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

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

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

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

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

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

Omar bin Laden, the peace advocate


But dude, that hair... Seriously!

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

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

I'm not sure I'm seeing where JW said it was "Bush's fault". He, rightly, pointed out that Bush did not prevent 9/11, which is a perfectly salient point in response to a stupid billboard that is trying to convince people that a Republican President will make us immune to terrorist attacks.

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

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

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

Read it whatever way you want, the reality is all that it means is that to claim that Democrat=death by terrorists and Republican=safe from terrorists is a load of sh*t.

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

Initially, I read that differently :D

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

Hmm....

Cause to take bin Laden


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

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

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

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

Sheesh.

Well, using this part:

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

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

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

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

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

Understood

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

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

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

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

I knew he meant it as a compliment.

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

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

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

50000 physicists open debate on global warming

Eek, unfortunately the actual APS doesn't quite agree with that. The response from the APS to the story:

So yes, a specific newsletter within the APS dedicated an issue to debating the topic [changed this word]. Viscount Monckton took the anti-global warming position. Others in the issue took the pro-side. You can read the editorial accompanying the issue here and find that it does not put forward a policy position.

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

So, yes, there are scientists who disagree with the accepted theories of global warming. But the APS has not changed its official position on the issue which can be found here. All that has happened is that an online newsletter published an article by someone who disagrees with the APS position.





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

Indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

OMG!! Bush is a terrorist!!!!

Diplmoacy with Iran!!!

Let the Spin begin.:rolleyes:

Can you say "Waffle" Mr Bush.... I knew you could!

For the record, I completely disagree with this action.

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

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

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

I wonder if this means Edwards is off Obama's short list of VP choices....I'm curious as to if it actually happened.

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

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

Very disappointing if so.

Does the Enquirer have a good reputation for factual reporting?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hamilton?

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Dying ruins all future career plans.

Not necessarily. It depends on what your plans are.

True that, I guess. You could continue on as a Bodyworlds' exhibit...

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

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

McCain's citizenship called into question

Turn about is fair play, afterall! :snap:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

See here.

How much of Exxon's $11.68 billion profit is going to its shareholders and employees?

By definition, all of it.

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

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

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

"Waiting for Bigot."

har har har.

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

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

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

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

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

Paris Hilton released a response video to address McCain using her in his ad.

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

Why? Even Barack has compared himself to Paris.

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

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

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

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

Where did he say that (seriously).


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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly!

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, I found that mojo-worthy myself.


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

Ahem, Governator anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Pulease, you make me laugh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ummm....no.

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

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

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

I'm not confident voting for either for President.

They didn't have to like him for him to be effective, but the did have to respect him. Right now, our leaders garner no respect. That needs to change.

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

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

Scary stuff.

Because Nothing Could Possibly Go Wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I said, "America doesn't know where it stands on abortion," is that equally inaccurate. Afterall, we have very specific laws and a Supreme Court ruling that make pretty clear what the country's official stance is. As an American I should know that, there's no way I should imply that America doesn't know where it stands.

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

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

Catholic officials obtuse?! Stop the presses!

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

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

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

She has every desire to stir up Catholic leadership and get the support of Catholic voters who are increasingly interested in being empowered beyond what official church policy wants them to think. She has every desire to convince Catholic voters that the existence of church doctrine against an issue does not mean you must de-facto vote for candidates whose positions are in line with doctrine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my personal opinion, if a hooker came in to a Catholic Church, she should be cut some slack. Jesus was BFF with Mary Magdeline - the once hooker and now saint.

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

And this whole "deny public figures communion" thing is a relatively new law. The dialogue about the new law was started (not surprisingly) on June 17, 2004. Before a certain presidential election that year... Hmmm. Political move? Yes.
Source

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

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

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

I wonder if that's because there were far fewer Catholic priests who performed abortions than there were who demanded oral sex from altar boys.

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

Click

Can we do that with LoT quotes?

That would be sweet.

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

Really?
Wow.
I visit there everyday and missed it.
I notice the camera ones all the time. I avoid those. I usually want to read my news and not watch TV.
:)

Hah!

^Excellent!

:snap: :snap: :snap:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see two possible interpretations:

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

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

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

That's cool that you informed us. Thanks.

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

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

Interesting column in the Advocate about the effects of conservative hate speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks! :)

Done:

Obama. Stands for all that is good and pure.

McCain. Stands for all that is evil and dark.



You're welcome.

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

:p

Disneyphile, ISM has it completely backwards.

Looks like iSm has an opponent. :p

Anyone have a serious answer?

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

Thanks! :D

Now, back to your regular political banter. ;)

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

Hmm we could make a little hat...

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

Just for information sharing purposes:

John McCain on the issues.
Sarah Palin on the issues.
Barack Obama on the issues.
Joe Biden on the issues.

Thanks! :D

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

A point that my boyfriend Chris Matthews raised yesterday ...
 

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

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

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

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



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


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

Exactly.

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

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_125158.html

Some other commentaries on the same topic:

FiveThirtyEight
Pollster.com

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

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

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

I'm going to comment about this but I'm going to take it to the Obama thread.

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

Does that belong in the vent thread?

Yes and no.







:D

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

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

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

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

Huh? Who was predicting a landslide victory?

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


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

I hired him recently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ineptitute, from what I understand.


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

With most of the radio and TV buzz talking about 9/11... why isn't there more attention being paid to the story in today's New York Times Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan. Seems to me that this is a really big deal.

They've begun work, current plan is scheduled to have it complete by 2012.

I saw that. Very scary.

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

What?

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

I could see the media spinning it that way. But it was Bush's orders.

Yes, her name was Hillary Clinton(among others)

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

There was a lot of disagreement on what the memorial should be like and who should have control. Here's an article with some comments from the mayor.

The Pentagon memorial looks very nice.

True, but let's not hide McCain, and even Bush, among the "among others."

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

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

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

I heard about this on Air America earlier today. When will Americans finally say "enough is enough" to the Republican dirty tricks?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

How do you feel about the whole Alice Palmer affair?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:confused:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Patrick Gaspard still work for the Obama campaign?

I don't know. Why is that relevant?

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

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

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

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

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


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

Don't mistake me, then. It's not "reason enough" for me to vote for him, though it's one of many reasons Obama's a better choice than McCain.


I reject both of them. The election in November is about my civil rights, and both major party candidates stand in the way of that.

iSm -
I respect your position and am not trying to change it, but I wondered if you had taken the Supreme Court into your calculus, since gay marriage legislation would seem likely to go through the US Supreme Court at some point, and the next president is likely to appoint at least 2 or 3 justices. Of course there is no guarantee that justices appointed by Obama would favor gay marriage, but I think it is more likely than not, and I am certain that McCain's election will cement an anti-gay marriage Supreme Court for at least a generation.

As ISM pointed out, his vote in CA probably means next to nothing because Obama is going to win CA. If it were close, he might not have the luxury of not casting his vote.

