I'm awake, bored and well, it's damn funny:

The Time Quote of the Day today is a picture of Palin with this quote:

I've had a crush on Tina Fey for a long time now.

And he's looking forward to meeting you, Palin. Of that I am super sure.

Of course, Karl Rove told her to say this.

Particularly funny given the age of her running mate, when did she hear of John McCain? The snark in me thinks, not before June 2008. ;)

The snark in you makes a very funny observation. :D

Aren't we all...aren't we all?

I'm popping a big bowl of Orville Redenbacher's. :D

Um.... Why would a second grader in Alaska have heard about a (very) Jr Senator from Delaware?

Oh, don't be silly. Palin is just trying to audition for her role as a member of the SNL cast.

Because being up to date on current events has been a passion of hers since she was a young girl. :p

Viral Email raises money for Planned Parenthood in the name of Sarah Palin.

Diagraming the Sentences of Sarah Palin.

In conclusion....
:)

An exchange from the most recent Palin-Couric exchange:

I'm so excited about tomorrow. :D

Sceagles, I thought of you when I ran into the following article from Spiegel in Germany:

America Loses Its Dominant Economic Role

...

This stuff is horrendous... horrendous what has happened to us. This is a GLOBAL world. We have GLOBAL markets, GLOBAL issues. We've been the last superpower, and we've been squandering it away. You might not personally care what some Gaston thinks in Paree, but all of this affects all of us in the U.S.; our economy, our influence, world politics, etc.

I have to say, if you still think that how we are viewed by the rest of the world is not relevant, then you sir, are living in the 20th century, as a Monroe doctrine isolationist.

What will the rest of this planet think of us when we elect a 72-year-old senior citizen with his hottie trophy VP who appears to be completely disengaged from the world?

Indeed. It is a global world. I find all of this amusing, because the European housing and credit markets are in largely the same condition. In fact, I beleive we're going to be getting healthier long before they do, as is evidenced by the amazing surge recently of the dollar against the Euro. If Americans are paying the price for their pride (which is not all together untrue), what are the Europeans paying the price for as they experience much of the same?

I am most certainly not an isolationist, and to call me such is rather ignorant of my views that have been clearly stated over the years on this board because I have always supported US influence in the rest of the world. I am pro NAFTA, pro Gulf War I and II, pro free trade (NAFTA being north American only I am listing this separately), pro Israel, pro NATO, Russian expansionist aims concern me....I could go on and on and on.

I make NO apologies for not being concerned about what "Gaston thinks in Paree" when they have so many bass ackwards policies there, which if I am critical of I seem to be a target of ridicule and accused of being too nationalistic....yet criticism of American problems (when a large portion of the free world is experiencing the same thing) is gospel when coming from Gaston.

No apologies whatsoever. What the rest of the world thinks is not what concerns me overall, because I think the rest of the world is more often than not screwed up in their thinking.

But there you go again, scaeagles. Trying to excuse the problems of the United States by crying to mommy, "but Europe did it, too."



For all you know, "Gaston" could go on in the next sentence to ridicule Algeria, Japan, Malaysia and then his native France. But it doesn't matter if he does or not. If everyone is a thief and a liar, does that make it ok for me to be a thief and a liar??

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

In my post there is NOTHING about excusing the US at present, nor have I portrayed it as such. I am simply saying that their criticism of the US in this current fiscal crisis is laughable when they are experiencing their own crisis in the same financial markets.

We have problems of our own making. Europe has problems, too. So I am to take the criticism of Europe seriously when they have the exact same thing going on? NO WHERE did I justify ANYTHING going on. I'm laughing at the criticism from them because of it.

I did not say our problems are excusable because of their problems. I said their criticism of our problems is laughable because of their own.

Why are you obsessed with the source of the criticism? How does the source make or not make criticism valid?


People often ridicule the pot calling the kettle black ... but it's almost always the pot who knows best about the blackness it sees in kettle.

Scaeagles, your criticism of Gaston seems a little dishonest now that the Republicans have a VP nominee who uses antlers in all of her decorating.

My point, ISM, is that I don't know why I'm supposed to care about what the Europeans (or whomever) think about us because of the current situation when they are in fact in the same situation.

It is not that I consider criticism of our situation to be invalid,nor have I said so. I'm just wondering why I should care about what others think about us because of it when they are doing the exact same thing. It's like a heroin addict pointing at another heroin addict talking about how pathetic they are. Both are pathetic and the one talking about how pathetic the other is might need to realize they are no better.

Yes, we're both heroin addicted and pathetic. But I don't care if the other pathetic losers think we're pathetic losers, too.

That was just brilliant, SL! Visible mojo.
:D

Except it didn't use to be that way. It used to be that when other markets were faltering, they'd be looking to us for help. I think it IS significant to note that the rest of the world appears to have diminished respect for our economic stature, especially in a world where we are increasingly reliant on world consumer confidence. It's not about whether we're having the same problems as everyone else, it's about whether we are still perceived as the economic leaders of the world. Economics is 100% perception. Money has no value unless people think it has value.

That's not to say that a few individual opinions are absolute proof of anything, but if we want to get back on a path to recovery, you have to look at more than market indexes and exchange rates. The dollar may have gained a bit of strength in recent weeks, but if there's a growing perception of weakness it will not last.

scae: because no matter how much we think their opinion doesn't matter, it does, and it does affect us, financially, militarily, and otherwise.

Case in point - when Poland is perceived as weak, it gets invaded.

Really, scaeagles. We're not saying you should necessarily care because of the FACT that our reputation has sufferered, but rather because there are tangible effects of that diminished reputation.


Set aside that you don't care about what the pot thinks of the kettle. Does it bother you if the pot won't cooperate with the kettle in the kitchen because the kettle's turned black (and no one recognizes black quicker than the pot)??

Excellent post.

There are many experts who have been bearish on the US economy in the long term. Knowing that, and seeing it come true, bothers me, because they also didn't see much hope for us regaining our stature.

I don't believe for a second that the pot isn't going to work with the kettle. This is all opportunistic bluster, IMO.

Europe in particular has been openly trying to challange the US as the economic leader of the world.... I believe the some french official said they wanted to be a counter balance to the US. Thus the Euro, the European Union, etc, etc, etc. This is a chance for them to play international politics and criticize that which they wish to replace. You will counter that this isn't about the leadership of Europe, but about the people, but the leadership sets the policies.

This is why I lend no credence to it. They want to be in the position we have occupied, so of course they will criticize us.

The position we occupy? In massive debt to the rest of the world, unable to afford our own labor costs, and an insurmountable trade deficit? Oh yeah, I'd sooooo envy us too.

BTD for VP!

But I can't see Russia from my house!! Though I've been to Canada and Mexico.


Someone has to update the debate on twitter, or text me. This is going to be bad. More Couric Interviews

I like this one:

Last night's Letterman
 

Top Ten Things Overheard at Sarah Palin's Debate Camp


10 "Let's practice your bewildered silence"

9 "Can you try saying 'Yes' instead of 'You betcha'?"

8 "Hey, I can see Mexico from here!"

7 "Maybe we'll get lucky and there won't be any questions about Iraq, taxes, or health care"

6 "We're screwed!"

5 "Can I just use that lipstick-pit bull thing again?"

4 "We have to wrap it up for the day -- McCain eats dinner at 4:30"

3 "Can we get Congress to bail us out of this debate?"

2 "John Edwards wants to know if you'd like some private tutoring in his van"

1 "Any way we can just get Tina Fey to do it?"

Or, watch it here

Funny, but inaccurate. Lincoln was never a Senator. He served one term in the House.

