Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Genius!
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2523 (view)
Posted: 9/25/2008 2:31:13 PM
It's because you never respond to the evidence or the argument, guy. You don't even acknowledge them, but divert to something else, or tell us what you personally imagine or prefer or predict, which is about you and not about the subject. Because you won't engage rationally, you invite the supposition that your real reasons are unspoken and irrational.

And, by the way, while people routinely engage with and directly refute the charges you throw at them in here, I notice you don't exactly say that Senator Obama's heritage is not a decisive factor in your preferences. You only complain when someone suggests it. After all, there is still a lot of racist foolishness in this country, and we don't know you. Now, my pointing that out - these facts about your statements - is not the same as saying y0u are a racist. But, given you don't care to deny it or affirm racial equality, and that you appear to have no rational reason to oppose the Senator's candidacy, you invite the question. It's not our doing, but yours.

Hope that helps!

Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2520 (view)
Posted: 9/25/2008 1:34:37 PM
HuffPo simply embedded the CBSNews video, Sparky. You know, the original source? It isn't "edited," but the entire question and answer excerpted. Did I mention it's the same video as on the CBS site? HuffPo also provides, under the video, the transcript of the question and answer, which differ in no way from the complete transcript you can examine here:

Please point out the part where Palin is master of a subject - any subject.

I'm not sure what you think "bias" is, pal. Nor why providing the facts puts a source "in the tank" for anybody. I'm beginning to think you may really be two or three twelve-year-olds trying to aggravate the grown ups with nonsense for as long as possible. What makes me most suspect this is that you say something ridiculous like "bias" to dispute a video record and transcript, then, having proven yourself clueless, offer your personal preference as if it carries weight.

You have to be plausible about something - anything - and plausible at least in the sense that some reasonable person agrees with you, before your preference is of any interest. I mean, in your craw, are you aware other real people are reading your piffle? People who, you know, know things and think and stuff?

Or are you just skipping the After School Special?

Either way, I hope you are shouting this cheese from the highest rooftops. You could win more votes for Obama than Rush Limbaugh!



^^^Note to rayzr: Sadly, some of them are idiots by choice. Which is their right, wrong as it may be. ^^^
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 47 (view)
Getting Over Girlfriends Past
Posted: 9/25/2008 11:03:04 AM
OPie, her past is not your obstacle, because it has nothing to do with you. It is her past, and it is your nothing.

No, you are your own problem. You have no business passing judgment on anything she's done outside of your relationship. You have no business passing judgment on anything she does in your relationship. Your choices are to stay or go. Staying, but with reservations, is selfish and mean and not one of your options.

How do you deal with your own emotions? First, you own them. She has no responsibility for what you feel; no one does. She is only responsible to you for what she does to you. With you. For you. How you feel is exclusively your business. So don't put a spot of that on her or anybody.

Second, you can recast the story you tell yourself. You dislike the idea of all those men with her. You also apparently think she's something special. Well, doesn't that make those other men the fools, for letting her get away? Aren't you the better man for seeing her keeper qualities? If you let her go, won't you be one more fool? That narrative is about desire and action, and not about judging. See the difference?

She is either a treasure or she isn't. You want her or you don't. Judging her doesn't come into that anywhere. Judging only defers making that decision. This also shows up in your stupid complaint about her "lying." What you describe isn't a lie, but a failure of nerve, something every one of us comes to, sooner or later.

After all, she began to tell you the plain facts (which were, of course, none of your business, though hers to share). I can imagine the comical, horrified look on your face as she got to the third man. She had to look at your pained expression, her only reward for opening up to you. (Don't imagine for a moment you hid your revulsion. It glowed like neon.) Do you not understand that the awful face you made caused her to suffer? That she hoped and expected you would accept and embrace her, regardless, and instead saw repulsion in your eyes? Of course she clammed up! What on earth do you suppose would prompt her to make a bad moment worse?

You are not her judge, pal. Either that, or I am your judge, and you are scum, by my edict. You either want her or you don't. Make that choice - really make it - and, either way, I am not your judge.

I hope that helps.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2511 (view)
Posted: 9/25/2008 9:59:46 AM
OK, if sande can do it, we can all do it.

Why does sande keep repeating his fantasy that Senator Obama is "frightened" of anything? Declining one debate schedule in favor of another doesn't suggest fear, let alone confirm it. Many other - and more likely - explanations would have to be excluded, as, for instance, that no candidate wants to appear to be following his opponent's lead.

And, anyway, the fact is that McCain is the only candidate who is refusing to show up for a debate that he already agreed to. Backing down and forfeiting like that is a traditional sign of yellow-belly. Not that anyone is pretending to read his mind - the speculation out front is that he prefers not to be outmatched by a superior intellect while his poll numbers are already in a high dive. That's catch up politics, not fear.

But, to the point: these rational observations have been made here and remade. sande has absolutely refused to acknowledge them, let alone to respond to them. sande simply repeats his fantasy incantations, each time more shrilly than before. So the question must be posed: what has sande so terrified? Why is sande so very, very, very, very frightened?

I know sande is so very, very, very, very frightened because I can repeat that sande is so very, very, very, very very, very, VERY frightened, no matter what anyone says in reply. Repetition is the fountain of my certainty!

I also know that sande is so very, very, very, very frightened because he is an African-American man. But that goes without saying, right?



VVV I'll take some of that action, dance! There ought to be enough easy money to go around. VVV
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 185 (view)
Will Obama Take Biden Off The Dem Ticket?
Posted: 9/25/2008 8:51:38 AM

Why do you repeat these stupid lies, dmo? Senator Obama would leave medical decisions between the patient and doctor. Who do you want to make your medical decisions? Are you ready to sign your genitals over to the state?

By the way, how many adopted children do you have? If you're so committed to the issue, you must have lifted a finger to help, yes?

Also, the state bill you refer to specified "age and developmentally appropriate" curricula. That means - to anyone who actually cares - teaching kindergartners they have the right to say "no" to anyone who touches them, and that if a touch makes them uncomfortable, they don't have to take it, and that they should find a trusted adult at once and tell them about it.

Please explain to us all why you don't want five-year-olds to know that. What is your vested interest in keeping them helpless and ignorant? Then explain to us how you imagine that a father of two little girls would advocate their inappropriate "education." Then explain to us why the Illinois Assembly passed this bill if it actually contained such a pernicious feature as you hallucinate.

Your phony outrage is sickening. Clearly, your rage is real, but it is just as clearly about something you refuse to mention. Is it because the man is black? Is that your major malfunction? Something makes these stupid lies seem handy to you.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2494 (view)
sande's dumb challenge
Posted: 9/24/2008 10:36:49 PM
Actually sande, the answer is simpler than what's been offered you so far. The campaigns agreed on a debate schedule and on formats. Now George McCain wants to renege on the agreement. For whatever reason. So we know that he will not always do what he says he will do, because, right there, he didn't.

George McCain is "postponing" (or forfeiting) the debate he agreed to, for whatever reason. You are asking why Barack Obama will not attend events he has not agreed to. That's a question that none of us are ever bound to answer, isn't it? Otherwise, I have to ask you why you were not in New Orleans after Katrina saving kids and dogs. Do you hate kids and dogs? Or are you just afraid of them?

See how specious bullshit spills over and messes your skirts?



Oh, and if your "facts" were provable, somebody would prove them. And if "guilt by association" were not a classical logical fallacy, they might matter.
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 183 (view)
Will Obama Take Biden Off The Dem Ticket?
Posted: 9/24/2008 10:23:41 PM
dmo, "Democrats for Life" is a post office box, a box of stationary, a hat. Their website has tumbleweeds rolling across its pages. There are a couple of people who claim to speak for "it" who apparently only speak for themselves. And no third party has confirmed that they were ever active Democrats.