Of course, if my vote counted, I'd vote for Obama.


It doesn't.


So I'm going to protest HIS, the candidate's, stance on gay marriage rights and his disgusting statement that he's using his religious views to dictate American policy (though I think he's lying, making the matter even worse).


If I lived in Ohio, I'd suck it up and vote for Obama for a myriad of reasons ... Supreme Court appointees among them.




But then again ... if I was a gay man living in Ohio ... I'd likely move to California. ;)

By that standard, every candidate commits "voter fraud" whenever they become their party's sole candidate. :rolleyes:

Using a legal option to challenge other candidates’ presence on a ballot is in no way shape or form voter suppression. That’s not apples and oranges, that’s apples and automobiles!

Typical Republican half truths and innuendoes.

Like how in 2004 (or 2000 - I lose track) there were charges of voter suppression when people tried to get in line to vote after the polls closed?

Typical Democrat half truths and innuendoes.

Of course, you've said all this already. Sorry, it was a long day.

iSm: If you were FOR either candidate, watching you decide wouldn't be half so interesting

For the past week, I have been spending the night at a clients house. I did not have internet access so I turned on the TV at several points. Aparently the client prefers Fox News, because that's what I got whenever I turned on the set and I got to hear bits of this "new program" while I was searching for something watchable.

I've heard the disdain on this board about Fox news but had really never experienced it first hand. All I have to say is WTF? PEOPLE ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THIS DRIVEL AND CONSIDER THIS A VALUED NEWS SOURCE??????

I am shocked and appalled that this is considered a valuable source of news. Actually, a better word for it would be completely disgusted. I had no idea.

What were you watching? They have several opinion programs which would be similar to watching Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews on MSNBC.

Even without the op-ed programs, Fox "News" is completely ridiculous. Bringing up an example from another network does not take away the fact that Fox "News" is slanted drivel brought to us by the Bush Broadcasting Company. (With apologies to the BBC, a credible news source.)

I don't know. Some "news" bs that had some of the most RIDICULOUS pieces that were supposedly "news". Do people actually watch this and believe it?

Yes. Lots of people. I think they have a larger viewership than CNN.

Here's a dose of Fox smearing Obama

Fox news: the network of lies, half-truths, and innuendo.

It's up to all patriotic Americans to do our part.

Yes, I can

If that's what the general populace is watching, I am not surprised that people are as dumb as they are. What drivel, what stupidity, what soap opera smear!

CBS - the network of forged documents days prior to an election.

MSNBC - the network of demoted yet completely unbiased Olberman and Matthews.

NBC - the network that faked the explosions of Ford Explorers (or some other SUV) and aired footage of created explosions and claimed them to real.

ABCs Good Morning America reported that Michelle Obama had used the term " whitey " in a speech.

There are example of other media outlets reporting on Palin's baby not being hers, but in fact it belonging to her daughter.

Examples are endless.

I agree that Fox has grossly mishandled this story. It is even probably intentional on behalf of several of the people on the network. Hear me when I say I am in complete agreement that this story is wrong and done to politically damage Obama. However, please do not pretend that Fox is the only organization that does such things.

Again, citing other examples from other networks doesn't make what Fox "News" does okay. Without bringing up other networks, do you really think Fox "News" is a credible news source?

Fox News has some of the worst comments in their banners that show underneath and all around the screen. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Faux news pushes the envelope for bad, bad, bad journalism. It's no wonder they love Palin. None of the network or cable news shows are blameless, but Faux is so blatantly biased (not to mention staffed by a bunch of snarky nimrods) that it boggles the mind. It's the Enquirer of the news world. If one has to reach as far back to the CBS debacle, then I'd say they were doing pretty well. That was probably several thousand misleading and deliberately misreported Faux stories ago. Good thing about Faux, though- you don't have to open up your mind to watch. You don't have to think at all.

I did not say that what they did was OK. Please show me where I did. In fact, I even said it was quite probably done intentionally.

Like every news source, I think they all have their spins and biases.

As far as news coverage goes, I watch as little of it as possible from any news source. I regularly get internet news from Fox and CNN. I read many, many different political writers, mostly on the right, my favorites being Sowell, Walter Williams, Krauthammer, and Dick Morris.

I have what I think is a pretty realistic view of the media, understanding they ALL have their biases. Obviously I believe (and have stated) that most go left. Fox obviously goes right.

Fox News does a fair amount of perfectly good journalism. It just generally doesn't overlap with its political coverage.

But then political journalism on TV is generally a great big ball of suck, even when it isn't -- intentionally -- putting forward a particular slant. Any medium that gives an average of 45 seconds to a story isn't going to be able to cover any topic requiring analysis rather than facts at all well.

News is supposed to be "event X happened at this time at this location". It's all analysis now. It all sucks. It's all this expert or that expert or whomever telling us what they think. You don't have to think watching any of them. They all try to tell you what to think.

Funny- I have all the major sites, including the horrid ones, bookmarked for comparison. I seldom watch TV, but when I do I skip around and compare notes as well. I never just sit and accept a station's broadcast as verity. I figure the truth is somewhere in the mix, you just have to look for it.

As far as spin- there is bias, and then there is propaganda. Most are biased to some degree, but only one comes to mind as the official mouthpiece of the current regime.

Bias and propaganda and whatever are all in the eye of the beholder.

What I find interesting (and others may find scary) is that Fox is the clear leader in viewers of the news networks. I think this is because there is so much left bias that everyone who was tired of that watches Fox.

And I've always viewed CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC - whichever - as the mouthpieces of the democrats.

Having thought about it now, I realize that I would take Fox News over the horror that CNN Headline News has become.

Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck, Showbiz Tonight. Each so incredibly offensive in their own way (only Sean Hannity matches on Fox). Then they top it off with an attempt at mimicing VH-1 shows called Not Just Another Cable News Show.

I mourn the hours once spent with Headline News on constant loop in the background keeping me minimally informed about the days events.

I miss BBC World for that. I had that on a lot in France. Sky News was good for the more tabloidy stories.

One example from each of the other networks does nothing to excuse the hundreds - no, thousands - of examples from Fox.

Liberal bias of the media is a myth. All the major networks are owned by big corporations that have a vested interest in having Republicans in power.

If they were "mouthpieces for the democrats (sic)", they wouldn't be so soft on McCain and Palin.

(ETA: Also, if the major media really had a liberal bias Bush and Cheney would have been impeached years ago, and Obama would be heading to a landslide.)

I don't see a need to post hundreds or thousands of examples.

Soft on McCain and Palin? I see it completely the opposite. Big shock. I think they have been ridiculously soft on Obama.

Like has been brought up before, we can each lay evidence as to why we believe that the media is biased in one way or another. I'll leave it at that and continue on, realizing it is pointless to continue along the same lines and just agree to disagree rather than belittling your viewpoint.