While it's not directly related to the global economy, one thing I want to mention is the little personal anecdote Obama gave during the first debate, about how his father did everything he could to come to the U.S., and how the U.S. is no longer looked upon as the beacon for people to come to.

I caught a snippet of the Laura Ingraham show, where a female caller said Obama was absolutely wrong, because we still have a ton of illegal immigrants trying to cross into the border.

I agree we still have a lot of people wanting to come here, but I think a lot of what's driving that is economic. What Obama was talking about was people wanting to come here for ideological purposes; people seeing America as the home of the free, where you can make your dream come true. When other countries snort and disrespect our country, we lose footing as the "beacon of freedom" that people want to flock to.

Some might think that's a good thing--less immigrants. But I'd like to continue to think of us as the good guys. Not the scary fundamentalist Christianist country so afraid of terrorists that our government thinks it's OK to ship suspects to foreign countries to be tortured.

Oh one thing... I give McCain credit for being expressly against torture, but I bet Obama will be much faster about closing GITMO, stopping extraordinary rendition, stopping "advanced interrogation techniques" and other horrendous things we do to people, many of whom aren't even formally charged. How does that stuff make us the good guys?

Well, with all due respect, we were NEVER the good guys. We simply fooled the rest of the world and our own people into thinking so.

The armed forces, the spy agencies, the government on every level have always been corrupt and evil.



It's just no longer a secret.

Palin turns back into a pitbull tonight
 

or so her campaign people are saying

Palin’s new plan: Go after Biden
Mike Allen
Full story with Biden's plans, etc. is here

Hey guys, don't forget to print up your very own "Sarah Palin Bingo" cards for the debate over at http://palinbingo.com

There's a guy who came up with more cards if you need, too:

http://davidgrenier.com/palinBingo.php

Wow, where IS everyone?

What did you guys think of the debate?!?!?

I think she was able to recite her memorized lines real gud!!!!

We have a debate thread, but I don't think you'll see much action there either.

It was a snoozefest.


Actually, the person I was most disappointed with was Gwen Ifill.

I thought McCain's comment about Biden being "ready to gaffe" was pretty funny. But Biden didn't, which made it funny in a different way.

It seems that immediately after watching debates, I have no urge to dissect it online. I don't even log on to the LoT that night. They wear me out, blech.

Making its rounds on the internets (click for a bigger piccie):

Posted in my LJ:

I realize Rolling Stone doesn't have nearly the impact it did say 20 years ago, but this article is a real eye-opener.

Apparently the there's buzz in conservative circles of this being McCain's swift boat:

"Make-Believe Maverick: A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty"

This article is long, but I encourage you to read it. It's a pretty detailed history of McCain. It names names, and actually has quotes from these named people (military colleagues and the like).

I found his attitude about war and violence to be the most surprising. It's one thing to hear that they want to "win the war" and another to read that he actually encourages going to war. Ouch ouch ouch. If you aren't scared yet, you should be.

Time to make sure everyone you know is registered to vote. Including your dog [pit bull, of course].

PS: I'm seeing quite a few comments from people on the right who say the Rolling Stone should stick to reporting about music. Apparently these people are utterly clueless about the societal/political articles the magazine has been publishing for decades.

I have come to the conclusion that I will not be voting for McCain. I will be abstaining.

It isn't for any reasons the people here despise the man or his running mate, though some of the criticisms certainly come into play. Those have little effect on me, and anti McCain rhetoric is everywhere. It is rather what he says and does all by himself. I didn't mind his call to end the campain and go to Washington to work on the economic bailout (which sickens me in what it became, though that in't his fault - it is the fault of the despicable politicians everywhere, and the fault of Bush who is so deperate to sign anything that I don't know if I can truly blame the pack of scavengers out to get what they think will get them reelected by bribing their constituencies).

I don't think I can point to any one thing. He is no conservative. Palin may be, but that is of little concern to me, regardless of how well I thought she did overall in the debate. He will be just as bad for this country, if not worse, than Obama (please do not interpret this as in any way being supportive of Obama). I fear for this country no matter which of these men wins because they are both so horribly misguided.

My hope is that, in an Obama victory, the true conservatives will once again have a revival of the conservative ideology. I only hope that irreparable socialist damage is not done to the country prior to that.

The last straw? When he said he would ask Al Gore to head up the US efforts in working with the world on climate change. That is just one offense of far too many for me any longer.

Believe me, Obama and Biden make me sick as well. I just cannot bring myself to vote for McCain. Something may happen to change my mind, but I doubt it. He will win AZ so it amounts to a protest vote for me. Or more properly a lack of a vote in protest.

I can not bring myself to even think about politics anymore. While I'm sure I'll end up in here anyway, I don't know if I can even bring myself into these political discussions anymore. I can find almost nothing to be supportive of McCain on, and my criticisms of Obama have been typically not welcome.

May God bless the USA, because I don't have one ounce of optimism about where this country is headed. There is no one whom I believe is capable of leadership that is in or potentially in the position to do so. Not Obama, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Clinton, any nameless republican leader (I can't even name one off the top of my head) in the house or senate....they are all crooks, liars.....politicians. All power hungry and against each other in bitterness and spitefulness, wallowing in their pathetic 9% congressional approval ratings and 30% Presidential.

Forgive my vomitous rantings. I truly am sick and defeated. I used to care. I just don't anymore.

I can certainly appreciate where you are coming from, Scaeagles- I really can. I still have a little bit of hope- not a lot, but enough to see me through one more campaign, barring any unforeseen occurrences. I'm sickened by the whole pork laden mess of a bailout, and everyone I know (Republican or Democrat) is as well. These politicians are in for a surprise come re-election. Our country is a mess, and I don't think it's going to get better anytime soon. I have a feeling the next president is going to have a horrible time of it, regardless of who wins the election.

Wow, scaeagles and i are both protestation abstaining from voting for our respective party's candidates in state's where they each have a total lock.


The similarities are eerie.

hey here in France we've got French friies and Pizza with Mc Cain brand



would you like to eat a Mc Cain tonight to taste . I can ship a Mc Cain if you d like lol

Wow Sceagles. I can really hear the anguish in your voice. It must have been heart-wrenching to have to come to your conclusion.

What if they gave an election and nobody came?

(Actually, there's probably an answer for that in each state's rules for choosing electors in case of a tie.)

OMG, I'm about to encourage a conservative to vote.
 

I think the decision not to vote is boneheaded. This election is not about the candidates themselves. It's about the war, health care reform, and economics. Surely you can vote about those, even if you can't get behind a candidate.

Now back to my favorite subject: Gov. Palin. Don't you hate that term "Joe Six Pack"? Especially since her state of Alaska has dismal stats on alcohol abuse and its Medusa-hair of related problems: drunk driving, suicide, sexual assault, fetal alcohol syndrome ...

As my husband says, "Six beers is drunk, Governor Palin".

Nah ... i always think of a dude with good abs. :cool:





And I respectfully disagree about abstaining to vote for president, as I will be doing. That's NOT the same as abstaining to vote. I WILL be voting in this election, just not for the candidate I support from the choice of two. Since there's no way Obama can lose my state, I can "afford" for the sake of the war, healthcare, etc., to vote my conscience. BTW, I do not support Obama's stance on lots of important issues, the War first amongst them. He cannot get my vote when that vote won't matter a whit.

Now I remember you're a Biden fan, iSm. Me, too.

The choice not to vote is also a choice. Election Boycots happen all over the world, especially to protest sham choices.

I see your Jean-Paul Sartre and raise you an Albert Camus. :snap:

Ugh... Just, ugh.