Also, and most to the point, Senator Obama - in his convention speech! - said "We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. "

Senator McCain, on the other hand, did not mention abortion in his convention speech, and, to my knowledge, has not mentioned it since last year.

Isn't it funny how the facts are sometimes the opposite of one's fantasies?


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 94 (view)
Men that have been single for a long time are looking for mostly intimate encounters!
Posted: 9/24/2008 9:40:34 PM
I get it, Nutt! You want me to pick you up and drive you to the hotel!

If only you had said so . . . !

OPie's "study" is not only unscientific, her question is freighted to exclude some important information. For instance, what is it about these men who are barely divorced or otherwise freshly single who dive into the first steady thing they come across? Can't a case be made that they are less concerned with who she is or what the long-term prospects are, and much more concerned with escaping singleness? For whatever reason?

I wouldn't say those fellows are less desirable than the slippery ones, but isn't it fair to say they will make a lady just as miserable - but for much longer? After all, they move in and rearrange your garage and forget your birthday and complain about your friends and etc. The slippery ones cost you a few days of pain and whatnot, and then poof! Not good, certainly - but hardly the worse outcome.

See, OPie picked one outcome - among many possible disappointments - and compares it to, I suppose, happily ever after, an ideal outcome. Ideal, at least, to her. Of course it's going to appear less satisfactory than the ideal. Every possible outcome is inferior to the ideal. Not only the cutters and runners.

As for why people say they want a long term relationship, share some food and music and miniature golf and sex and then disappear, well! That tells me pretty clearly that they want that long term relationship with somebody else. So what's the mystery?


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 32 (view)
Advice about girl in work....
Posted: 9/24/2008 4:29:23 PM
OPie, if you're so quick to pass judgment on someone you hardly know, then I'm more certain of your "issues" than hers. Basically, she put you off for a month and, when you persisted, she shut you down.

Before that, she was simply flirting, having fun, and you got yourself all smitten - with a stranger, don't forget. She was the self-sufficient one in the sketch, and you were the needy one, so needy that you even quibbled at the end about the sex you were never going to get.

Didn't I mention this to you before? The dance of courtship is restraint of desire. You want to be clearly interested, but you never want to appear more interested than the other person. If possible, always appear less interested. This stimulates the other person's desire and curiosity, because you are not a sure thing.

To this girl, you were a sure thing. She knew she could have called you any time, day or night, and asked you for most anything. And that is a wretched bore.

Think about reversing your positions. If some girl you thought was just OK was tremblingly interested in you and hovering "consistently" at every opportunity, would you be curious about her? Would you want her more? Most people cringe. Someone that needy isn't likely to have much to offer.

So, chill! Do the things you like to do, and stop pining for some girl to do them with. Those girls, the ones you want, are already out doing those very things.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2455 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/24/2008 2:54:11 PM
Man, am I ever happy over on those civil boards . . . .

I can't loiter here, but I want to correct just one of sande's contortions of the facts.

Our greatest President, by all accounts, was Abraham Lincoln. He had considerably less experience of any kind than Senator Obama. What they have in common is incisive intelligence (read their writing), sound judgment (they were both so correct to oppose their wars, and defied the majority on principle), and unswerving principles (ibid).

Lincoln, btw, earned the contempt of the war-happy when he said of the Mexican-American War, "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just."

Lincoln never attended college, but studied for the bar on his own. Obama was magna cum laude at Harvard Law and Editor of the Law Review, then for 12 years a professor of Constitutional Law. Lincoln served in the Illinois General Assembly (Lower House) for eight (8) years. Obama served in Illinois General Assembly (Upper House) for eight (8) years. Lincoln served one term - two years - in the U.S. House of Representatives and was discouraged by his own party from running for reelection. Then he practiced law for several years, and only returned to active politics to organize opposition to slavery, in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Obama has served four years in the U.S. Senate, having previously practiced as a civil rights lawyer. From the day he left Harvard, he has worked, like Lincoln, in the interests of justice for poor and working people.

But, anyway, I have here repudiated the stupid assertion that the number of years of experience can predict performance. If Obama isn't ready on this account, then Lincoln was even less ready. In fact, given our greatest President's scant political experience, one could more justly argue that less experience predicts better performance.

Which would be stupid, too. The qualities that matter - to every patriot - are a highly trained intelligence, a capacity to master new material quickly and effectively, and shrewd, sound judgment. We've had eight years without these qualities in the seat of power, let alone any commitment to the people's interests. See the Wall Street fat cat bail out, for one example. Wouldn't it be nice to have a President again who is able to master the details piled on the most important desk in the world?


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2412 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/20/2008 1:01:08 PM
Redd, I understand now that you don't mean anything in particular, but only want to cop an attitude. I thought you believed something, and it was just wrong. Now I understand you want attention and don't care if what you say is accurate or not.

So, I know nothing can persuade you of anything, and I'm done trying. As a parting gift, I'll simply point out that there never was a mad cow "epidemic," not even in England, where there was an outbreak that never approached the big numbers.

But you don't care, so I'm not pressing the point.

Also, those illegal immigrants (I think it's more like 13 million, but you were in the ball park, at least) are not "wandering around our country." They are working longer and harder than most anyone you and I know, for lower wages, without health insurance, 401Ks, or other benefits. Most of them contribute to the Treasury and to Social Security through payroll taxes, and yet they can never file for refunds or collect Social Security. There's a net gain against the record debt piled up by the current administration. The ones I know are fine people who, you know, care.

As far as I'm concerned, they contribute more to the health of the country than the Cheney administration has. Compared to our undocumented neighbors, a McCain presidency would be a plague of locusts. You know he supported all of the deregulation that enabled the current financial meltdown, don't you? You know his primary economic adviser Phil Gramm was the architect of financial deregulation over the last 28 years, don't you? You know he'll give us more of the very same, don't you?

I forgot again. You don't care.

Picking on poor people when rich people are destroying the country is too bitter a mistake to be funny. It's the same dirty, filthy trick y'all have played over time, blaming commies and feminists and unions and niqqers and faqqots for the misery rained on you by your very own. It's an ugly way to dodge the facts and blame some "other." Spreading your pretty pink frosting all over it does not make it any less vile.

But, I forget. You don't really care what's true of false. You only want to cop an attitude. And it's a free country!


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
Do you feel at times that you have the word THERAPIST stamped on your forehead?
Posted: 9/20/2008 12:37:49 PM
OPie, they are not drawn to anybody! They pitch everyone they meet exactly the same way they pitch you. The difference is that you consent to it, while the rest of us beg off.

I mean, what do you think happens? Do you think these guys look at another woman and think, "no, I won't trouble her with my troubles?" No, they try her, too, but she has the sense to cut them short and walk away.

You spin your willingness to listen as some kind of virtue, and maybe it is. Or maybe it's easier for you than speaking up about yourself. Either way, these needy people would talk to a hole in the ground if they thought it was listening. They are, poor things, all about themselves, and they can't be grateful to you or appreciate you for sitting there - the best they can do is use you as a depository for their mess. It's never about you, not for them, and you want to start seeing that.

I wonder what you do when you are all by yourself that makes you worth meeting, worth knowing. What do you produce, what do you put into the world that might catch the interest of active, healthy, interesting people? Or is it easier to wait for the next broken puppy to start barking and go with that?