The whole media bias to the lift argument is ridiculous. The media bias is to the sheep, dumbing down all information to a bland pablum that [strike]people[/strike] sheep feed on with dumb accepting eyes and apparently no brain. Why our culture has become a herd of manipulated sheep is beyond me.

I don't have a lot of time invested in watching TV news. I can only handle about 3 minutes of any news source at one time. But, what I do end up hearing/seeing is crap stuffed into small sound bites. But, as for leaning one direction or another, I only see right-leaning or marshmallow stances. I suspect the left-leaning media bias myth is another piece of pablum that has has been fed to the sheep.

Baaa Ram Ewe, Baaa Ram Ewe, to your dumbass clan be true.

I agree, NA. It's an excuse to say and do outrageous things and I find it very childish. ("But, Mom- the other kids are doing it too!) Alex is correct with regards to straight news on Fox- they dumb it down, but it's not horribly skewed. Unfortunately, the zillion 'analyst' programs take up far more air time than any newscast and present a picture of collective bias against anyone who isn't hardcore conservative. CNN, NBC, CBS and others seriously dumb down the news as well and I believe they are kinder to Obama than Faux, but I haven't seen the same level of mocking, insulting and inflammatory rhetoric directed at McCain. Then again, I don't really watch them too often. I prefer to read the news.



Edited to add: Lol, iSm! Just ten minutes ago I was taking the Girl to her homeschool class and we had to go over a very bumpy dirt road. We both started saying the "Baa Ram Ewe', as the bumps were making our voices quaver just like a sheep's.

OK....so matters of opinion mean I'm a sheep now. OK.

So far today I've been called delusional and a sheep. Good thing I'm not taking anything personally.

For me, the media (and we're talking in-your-face headline media, not dig-until-you-find-the-story media) fails to present an objective "truth" not because it's left- or right-leaning, but because in almost every case, sensationalism trumps everything.

Case in point: I come to work today, and my boss says, "Did you see this? Lindsay Lohan has come out against Palin." He reads me the story, chuckling all the way through it. I agree with him that Lohan is a terrible political spokesperson, but did he hear what Greenspan said about McCain's proposed tax plan last Friday on Bloomberg? Of course he hadn't.

(In a nutshell - Greenspan said that McCain's 3.3 trillion dollar tax cut won't work unless there's an equal cut in the budget. Bloomberg's website pointed out that McCain's proposed cuts to earmarks and pork barrel spending would be under $200 billion - and that McCain hasn't spelled out any other specific cuts.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53rWAzRIUR0

I'm still waiting for iSm to get indignant about name calling being a step too far (personally, I don't care about name calling on the assumption that we're all growed up enough to take it without needing extra therapy) but it is true that when it went the other way -- politically -- suddenly it needed reining in.

You shouldn't, Scaeagles- sheep was a general term and not directed at you specifically. Further, here is the definition of delusional, and I believe you were were accused of being delusional if you followed a certain line of thinking- it's not like anyone said you were a nutjob. (If they had, they would be called on it):

delusional

One entry found.




Main Entry:de·lu·sion Pronunciation: \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludereDate:15th century 1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs



If only Faux was as conscientious as you in the name calling department- we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Alex, it wasn't because of the political nature of the conversation that there was a warning applied- it was the personal and insulting attack that got the attention. If anyone said the same to Leo, you bet I'd be all over it. It was over the line. You have a personal problem with someone, then take it to PM or put them on ignore- don't call them names and expect to get a pass.

What about this post says anything that applies to Fox News, Scaeagles or anything else specifically? I believe NA is referring to ALL outlets. Same for iSm- nowhere does it say he's talking about anything other than agreeing with NA's rather across-the-board opinion.

I know you work in the industry, but may I say you split a mighty fine hair.

Personally, I don't see any significant difference between "You are delusional" and "You are arrogant." But c'est la vie, I'm sure neither of the aggrieved parties are crying themselves to sleep at night. However, if anything, the former is, to me, more insulting because it rhetorically removes the other person from competency to participate further.

I do NOT split hairs. Split ends are anathema to stylists.:D


Perhaps your right. However, I think there is a wee bit of difference between 'you're delusional if you think' and " You are perhaps the most arrogant and condescending poster here."

Um, I didn't call scaeagles delusional. If he wants to consider himself a member of the vast group of non-posters that I did call delusional, that's his choice.


Oh, if he fits my definition of the delusional thinkers, then yes, he is a member of the group I called delusional and by extension I then called him delusional after the fact, I suppose.


If he believes we are still a country of small towns, that people from small towns do most of the work in this country as opposed to sub-and-urbanites doing it, believes that it's mostly people from small towns who fight in our wars as opposed to sub-and-urbanites fighting them, and that people from small towns grow our food as opposed to vast corporations ... then, yes, I am flat-out calling him delusional. But I didn't assert he personally had those beliefs.


So, I didnt' do any name calling ... except that, Alex, I'm calling you a muckracker. :p




ETA: I think I'm in the wrong thread. I'm tellin' ya, we need to roll these all into the Random Political Thoughts Part Deux.

Bush acknowledges that we have a little bit of economic trouble:

Financial "Pain" grows worse

"Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co., described this as the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s and the railroad bankruptcies of the 1800s."We've never witnessed this before," said Hogan earlier in the morning, before Bush's speech. "There's no road map for this."

Really, I don't mind being called delusional. I don't mind being called a sheep (which I was - since I believe in left wing media bias I must be one of the sheep being fed). I just know that when I have, in the past, made broad generalizations about democrats or people who believe something I have been chastized (not officially mind you, but by others who are offended at my generalizations).

Because of how often I felt this was happening, I decided to start calling others on generalizations they posted, or using names such a delusional (which JW was calling me, or rather a group of people of which I am a member - it wasn't ISM), which really isn't any different than being called arrogant. Whether we want to discuss the admittedly wrong thing I said to 3894 or not, even calling Obama elitist or arrogant, whom last I checked was not a member of the LoT, was the cause of much outrage.

Name calling or generalizations are easy to defend if you agree with them. If you disagree then they are just name calling or generalizations.

Errr excuse me you will find that I own the "Random Political Thoughts Part Deux" thread. As such it should only be used for on topic posts per the original intent. So be sure any posts you move there are somehow related to T-shirt slogans. Preferably funny ones. I like the funny ones.

Sure there is, just turn right at Sarah Palin's Bridge to Nowhere

;)


Oh, and this is what I saw when I initially clicked into this thread.

Attachment 680

I didn't say you called anybody any names. But you were quick to take sympathetic umbrage recently at someone else calling someone else names. You gave details on how you'd respond if you were a moderator, you helpfully interpreted for us all the comments of an actual moderator. You made sure it was known that a line had been crossed. I'm just waiting for similar empathy despite you probably agreeing with the characterization this time around.


Personally, I don't consider being called arrogant or delusional to actually be name calling, except insofar as attaching an adjective to a specific person is always name calling. If "you're an arrogant person" is name calling then so is "you're a wonderful person."