Proof that a vote for McCain is a vote for the same Republican nastiness we've seen for the last 8 years.

I see JW's ugh and I raise him a Fey. And when I say 'Fey' I don't mean my mannerisms.
:D

A decision not to vote is just as valid as voting for either candidate. It is not the same as apathy. It is saying that both these choices are so aweful that they are not worthy of my vote.

I am not boneheaded. ISM is not boneheaded.

Should I come on here and say the decision to vote for Obama was boneheaded, even without mentioning anyone specifically, I would be called out, so I am calling 3894 out for calling both ISM and me boneheaded.

That was hysterical. (The SNL bit, not Leo's post.)

Here's what I posted:

There is a difference between saying a decision is X and saying a person is X. I consciously worded my post like that because, although I believe your decision is boneheaded, I do not believe that you are. You as a person and your political beliefs are not the same thing. My wording was not an attempt to weasel in a personal insult.

I do understand if your feelings are hurt. That was not my intent. I am very interested in why/how anyone could possibly not vote in this presidential election. This one is for the soul of America.

My feelings weren't hurt, 3894, but I certainly appreciate what you are saying and do thank you for your clarification. I just have no doubt that should I say the decision to vote for Obama was boneheaded, the posts in response would be vitriolic.

By not voting for either, what I am saying is that I'm tired of the crap choices we're supposed to support. What would make an INCREDIBLE statement is if the country as a whole had the attitude ISM and I do now (good lord, no wonder I'm depressed.....:) ) that we are going to vote but not support either candidate. Can you imagine what it would say if voter turnout at the polls was 70% but only 35% of those who voted made a vote for President? THAT would shake things up mightily.

This may very well be an election for the soul of America. I believe each of the candidates takes the soul straight to hell, and so by not voting, I make a(teeny tiny though it may be) statement that I am sick of the crap I'm supposed to vote for. That's more an indictment of the republican candidate from my standpoint than it is the dem.

When both of you guys move to a state that's actually in play, then it will be a principled stand. You each have a possible worse outcome in mind between the two main candidates. Your principles are free riding on the efforts of others who make that outcome in your state unlikely.

Which would be okay, IMO. This election inspires passion. Right now, this country is polarized.

The New York Times has an interesting opinion dealio about Palin by Frank Rich. Apparently, there is some talk about flipping the ticket, making Palin the top and McCain the vice-president. Quick quote:

True, the situation in their own states does affect their decision, and that decision in a state like Florida means something different. They have luxuries the others don't have, and I am glad you mentioned this. It's a good thing for non-voters to keep in mind.

Yet, we don't vote in a vacuum. Their decision makes sense for them in their states, and I can dig that, as I've been an abstainer for many years...though with the situation kinda flipped, as I leaned red but didn't worry about my state going blue.

You condone vitrol? I'm not a fan, myself.

Visible mojo for scaeagles, since I can't mojo you. I'm surprised that tapping Al Gore was the last straw....but I admit my inability to understand your politics. :) I agree, your decision not to vote is a decision, as is iSm's.

To anyone who is feeling down about the future...I suggest you read the book I'm reading, about the next generation of politics. Hmm, actually, probably not good for scaeagles. But in the perspective of history, maybe it will make you feel better anyway.

It may be a good read but be wary of books that find patterns in history and then project them into the future. That is a very popular type of book/research, but the success rate at successful prediction is low.

I am fully aware I sound pretty gullible, but the book talks about prior generational predictions and shows how they have borne out. This concept has been popular for study from the "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment onward, and analyzes why people felt they didn't work....but yeah, I'll stop now.

This was actually rather thought provoking for me (not the usual just skip over want Strangler has to say :) ). You are indeed correct. I do have a possible worse outcome, but I think the victory of Obama is better in the long run for the conservative movement. I believe McCain will clearly be better in one area than Obama, being national defense, and that is the only reason I am not voting for Obama. I see Obama right out of the Jimmy Carter book of destroying the military, and in these times, that cannot be allowed to take place.

Convince me that Obama won't destroy our military capability, cut vital weapons programs, cut the size of our forces, or capitulate in the name of getting along.....and perhaps I'd vote for him. This is how far McCain has fallen in my view.

By the way, hell is still a very hot place, from what I understand, regardless of my last few posts, this one in particular.

The case has been made, you choose not to believe the case. Biden made the case in the debate. Obama and the people who advise him have demonstrated time and again over the past decade that they understand the concept of consequences. They accurately predicted the result of the war in Iraq (sectarian violence, significant commitment and sacrifice on our part, and a bolstering of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan due to our resources being tied up elsewhere). Wheras McCain and those that advise him said it would be easy, that we could just ignore Afghanistan since we've already clearly won there, and that it would be a war against Al Quaeda.

So who's ideas have done more to weaken our military? The camp that seems to have a pretty good handle on where we should be fighting and what those fights might look like, or the camp that thinks war is a game that's won by running in as fast as you can and blowing sh*t up, who cares if you're actually fighting the right enemy, or if you're adequately prepared, or have any idea of what might be involved in running that war.

Biden lied a few times regarding that as well (I can list them specifically if I need to). Obama was against the surge, poor judgement indeed. Biden was adament that Obama was not prepared to be commander in chief prior to joining the ticket. Politics then? Perhaps. But true nonetheless.

Weakening the military also includes cancelling weapons programs, which I don't believe McCain would do.

Choose not to believe them? Well, considering they are poorly presented arguments, yeah, I don't believe them.

I'll let GD defend his arguments.

I suppose you wouldn't be one to listen to the idea that we should spend less on the military than we do now. The comparisons in how much we spend in Iraq and how much we spend building infrastructure in Afghanistan are ridiculous. Biden alluded to this, not sure if you'd call them lies.

According to Bob Woodward's new book The War Within, so was the president's advisory committee, which included James Bakker, Lee Hamilton, Sandra Day O'Connor, some retired generals.

I saw a bumper sticker today that said:



Yep, Palin was bigger and on the top...:rolleyes: :confused:

He alluded to this, yes, and his numbers were way, way off from what I've read. I did include that in my thinking of what he lied about.

I will never accept the argument of spending less on the military with an increasingly aggressive Russia, China developing newer technologies and spending on military through the nose, and the fact that national defense is one of the only specifically constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government.

Right (well I assume so. Bob Woodward isn't someone I necessarily take at his word, but that's another story). And Bush didn't support it either, for far too long a time. McCain, though my vote post still stands, got this exactly right and was pushing for a surge long before it happened.

I'm not abstaining, but I am writing in the person I thought would be a far better choice to run our country at this moment in time, Hillary Clinton. Like scaeagles and iSm, I can afford to do this because Kansas is a lock for McCain; if I thought it would be close, I'd vote for Obama. I think he will be fine but he wasn't my choice.

Another thing influencing my decision is my 8yo daughter. She caucused with me (for Clinton) she has been interested in the election and was excited by the idea of a woman president (although that was not the reason I supported Clinton, just a bonus). She has always gone to vote with me and, since she was old enough, has actually pushed the pertinent buttons (or filled in the circles if I voted early). I want her to know that you don't HAVE to tread the party line. That in this country, you are free to vote for whomever you believe in; that we have a 2 party system but it is not the be all end all of how (or for whom) you must vote.

So, this election, I will vote my conscience and in doing so, teach O a little about the political process along the way. (And then we'll move onto the electoral college which oughta really screw with her head.)

Wouldn't you agree that with the war in Iraq we too are "spending on military through the nose"? Yes - unlike Russia and China, how much benefit are we really seeing with that money by comparison?