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
Do you feel at times that you have the word THERAPIST stamped on your forehead?
Posted: 9/20/2008 11:24:10 AM
Well, OPie, if you are eager to help, for instance, someone like thund, then you may indeed have a problem. It's important to be able to turn our backs on those who don't know how to act and don't care. OK, maybe I'm a bit cranky today.

OTOH, everybody has troubles, and it's healthier to talk about them than not. If you consistently steer those with serious problems to professional help, then I have to compliment you. There are way too many folks who play at therapist with those who need the real thing. However they find you, at least you hand them off properly.

Now, as far as how you get into relationships with these folks, that's something else. We all meet all kinds of people, after all. Some of those people are needy and clingy, and some don't need anything. The needy ones reach out and grab on unless we brush them off. The not-needy ones hang around if they are interested or amused. Could it be that simple in your case? Do you simply not brush off the needy ones? Do you not focus on doing interesting things and making your own satisfactions?

After all, if you are available to the needy, they will find you and latch on. Once anybody is latched on, you are not available, so no one else will step up. I'm saying you don't attract needy people, but that they take whatever opportunity presents itself and stay until they're turned away. You don't attract them, but you don't discourage them, either.

Does that sound plausible?


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2392 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/19/2008 10:27:20 AM
That's right, Redd. Palin is being withheld from the press, and has only deigned to give the two interviews. (And the Hannity interview was so softball and pandering, it could have been another SNL skit - except it was funny.)

She's not an actress doing publicity for her new movie, but that's how her appearances are being managed. She's running for the number two job in the last superpower, which means she's running for the number one's substitute. If she can't handle answering (answering) questions from the press and take them as they come, then how can we expect her to handle negotiations with other heads of state, who actually know their subject and know how to drive a bargain?

Hell, even McCain has stopped answering questions on the advice of his campaign. He used to be famously accessible, back when the 'maverick' label meant something. Now he is nearly as sheltered as Palin is, and the two of them keep repeating the same empty phrases. This week, he reversed his near-30 year record of being a "less regulation guy," to use his term, when he called for a commission to propose additional regulations to prevent the institutional frauds that precipitated the financial meltdown. He forgot to apologize for being one of the people who dismantled the New Deal regulations that prevented those practices for 60 years.

If he were still Maverick McCain, he would have taken questions on these and other matters by now, and answered them at length, for good or ill. But he isn't. He's Candidate McCain, and doesn't dare answer questions. We've seen in Palin's two interviews that she simply can't answer questions. She can deflect them and keep a straight face, but answers are beyond her abilities. And that's why she can't be Vice President.

I wonder where I'll be typing this stuff, now that POF wants us to leave.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 41 (view)
all guys wants from me is sex.. but not a relationship... why is that?
Posted: 9/19/2008 12:43:14 AM
It's not difficult to understand, OPie. These boys know they can't win if they don't play. So they ask. The scruples you expect from them represent a gentility I never assume in anybody. This is a culture in which many people who know they will never win the lottery still buy tickets, because there is that chance, however remote.

I'm surprised you tell your story the way you do. You make it sound as if it's only these three boys who ever proposition you. Don't you get out of the house much? If you had a current social life, I think you would be brushing off this old news as the minor irritant it is. I mean, if you had a social life, something real, why would you give these chumps a moment's thought? I think you may simply have too much time on your hands, and not enough friends.

But I'm only guessing.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 150 (view)
What Biden Brings To The Democratic Ticket!
Posted: 9/17/2008 9:30:42 AM
That's because it isn't an idea, Phil. It's only a threat, as expressed by the Still President on September 4, 2004:

When you hear him say, 'Tax the rich,' you've heard that before Just remember that the rich can afford to hire lawyers and accountants for a reason, to slip the bill and pass it on to you!

We heard the same threat when President Clinton leveraged increased taxes on the upper bracket and provided tax relief to the poor and middle class. And guess what? We enjoyed a new record in economic growth and common prosperity. Your "idea" is proven wrong, though the threat is still made. Even the rich did better under Clinton's stewardship than they did before or after.

Well, maybe not that pesky one percent. But, you know, fvck them. Their wealth is taken from the working people who created it in the first place. Besides, they'll still be that one per cent even after they pay their fair share.

Next you'll be telling us that banking regulations are bad for the economy, like your boy George McCain stopped saying about five minutes ago . . .


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2329 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/16/2008 7:57:36 PM
Here's some mean, mean satire of Sarah Palin's supporters, absolutely over the top. It appears in the snootiest of snootrags, so you know it is bound to be smartie-smartie and unbearable for those poor folks. It cracked me all the way up, as good satire should.



^^^ Thankee seren! ^^^
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2325 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/16/2008 7:47:27 PM
I got two of those e-mails today, the ones that take on McCain. Let's look at them together, shall we?

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

If you grow up in Hawaii , raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."

Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, a quintessential American story.

If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

Name your kids Willow , Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer,
become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review,
create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters,
spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor,
spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee,
spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees,
you don't have any real leadership experience.

If your total resume is: local weather girl,
4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people,
20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people,
then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.

If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America 's.

If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA , your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

and . . .

A comparison of the disparities in Educational Achievements of Obama and Biden vs. McCain and Palin. Who would you hire to run your company? Or your country?

Occidental College (Los Angeles) - 2 years studying Politics and Public Policy.
Columbia University (New York) - B.A. Political Science with an emphasis on international relations
Harvard Law School - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude.
Editor of the Harvard Law Review.

University of Delaware - B.A. in History and a B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

United States Naval Academy - Ranked 894 out of a class of 899.

Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester.
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - General Studies.
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - Journalism.
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester.
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism.

So, what can we say about these pro-Obama e-mails?
1) They are factually accurate, and

Well, do we need any more than that?

I invite all y'all grown ups to stop squabbling with these colicky kiddies. They make up fake lies to wail about and never mention their own guy's non-stop lying. And etc. They apparently hate themselves almost as much as they hate Americans. They want the worst for themselves and for the rest of us, for whatever diseased motives they continue to conceal. sander has even started squealing "communist!" That is some serious intestinal blockage - not that it is responsible for his puerile delusion, but certainly it is for his expectation to be taken seriously in his fulminations.

Reason is their enemy, and reason will win this election. People are paying attention, because the very high stakes are manifesting on the front page every day. These kids may have tied themselves into these ridiculous knots, but they cannot persuade anyone else to follow them. I mean, look at Redd, who expects us to vet her stupid lies, despite our consistent example in sourcing our own assertions.

They won't have any effect on the outcome, and they know it. You know how I know that? No one in their meatlives ever asks them for advice, opinions, or information. Or, at least, no one ever asks them twice. It's time we stopped wasting time on them. They don't want to face facts or be at all responsible. They want their fantasies to be true. They want to make a big noise. We should leave them to that.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2300 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/16/2008 2:05:03 PM
Redd, your endless repetition of lies and other foolishness is pretty darned offensive to anyone who cares for the truth and the country. You haven't apologized even once, let alone for each and every time you have repeated one of these howlers. Nor have you called on the McCain campaign to stop lying in their television ads, which even Karl Rove and FAUX NOISE agree they are doing incessantly. So, what puts you above the rule you want to impose on Senator Obama? Please explain your grotesque double standard in detail.

And, btw, no. No one is under any obligation to apologize to those who can't understand plain English or won't be bothered even to listen. It's the liars, like the McCain surrogates who started you on this deceitful kick, who owe apologies all around.