All of it is really just my long winded way of saying that despite protests to the contrary there is around these parts a decided slant in when feelings need to be collectively protected from bruising.

Ultimately it affects me little, since I am generally capable of making is perfectly clear that I think someone a fool or whatever adjective is appropriate without actually saying it. But it does fall into that same category as to why it is ok to say fothermucker but not mother****er when the intent and context are exactly the same.

Interesting...

Scott Adams (aka the Dilbert guy) commissioned his own report on which candidate will be better for the economy.

It has a lot of interesting facts. Like did you know that the overwhelming majority of economists are registered democrats?


The Scott Adams Report.

Well, when it seems that a "news" outlet such as Fox is where a great deal of Americans gets their news from and, given the number of people who prop themselves down in front of the TV on a daily basis to get news in general (even if it isn't Fox) then it isn't difficult to make a generalization based on these facts. Now, if 10% of the population watched Fox, 10% listened to NPR, 10% watched CNN, 10% read the NY Times, 10% read the Wall Street Journal, 10% read USA Today, 10% read the BBC, etc such generalizations would be impossible to make. I have no problem making the generalizations I did when it seems that the "norm" is indeed Baaaaad.


Not having read the report yet, I wouldn't have too much difficulty concurring that the reason the majority of economists are registered democrats is that the democratic party economic philosophy is probably better suited for a stable or improved economy. I mean, they ARE the experts in this field, right? I think their own political choices should really be taken seriously.

So again, what you've said is generalizations are OK if you happen to come to the conclusion about those generalizations in a way you think is logical.

I would argue that other people may come up with generalizations having come to conclusions which to them are logical. However, certain ones seem to be not acceptable while others are, depending on the group think about the generalization.

NA's post reminds me that Republicans adoring the myth of small town America still existing are further delusional because it's the policies of the Republican party that are most responsible for its replacement by Corporate America.


Let the Red States have their own nation in the middle. Let them eat Wheat. We'll take the coastlines and be done with it. They can have the name United States of America, but we keep the capital of Washington because, like just about everything else remotely civilized, it's on the coasts.

Then all the morons can relocate to the interior. And all the educated can flee the interior for the coasts. Enough with purple state confusion. Let's just admit we are two nations that cannot abide each other and have done with it. (And then get down to the business of the next hundred years in further sub-dividing each resulting nation into their own two fragments that can't abide each other.)

^^ Are the blue states the Confederates or the Yanks? ;)

I knew you were a Libertarian at heart.

I'm not sure what is in the least bit illogical about a generalization based on information that Fox has a larger viewership than CNN. It's not rocket science to come to the conclusion I did. Like I said, if 10%........I couldn't make the same conclusion at all.

I tend to think there'll be more masturbation (allowed) in the blue states, so I guess we'll be the Yanks.

NA, I'm not concerned with whether what you arrived at is logical or not. I'm merely trying to suggest/point out/whatever that there is a tendency to accept generalizations that you agree with (for whatever reason) and jump on those you disagree with (being General You, but you). Most of the time on the LoT, generalizations about the right are accepted as logical and even self evident, so they go as accepted or unchallanged, such as calling anyone who thing McCain is different than Bush "delusional". Generalizations made about the left, no matter how logical I might think they are, are often/usually/frequently called out as being generalizations and therefore ruled out summarily.

Generalizations are generalizations, no matter how they are arrived at. Some are treated differently than others depending on the point of view and thought of the masses around here. This is all I am saying.

I could be so obtuse with this line......:D

But I'll spare you the aggravation:cheers:

All generalizations are inherently flawed at the level of the individual.

Well, generally speaking- the LoT is comprised of a motley crew, but it seems most tend toward liberal policy as opposed to conservative. You can make the same sorts of comments, just no personal attacks. Or, we could all just forget about discussing politics in general. It's not the same to call someone's viewpoint delusional, especially if a decent rebuttal is provided, as opposed to calling someone "the most condescending and arrogant poster here". I really don't get why you don't get that, but when a person has to resort to personal attacks any discussion is over and Rove Syndrome has set in. Really, if I were to post at a conservative leaning website I would probably be torn to shreds.

Don't make me yawn....those places are so boring......

We all know most liberal leaning sites are non combative and accepting of conservative view-points. :rolleyes:

And WB, I don't know how many times I have to say I was wrong to say that. This isn't about that vs. being called delusional. It's about generalizations made about liberals vs. conservatives.

Well, i can't help but wonder at all this discussion about the subject and your apparent reluctance to let it go. We do not allow personal attacks, but the grievances you have are in regard to the relatively normal verbiage that occurs during a discussion. I can't make it any clearer, and I am very certain that should I scour the threads you've posted on over the past three years I could find a fair amount of examples showing you engaging in the same sort of behavior that you are now calling into question. I am not willing to do so, in that I think enough time has been wasted on this subject; you appear to be looking for answers and are not happy with the ones provided- that is not my problem.

I still think you're wrong and I'm on the Leo's side on this one.

This board is just like every other one in the world. It pats itself on the back for being open minded while doing its best (unofficially through the social pressures) to make sure serious dissent is marginalized.

I have no doubt that if the parties in the arrogant and delusional incidents recently had been reversed, so would the general responses.


That's not unique, it is the way things work in pretty much any group of people. But I don't see any real value in denying it.

Alex, this post illustrates your point of view well, but it dilutes the actual statement made by Leo. If he had said "I think your being kind of arrogant in your posts", etc, then no problem. (Not meaning to harp on that one, Scaeagles, but I'm trying to spell out the differences). And yes, we do have a slant, but what message board doesn't? I think we're all pretty cool here and try our best to get along with each other, but we have not been shy about spelling out our reasons for existence and the rules that we've laid out to try and make it as pleasant an experience for the membership as possible. I can't recall the last time someone said anything remotely negative to Scaeagles outside of the political threads- if we're so horrid, why put up with us? We all care about Scaeagles and the appearance of favoritism is a concern, but none of you (save the Mods and Admins) know everything that is reported and what actions were taken. Again, if someone were to call Leo the same thing he was warned over, I really would be upset and I would go after them as well.

And I'm saying that I don't doubt you believe that; I just don't believe you're right.

And I don't believe I diluted anything Leo said. He called Helen arrogant (she is, but I like that). Tracilicious called Leo delusional. I think you're diluting what was said to Leo, and I think the source of that is that you tend to agree with what was said to Leo.

But the point is this: If I say, "all hair dressers in Spokane are whores" is that any less insulting because I didn't say "wendybeth is a whore?" No, it isn't. And saying "all Republicans who believe X, which Leo just said he believes, are delusional" is not any less personal because of rhetorical deflection. You just like the sentiment better.

But again, I'm not trying to argue that this is unusual, just the idea that Leo should pretend it isn't true and that his comments are unfounded.