I guess that depends on how much you feel the war is benefiting us.

No. You have to spend what it takes to get the job done. This is not intended to get tinto a discussion as to if we should be there or not - that has been discussed ad infinitum here. It is simply that you have to finish what you start.

Oh, like the War on Drugs? That can NEVER be finished. Or the War on Terror, that can likewise NEVER be finished.


Don't like the concept wars? How 'bout that War in Vietnam that was never really finished ... just pretty much abandoned. So why "can't" we do that when retreat proves to be the better part of valor?

Concept wars are indeed not what I was speaking of, and I think that's obvious.

As far as Vietnam, yes, we never finished the job there....but it look at what happened in Vietnam after we left. What would be good about that? Retreat was certainly not the better part of valor. The Vietnamese were slaughtered by the thousands (if not tens or hundreds of thousands - I'm not exactly sure how many perished in the reeducation camps) and who knows how many Vietnamese boat people died.

Yes, it was horrible. We do not have the power to stop history, or to stop evil. It may be stupid to get into areas were a power vacuum or our or another element's causing results in regional hatreds, slaughters, and unspeakable atrocities on an unimainable scale. But it's stupider, imo, to then have to ...what?... stay forever to now prevent those forces from being unleashed? Our finger in the dam forever and ever because of our international military blunder? Commitment to drain our country's treasury and young human resources to pay for such militadventurism mistakes for all time?

I suppose we view the current situation differently, because it is improving and it is not an indefinite thing we are facing. We will always have a military presence there, but I view that as the same thing as having a presence in Japan or Germany or South Korea.

Regardles of that, I am not one for abandoning commitments. We can debate the price being paid, but in the long run, I believe the price is higher should we stop (a great example over the long term is Reagan and Afghnaistan after the Soviets pulled out).

I am asking, because I don't know, but did Japan, Germany or Korea before their respective wars have internal conflicts like the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd conflicts in Iraq, conflicts between different ethnic or religious groups within the country that were violent and centuries old? Because if they didn't, it would seem to me likely that our long-term military presence in Iraq will be very different than in those other countries.

Not to my knwledge, but Japan and Germany had those loyal to their fallen leaders and governments and fought for years after the end of WWII. Japan might be considered a bit similar to the current situation in that the populace had viewed their emporer as a god, so the religious aspect comes into it. Germany....nothing like it, really.

It depends on how you define victory. If victory is a stable, basically uncorrupt, representative, non-repressive government, then we're talking about a sea change. Who knows how long that will take.

This idea about victory and defeat is one of the things I find most frustrating about McCain. He never defines victory, yet postures a lot about it. It is only a feeling but it seems to me that in the Iraq War McCain is reliving the unfinished business of Vietnam 40 years too late.

If victory means a basically uncorrupt government than we should overthrow our own.

So define victory. Because no one else has.

When do we start?


Seriously, the biggest thing gone wrong with our government is we can no longer overthrow it. Setting up a future overthrow was endemic to the Declaration of Independence ... and technology has progressed to the point where the populace of our nation could never mount a successul insurrection against our tyrannical government so long as the military and police powers remain under their control.

The ability of the populace to stand up to a tyranical government was the main reason for the second amendment.

You are indeed correct (oringially meant for ISM but it applies to JW as well).

Victory....my definition doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

Establishment of a constitutional democracy (whether parliamentary, direct, representative, whatever) in which the elected government has the capability militarily to protect itself and the people from the overthrow of that government.

This is as far as I am comfortable defining it. Do I hope it goes beyond that? Certainly, in terms of establishing an ally and a US friendly democracy in the region.

Go ahead. Rip it apart. I'm sure it will be.

But, who defines what it takes to meet that goal? And who decides when it has been met? The military? Congress? The Iraqis? The President? The UN? Bush's horoscope? The casting of bones?

I don't disagree. And I don't think Obama disagrees, though there's some disagreement with the best method to succeed. I have never been for a summary troop draw down. I AM in favor of setting more concrete goals and forcing the Iraqi government to stand up and take care of its own sh*t. I believe Obama will do that. Suggesting that Obama wants to just abandon Iraq with no plan at all is as absurd as suggesting he wants to sit down and have tea with Ahmedinejad. It's a grossly distorted interpretation of his position. All he wants is to stop playing nanny in Iraq and start putting the responsibility on Iraqis to take control of their own country.

Again, I do not fundamentally disagree. But as much as you don't want it to be about whether we should be there or not, that IS a crux, if not the crux, of the discussion. Because to me the question is, who has the clarity of judgment to make the right decisions going forward, whether it be on how to finish the job we stumbled blindly into, or whether to wage more war elsewhere. And I believe Obama to possess better judgment.

You can point to the surge all you want. There is no proof that the surge is the only reason things have improved there, or that they wouldn't improved without the surge. But hey, I'll give the administration that one, let's say the surge was the difference maker. That's one good decision after boatloads of awful ones, and the first time that Bush actually decided to listen to the generals on the ground. And it's one that's about controlling a specific situation in the short term. It's not remotely on the same scale as deciding whether to invade another country and understanding the large scale ramifications. I believe Obama (and his advisors) have better judgment on that scale. And perhaps Obama doesn't have the chops for handling the smaller scale day-to-day combat decisions (as if Bush does), but I expect him to defer to those that do. For instance, Patreus's replacement, Odierno, who has already said he expects to start calling for significant troop reductions of the next year, that weak, unpatriotic bastard.

A strong military is important. However, I do not think that throwing money down the military drain, using force to shove democracy down the world's throat, and threatening countries with invasion are signs of a strong military.

Just to briefly address one point - yes, Bush did not make good decisions. We're not talking about Bush, though, and his judgement, which is the grand strategy of Obama.....to say McCain = Bush. I don't think they are equivalent. Again, I think McCain would have run this vastly differently, as his push for the surge....18 months was it? ...before it happened.

Perhaps McCain may have run the war on the ground differently, I don't doubt that he would have done a far better job than Bush/Cheney at listening to the commanders rather than try to run it himself. Which is exactly what Obama will do.

I'm far more worried about the large scale world politics decisions, and in that regard, McCain is very much in line with Bush, and very much a "war first" mentality. He has demonstrated time and again that, with all the time we've been there, with all the knowledge he supposedly has by visiting Iraq, he has a very poor grasp of who the people we are fighting are. "How well do we have to know a people before we can bomb them?" John Stewart asked, facetiously, recently.

It's the job of generals to run wars. Obama can listen to generals as well as anyone. It's the job of the President to shape global policy and to understand the consequences of our country's actions beyond simply "me shoot enemy, me bigger country". McCain has not demonstrated that capacity, Obama has.

I was curious to read what everyone's reaction was to Obama's "Keating Economics" documentary. McCain and the Keating Five.

Is this a smart move by the Obama camp? Will this affect McCain votes?

Link to video.



***I wasn't sure whether to post it in the McCain thread or the Obama thread. So I posted it here since the subject of the doco was McCain.***

My reaction is that it's as much of a red herring/distortion as McCain's coming attempts to link Obama to various nefarious characters. Which makes it a very smart move. It keeps the conversation on the economy, something McCain desperately wants to change, and it serves as a perfect counterpoint to the bogus swift-boat attempts Obama's already been subject to. I don't like that he has to do it, but I think he's doing it well.

Did you read the Doonesbury from yesterday (Sunday)? You see some soldiers in Iraq, chatting about McCain. One of them says, "Mac sees Iraq as a chance to re-fight Viet Nam, to show that we really CAN win an open-ended war regardless of cost."

That hit me like a ton of bricks, because I never really quite thought of it that way.

