McCains VP

Movies, music, food, blood, dogs, Horatio.....
User avatar
pigsteak
Posts: 9684
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 6:49 pm

Post by pigsteak »

actually tomdarch, the sad part is that when your tree falls in the forest, is anyone really listening?

but please help me understand one thing. first, Palin's political experience is weak and insignificant, by your account. but somehow, somewhere, in your convulated world, her misdeeds are felony material.

and on the flip side, Obama has a city of 6 million to help restore with his saintly deeds, with BIG things to show for it ( according to you), but his misdeeds are of small consequence.

so yeah, in your world, big is small, black is white.

ps-and the sun does indeed rise in the East. But since you seem to be standing on your head in an attempt to spin this thing, it might appear otherwise.

for the life of me, if Palin is zero threat to your precious legacy in obama-rama, why all the venom? something tells me the democratic slander machine is getting ready to sling mud in the big leagues, and those ignorant, racist bigots on the right better wake up.

batter up.
Positive vibes brah...positive vibes.
L K Day
Posts: 827
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:29 am

Post by L K Day »

Yep, in his own mind, tomdarch never fails to refute "point by point" the positions of his opponent, generally through his own biased interpretation of the facts, and always with endless paragraphs of deranged bull shit.
dmw
Posts: 2104
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:48 pm

Post by dmw »

what's the difference between a soccer mom and a bulldog? lipstick? seriously? and the chants of "drill, baby, drill" during fucktard Guiliani's speech....wow, classy. i am sickened by the rnc.
MSMITH
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:33 am

Post by MSMITH »

L K Day wrote:Yep, in his own mind, tomdarch never fails to refute "point by point" the positions of his opponent, generally through his own biased interpretation of the facts, and always with endless paragraphs of deranged bull shit.
Agreed.
"You can't get angry about it, you have to cry." -Yasmeen
dmw
Posts: 2104
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:48 pm

Post by dmw »

and what was that about the bridge to nowhere? contradiction.....
tomdarch
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:22 pm

Post by tomdarch »

L K Day wrote:Yep, in his own mind, tomdarch never fails to refute "point by point" the positions of his opponent, generally through his own biased interpretation of the facts, and always with endless paragraphs of deranged bull shit.
I've asked over and over to be more specific ... and nothing but this meaningless name calling. Defend your positions - present facts ... nope, nothing.
Bacon is meat candy.
tomdarch
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:22 pm

Post by tomdarch »

Hey - what does Karl Rove think of a VP pick who was governor for a short period of time and mayor of a small town? Let's see what he said:
"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's only been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town."
He was talking about Tim Kaine, who was in the Obama Veepstakes. So that's what Karl thought of a guy who was governor of a state with more than 11 times the population of Alaska for twice as long, and mayor of a town with something like 30 times the population.

But it gets better! Karl then went on to say:
So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States.
Damn - Karl hits it on the head!

"Why is the selection of Palin bothering so many people?" I used to think that McCain was worthy of a fair amount of respect, but he just keeps shitting on himself, and the selection of Palin is his biggest tubgirl explosion yet. By all accounts, McCain wanted to select Lieberman up until a few days ago, but he buckled to the hard core of the Republican party who threatened a floor fight at the convention. Instead of reaching under the worn carpeting in "the aisle" and picking a self-hating former Democrat, he swung to the polar opposite and picked an obviously unqualified politician whose entire political career has been based on promoting social wedge issues. How the hell did he get from Lieberman as Point A to Palin at Point B? They're basically polar opposites.

This was not the decision of a person who is serious about governing in the best interest of the country. This was a snap decision by a guy who buckled to the dolts running his party and who knew that things were not going well without the people he once called "agents of intolerance." In the course of a couple of days, he picked someone who would energize the "base", but whom he had met maybe twice and who had not been properly vetted.

What does that say about McCain's ability to govern this country?
Bacon is meat candy.
512OW
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 9:43 pm

Post by 512OW »

I hate to point out the obvious... but... uhh...

Who cares? You can't change the outcome, regardless.
"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken."
-Tyler Durden

www.odubmusic.com
tomdarch
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:22 pm

Post by tomdarch »

Did anyone watch Palin's speech? I could only stomach ten minutes or so.

Agree or disagree with her "positions" - the whole point to these things is to sway the undecided voters - in campaign speak the "persuadables." Her speech, with the sarcasm and personal attacks, is great for revving up the base. If it were a closed event of Republicans echoing their own views, it would have been fine - red meat for the all-too-literal "true believers". The problem is that it wasn't an in house pep rally - it was their big prime time push, and it was pretty harsh. (Again - they may be operating from a "nothing to loose" mind-set.)