I have no problem with that at all, Alex. I do see your point, but that way is anarchy, and up here in Spokane you have to have a permit for that. ;)

(For those who didn't read about our July 4th anarchists protest- the city made them get a permit, which kind of detracted from their intended purpose).


We like Zenarchy around here- it's less harsh on the blood pressure.

I was gonna put this in the Sooo... thread, but in case it spawns a political discussion, I'll put it here. This is a really touching account from a guy who was a guard at Guantanamo Bay:

http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/j...8846&GT1=32001

Just posting to point out (in case you don't see) that I edited my post while you were replying so you're reply may no longer be accurate.

Plus I'm not advocating anything that leads to anarchy. I'm not saying you should change the way things are run (though I wouldn't complain). I just suggest being honest, saying "sorry Leo, we (collectively on average) don't like your views here so say them all you want but expect to be ridiculed for them, this isn't a fair venue so shut the **** up with the whining about it" and move on.

I did post that while you were editing your original, but I'll leave it. I see no sense in continuing this- someone complained about an offending post, I dealt with it and I thought I had agreed with the other about how to handle these in the future. I was hoping to avoid another unSwanky public spat, but that was silly of me.

I apologize if this is a bothersome conversation. I'm not thinking of it as a spat because I'm not angry about anything.

But if it is an unSwanky public spat then I do believe the traditional thing is not to give up the battlefield but to continue until someone (and let's pause to mentally compose the list of 5 mostly people) comes in something intended to distract the course of conversation back to shallow water (perhaps an intentionally but humorously sexual sentence clause) so everybody can cling to it and whistle past the graveyard.

I agree with Alex.

I've said very similar things in very recent past. Anything that isn't what the majority believes is bad and wrong. period.

We're lucky that the one big issue on this board is related to politics and the election. At least we're not getting into a pissing contest about what restaurant at Disneyland is the best.

ETA that it's now about 6 posts later since I've composed this.

Agreed. That's exactly my point. These things are said frequently by me and others. I am typically called on it, though, because I have a differing viewpoint from the norm. I really don't care if someone calls me delusional. Happens at work and home all the time, believe. My point is, and I will again say what I've said so many times, is that that seems to be OK when they are said about what is on the conservative side but not when it is said about something on the liberal side.

As one final example of such, I called Obama arrogant and elitist, and many people got on me for that. OK. Tracilicious called McCain an a$$hole, and I think I'm the only one to object. This is because regardless of the nature of the comment, McCain isn't popular here and Obama is. Even name calling is OK, it seems, if the majority here seems to agree with it.

And my point is made whether I agree with what you think or not WB. I will hereby let it go now, but will continue to call people on the same type of posts that I have been called on.

And to add, I don't regard this as a spat. I think this has been very rational and calm. Disagreement, sure, but there has been nothing spatty about it.

If you're speaking about what I pointed out, my generalization wasn't about liberal vs conservative it was about inane vs intelligent.

I think Leo and Wendy just need to get a room.




How's that Alex?

Funny- I don't recall any actions being taken or anyone complaining about posts Scaeagles might have made that involved calling candidates or other public figures names. So, what's the problem? If you didn't have a problem understanding (and making amends for) going over the line and attacking a poster on a personal level, then what is this conversation about? Because there are more liberal posters? If I were to post at Limbaugh's site, would I be justified in complaining about all the vehemently conservative responses to my posts? I don't get it.




BTD- How long before MBC showed up demanding his toaster and ham be returned?

Wait. I believe there is a grab bag of appropriately distracting thing that "should" be said in case of overwhelming discussions:

Choose one from the following selection:

Shiny
Pass the Popcorn and/or Red Vines
Get a room
Something about a Sphincter and accouterments
Boobies
Tacos


(I feel as if I'm forgetting a few important choices - forgive me.)

You know, while I'm tempted to go over again what I'm saying because I don't think some are getting it, I had decided I was done with it because I made my point even if some don't understand it.

Obviously this isn't about people disagreeing with me....if that was an issue I'd certainly not be posting on this site. We see things differently on this and many other issue. I've made my point, so I'm done.

But, this is already about boobs (i.e. politicians), and look what's happened! ;)

For the record, I think Leo and I are making two completely different points (though attributing the source to the same cause), so don't intertwine what I said with the point he is trying to make. The instances I've been talking about aren't relevant to the instances he is talking about. My reading of what he is saying is that when he's makes arguments of a certain type/method he is told they aren't fair, or aren't appropriate, or people are insulted by it; then they go on to make arguments of the same type and when he points this out he's told it is somehow different.

My point is that there two recent instances (in my view) of direct name calling and they were handled differently (and I don't mean moderately, just generally).

We are both attributing these different situations to the same cause of the political slant on this board making one side more palatable than the other.


Shiny taco boobies (sadly, searching that phrase at google images does not produce anything comedic).

I think Kevy could develop some sort of image about that which would be amusing.

Pancakes.

I feel bad for Carly Fiorina. She answered a question honestly and in a way that makes perfect sense. And yet it was incredibly stupid of her in the political realm.

When asked if Sarah Palin could run a Fortune 500 company she said, essentially, "no, but that's not what she's running for." She later expanded that none of the four names on the ticket would be candidates to run a Fortune 500 company and that is fine because it is a "fallacy" to say that running the United States is like running a Fortune 500 company.

She's absolutely right. They are not the same skill. It is kind of like asking if any of them are qualified to coach the Green Bay Packers. We actually had a VP candidate -- Jack Kemp -- who might have been but it is irrelevant.

To blunt it, she should have immediately said "and I wouldn't be able to run the country."

In a moment of pure loaded blarney, when All Things Considered ran the story they ended it with this meaningless bit of arched eyebrow "when she ran Hewlett Packard she had revenues of $80 billion. President Bush's last budget proposal was $3 trillion."

She's right, they aren't at all the same thing. Being able to work a boardroom is not the same as being able to run a government, work with an adversarial (even when of the same party) congress, fight wars, engage in international diplomacy, play the necessities of political kabuki.

But she'll be hung out to dry a bit for speaking the truth.

And to the extent that the Repubilcans talk about the story it will be to agree wtih her that running the government is nothing at all like running the country when in 2000 Bush ran as the CEO candidate, looking to put federal government on a more business-like model.

And to the extent that the Democrats talk about the story it will completely ignore how much they ridiculed in 2000 the idea that running the government is anything at all like running a country.

The other day I saw a Prius adorned with McCain and pro-vet bumper stickers.

The day before I saw a guy in a minivan screeching around a minimall parking lot at an unsafe speed. He had an Obama bumper sticker.

And I think to myself . . . what a wonderful world.

I can understand wondering about a Prius and pro-McCain (though his daughter, who is campaigning actively for him, drives a Prius; an issue that came up recently at a Detroit stop when an autoworker asked if he has purchased this non-American car for her).