The path of the Iraq war for McCain is, in my opinion, highly personal for him. As someone who was held captive as a POW in Viet Nam, which was a very unpopular war that we didn't win, I can really how "winning in Iraq" could be so important for him. People used to joke about George W. Bush wanting to go and "finish the job daddy didn't finish" in Iraq and I think it's something akin to that.

With that in mind, do any of us REALLY want McCain in charge? Do we REALLY want to spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives just so he could deal with his personal feeling of inferiority or incompetence due to whatever residual issues he has from Viet Nam? Hell no!

One thing I think was both really smart on the part of as well as extraordinarily fortuitous for the Obama campaign, is that this the scandal happens to be about the financial industry. I mean, had McCain's scandal been that an affair two decades ago, then Obama airing a video about it would be kind of silly. But this is directly related to what's relevant NOW. So in that way I think they have the upper hand.

Exactly.

Camp McCain: Rezko!!! Ayers!!! Wright!!! = Old news, mud-slinging

Camp Obama: Keating 5. Savings and loan debacle. Fraud. Taxpayer dollars. Economy = Relevant, timely.

Obama wins either way.

Such pwnage makes me happy.

Exactly my reaction!

There goes that maverick, Palin, shootin' off her mouth again.

Real class act, that one.

Palin is akin to a smarmy high school girl.

Gidget Goes to Washington

I don't know about smarmy, but a number of people have referred to her as "the mean girl."

While we're at it, let's bring up Palin's minister and witchcraft...

Heathers?

McCain's got two winners to choose from - Hagee and Parsley.

Heathers is perfect!

Okay, this made me laugh
 

and I've not seen it posted here. Damned funny in a tiara!

(Of course, my own high school pics, no doubt if they saw the light of day, would spark fits of laughter so long and loud, you'd die of laughter)

Attachment 743

There's just no way to look cool playing a flute.

Well, being a sucker for talent competitions I not only stayed through the whole performance on You Tube I then, being very busy at work, decided to wander around for awhile until I came across Palin and Charlie Rose. As I'm giving a fairly decent impression of someone who's actually doing something for her check I couldn't have the sound up too loud, so the substance of what she was saying wasn't easy to hear.

But I could hear her, and see her. And she wasn't winking, she wasn't talking to YOU, Joe Sixpack, and she wasn't doing a bad impression of Frances McDormand in "Fargo."

So now I'm wondering, who's bright idea was THAT?

I'm sure you guys heard about this. The one basic concept - that McCain took money from Keating, then defended him, and ended up in front of the ethics committee - is plain enough.

I've decided that the constant referral by Palin to "our great country" is only slightly less annoying than "Maverick"

:rolleyes:

Enjoyed Palin Bingo? Now there's McCain McLiar bingo!

Oh, I wish I'd had that for last night! :snap:

Edited to add:

From Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

If you want to check the song out for yourself, it’s on YouTube: here - safe for work

The latest McCain gaffe:
"My fellow prisoners"
:D

Yeah, so tell me he's not trying to re-live Vietnam and correct everything that went so horribly wrong.


I admit it, I'd like to do that with my life, too.



But my hat's not in the ring to run the prison camp, er, the country.

Say it, John. Moooooo.

Oh, that's just awesome. :D

But do you think Cindy McCain connects with anyone?

I live in the epicenter of the Joe Six-Pack part of Wisconsin. We are traditionally very pro-union here and go Democratic 110% of the time. However, we are also one of the whitest Congessional constituencies. This area of the state could go either way this time and for racist reasons, is my hunch. Obama's Chicago is a couple of hours by car but it might as well be on the other side of the moon.

McCain is making a speech at an airplane hanger in our small regional airport. The 2,500 tickets to the event flew out the window.

On the other hand, yesterday my hubbo was in a conversation with three women you might think would be dyed-in-the-wool Palin fans. Quite the opposite. They were very judgemental of Palin's mothering, particularly wanting to know why Bristol Palin doesn't seem to have any aspirations to go to tech school or college. They said they were voting Obama.

I wonder how cold Cindy felt when her husband John voted against the very same bill, the only difference being the presence of the timetable. She mentions not that Obama voted in favor of the very same bill when the timetable was in it. Oh, but she nelects to tell the hungry crowd of raving idiots that her husband John refused to fund the safety of their bloodline son and heir when a way to send him home into their loving arms sooner was included.

How cold indeed. How cold she must feel to not be a living human being like we, one with honor and integrity, one with a trust in truth and not a lust for power.

How very cold indeed.

You know, in all honesty, I'd have a beer with Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama. But I would be afraid of getting frostbite around Cindy McCain. She reminds me of Nicole Kidman from the Golden Compass or Nicole Kidman from Stepford Wives. Brrr, chilly!

But would you have a beer with Nicole Kidman?

In a New York minute.
:)

Ka-Boom!
 

But...but....she already cleared herself of this yesterday!

Palin issued a statement clearing and exonerating herself of any and all wrongdoing, therefore she’s cleared and exonerated, right? Pardoned by the governor of Alaska, right?

I suggest we all adopt her MO. So when the hubbo launches an investigation of just what happened to that half bag of chocolate chips that I secretly ate, I will clear, exonerate, and pardon myself.

Oh, I can't wait to pardon myself for a number of things. I'm gonna start making a list.

McCain is now trying a kinder, gentler campaign. Too bad he's already courted all of the country's ignorant hate mongers to support him, they don't seem happy about the turn of events:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27130171/







This post brought to you by drunken nakedness

Wait, I just noticed this:

As if A) "Arab" is an insult, and B) "decent family man" is the opposite of Arab. :mad:

Oh, geez....I have made my disdain of McCain clear, but that's ridicuous, GD. He stops a woman from saying something false about Obama and says he's a decent guy. Of course he wasn't saying anything close to that being an Arab means you can't be a decent family man.

Sheesh.

I don't really think it says much about him, so much as it says about who he's talking to. That "he's a decent family man" is how he has to counter, "He's an Arab!" That digusts me.

OK....I can buy that. Thanks for clarifying.

Hockey Fans Voice Their Opinion of Sarah Palin

I wish I could have been there... :)

Best Prayer Ever!

The Rev. Arnold Conrad gave an invocation before John McCain's rally in Davenport, Iowa. It's the best prayer before a presidential rally ever! Here is the video. The good Reverend actually tells his own god, the presumed sovereign and omnipotent deity, that His holy reputation is on the line if He lets Obama win! I can't tell you how this tickles me. (Not in a partisan way. I'm not offended by it, I'm in flipping hysterics. And I'm not about to blame McCain for it, either.) There are just so many things wrong with this, including the droll notion that an Obama victory will somehow give greater credence to rival gods, including Allah, Hindu (sic) and Buddha (also sic).

So, here's the thing - in the event that Obama wins, I can't wait to hear what Reverend Arnold has to say to Yahweh about it.

I honestly expect to hear other ministers and religious leaders distance themselves from this one, as it's so transparently dippy.

Okay, that's all.

Here's something even more obscene than Isaac's post above:

Source here.

Palin Shoots Puppies!


Really, what more do you need to know?

Olbermann was wondering last night if Palin could be a Democratic Party operative, she's that bad for the McCain ticket.

Attachment 752

Bwahahahaaaaaaaa! Old news, yes, but this new caption cracked me up!

WOW! Just WOW!

Dear God, can we talk about your reputation? People are talking smack about you behind your back. You need to watch yourself for our sakes. Get a CLUE, God!

I did really love the pantheistic view and acknowledgment that other gods exist - and that they may be more powerful.