They are trying to convince the undecided middle that Obama is a self-promoting, America hater. That's a tough thing to do, and I don't think that "nasty" was the way to do it. On Iraq, the majority of Americans want out sooner rather than later. There's some solid psychological research behind the Republican's constant use of the word "victory" as an opinion manipulation tool, but it's an uphill fight.

I do give the speech writer a little credit - on taxes, he merely had Palin misrepresent reality. We all know that nothing would have stopped them from just making shit up and lying. (She read "Obama wants to raise income taxes..." off the teleprompter. Technically true, but I don't know any of the less than 1% of the US population who would see anything but an income tax break under Obama's plan. It was a bullshit misrepresentation, but at least not a full-tilt lie. Congratulations Republicans!) Ah, but there were some "oldies but goodies" - my favorite of that section was the old play to confused people that "the Death Tax" would somehow prevent parents from passing "family farms" down to their children. Sigh ... good times! (in 2009, the first $3.5mil is exempt from the estate tax, no mater how badly the estate was planned. So, no, normal family farms are not at risk.)

As an aside - watching Palin's speech, I realized something about the McCain campaign position in our ongoing involvement in Iraq. Obama's position is to get out of Iraq as soon as it can be done responsibly. The position the McCain campaign is taking is that "America must achieve Victory in Iraq!" At the same time, they accuse Obama of putting political success ahead of national interest. But ask yourself - what, exactly, is the national interest in mandatory "Victory!!!" ? As long as Iraq is reasonably stable and on the path to rebuilding, we've done our job there in a sense. All this talk about "Victory!!!" sounds like a football game. You play games like football for the sake of winning, but not much else. So who, exactly, is putting political gamesmanship ahead of national interest? Rah Rah! Go Team!

One of the "good" reasons for picking Palin was to neutralize her counterpart, Biden. If she had played it a bit softer, then there would have been serious limits on how tough Biden could be with her. (Look at that mean politician man beating up on the nice mother of a retarded baby! How shocking!) Instead, she took the gloves off (well, OK, the Republican speech writers took the gloves off.)

Maybe they will be able to put the brakes back on this. Right now the right-wing media is spreading the message "The MSM is criticizing Palin saying that because she has children, she shouldn't try to take on such a big, important job! All the talking heads and media folks are saying that!" Of course, it's difficult to find that actual criticism in reality, but it's a very effective way to scare "the MSM" into softening their critiques.

The problem is that the real Sarah Palin called bullshit on that whining during her run for governor - she said: when you get criticism as a woman - don't whine, work harder and prove you're up to the task. That's one thing I'll agree with her on.

I haven't seen too much detail yet, but I heard that Campbell Brown and CNN are Persona non Grata at the McCain campaign for asking real questions. A McCain campaign flack was touting Palin's experience "as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard and all the decisions she's made." So Campbell asks him to lay out some examples of her actual decisions. The flack throws back that she's "belittling" Palin's command experience. Cambell asks again, basically "what experience, what commands, exactly?" Ah - here's some info:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/0 ... and-chief/
McCain canceled on Larry King to "take revenge" on CNN. But isn't that cutting off his nose to spite his face? Isn't Larry King CNN's highest rated segment and a good demographic for McCain? Plus, Larry throws nothing but softballs. McCain does this all the time to reporters, but this is taking it to a new level of vindictive stupidity - especially as Obama goes on O'Reilly's All Spin Factor, or whatever the "loofah lover" calls his show.
Bacon is meat candy.
tomdarch
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:22 pm

Post by tomdarch »

512OW wrote:I hate to point out the obvious... but... uhh...

Who cares? You can't change the outcome, regardless.
Why battle? I don't know exactly.

At least at the moment, it's simultaneously sickening and delightful to see McCain smearing himself in his party's shit in his desperate last chance to be president. Or to hear the true-believers so detached from reality: "McCain and Palin are genuine reformers!" "Being close to Russia gives you foreign policy experience!" "Palin can cure hepatitis just by looking at you!" "Forget what Dan Kwaill (irony intended) said about Murphy Brown and unwed mothers! The Republican party doesn't judge people on personal issues!" "Overseeing the state National Guard is experience as 'Commander in Chief'!" "Obama is too inexperienc ... what? Oh. America First!"

On one hand, there's a chance that this clusterfuckage will actually win the election and bring four more years of "doh!" to America and the world, which would be tragic. But if I can ignore that danger, it's just fucking hysterical!

Look at particle physics or non-linear systems dynamics - a little nudge here and a little nudge there can influence the overall system. If just a few Ohio voters realize just how stupid it would be to vote for McCain/Palin, it really could make a global difference.
Bacon is meat candy.
Post Reply