Not sure why there's dissonance between a Prius and pro-vet, though. I know plenty of pro-vet hippies.

Wasn't Bush the owner of the TX Rangers? And wasn't he a fairly decent owner?

The kids don't like it when mom and dad fight. :(

When we were in Tahoe over the weekend we saw a giant pickup with a McCain sticker idling at a light next to a Prius with an Obama sticker.

Seemed to encapsulate all of the stereotypes.

Yes, Bush was the managing partner in the Texas Rangers ownership group for five years. No, he didn't suck. As to whether he was good, that probably depends on how you define good? He turned a $1MM investment into $10MM when he sold. And his tenure includes the original agreement that lead to the Ballpark in Arlington. But the team was around .500 through his era.

Was that asked because of my "coach the Green Bay packers" comment?

Your comment and the comparisons made by Fiorina. And I knew even less about baseball back then.

I just saw you google searched shiny taco boobies. That mental image is hilarious.

Yes, and i daresay better than anything he was hoping for with that word combo on google images.

They weren't "support our troops-bring 'em home stickers." And they became less so being next to McCain stickers.

Just to get my facts straight. Is this the same "Carly Fiorina" formerly of Hewlett Packard?

The same one who left HP in disgrace due to illegal activity?
The same one that order hired goons to illegally tap the personal cell and home phones of not only HP employees but members of the press as well?

That Carly Fiorina? And now she is working for McCain?

Just to go along with my conspiratorial Hillary-working-behind-the-scenes-to-defeat-Obama theory, a couple of interesting things of note.

First,
And secondly, while I have no exact quote, one of Hillary's (former? not sure if he still is) chief strategists - Mark Penn - has been chastizing the media for their treatment of Palin, basically saying that Obama as the presidential candidate has not received anything close to the anal exam Palin is getting (this is not to spark a debate as to if that's true or not, just citing what he's said).

I am sure these two individuals are relatively close to Hillary. These two things in particular seem to support my theory that while she's going to play nice for appearances sake, she does not want Obama to win, and will have those close to her doing the dirty work and saying the critical words.

And in other breaking news, the sun did in fact rise today on schedule.

Not everyone here subscribes to my conspiratorial theory - in fact, just the opposite, really.

Really? They should recognize that even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.

I can't be sure you aren't right. If so, it's dispiriting, as is just about everything involved with this and nearly every election. Somebody ( I wish I could remember who) once said something along the lines of: those people who have the drive and ambition to become president are those we should least want to lead us.

.

That's it! Thanks! (I love that this is such a smart place.)

I am offended because if I were a liberal, this blind squirrel talk would not be tolerated. hmph!

:)

If you were liberal, the squirrel would have better health care and perhaps not be blind.

Damn conservatives dumping chemicals into the environment caused a genetic defect in the poor squirrel, I'm sure.

Sometime scaeagles, and I'm being entirely serious here, I'd like it if you'd remind me why exactly it is you are a Conservative, and what Conservative principles appeal to you personally.


For instance, is it not a Conservative principle that markets should be as free as possible, with little or no regulation? And yet won't free markets take whatever shortcuts are necessary, including poisoning the environment affecting everyone (shareholders and squirrels included), with little or no regulation?

Do Conservatives support checks and balances on corporate and business activity? On government activity? Do you support such things?


With all the generalizations being bandied about, I'm genuinely confused.

I will respond to this, ISM....just might take a little longer than I can do at work.

It's also my youngest's 7th birthday today! So I'm not sure if it will be this evening either.

Please remind me if this gets lost somewhere.

Sure. And Happy Birthday to your youngest! BTW, age 7 is when personality becomes completely fixed and you as a parent cease having any influence. Your job is done! (Well, except for the money that will continue to flow for 20 more years.)

If that's the case, my 7 year old is going to be a great person because her personality ROCKS! Unofficially the most fun of my children.

I believe that is the same person. If so, then her assertion that McCain and Obama could not do as she did counts as a glowing endorsement of both, in my book. I was surprised when I saw her in his pack.

Happy Birthday to your baby girl, Scaeagles!:snap::babette::snap:

Independent of Fiorina's competency as a business executive, she is not the one who left HP disgraced by the pretexting scandal. However, the events surrounding her firing in 2005 did lead to the scandal but Fiorina had nothing to do with it.

HP was underperforming, the Board of Directors made a proposal to Fiorina that would have reorganized her responsibilies and been a big blow to her position with the company. She resisted it. The plan proposed to her was somehow leaked to Newsweek (I think, maybe WSJ) which published it. Fiorina was fired.

The board of directors gave Fiorino's replacement, Pat Dunn, the task of discovering how their private internal communications had been leaked to the press. It was in this period that the illegal pretexting and other investigative abuses happened. All charges against Dunn were eventually dropped.


Really, the obvious lesson to take from the sequential failure of Fiorina and Dunn is that women should not be allowed to run big companies (just twisting the tiger's tail).

There seem to be a number of sources saying the "leak investigation" started on her watch.

Still you are technically correct, the pretexting scandal broke after she was fired.

Fiorina was never implicated. Fiorina was fired two weeks after the document was leaked, so even if she technically started the investigation (though you'll also find sources to the contrary such as this one saying Dunn began the investigation) she almost certainly had no time to have done anything illegal.

Ultimately, neither CEO was held responsible for anything of the illegal activities that happened. Fiorina was never accused (by law enforcement) of anything illegal.

There are plenty of valid reasons to question Fiorina's competence as an economic advisor to John McCain, why stretch to accuse her of things that carry little weight and probably only a slim relation to reality?

Fair enough, I was confusing her with Dunn. I shall have to better research the valid reasons you mention.

Do you really want all the women of LoT to show up on your doorstep?! It could be like an old fashioned lynch mob, just full of angry women. I bet Lani would join us!!

Alex lobs those out to see if anyone is listening.

Was there a problem with what he said????

The gay men of LoT will be showing up at your doorstep ;) :p

For our toasters.

Sorry. No one takes back the toasters.

Nobody wants the toasters. They were worthless to begin with.

Because it just HAD to be done:

Click Here

Glad I could contribute to all the political craziness! ;)

oh no you didn't. ;)




* * * *


So, I'm wondering if Great Depression II will hit its stride before the election and what that might mean for the results.

Great stuff......I also took a trip down memory lane at that site and watched "good to be in DC".....funny line in that one; Micheal Moore comes up along with Rush Limbaugh and they say together "most guys, take sides", the line after that is what caught my attention(I won't spoil it here, just check it out if you dont remember)....what a difference 4 years makes;)

Why I am a conservative - a short essay by Leo Scaeagles, at the Request of Steve InnerSpaceMan

To begin, let me state that I do not currently equate being a republican with being a conservative. The last two republican Presidents have not resembled anything close to conservatism. The Republican congress which was swept into power in 1994 had the potential, but failed mightily. However, I do believe that the republicans are closer to what I am than the democrats, but perhaps I am closer to being a libertarian than either. I’ve stated before why I am not officially a libertarian nor do I vote libertarian as a rule. I don’t think I’ve ever voted for one, but that’s a different issue. Please understand that much of what I will be stating is matter of (what I consider to be an educated) opinion, but I will not be prefacing each statement with “I believe”.