BTW x 2, you don't "hear what we're saying" if you don't address it. Saying you understand doesn't make it so.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2294 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/16/2008 12:40:24 PM
Redd, we can't hear the voices in your head, and you haven't typed anything of substance, other than repeating the lies you've been told. For instance,

Senator Obama used the 'pig in lipstick' expression just once, and in exactly the same way Senator McCain used it 0n the primary trail in reference to Senator Clinton's health care plan. They both used it with the same meaning, as in the title of the book, Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game, by Torie Clarke, senior campaign advisor to John McCain.

If you would bother to read or watch the Obama comment, you would see he is not talking even remotely about Governor Palin. He is talking about McCain's policies being exactly the same as the failed policies of the Cheney administration. The point he makes is that calling the very same policies "change" is like putting lipstick on a pig. That is, McCain tries, and fails, to make something ugly into something presentable by calling it something else.

That is how the phrase is always used, as a description of political spin. There is no record I can find of it ever having anything to do with gender. The McCain campaign blows this smoke (which has nothing to do with smoking, you see?) because they lose on the issues. I mean, look at you, distracting yourself with this silly lie - which would be a petty thing in politics even if it were legitimate - as major American banks are collapsing as a direct result of the policies John McCain espouses.

He's got you where he wants you - ignoring the issues that affect your future and your family's future, and pissing on about lies about nothing.

Talk about not listening!


BTW, if Governor Palin won't talk to the press during the campaign, won't she be even less accessible if she should become Vice President? We've just had a disastrous eight years with an unaccountable Vice President who is largely responsible for the destruction and carnage. Wouldn't we all prefer a Vice President who will take public responsibility? Just for a change?
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2926 (view)
GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 9/16/2008 12:40:08 AM
What on earth makes the divorce rate "shocking," gimme? As a 50/50 proposition, the odds of success are far better than for shops, restaurants, and bands, to say nothing of the scant odds at the casino or in the lottery. Why, most jobs in this dynamic marketplace don't give even a 10% chance of keeping you for a lifetime. And jobs have that mutual financial incentive going for them!

No, that fully half of marriages survive is a testament to the idealism, grit, and determination of those who take on that ultimate partnership. Frankly, I'm surprised more marriages don't end in gunfire, given the ridiculous expectations people frequently put on them. People often expect bliss! Happiness!! PIE!!!

And that's even after they've watched their parents slog through day after same ol' day. No, that's a delirious excess of idealism, belief, and entitlement that your invisible friends go begging for. No one expects as much from an afterlife as many expect from marriage. That half of them stick is as close to a miracle as we ever see in this world.

And, as far as I can make out, sex has little or nothing to do with the success or failure of marriage. It's all about the putting-up-with.



By the way, you didn't identify your sect. I take it you're not christian, since you've got that 'judging complete strangers' thing going on. Is that considered "LOVE" in your temple?
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 139 (view)
What Biden Brings To The Democratic Ticket!
Posted: 9/15/2008 10:49:42 PM
poiboy, you argue from one of the laziest false premises I've seen in these fora, and that's saying something. It is something like, "Biden has served his country for years, and therefore cannot be an agent of change."

I have to say it for you, of course, because you are too freaking lazy to even form your own argument. But I can dispose of it, anyway.

It's simple. Set Senator Biden's legislative record down, to your left. Now, set Senator Obama's detailed proposals for his presidency to your right. Tally the congruences between them. (This requires reading. I'm sorry, but it can't be helped.) You will discover soon enough that the very innovations Senator Obama proposes - which would improve your life, just as Cheney policies have hurt it - are in many ways reflected in Senator Biden's career of advocacy for the interests of working people. The core "change" their candidacy promises is to take Washington's decision-making and services away from a few wealthy white men and put them squarely in the hands of the people, where it belongs. If you honestly oppose that, as John McCain does by adhering to Cheney's policies, then say so, like a grown up.

In short, until you address what specifically these candidates mean by "change," and whether their records endorse those very changes, you haven't shit, but only farted. Please try to remember that you will be the only one ever to enjoy that.



^^^ RenMan, you continue to say idiotic things. Or are you simply lying? The record deficits and the resulting burden on taxpayers over the last 30 years have been deliberate Republican actions. The budget surpluses and sharp increases in middle and working class incomes came only in the Clinton administration. Taxes on the wealthy have always been cut under Republicans, which multiplied the debt burden on the rest of us. Tax increases under Clinton did nothing to slow the remarkable economic expansion we enjoyed then, despite the drone of stern Republican warnings that taxing the rich would kill the economy.

Republicans are bad at government, which is no wonder. They keep saying government doesn't work, and it's true. But only under Republicans. Democrats embrace service and innovation in government that Republicans seek everywhere to exterminate. I don't care if you are such a fool as would believe these fools any more, given the manifest proof of their failure in every day's news. But I am a bit offended that you think anyone else is stupid enough to take your c0ckup seriously. ^^^
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 27 (view)
Economic question
Posted: 9/15/2008 10:10:06 PM
^^^ Golly, look who got bashed first! And incoherently to boot! ^^^

I don't want to dwell, let alone start a fight, but, much as I admire the expertise displayed in this thread, a crucial element of the current crisis is strangely nowhere mentioned. I take it for granted that our experts are mum on the point because it casts doubt on their rote opposition to banking regulations.

The fact is, some of the regulations crafted in Roosevelt's New Deal have been dismantled in a long process that began in the Reagan administration. President Clinton also contributed to deregulation in some of his compromises with the Republican Congress. And, in the Cheney administration, the last regulations were undone that had prohibited banks from issuing securities. That is, under those regulations, banks could not convert their business into tradeable paper for the open market. Banks had to make their money from mortgages off of the mortgages themselves, which was powerful motivation to qualify their borrowers and make prudent loans.

With deregulation, banks could bundle mortgages as securities on the open market. Any financial institution, in or out of the mortgage business, could "invest" in mortgages just as they could invest in stocks and other securities. These bundled mortgages were traded just like stocks and other securities, and were considered and graded as conservative, reliable investments, in large part because of standard banking practices in qualifying borrowers and pricing property.

A funny thing happened, however. Because banks now saw the real money in the repackaging of mortgages, they began to cut the very corners that gave those securities value. Thousands of cases are emerging of banks who falsified borrowers' income and debts or encouraged borrowers to lie about them. Some banks also encouraged borrowers, qualified or not, to take bigger loans than they needed or could comfortably afford. Other banks encouraged inflation of purchase prices to further increas the amount of mortgages. All of this was done to make more paper for conversion into securities.

The argument that debt-crazy Americans, irresponsible individual borrowers, are to blame for the global collapse of this market betrays a charming innocence about the numbers. A few defaults - or even a lot of defaults - could not have crashed and burned Freddie, Fannie, Bear Stearns, and the L Brothers. That required the active complicity of the financial institutions themselves, who, it is clear, took advantage of thousands of mortgage clients whose interests they were bound to serve.

The only reason it is happening now is that the regulations forbidding the practice are gone. Once greed was disencumbered, it did the damage it is wont to do.

Here. Don't take my word for it.,0,3926437.story



Bonus reading, just published!
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 128 (view)
What Biden Brings To The Democratic Ticket!
Posted: 9/15/2008 9:29:01 PM
As reported at HuffPo today:

Speaking to hundreds of people in a sweltering high school gym in the Detroit suburb of St. Clair Shores, Biden decried what he said was "a culture in Washington where the very few wealthy and powerful have a seat at the table and the rest of us are on the menu."

Biden said McCain's economic programs are virtual copies of those of the past eight years under Bush and said they serve the rich while ignoring ordinary Americans.

"If you're ready for four more years of George Bush, John McCain is your man," said Biden, who pointed out that George H.W. Bush was the 41st president and his son is the 43rd. McCain "could easily become known as Bush 44."

