The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 393

sleepyjeff · 09-20-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

So much for an unrestrained free market system being the bestest thing ever.

Yeah, maybe one of these days we'll actually try it.

scaeagles · 09-20-2008, 11:16 AM

Gotta love Charles Rangel.....

Head of the Ways and Means committee who is violating tax laws left and right, and now has referred to Palin as "disabled". Yikes. I have no doubt he meant to use that word as an insult because of exactly how he said it. When asked why the democrats seem to fear Palin, he said "You have to be kind to the disabled".

Later he said he didn't mean it in "that way" and that this is now being used for "political purposes", but what the hell else could he have meant by that?

I've read that Pelosi is trying to pressure him to step down but he won't. He is most certainly becoming an immense liability to the dems.

3894 · 09-20-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

When asked why the democrats seem to fear Palin, he said "You have to be kind to the disabled".

What a boneheaded way to say it, Ch. Rangel. Oy and shame on you.

But let's talk about fear and Palin. There aren't Immodium enough in the entire universe to get her through the debate with Biden. Daily Kos is reporting the debate rules have been changed "to compensate for Palin".

Quote:

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

innerSpaceman · 09-20-2008, 07:20 PM

I can't believe the Obama campaign fell for that. They should have said my way or the highway. If there were no debate between Palin and Biden, who do you think would come off as afraid to debate their adversary??

The Obama camp are a bunch of maroons.

scaeagles · 09-20-2008, 08:55 PM

Biden is much more experienced, no doubt.

I read the NY Times story on the same subject, and I will simply say that the whole unnamed McCain advisors thing doesn't hold a lot of water. It may very well be true, and of course there must be come concern about Palin going against a more experienced debatet, I would argue that the Obama camp is prboably ecstatic about it for two reasons -

First , Biden never stops talking. The longer he talks, the more likely he is to say something stupid. He has a track record of this. Forcing him into short answers is ideal for then.

Secondly, I recall when Hillary was debating someone (can't recall who) for the NY Senate seat and the media was all abuzz about how mean he had been to Hillary. The Obama camp certainly wants to avoid making it appear as if Biden has bullied Palin and thus making her look sympathetic to women.

I don't think the Obama camp is stupid at all for this. I think they are very, very happy about it.

tod · 09-21-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

So much for an unrestrained free market system being the bestest thing ever.

Here's an economist summarizing the rescue efforts thus: "It is privatizing the gains and profits, and socializing the losses as usual. This is socialism for Wall Street and the rich."

--t

Tom · 09-21-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I recall when Hillary was debating someone (can't recall who)

It was Rick Lazio. Though I suppose you could've looked that up if you really wanted to know.

3894 · 09-21-2008, 10:11 AM

My political thoughts this afternoon take the form of a wish for each one of us.

May our baloney meters be on red alert from now until the election.

wendybeth · 09-21-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tod

Here's an economist summarizing the rescue efforts thus: "It is privatizing the gains and profits, and socializing the losses as usual. This is socialism for Wall Street and the rich."

--t

I love this statement- it's true, and I find it amazing that fiscally conservative people who are concerned about government spending on social programs don't seem to have a problem with government bailouts. Like he said in the article, it is necessary now to do so, but in a manner that doesn't bail out or enrich the individuals responsible for the most egregious transgressions.

I have a co-worker who is rabidly conservative - he has nothing good to say about any sort of government assistance for the private sector and is very much anti-tax, yet he was an ardent supporter of the new stadium in Seattle and had no problem with the increase in taxes and creative financing that paid for the structure. I guess everyone has their price. (He is equally rabid about sports).

sleepyjeff · 09-21-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I love this statement- it's true, and I find it amazing that fiscally conservative people who are concerned about government spending on social programs don't seem to have a problem with government bailouts.

Oh, I got BIG problems with it. See my sig line

Quote:

I have a co-worker who is rabidly conservative - he has nothing good to say about any sort of government assistance for the private sector and is very much anti-tax, yet he was an ardent supporter of the new stadium in Seattle and had no problem with the increase in taxes and creative financing that paid for the structure. I guess everyone has their price. (He is equally rabid about sports).

He probably figures they are going to get his money anyway might as well have a nice sports stadium instead of something he could care less about such as marine science centers, rock and roll museums and ridiculously expensive artwork for prisons

09-20-2008, 11:16 AM	#3922
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Gotta love Charles Rangel..... Head of the Ways and Means committee who is violating tax laws left and right, and now has referred to Palin as "disabled". Yikes. I have no doubt he meant to use that word as an insult because of exactly how he said it. When asked why the democrats seem to fear Palin, he said "You have to be kind to the disabled". Later he said he didn't mean it in "that way" and that this is now being used for "political purposes", but what the hell else could he have meant by that? I've read that Pelosi is trying to pressure him to step down but he won't. He is most certainly becoming an immense liability to the dems.
	Submit to Quotes

09-20-2008, 07:20 PM	#3924
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I can't believe the Obama campaign fell for that. They should have said my way or the highway. If there were no debate between Palin and Biden, who do you think would come off as afraid to debate their adversary?? The Obama camp are a bunch of maroons.
	Submit to Quotes

09-20-2008, 08:55 PM	#3925
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Biden is much more experienced, no doubt. I read the NY Times story on the same subject, and I will simply say that the whole unnamed McCain advisors thing doesn't hold a lot of water. It may very well be true, and of course there must be come concern about Palin going against a more experienced debatet, I would argue that the Obama camp is prboably ecstatic about it for two reasons - First , Biden never stops talking. The longer he talks, the more likely he is to say something stupid. He has a track record of this. Forcing him into short answers is ideal for then. Secondly, I recall when Hillary was debating someone (can't recall who) for the NY Senate seat and the media was all abuzz about how mean he had been to Hillary. The Obama camp certainly wants to avoid making it appear as if Biden has bullied Palin and thus making her look sympathetic to women. I don't think the Obama camp is stupid at all for this. I think they are very, very happy about it. Last edited by scaeagles : 09-20-2008 at 09:02 PM.
	Submit to Quotes

09-21-2008, 10:11 AM	#3928
3894 Next Stop: Funkytown! Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Cheeselandia Posts: 1,907	My political thoughts this afternoon take the form of a wish for each one of us. May our baloney meters be on red alert from now until the election.
	Submit to Quotes