I am first and foremost a strict constructionist in regards to the Constitution. The Constitution was never meant to be a “living, breathing” document. If that were the case, it really means nothing. The Constitution has an amendment process through which it can be changed and has been many times in ways that have indeed improved it. I have found conservatives to be much more in line with the original thinking of the writers as expanded upon in the Federalist Papers.

I believe in small government, loving the phrase “that government is best that governs least”. In that way, I am much more libertarian than conservative, particularly on social issues. I completely understand that there is a certain amount of government oversight and regulation to ensure an even playing field. I hesitate to use that phrase because it can have a varied meaning to different people. Even playing field means that I have the can have the same opportunities to achieve success as you do. It is not the job of the government, though, to ensure that everyone has the same social conditions to ensure those opportunities, and admittedly it can be difficult to do so. It is the responsibility of the individual to figure out how to get access to them. While case after case can be cited of those who have struggled to find them, case after case can be cited of those who found them in spite of difficult circumstances.

I also understand, to directly address a question from ISM, that it is in the best interests of the people and government to regulate (to an extent) the businesses and corporations that have an impact on the environment and the business world in general. Here is where I get fuzzy in that I don’t think there is a line one can draw to define how far it should go or what it should entail. This is why there is so much debate about what should be done and how much should be done. I admittedly don’t have a formula, and since what is common sense to one isn’t common sense to another, there will always be the need for debate. Of course there isn’t much debate that toxic chemicals shouldn’t be dumped into the ocean and there should be regulations and punishment for violators. The differences come into play (granted, an extreme example) on whether a farmer who kills an endangered field mouse with his tractor should lose his farm because of legal action taken against him. I lean toward limiting regulation, but that requires responsibility on the part of corporations that don’t always have it. Those that don’t make it very hard on those that do.

The government takes too much of the money of the populace. They are wasteful, inefficient, top heavy, and politically motivated. I have no doubt I can make better decisions with my money than they can. I recognize the valuable functions that taxation provides in terms of infrastructure and national defense, but they don’t limit themselves to such functions. Corporate taxes do nothing to corporations. They are taxes passed along to consumers in the form of increased prices. Taxation of income is a taxation on the accumulation of wealth. I believe the founders had it right with property taxes being just about it.

The federal government has taken over the functions of the state government and uses extortion to get the states to do what the feds want them to. I am a huge states rights person and want the feds to keep their hands out of what should be the rights of states to do business in the way they see fit. Interstate commerce has been twisted by the feds and the judicial branch to a point where states have virtually no rights any longer.
I hesitate to delve further into specifics (and in fact have started many times to do so), so to summarize, it comes down to my view of the Constitution, the amount of spending and size and influence of our government, view on the sovereignty of our borders, and states rights.

That is the very short version of why I am a conservative. There are many things I have not addressed that come into play as well.

Generally well said in a short amount of time. However, when you use the phrase "states rights," you should clarify if you are talking about speed limits and environmental issues as opposed to, say, seating at ice cream parlors.

Thank you, and yes, most assuredly so.

For scaeagles for putting his philosophy out there, a special treat ....
 

Now, appreciate this, scaeagles. It comes at great personal cost: I had to google images of the Dark Prince.

sceagles: You acknowledge that the Republican Party has not actually behaved in a conservative manner. However, what incentive is there for them to change if you will continue to vote for them simply because they are slightly more conservative oriented than the Democratic Party?

If they can forever count on the libertarian-esque Republicans to vote for them in return for lip service are you not rewarding them for not offering anything more than lip service?

At least with a Democratic government you can engage in full opposition maneuvers (since you don't have to pay any attention to "party unity") and perhaps you can convince the Republican Party that if they want to return to power they need to offer more than a wink and a nod?

Thank you, 3894. I almost wept.

Alex, I have indeed struggled with that and have made public my waffling on voting for McCain. Being that I have the same advantage as ISM in terms of living in a state that is going to go for my candidate of choice no matter what I do, I may still choose not to vote. Choosing not to vote is certainly not the same as just not voting.

I'm afraid that's about the best I can answer that.

Edited to add:
However, there may certainly come a point in time where there will either need to be a redefinition of what a republican is or I will abandon them as a party member. But in reality, whom else would I vote for if everything else remained the same? The person whom I know will not be in line with much of what I believe, or the person who i can hope might be somewhat so? There is no candidate with which anyone truly can align themselves with on every stated position. Perhaps every election for me may eventually be the overused cliche of the lesser of two evils. The last vote I was excited to cast was for the Junior Senator from AZ, one Jon Kyl, who is actually very much along the lines of what I posted 9at least from what i can gather).

I can't speak for Leo, but this goes thru my mind everytime I see McCain give that cheshire cat grin of his......I ask myself, maybe the only way for the Republcan party to truly rebound to greatness again is for it to first hit bottom.

But then I ask myself; will the Democrats play fair and not redistrict the heck out of the country and change as many rules as they can to make it almost impossible for me to ever see a Republican majority again in my lifetime....I am kinda doubting it. Prevent Defense, it may not always work, but it's better than risking the whole game.

Except you aren't risking the whole game because under either scenario you lose (either the democrats are in charge and don't act as you think conservatives should or Republicans are in charge and don't act as you think conservatives should). In the two options you mention only one even offers course to "conservative" victory. Are you playing to win or playing to lose by fewer points?


Leo, I was suggesting that Republican failures would induce you to just not vote. I am suggesting that it is in you're long term interest to actively seek the defeat of Republicans in the short term.

As I've said before, I probably agree with McCain on more major policy issues than Obama. I just think the party has been such a failure that they have lost the privilege of control. So in the short term I will actively pursue revoking that control. If they can later convince me of there sincerity I'll again consider their candidates; or, if when given full control Democrats do equally poorly I'll consider it a toss up again.

More like stalling for time until the coach decides to give some people off the bench a chance. (ok, I am not even sure what I mean by that)

scaeagles: wouldn't you be better off sending a signal to the Republican party that they'd better return to your small government values by voting Libertarian? That makes you a swing voter, because they can't count on your vote, but have a fighting chance if they can appeal to your Libertarian values. By staying in the Republican party and voting Republican, you're supporting the status quo in the party.

The larger the Libertarian party gets, the more the other two parties are going to know they have to appeal to our values in order to get us to vote for them.

I will eventually get to that point, I'm sure, Morrigoon. I'm not there yet. It is mostly because I believe that the Republicans are so much better on national defense issues (not really trying to open that up for debate, just stating a why related to this line of thought) that I do not wish to risk getting a dem in office.

I hate the scaeagles creed.