"John McCain stands with George Bush firmly in the corner of the wealthy and well-connected," Biden said. "He stands with the oil company CEOs who swore to me, under penalty of perjury, that they didn't need tax breaks to explore for oil."
"The campaign a person runs says everything about the way they'll govern," Biden said at South Lake High School. "John McCain has decided to bet the house on the politics perfected by Karl Rove."

Biden was referring to a series of attack ads from the McCain campaign as well as misstatements that the Republican presidential candidate and running mate Sarah Palin have continued to repeat after they were debunked. Barack Obama's campaign particularly bristled at an ad suggesting the Democratic nominee favored teaching kindergartners about sex before reading, based on a bill he supported that would teach age-appropriate sex education to those kids and help them ward off sexual predators.

McCain "is now launching a low blow a day," Biden said.

Despite his reputation for bare-knuckle politics, Rove said Sunday that both sides are being too negative and McCain has gone "one step too far" in showing ads that are not true.

Biden said he came to McCain's defense in 2000 when the Republican came under attack from Bush operatives and supporters who spread "scurrilous" rumors about him in the primary campaign. "And now, some of the very same people and the tactics he once deplored, his campaign now employs."

Joe's not one of these Washington millionaires. He lives like the rest of us because he is one of us. McCain is a child and husband of wealth and privilege. He does not know you, nor care a whit about you.

Read his program if you doubt me. You don't have to take my word for it. He's pissing in your eye even now.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 71 (view)
If your honest you can't be positive?
Posted: 9/15/2008 9:11:08 PM
Well OPie, you're certainly hellanegative in this thread.

People take the trouble to respond to you and you piss and moan and correct them and challenge them and insult them. Then you say you only posed the question out of idle curiosity, a manifest lie, since you take so many responses so personally. You're invested in your question, or you would not.

Regardless of what these folks say to you, they have taken the trouble on your behalf and deserve your gratitude, no matter what they had to say. Your pissy complaints are simply clueless and rude. You asked for every response you received. Say 'thank you' already.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 126 (view)
Will Obama Take Biden Off The Dem Ticket?
Posted: 9/15/2008 9:02:00 PM
Tell the phillybilly, RenMan. Several of us have disposed of his stupid misreading of the law, and he responds, in his very "special" way, by repeating his error.

He makes precisely the same mistake you do, in fact. Instead of laying out fact and argument, he makes daft, unsupported assertions and tells us what he feels, as if it were of the slightest interest to anyone. Neither of you seems to know how to form a thought, let alone an argument, without mumbling on about your fantasies and preferences.

I can't think of anything more off topic anywhere on the InterNets than your personal preferences. Until someone asks, please, keep them to yourselves.

The deregulation of the banks fast-tracked in the Cheney administration are part and parcel of McCain's economic agenda - you can look it up. And that deregulation is directly responsible for the failure today of two of the oldest, most stable and established of our financial institutions. Pretending to predict what you have no information about is nothing but a distraction from the destruction done by Cheney and promised by McCain.

Y'all have no reason to say Biden's candidacy is at risk, no more than I have reason to say Mr. Palin was drinking his daughter's wine coolers in his truck when he was pulled over for his DUI. You are simply distracting yourselves from the real issues, from the real world, because there is nothing in this world that validates your twisted wishing.

Is it any wonder you are not taken seriously? First you have to be serious, and you are so far from it.

Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2248 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/15/2008 1:04:25 PM
I have to agree in part with A-Blues. I don't hear Palin saying explicitly that the Iraq war is gawd's plan. That would disqualify her from holding any office in any democracy, where we understand that all our plans we make ourselves.

However, I do hear her saying that she hopes the war is in line with gawd's plans, which is still way too xenophobic and batshit for my tastes. Anyone who imagines that any war is blessed and anointed from On High has a perverse and inhuman idea of war, let alone of other people, and never mind her theology. War is truly hell, and any invisible personality that approves any war is a demon.

While I regret some of the Rev Wright's remarks as much as anyone, I am also familiar with the Black Church in America, where these sentiments are fairly common rhetorical hyperbole. I am also aware that he and his church have done decades of effective work improving the lives of poor Chicagoans of all races. I'll stick to my standard of measuring people by their deeds, and not their words.

Besides, he was a preacher. In a church! Practically everything he says there is . . . unlikely.

And he isn't running for office.

Has everyone seen that Karl Rove has said, on camera, that McCain is lying too much in his advertising?

Karl Rove!


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 101 (view)
Will Obama Take Biden Off The Dem Ticket?
Posted: 9/15/2008 12:36:50 PM
Charles, you have to let willful fools be. Phillyboy either doesn't know how to read a law or doesn't want to. That's how he achieves the comic feat of ignoring the "age and developmentally appropriate" clause, which, as we grown ups can read, applies to the entire program. Or he doesn't know what 'developmentally' means. Or he learned how to read from some half-a55ed Xtian who seizes on a single Bible verse as paramount proof positive while ignoring the remaining text.

As I said upthread, these few diehards cannot persuade anybody else, because all they have are these foolish lies. They don't dare approach the real issues in play, the questions that really will affect our lives, because their candidate is a loser on every single issue. He is only offering - promising, actually - a third term for the policies of the Cheney administration, policies which have failed and betrayed even these true believers. So they make shit up and demand to be proven wrong. It's no different from any other tantrum, and can be safely ignored.


These excuses for McCain's computer illiteracy are nearly as pathetic as the lies about Obama. If Stephen Hawking can navigate a computer with the excellent handicap-assist devices available, then John McCain could, too, if he cared to. The keyboard is no impediment whatever. I won't assume he's computer-phobic, like my elderly mother (Her excuse is that the screen hurts her eyes.), but I do wonder if operating a PC is beyond him. That is, does John McCain have difficulty learning new information and new skills? That he declines to participate in the last, great communications development of the 20th century bodes ill for his leadership in the 21st. There will be a helluva lot more for him to learn on the job. Does he learn anymore?


Finally, I want to honor S-lass for taking a look at the HuffPost. That is precisely the behavior of a curious person who is ready and willing to learn new things. She gets nothing but praise from me for venturing off her beaten track.

I only hope that she will read more of the posts there by Andy Ostroy, the blogger she quotes at length, since she finds him persuasive. Some of his recent headlines include:

Who's Running for President, McCain or Palin?

It's Not Because Palin is a Woman, It's Because She's the Wrong Woman

John McCain: The 25-Year Washington Insider Comically Running as the Washington Outsider

The Republican Hypocrisy is Enough to Make You Sick

The 2008 Republican Party: Abortion, Abortion, Abortion. Some Things Will Never Change.

"Grandma Sarah:" The Gift that Keeps on Giving -- McCain's Veep Continues to Sink his Campaign


McCain's Misguided Tokenism

Personally, I find his analysis stronger than his advice, but he develops his arguments well, in any case. He is an example to us all.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 59 (view)
Will Obama Take Biden Off The Dem Ticket?
Posted: 9/14/2008 1:54:44 PM
All they have left are lies, Charles. And they certainly will never touch on the issues. That is what is so comical about our tightie rightie friends. They know full well they would loathe and despise another 4 or 8 years of the policies of the Cheney administration. And they know full well that McCain's explicit policy proposals are carbon copies of the policies of the Cheney administration. They don't have to look any further than their own candidate to find compelling reasons to oppose him.

But, sometimes, two plus two is a traumatic challenge. And some of the traumatized, rather than deciding in their own interests, choose instead to fear and slander the arithmetic and anyone who shows it to them. For some reason, it is too painful for them to face the horrific failure of their leadership; it is too much to ask of them to suck it up and declare failure. Since they can't declare success, they throw these tantrums of lies about their own alternatives.