In other words... He committed blasphemy (in the eyes of his religion).

One sees that battle among the gods a fair amount in the Old Testament.

Where's Zues when you need him to keep all the Gods in line?

I just got back from the Farmer's Market at the Ferry Building. McCain supporter table out front, covered with McCain/Palin placards as well as all the local Republican politico placards. They could have been standing in the arrid desert, not one curious soul at the table showing support. No real surprise, but it was kinda sad.

Oops... You really can pick 'em, John.

I [heart] John Cleese...

More bad news for Palin fans
 

and indirectly for John McCain

Palin has checkered history on ethics issues
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press Writers


Full Story Link Here

Why does it seem that Mr. Palin has as many fingers in pies as does Mrs.?

I can't find the link at the moment to the story for verification, but apprarently, whilst Mayor of Wasilla, the Palin family home was built for free by the same contractors who built the local stadium/sports center. :eek:

Both Palins have trouble separating the personal and the professional, as in Troopergate.

Because life happens.

Hi from Wisconsin, battleground state
 

We just got a recorded call from the McCain campaign.

"We want you to know that Barak Obama is linked with a terrorist, Bill Ayers, who was involved in plotting to bomb the Pentagon and the White House. If Barack Obama is elected, you will be electing an extreme Left Wing candidate."

:rolleyes:

Nice.

One of my hockey buddies said that Fox news was going to be doing a story on Obama and his link to terrorist organizations. I said 1st, it's FOX so it's going to be biased against Obama and 2nd, this is ancient news and it's all over the internet and mainstream media outlets. He looked surprised.

Hmm, as a musician, I just might have to consider voting for McCain afterall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMPNWT6NxMY&NR=1

Palin's Oval Office

:D Float your mouse around, :snap: to the creator

Uh-Oh!

Virtual Reality: Experience what it's like to be completely lost inside Sarah Palin's head.

McCain shows up at Letterman
 

Source

I think it's pretty cool that he showed up on the show.

OMG. . .LMHO!

"oohhh if you become VP, it's Canada for me" . . . funny a friend and I were just kidding around the other day about running off to Canada if Palin really got near the Oval Office! ;)

The Plunger Rebellion of 2008!
I love the picture.
:D

Hello, Hollywood, I'm seeing Spartacus remake--with plumbers. Or maybe an all-plumber "Atlas Shrugged." Who is . . . Joe the Plumber?

I shouldn't joke. I do have an honest plumber.

McCain's comment has me steamed. Trying to cover for the fact he didn't vet Joe the Plumber who's not a plumber and his tax complaints from a man who owes so much back taxes there's a tax lien on his house.

As far as I know, no one in the media has pointed out what took our Morrigoon four seconds to figure ... if Joe's too stupid to incorporate his business, he deserves to not pay his higher bracket taxes just like his current taxes.


I want those plungers shoved far up McCain's keester.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...e-the-plumber/

Too bad Obama didn't know his own plan well enough to set him straight on the spot.

For CoasterMatt: (SFW)

That's just scary!

bwahahah!

This is just... weird.

Link to the story.

Link to the Russian's statement, with a copy of the letter.

I am assuming that it is a mistake, as it seems too stupid even for McCain's campaign to try to do this while leaving an easily followed paper trail.

Seems pretty obvious looking at the letter that it is a form letter that was part of a bulk mailing.

And if it had been an Obama mailer the right wing pundits would be screaming bloody murder.

And the left would saying it's obviously a form letter. Blah, blah, blah.

Maybe the Russians will give us advice on nationalizing our banks.

So I found an interesting nugget of info about John the Candidate in this article about Palin's disagreements with him. Specifically, (from the 1st paragraph)
Well. That's something.

Not surprising that Palin wants one, but very interesting that McCain opposes it.

Another interesting part of the article talks about how Palin wants to continue that discussion about Rev. Wright. If so, then commenting on her witchcraft minister should be up for grabs as well. I think if Palin wants to say that Obama is defined by Wright, then she's defined by her minister and therefore believes in witchcraft. That's her thinking, not mine.

And I also must say that my parents do not agree 100% with what the pastors say or do in their Catholic parish. They have been going to church for 60 years. My dad supports marriage equality for his two kids. Just because your minister is saying things it doesn't automatically mean you feel the same way.

He opposes it on a federal level (and that goes for both an amendment to ban gay marriage or one to explicitly allow) and believes it should be handled at state level. That doesn't mean he opposes a state level amendment to ban gay marriage.

How come it's ok for Palin to harp on Obama's association with 40-years-ago domestic terrorists, but the press doesn't nail her for her current marriage to a sussessionist?

But is that allegation true?
(I'm not certain.)

A take on the Politics and Trains Picture:
 

I think something like this would be more appropriate for Palin:

Okay, kids, you can talk to your parents!

Yes.

Last Refuge of a Scoundrel

For someone who is not a member, she has certainly been a presence at their conventions, etc.

Posted by Rocketboom on YouTube:
Hatred at a Palin Rally

Damn. There goes my shred of grudging respect.

Palin is proof of a human walking with a dinosaur.

:D


Thank you, folks! I'll be here all week. Enjoy the King Crab legs at the buffet!

Alaskan King crab legs?

Well, it appears that little Miss Fiscal Conservative has been billing the state for her kid's travel expenses and bringing them to events they were not invited to. She claims they were working.:rolleyes:

Palin's Family Values.

It is admirable that she wants her family with her, but I don't think the state hired her kids to work- aren't most of them underage?

From what I've seen she turns things to her favor.

Privledged.

Interesting conversation with my drawing instructor last night.

She's an artist so as you might expect she's got a pretty socially liberal attitude. But I've generally suspected she leans conservative in that, "I'm used to old white people running the country" sort of way. Statements like, "I've never been a fan of Dali, he's just too weird," are what have lead me to that conclusion.

As I was leaving my lesson last night she sighed and said, "I can't wait for this election to be over." I took the bait, gave a commiserating sigh and mumble back. Then she said, "You know, McCain keeps shooting himself in the foot," with a disappointed note in her voice. Not sure what I was about to get myself into I replied, "Well, I can't say I'm too upset about that."

Her response was, "Well, I'm voting for Obama." She went on to say that she thinks McCain's a great guy, and a hero, and that the problem with his campaign has been that he's been getting bad advice. BUT, he's been taking that advice, which has made her think he's just wouldn't be able to handle the Presidency. "We don't need another Bush," she said. And what a great point. Beyond anything, Bush's presidency has been characterized by surrounding himself with people who have encouraged him to do wrong things, and then taking that encouragement. That, more than anything else, is what links McCain to Bush after this candidacy, and that's why he's losing this election.

Wow, that's a great point. Too bad the candiates dare not point out the obvious, about themselves or their opponents, that how they handle the complex campaign for the presidency is likely the best indication of how they would handle something as complex as the presidency.


With Obama's relative lack of governing experience, many have pointed to the excellence of his campaign organization and operation as the better indications of his competence to lead the executive administration. That light is shone less brightly on McCain because of his extensive governing experience ... but it's too bad Obama won't point out how horrible McCain's campaign has been as an indication of what a feckless president he would be.

I wouldn't say it hasn't been a topic at all. Maybe not as much as it should be, but certainly during the whole, "The economy is sound"/"I'm suspending my campaign" fiasco, the spotlight on his decision making and judgment was shone brightly. He was already losing ground at that point, but his very obvious floundering and inability to handle the pressures of campaigning and dealing with a crisis at the same time were the final nails in the coffin for his chances.