Mostly because I agree with 98% of it. I need a shower.





I'm a pretty strict Constitutional constructionist myself. But as far as I'm concerned, not only is the Preamble part of it ... it's the MOST IMPORTANT part. It states the philosophy under which the nuts and bolts must be interpreted. The U.S. government is to PROMOTE the general welfare. That's a pretty tall order, and requires the government to take an active role.

I confess I don't know much of the nuts and bolts of the Constitution, and I daresay most Americans don't either. But most of us know the Preamble, as it's the guiding philosophy of our nation. It seems to me that so-called strict constructionalists want to forget that part about promoting the general welfare.

And that's why I come down on the Democratic side, as opposed to merely Libertarian.

I could go into the general welfare clause and why it is not a blank check. Perhaps I will this evening.

No, it should not be a blank check.

But, it seems to me over my lifetime, that the Republican Party does zilch for the general welfare, except for some blithe milarky about trickle-down benefits. The only general welfare they work for is for the wealthy, and that's not nearly general enough for me.


Mind you, the Democrats haven't promoted the general welfare either. They are just slightly better at it than the Republicans.

I think the Republicans have done a great job of promoting the general welfare.....as it is spelled out in the Constitution ...No need to struggle or debate just what Morris, Madison, et al meant when they wrote that part of the preamble.....what "general welfare" actually means is spelled out clearly in the body of the document itself:


So you see; it says that congress has the power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare" of the United States....then it goes on to list just what they mean by that. Skip ahead to the tenth amendment and you will see that if a power isn't clearly stated then it doesn't exist as far as congress should be concerned.

But you see, most of that has not been done for the general welfare, but for the welfare of the wealthy only. So even if we are to limit the promotion of general welfare to those items, the government has abjectly failed.

I am not sure I follow.

Roads for the wealthy only?

Coin money for the wealthy only?

Uniform rule of Naturalization for the wealthy only?

There is what I believe to be an important distinction that is being missed here - and this is even before I go into my detail later. The wording is -

"provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare....".

There is a tremendous difference between providing for and promoting, particularly in terms of financial backing.

But first you have to agree on what constitutes "the general welfare."

Once you three have agreed on that you can then move on how best to provide and promote for it.

It seems obvious to me the usage of the word "promote" was stylistic (to avoid redundancy). From Encarta, "promote" and its antonyms:
Now, what can a government possibly do to "promote" general welfare -- disseminate motivational posters?

Unless the founding fathers were genuinely concerned enough about being perceived by the citizenry of demoting, suppressing, defaming, preventing or otherwise not being in favor of general welfare, and, as such, felt the need to declare that they were totally behind it, dude, hence the use of the word "promote."

Nice try at obfuscation sleepyjeff, but more specifically, I meant these:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.

To regulate Commerce among the several States.

To establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (emphasis added.)

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. (emphasis added.)



Promote the general welfare?


Fail.

Matter of opinion, certainly.

The general welfare clause....

Here's the problem. Madison (in Federalist 41) and Hamilton (in Federalist 30) disagree on the meaning of this phrase.

Madison says in Federalist 41 that this (the general welfare clause) fell in line with the same phrase in Article I, section 8, which is immediately followed by an enumeration of powers.

The general welfare clause is "explained and qualified" by the "enumeration of particulars." I happen to agree with this, as the Consitution is specifically NOT an enumeration of powers granted to the people, but a limitation on the powers of government.

Hamilton, however, in Federalist 30, says

Or to summarize, as we can't possibily know all that will happen, why restrict what the government is allowed to spend tax money on?

I think it is important to note, however, that this was far prior to the 16th amendment (income tax) and the tax revenues were from land owners and tarriffs only, and in the same vein the Hamilton said it was impossible to predict future contingencies, they had no way to predict that income would be nor how the taxes would be spent. It is also important to note that Jefferson agreed with the Madison view. Madison was far more outspoken and wrote much more on the subject than did Hamilton (i'll spare you the numerous and lengthy quotes from Madison).

So while there was no general consensus among the founders, it is evident that most agreed with Madison (I can list more than Jefferson if anyone really wants me to). I prefer the Madisonian interpretation, but congress has gone with the Hamiltonian for quite some time (no brainer for them - they get to then use the money for political ends). Even with that being said, I thin Hamilton would be turning in his grave to see what has been spent in the name of the general welfare clause.

It might come as no surprise to scaeagles then that I agree with the Hamiltonian interpretation.


Ya know, when there are different interpretations of American law or bedrock philosophies that have to be applied to all the American people, I try to come down on which interpretation is the the most "American" ... and I wish more people would attempt to do that with things that effect everyone in America.

If Hamilton's opinion is that in the Constitution there "ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies,as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible to safely limit that capacity," ... I find that simply more American in nature than the limited interpretation of enummerated items clearly rooted and frankly mudstuck in the 18th Century.

When there are two reasonably valid interpreations, why focus on the unanswerable question of which is "right?" Why not instead focus on determining which interpretation confers the most benefit on We the People who have established the Constitution?



I hate to go all Godwin ... but this is the big problem I have with Right-to-Lifers. Whether you believe life starts at conception or at birth or somewhere in between, how hard is it to look around and see that at least half the people in America don't agree with you? The "right" answer for all Americans can never be arrived at, even thouth it's simple to arrive at your own "right" answer. The American thing is to err on the side of freedoms and liberties. The American thing is to acknowledge the pluralism of our society and allow for other viewpoints.



In any event, it's likely too much to ask most Americans to come down on what's more American on these unanswerable questions ... but I do hold our lawmakers and judges to that standard when unanswerable questions must nonetheless be decided.

How large of a majority do you need before "err on the side of freedoms and liberties" is trumped by majority rule?

Isn't that the essence of Libertarianism -- you do your thing and I'll do mine? Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins?

You do realize you just said "let's agree to disagree and do it my way"?

On most topics I'm in full agreement with "most liberty side wins" but in the case of abortion the fundamental question at issue is who involved has rights and liberties to be protected and balanced.

Are you say you are personally liberal but respect the ideal of the democratic process even when it goes against your own views, or is that a suggestion that we as a country should toss out the democratic process and pick the liberal side in all (most) matters?

Exactly! All thru history examples can be found of people excusing murder by de-humanizing the victim.

And in this particular instance where it's the rights of American citizen women vs. those of non-citizen unborn fetusi ... I'd say the only Constitutional thing to do is to come down on the side of those who are American citizens.

The unborn are, by Constitutional definition, absolutely not citizens. You can argue all day long about whether they're alive, but they haven't been born.





BTW: There are precious few (if any) other examples where one's own liberty purports to harm another. Simply because there are no other examples where that "other" resides within your very own body.

So to ask what type of majority rules in such questions is a canard. One's liberty stops where harm to another begins. I suppose if there were American "Siamese" twins who wanted to poke each others eyes out, we might have a similar circumstance. Otherwise, abortion is unique.