Even these masturbatory, mind-reading fantasies of what Senators Obama and Biden "will" do have a flat, scarcely imagined quality, as if there is no energy or craft at work in cobbling them, as if these monkeys are too listless and defeated to try. But what else do they have? If they were to go to and read the plan, they would find themselves up against a counter-argument they have no answer to. Which, again, would plunge them right back into the same Slough of Despond, where, again, they would squirm to avoid facing their massive, wasteful, deadly errors.

No, all they have now is make-believe and bitterness. That's why, even if they hold that line, they will not appear persuasive to anyone but their own. They will not attract any new voters to the polls or make a case to independents and Democrats. They have nothing to offer, and so nothing persuasive. That's why and how Obama and Biden are going to win. Because they offer a substantial, reasonable alternative in this time of multiple crises and enormous social change around the globe.



VVV Scrooge, you haven't done the basic homework to even know what you are asking about. Go find the text of Obama's remark. (I'll be damned if I'll do all your work for you!) You will see that he was not talking about Palin in any respect. He was talking about McCain's explicit policies being the same as Bush's. Specifically, he said that calling the identical policies "change" was like putting lipstick on a pig.

Which it is.

BTW, you probably also do not know that the expression is common in our politics and in America generally; that it never, so far as I know, refers to the feminine; that it always, so far as I know, describes a clumsy effort to make something repellent into something attractive.

Maybe you know - though maybe not - that one of McCain's senior campaign advisors - a woman! - has a book entitled Lipstick on a Pig. It's not about anything feminine either, but about political spin.

You certainly know that we are only talking about this because the McCain campaign is desperate to keep the chatter off of - oh, let's see - the war, the economy, energy strategy, tax relief, the Constitution, Guantanamo, health care, and etc. Which makes you their dupe, if you don't wise up.

Do you know the difference between Sarah Palin and George W Bush?


Do you know the difference between John McCain and D1ck Cheney?

Lipstick! VVV
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 17 (view)
Will Obama Take Biden Off The Dem Ticket?
Posted: 9/14/2008 12:45:35 AM
Thanks for playing syd!

It's kind of a meta-joke, I'd say, a twist on the form of the "what's the diff" riddles. If the difference between M & C is something neither of them use, then there isn't any difference, is there? That's the joke.

It's not funny - nor is any joke - if you have to explain it. But if you lay that pair of jokes on some smartypantses, one after the other, you will be, for a moment, a comic genius.

Or you'll have to explain, too. This is high-risk, unprotected comedy here. Not for the easily bruised.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
Will Obama Take Biden Off The Dem Ticket?
Posted: 9/14/2008 12:09:02 AM
I wish I could make shit up like sander, just pull it straight out of my a55 and fling it out there on the InterWebs as if it were something. I wish I could, but these damned scruples won't let me.

Still, I ought to try, or what are dreams for? Here goes:

Just as Republicans are feeling buyer's remorse for choosing McCain as their leader, with all the baggage that he has, McCain is feeling buyers remorse for choosing Palin. He is stuck with her and can't/won't trade her for Lieberman.

If he changes his VP selection, he will be demonstrating that:

His judgment can't be trusted, which it can't.

He is a big ol' flip-flopper, which we know already.

He doesn't know what he is doing. Which he doesn't. But, then, his qualifications for being president are that he was tortured and that he goes back on his word in the most egregious ways, as in the cases of Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, offshore drilling, veterans benefits, middle class tax relief, supporting the Still President, etc.

So, now he is trying to fight the fact that Gumby is better suited to be president than he is, which is true if only because Gumby won't die in the next two years.

But he isn't running against Gumby. He is running against Obama, and Palin is just a big fat anchor dragging him down.

McCain's Star is tarnished, his campaign is a pack of lies and a stack of misdirection, and his pol numbers are peaking early. When they fall, what will his next gimmick be?

Boy, that was just too easy! I can see why sander enjoys it! I didn't have to think at all!



Say, do you know the difference between Sarah Palin and George W Bush?


Do you know the difference between John McCain and D1ck Cheney?

Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
Why is Religion such an important factor in Politics?
Posted: 9/13/2008 11:43:51 PM
OPie, I gather you're trying to make sense of your own question out of thin air. You would do better to read some history - a lot of history - if you want to get a grip on this question.

Religion - as opposed to faith or spiritual experience - has been an instrument of social control and political influence throughout human history. The Anglican Church only came into existence because the Pope refused a div0rce to Henry VIII, and Henry could not claim his crown if he were excommunicant. So, to retain power, he made his own church, an English church, which coincidentally permitted divorce.

But we don't have to go so far back. You ought to understand at least that our Constitution forbids our government to establish religion in any form, precisely because of the world's long history of religion and religious leaders as potent political forces.

Now, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit a preacher from declaring himself on politics from the pulpit, nor even from threatening his flock with damnation if they vote wrong. But it does forbid government from giving that church the financial advantage of tax exemption. Giving that advantage amounts to establishing religion.

Just the same, religious arguments have appeared throughout American political history. When William Jennings Bryan ran for President in 1896, he gave a famous speech against the gold standard, in which he said, "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

Bryan was the preacher who had guest-prosecuted the teacher Scopes in the famous evolution trial. He, among many before and after, declared his religion the best guide for the nation. He, among many before and after, had his followers, enthusiasts, and some fellow-travelers who saw more vulgar opportunities in his wake.

Before Bryan, in the Old South, some of the first stirrings of Fundamentalism were arguments in defense of slavery from a Christian (!) point-of-view. After Bryan, Father Coughlin's radio tirades made racism and hate mongering into entertainment as well as political fodder.

And on and on. Just because you are only aware of events since Reagan does not confine events to that period. After all, Socrates was prosecuted to the point of suicide for denying the gods. Jesus was executed for defying established authority. Joan of Arc was burned because of the political clout she acquired because of her religious visions. Inca kings ruled every day of their subjects' lives with detailed and elaborate religious calendars.

It's difficult for me to imagine a culture in which religion does not make a claim on political authority. After all, whichever flavor it is, religion claims to deliver absolute truth. That's bound to make a body want to enforce his truth on others, as it's absolute and all.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2132 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/12/2008 12:09:55 PM
Our friends in the McCain camp, at least in this thread, are in typical full retreat. The signs are always the same. They treat off-hand cracks, jokes, and other ephemera as their burning issues of the day, and argue furiously against them, while, at the same time, they are studiously silent on the important questions vigorously argued in many of the same posts where the jokes appear.

I refuse to accept that they can't read well enough to tell which are the important arguments and which are the wisecracks. Unfortunately, that means they are aggressively unserious about this election or national affairs, that they care only to pretend that they are scoring debating points and pick on the weakest remarks they can find.

Which we have no need to answer. Such behavior surrenders to the angels the votes of every thinking, feeling American. These devils of the trivial can divide their tiny spoils with no objection from me.

So, to reframe: Palin set her jaw last night and tried to stay on message and off of specifics. It is an open question whether she even understood Gibson's questions about Georgia and our NATO obligations, the threat of an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran, or, especially, international expertise generally. She didn't respond to these with any apparent comprehension of the underlying issues. Perhaps she was only avoiding the pitfalls of the particulars.

Just the same, the gaps in her knowledge yawned wide here and there. Her assumption that Achmedinijhad controls the Iranian military (and so any prospective nuclear weapons) was an enormous gaffe. The mullahs control the military in Iran, which is first-page knowledge about that country.