Source
Interesting tidbit.
At first, I thought it a trite tidbit that the media brought to light. But then I realized she can't come across as Ms. Small Town Girl when she's shopping at some places where they wouldn't even let Joe Six Pack in the door.

I don't know why she even wants the job since it will probably put her family in a higher tax bracket.

Alaska's first president? And first woman president? I don't blame her in the least. Though I think her chances were killed by going for it too early, I don't think she was ready for this.

If you're talking to me, that was a joke.

Sorry, my response came off in a harsher tone than intended. I knew you were kidding. And there's a little joke in what I said too, if you notice ;)

But if Palin gets the job, then being a higher wage earner will still be a good thing. It's only if she loses that it becomes a problem.

Here's how much she spent on her make-up last month. Holy ****! She's naturally very pretty- why so much make-up? I know applying it for appearances on tv is different than in real life, but usually they have artists on staff at the stations to do that sort of thing. Plus, it's not like she's even been giving interviews.....

$13,000 Grand? Let's work that out.... 4 Weeks, with perhaps one or two days off at best... Let's call it 26 work days. Palin is making at least three or four events per day, so you can bank on at least 10 hour days.... Which gives us something on the order of 260 hours per month.

$13,000 / 260 works out to ~$50 per hour. For a professional that is tops in her field? A damn good bargain if you ask me.

I wonder what the per hour was for Hillary, or even someone like a Katie Couric.

And Binden's botox can't have been cheap, either. :)

I don't know.
But they're not trying to convince the public that they're simple, every day hockey moms or Joe Six Packs either. She can't spout "elitist" about Obama when she's shopping at some of these stuck up, rich people only stores.

Wow. You sure paint an awful lot of people with just one stroke of your hatred brush.

Have you ever been in one? Have you ever been kicked out of one just for looking at one of their Christmas displays? Uh, I have.
They're not the friendliest of places.
I stick by my comments. Stuck up, rich people only, elitist stores.

I've been pissed off by cast members at Disneyland, cussed at by clergy, and belittled by medical professionals. Yet some how I don't see all guests, parishinors and patients as evil bastards.

Still you haven't even commented on my point that Palin is a hypocrite. You're off on a tangent.
You can call me Brad the Painter if you want.

I've already caller HER the most unqualified individual ever nominated for the office of Vice President and pointed out her proclivity for shooting cute animals. What more are you looking for?

Oh, and for the record. You just called Barack Obama a "stuck up rich person elitist". Those suits he wears don't come from Penny's you know. As you so aptly stated anyone that shops at those type of stores is a rich stuck up elitist.

I read somewhere that Obama started shopping at Hartmarx and Barneys after becoming a Senator - and after a great deal of pushing by Michelle to dress better.

If you want a job, you should dress like you already have it.

Don't you just LOVE election season.

I wish it could go on for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever... just like this one has.

There ya go, you betcha. I'm 110% okay with the Republican Party shelling out the reported $150K since August for Palin's wardrobe. That's $150K less for some of their other activities I might not like.

Aren't they all? None of these four people would sit and eat dinner at my house, your house etc. Obama shouldn't call her on the $150K wardrobe either. I'm calling Palin out for calling the kettle black. She shouldn't have started the whole "I'm just like everyone else on Main Street thing" when she isn't and she shouldn't have called Obama an elitist when she's one too. And might I add, she and McCain shouldn't have gone with the whole "celebrity" think either. She's the Julia Roberts of the GOP.

I see your point. I just find it hypocritical of you to make it by selecting a minority demographic of the overall population and demonising them.

Black, White, Rich, Poor, Gay, Straight, these are just labels. People may be assholes and belong to any of these groups but it's bigotry to paint everyone in any of the groups as evil, don't you think?

Black, White, Gay, Straight I agree with you on, these are not chosen attributes. Rich, Poor... that's different. I don't find it to be bigoted to comment negatively about Neiman Marcus, Sak's Fifth Avenue etc. Screw those places.

So by that logic, it would be OK in your book for someone to hate on all Goth's, Wiccka, Practicing Jews Christians or Muslims given that these are all "chosen" attributes?

Rich people, like politicians, are fair game for generalized sniping.

Stores for rich people, even more so. Especially stores whose clothing lines seem to favor the size and coloring of rich Japanese and Arab women.

Oooh, let's have breakfast at Tiffany's.

Attachment 777

On the front page of Huffington Post, Palin's new shoes. All I could think of was "There's no place like Nome, there's no place like Nome"

OK, I got it. It's OK to discriminate against the groups you don't like or find funny, but not against the ones you favor.

Very good.

For example, the official stance of the LDS church is they oppose gays having sex, gay marriage etc so for something like Prop 8 they raise money from their members to fund the Yes campaign. I find it fine and dandy to be upset with the LDS church. I am upset with all of them. I have the right to be mad at someone who is Mormon for supporting this proposition. This is why I resigned from the Catholic Church. I chose not to be part of an organization that discriminates against me and my sister. Plain and simple. But to say something like 'I hate all African Americans' doesn't make sense to me. If it's in your belief system to hate someone for something they can't control, I disagree.

Wow I shop a Bloomies, a lot, and Tiffany's. I've been know to drop into Niemans or Saks. I like nice stuff. Obviously I don't purchase high end coture but I get this and that. I don't think I'm an elitist snob.

My pro-McCain co-worker thinks the RNC should have used the $150k to buy McCain bionic arms.

...Or hire a campaign manager with a clue.

I favor the politicians I favor, but I have no problem condoning generalized sniping against politicians. If we truly lived in a world run by the gods of the Greek pantheon, I'd have no trouble generalizing that the gods were d*cks.
Now, such generalizations may show a certain narrowness of vision, and one's energy may be better spent, but, as a practical matter, I don't think generalizations by the weak against the powerful put as much negative energy in the world as generalizations that flow the other way.

I'll be sure to pass that on to your wife- you won't mind if she hires her own make-up artist then? ;)

I don't believe they stated that the woman worked with Palin full-time. If so, a bargain- but still outrageous. Who the **** needs a full-time make-up artist?

Now, a cabana boy- that I could justify.

Me too.
:D

Me three!

Me four!

So how much is Obama/Biden allowed to spend on appearance before they become evil?

I mean really, it's like damming Darth Vader because of the cost of his suit. There are bigger issues here.

Honestly, EVERYTHING, when it comes to Palin, is a huge deal to the left. When related to the left, though, it is minutia that isn't worthy of mention.

I think people who pay $400 are ridiculous, and I'm a stylist. People who extol their own financial virtues and spend this sort of money are ridiculous hypocrites. Turns out Palin may have to repay the money- the clothes she can say she's giving to charity, but how do you give make-up back?

Palin ceases to be 'every woman' or 'one of us' or 'just another hockey mom' from a small town when she spends that kind of money on clothes. Yes, those types of clothes are necessary for what she is doing, but it puts her in the category completely out of touch with the category she is appealing to.

Welcome to our world. (Clinton ring a bell?)

Well, the bottom line for me is not that it's awful to be rich or to buy fine things, but that it's awful to pretend - particularly on a political front - that you're "just like everyone else," and call out others for being "elitist" when you are elitist yourself.

Taken as an isolated example, I'd agree. But when it's in conjunction with all the other examples of Republican hypocrisy, it helps paint an ugly picture.

Well, speaking pragmatically, since Obama is kind of GQ in his appeal, he could get away with conservative suits pushing $2,000 apiece, but not much more. Since Biden's appeal is more working class, he gets less of a wardrobe budget.

Neither of them is allowed anything approaching a $400 haircut.

Prediction: If Obama wins, he is People's next sexiest man alive.