And, while I don't expect those who will vote for her necessarily to be aware of it, my jaw hit the floor when she clearly had no idea what the "Bush Doctrine" is. This is the single greatest change in our foreign policy under this administration, in which, for the first time in our history, we claim the right to invade another country and depose their government if we suspect they present a threat to us. For 200 years, America could and did declare with pride that we would never start a war. Thanks to the Bush Doctrine, that legacy is erased.

And Palin didn't know what it is.

Gibson didn't go after Palin as aggressively as some might have liked. He did make certain that, for instance, she really was oblivious about the Bush Doctrine. But he didn't hang her with it. I know some of my partisans would have liked to see him cut her up, but I'm glad he didn't. The Antiques Road Show has already flown the bogus complaint that she doesn't get enough "deference" - as if Americans ever deferred to politicians! So, if Gibson had pinned her to the specimen board, I imagine she would have withdrawn from the remaining interviews they have scheduled, with another complaint about Charlie's "insufficient deference."

And I want to see more of her less-than-ready. Which is the real difference Americans will choose on, being practical people, and not so partisan as we typists. Senator Obama has the knowledge, skill, and judgment to lead. Governor Palin may never have them. The pan may have seen the last of her flash.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 150 (view)
Da wine dat matches
Posted: 9/12/2008 11:35:40 AM
Redd, we would get along fine in the kitchen. I'll do the dishes!

I jarred up a peach-habañero salsa yesterday with the last of the Missouri Garnet Beauties and these amazing, fleshy, fruity peppers I get from a friend. I was reminded, blissfully, that the very best secret ingredient is fresh, local produce. It's not all great, of course, but plenty of it is so superior to anything at the grocer's. I've about burned my tongue off this morning, this stuff is so delicious.

I have a handful of tiny, black eggplants for this evening. I can't wait to taste them. Maybe with salsa!


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2105 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/11/2008 11:56:04 PM
MG, to be fair to the lady, I believe she meant that Alaska produces 20% of domestic production. I don't know how accurate that is, either, nor what a large or small number would mean in terms of her credentials. After all, "overseeing" anything, including oil production, isn't usually a hands on, detail driven job. And, after all x 2, that commission job was her first energy gig of any kind. I don't think she was there long enough to develop expertise, was she?

But she may have been right about the number.

Edit: I just noticed she didn't wear her flag pin for the interview. What is that pin on her collar?

And klopper? Sweet cheeses, please don't say another word about this election, or women in general. I don't even want to know what is the matter with you.



VVV No one has insulted Palin, PC, despite the phony protests. Go have a look at, and please stop lying. VVV
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2084 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/11/2008 3:15:58 PM
Panic? You really have to get out of the basement, buddy. Open a window. Something.

Right now I'm making the popcorn for an interview party tonight. About 30 of us will be crowded around a big screen watching Charlie Gibson do his signature tough-but-fair dismemberment of Palin. Sentiments are running strong in favor of a drinking game - one shot for every ducked question, two for every lie. I'm begging everyone to bring a sleeping bag, because I don't want them driving after a debauch like that.

Here, btw, are the questions proposed by Alaska's paper of record, the Anchorage Daily News. Charlie won't focus so on local Alaska issues, but he's sure to be just as tough.

• You present yourself as a Republican maverick who took on your own party's corrupt political establishment. In November's election, your party is running an indicted U.S. Senator, Ted Stevens, who is awaiting trial on charges he accepted more than $250,000 of unreported gifts from the state's most powerful lobbyist. Will you vote for his opponent? Will you urge Alaskans to help you change Washington and vote him out of office? If not, why not?

• Sen. Ted Stevens' trial is still pending; he has declined to say whether he would accept a pardon from President Bush before Bush leaves office in January. Do Alaska voters deserve an answer to that question before they cast their vote for or against Stevens in November? What is your position on a president pardoning a public official before a jury has ruled on guilt or innocence?

• Alaska Congressman Don Young appears to have won his Republican primary, even though you endorsed his opponent. Will you vote for your fellow Republican Don Young, who has spent over $1 million on legal fees without telling his constituents what sort of legal trouble he is in?

• Why have you reneged on your earlier pledge to cooperate with the Alaska Legislature's investigation into Troopergate?

• In spring of 2004, the Daily News reported that you cited family considerations in deciding not to try for the U.S. Senate: "How could I be the team mom if I was a U.S. senator?" What was different this time as you decided to run for vice president?

• As governor of Alaska, you have not pushed for laws or regulations that put your personal views on abortion, same-sex marriage and creationism into public policy. As vice president, will you push to outlaw abortion, restrict same-sex marriage and require the teaching of creationism?

• If you were a fully qualified vice-presidential candidate from the get-go, why did you wait more than 10 days to face reporters?

• McCain spokesman Rick Davis told Fox News the media didn't show you enough "deference." How much deference do you expect to get from Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez?

• You have said victory is in sight in Iraq. In July 2007, when you visited Kuwait, you said, "I'm not going to judge the surge." In the March 2007 issue of Alaska Business Monthly, you were asked about the surge and quoted saying: "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. . . . While I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place." Define "victory" in Iraq? What is the exit plan?

Laissez le Bon Ton Roulez!

Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 891 (view)
Dinner Date - Who Pays?
Posted: 9/11/2008 2:59:34 PM
Dude, I myself have answered your question exhaustively, and at least twice, in this thread alone, as well as in multiple other threads.

I'm not doing it again.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2081 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/11/2008 1:37:33 PM
Sorry for the delay, Dallas, (msg 2090). To my great relief, a little work intruded.

First of all, thank you for dismissing the mischaracterization of Obama's 'lipstick' crack. He clearly said that McCain's claim to be a maverick while advocating nearly every major Bush policy was the lipstick on the pig. It was in no way about Palin. You acknowledged that, and I give you all due credit.

Did I miss the bit where you pointed out that the McCain campaign continues to air the ad which makes this manifestly false charge? Where you point out that, confronted with their lie, McCainCo continue to spend good Republican money to repeat it? Or the appearances on news programs, as recently as this morning, of Republican party officials insisting Palin is the lipsticked pig and Obama tried to teach fellatio to kindergarteners, among other outrages?

I'm sure I missed that, because it is, of course, the greater sin against clean campaigning to persist, officially, in such gross deception. You're a man of character, so I know you repudiate such debased politicks.


I also appreciate your endorsement of, a scrupulously non-partisan research site and an example to would-be journalists and commentators everywhere.

Their objection to a DNC ad that first aired in April is legitimate. While there is no deception or distortion in the text, the ad does show images of wartime violence behind McCain's answer to 'how long must we be in Iraq? Maybe a hundred [years]." Pause. "That'd be fine with me."

McCain went on to refer to our postwar presence in Germany and Korea as corollary. The ad images suggest he meant 100 years of armed conflict. That is a misrepresentation.

A couple of important caveats apply, however.

First, of course, this was a DNC ad, and not an ad produced or endorsed by Obama or his campaign. I grant one has to own one's party, but that's a far heavier burden for McCain, anyway, as remarked by Senator Obama, above.

Second, the ad does not assert a falsehood, as a number of McCain ads do lie outright, in their text and voice-overs. The unspoken inference is certainly false and rightly condemned. But the text is accurate, which one can't say of McCain ads.