I'm sorry, I find lampooning Palin fun. To me, sadly, as a VP cadidate, she is and has shown herself to be a figure of fun by virtue of what comes out of her mouth. Put me in a similar position, God help you all and I would make as much of an ass of myself.

That said, as a fashion statement myself (not) I did find this photo funny of the pre-VP-nom Palin in the local grocery store.

Attachment 778

The RNC did a good thing upgrading her wardrobe. If the people who donated to the RNC don't complain about the $$ to give her a makeover, no worries, money well spent! ;)

On the other hand, would Palin get slammed for looking shoddy if she made a decision to wear pantsuits from Sears? Probably.

Good Lord, what is she wearing?!?!

I have no problems with politicians dressing well. In fact, I expect it. I do, however, have a problem with putting on a painful show of "folksyness" and accusing your opponant of "elitism", and then going on a $150,000 clothes shopping binge with somebody elses money.

Honestly, I don't disagree with the clothing- she's up there with Mrs. 'Haute' McCain, and she's got to have something better than that pink monstrosity Snow showed us. (I still think the tabs excessive, but oh well). But make-up? McCain has facial scarring he needs to cover, yet his was almost half what her bill was.

True that.

For a study in contrast, here's the Obama's on fashion: GQ on a budget

(He's probably going to get slammed as being too elitist to shop for clothes now).

Now watch this.
McCain in 2000 said:

And how much of that $150K went for clothing designed and made in the U.S. of A.?

Oh snap!

Good question!

Why? I for one encourage the GOP to nominate her in '12! An incumbent President Obama vs Caribou Barbie? It’ll be a slaughter! :evil:

Need I remind you that George W. Bush was elected? Twice?

No, he was elected once. Appointed the other time, in a coup d'etat.

Seriously? Questioning how much she spends on wardrobe? Give me a break. These people don't have to look good - they have to look miraculous, no matter what they're saying about how they understand the common man. The problem I have with the accusations of "elitist" have nothing to do with this. It is not elitist for them to dress this way and it does not disqualify them from calling each other elitist.

John McCain is gonna unveil a new look, in a last ditch effort to get some younger voters...

Yawn.

Yeah, most people find American History boring.


I'm a geek.

Excuse me? He often claims he worked across the aisle in his career in the Illinois State senate, and claims that he is the end to partisanship because he can work with the other side. Working with the other side is easy when you don't intend to take into account anything they have to offer, and based on his voting record, I think it's pretty safe to say he won't take anything they offer seriously. Listen? Sure. I'll listen to anyone if I am planning on just discounting their words later.

Also, that 90% is INCREDIBLY distorted. That includes votes like "We declare today national left handed missing a big toe WWII veterens day in honor of Joe Nobigtoe". Things that are automatic yes votes.

CoasterMatt - is that pic of McCain photoshopped?

Whaaaa.....?
 

It may be incredibly distorted, but that didn't stop McCain from using it to campaign for himself (I tried to find the video clip but now can't remember where I saw it).

Check Obama's website. He's been using that clip of McCain every five min on every TV station around here for months.

Oh yeah, that's where I saw it, on an Obama ad in Nevada.

So I was on Twitter, and under the "hot political topics" links, one was Zamboni. Oh I HAD to see what THAT was about, LOL!

(Hint, it involves Palin and children)

edit: oops, I should read before posting, pbbbt.

At least she didn't want to name a girl Zamboni. It would give a whole new meaning to the Zamboni song....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001...39865#27339865

I swear, they set my teeth on edge.

Is it just me or does McCain look super-tense the whole time she's talking, like he's just waiting for her to say something stupid?

This is just anecdotal, but all the clips I keep hearing of recent McCain ralleys has the audience constantly booing Obama (even the He wants to spread the wealth line that is an incredibly popular idea with most Americans) ... whereas the clips I keep hearing of recent Obama ralleys has the audience constantly cheering when he repudiates Palin by declaring there are no real or fake American places in America, no pro or anti American places in America, and that we all love our country no matter where we live or where we are from.


Cheers, positive, happy Obama ralleys. Booing, nasty, pissed off McCain ralleys.


D'uh.

Source
I don't understand this.
I know money is money, but the McCain camp is vehemently against marriage equality. In fact, Palin wants a Federal Marriage Amendment. Why work for someone who is working against you?
People like Potter and all the gay staffers that work for anti-gay Republicans and Democrats... I do not understand them...

They're self-haters. Easy. Simple. Instant psychoanalysis complete.






You're welcome. :p

Perhaps they find there are other things more important? Is it wrong for homosexuals to be more concerned with economic policy or foreign policy than with same sex marriage?

Just because there are different priorities than yours doesn't mean they are self haters.

I'm sure the Jews who supported Hitler had their reasons too... Until the went to the gas chambers.





(And yes, I know I just invoked Godwin... Get over it.)

Wow. I don't mind Godwin being invoked when done so in a rational fashion. I think the comparison is a bit over the top.

So, how about this?

You're in an office working with a bunch of people at a company. You work there because you feel that what you're doing is important and that it's a just cause.
But what if every single person in that office felt that you and only you did not deserve to get married. In fact, the work you are doing with them in part is preventing you from getting married. There is no Mrs. scaeagles. Your family is not valid with these people.
Sitting in the lunch room, you happen to mention your wife. The friend you're having lunch with says, "Your wife?! No, you mean your friend because that's what we all believe around here." Never mind the 15 years you spent with her, she's just a friend... someone you pal around with.
You go to HR. "My wife needs to have her appendix taken out." You say.
HR says to you, "Uh, yeah. Your friend doesn't share benefits with you. Sorry. She'll have to pay for the whole thing out of pocket."

Now tell me, how long would you stay in that office? I mean, the cause still seems just to you but is the damage you're doing yourself (and your family) alright with you?

Robo Rudy Guliani called me on the phone. My goodness, does that man need therapy.

So someone in the GOP still thinks Wisconsin is still in play...that's good news indeed.

Out here in the Willamette Valley of Oregon I've only had one call....from Obama America, way back in August....since the primaries.

If ever there was a call for a voter initiative, it would be adding political campaigns to the do not call legislation.

GC, there is a difference between what you are talking about - benefits to domestic partners - and marriage.

Being not gay, I don't know, so this isn't meant to be rhetorical at all.....aren't domestic partner benefits pretty common now - probably the norm, at least among larger corporations?

Sceagles, larger corporations, I think some, yes. But on a state by state basis, not at all. Don't laugh, NC, to name one. I know because one of my dearest friends and her partner do not have a law on the books for benefits for domestic partners.

I need to check LAMBDA and GLAAD

I read LAMBDA as NAMBLA and was scared for a moment.

You didn't answer my question. Would you stay at that company?

With the Federal Marriage Amendment Palin supports it all goes away.

When I signed up for a Domestic Partnership with Ralphie, the government taxed him for it. The benefits that I was allotted were considered additional income for Ralphie. It's not the same thing as a marriage recognized by the government, there are rights you and your wife enjoy that JWBear and his partner can't.

Not even remotely funny.

Ooh, I had to look that up. Not funny, you're right GC.

Geez....why so tense? I was reading quickly and thought it was amusing because I KNOW THEY HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH ONE ANOTHER!!!!!

There are reports of a woman being attacked in PA because she was a McCain supporter, but I believe it was faked. There's a pic of her on the drudge report and the "B" that they supposedly carved in her face for "Barack" is backwards. Unless somehow the photo got flipped or something.

It's because you have no idea how many times some close-minded people in this country still associate homosexuality with pedophilia and then lead others with that fear. It's one of the many ways homosexuals are vilified. It doesn't sit well with me.