Third, the ad does express, if clumsily, the legitimate policy difference between McCain and the DNC, as better explicated by Chairman Dean on Meet the Press, as quoted by FactCheck:

First of all, we're not arguing that he's going to be at war for a hundred years. We don't think we ought to be in Iraq for a hundred years under any circumstances.
. . .
Secondly, if Senator McCain believes that you can occupy a country like Iraq for a hundred years without having a long war and violence and our troops being hurt and, and killed, I think Senator McCain is wrong. . . . [D]oes anyone think, who's watching this show, that if you keep our troops in Iraq for a hundred years, people won't be attacking them . . . ? I don't think so. And most Americans don't think so.

Yeah, I wish the ad had said so, because that's the legitimate argument I want to hear answered by McCain. Obama was also saying, for a while, that McCain envisions 100 more years of war, and that is not accurate. However, given the reasonable assertion that our military presence in the region invites violence, the charge can't be dismissed as a lie. It's more a conflation of two ideas, and a challenge to McCain's assumption that there can be a peacetime military presence in Iraq.

So we've got one bald lie vs. one carelessly expressed charge. And we disapprove of both. Good enough. (BTW, the MoveOn ad says nothing about war vs occupation vs permanent bases. It objects to sending our kids to the wrong country under any conditions. They don't misstate anything, do they?)


You say, Dallas, that "Falsehoods . . . are every bit as present from the Dems as they are from the Republicans." I invite you to take another look at FactCheck's front page and to dig into, say, their last 25 articles on the campaign. They have tallied far more outright lies on the Republican side than on the Democratic side, whether we stick strictly to the campaigns' statements or include their supporters. And many of those explicit lies appear every day in McCain and Palin's stump speeches and in nearly every one of their TV ads. You just can't say that of Obama-Biden, not with evidence.

I would also remind you of the sophisticated lie machine on the right, best (worst?) typified by swiftboater Jerome Corsi's Obamanation. In this ultra loony pack of lies about the candidate, Corsi reprises his disgraceful slander of John Kerry in Unfit for Command. Nine of his first twelve "footnotes" are to his own writings! While he continues to challenge anyone to find factual errors in the book, particularly the Obama campaign, he has recently issued a (first?) list of corrections, most of them from the Obama campaign. Then he appeared on FAUX NOISE to declare that the Obama campaign has yet to find a single error. Lies about lies!

Obamanation debuted at the top of the New York Times bestseller list through a ruse frequently employed by Regnery and other fringe-right publishers. They contract to sell some books at a volume discount to local Republican party groups and other righties, many of whom use the books as membership premiums or just let them sit in their crates. That way, the publisher can claim bestseller numbers even if very few people are buying - let alone reading - the thing. Lies about their own importance!

There is nothing on the left resembling this disinformation plunger, in product, size, or reach. It is a virtual reality of tighie rightie enthusiasm created by a few fat, white men behind a very Ozzy curtain. It's practically a church.

There is nothing whatever on the left so dedicated to deceit. I grant you there are excesses and misstatements and the occasional disgraceful invention from some rogue outlier. But nothing whatever like the coordinated smear and lie machine on the right.

If I'm wrong, show me the lies.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2046 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/10/2008 12:21:10 PM
Barr, you forgot to call Dallas out on his empty MoveOn threat. Their rhetoric is certainly often overwrought, but they don't deal in outright lies and slander like the shit boaters and other Republican operatives.

As long as we're on it, I want to repudiate a few amateur e-mail attacks on Palin. I can guarantee you these flimsy lies don't come from the Democrats or their agents, but from some misguided freelancers out there. I guarantee it because they are such clumsy attempts to smear her, schoolboy stuff.

First, there's a pic going around with Palin's head on a bikini-clad body holding an automatic weapon. Not her.

Second, there's a a pic going around with Palin's head on a leather mini-skirted body in platform heels with a glass of wine. Not her.

Third, there's a purported list of the books she wanted to remove from the Wasilla library. There never was a list; she did ask the librarian there how to go about removing a book from the shelves, but she never mentioned a specific book to anyone we know of. Besides, the list I've seen includes Harry Potter and other titles published after she was mayor. There's nothing to it.

I respond to every one of these bogus charges against McCain and Palin that comes my way. I scold whoever is circulating them, and remind them that we deserve to win on the Republican record and on the facts or not at all. I remind them that Republicans slander their opponents with lies and innuendo; we don't.

(BTW, did you know that Tucker Bounds, the creep who masterminded the rumor in North Carolina that McCain has a black **stard, smearing his adopted daughter as well, and so took the state for Bush, did you know that Bounds is now a senior media aide to the McCain campaign? These guys lie so much, they even pass their best liars around like the whores they are!)

Anyway, you won't ever hear any of our Republican apologists denouncing the lie machine on their side. If they did they wouldn't have a campaign!

So, come on, Dallas. If you have something, then bring it. If you have the cubes to spurn McCain's lie factory, then speak up. If you don't, then pass your wind in some other direction. No one will ever enjoy it as much as you do.

Meanwhile, Palin has repeated the same goddamned lies in every speech, including her acceptance speech. You can't have missed it. Explain her lies away while you're at it.



^^^ thatswhat, I admire your sympathetic outlook, and I'm stunned by your optimism about a Palin White House bid. But, I gotta say, your argument all together sounds like a pitch for an unholy cross between The West Wing and The Beverly Hillbillies. The ramp this woman has to roll up to be ready for either job is a lot longer and steeper than you concede. But you get points for your generous gesture. ^^^

VVV No no no, good buddy. Some of those lies are about her own record, like the B to N she campaigned for and kept the money for, which she says in every speech she refused outright. I don't care if she's the campaign poodle. If she has any integrity at all, she wouldn't tell the same bald lie over and over, bacon treats be damned! VVV
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 17 (view)
Always the friend, never the Man
Posted: 9/10/2008 2:12:10 AM
I can't tell for sure about this from your text, OPie, but you do go on about what you want and telling a woman what you want and what you don't want, etc.

When do you get to the part where you show your genuine interest in her, in her life, her preferences, her wants? A date isn't a waitress. She isn't there at all to deliver what you want. Just as you are there for your reasons, she is there for hers. Knowing your own reasons is easy. Do you know hers? Are they interesting reasons? Attractive reasons?

Do you know that showing interest in a woman is not about trying to get her? That it is about showing interest? If you're doing most of the talking and none of the engaged listening, which is how you seem to describe things, then you certainly come across as interested in no one but yourself.

Here's a quick self test. How many questions do you ask a date about herself and her life that are not yes/no questions? How many questions do you ask her based upon her answers? How often do you find elements of her life in her answers that you can relate to and tell her so?

And how much of what she tells you about herself do you remember the next time you see her?

The closer your answers are to zero, the more self-absorbed you appear. And that's not attractive to anyone.

Just guessing here!

Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 139 (view)
What ever happened to courtship?
Posted: 9/10/2008 1:55:12 AM
Nothing ever toned down anywhere, any time, Sau. Victorian England, for instance, gave us some of the wildest and most elegantly perverse pornographic literature the world has yet seen. Ask your librarian for The Flea or The Ways of a Man With a Maid. No authors, I'm afraid. Again, the repression of the day only forced people not to talk about what they were doing. They never stopped doing it. Why would they?

BTW, your either/or approach to reading impoverishes you. You might as well say "I'm not big into cheese on my cheeseburger (I'm a hamburger fan)." The truth - and by that I mean The Truth - lives in fiction differently and completely. Facts alone can't make anyone wise.

And yes, Willie the Shakes is some dirty stuff, and not only innuendo. Juliet, a slip of 14, fvcks Romeo in her bedroom with her nurse in the next. The crisis isn't so much that she did it, but that she did it with one of those no-good Montagues. Hamlet's mother kind of makes a pass at him. Lot's of cool stuff out on Front Street, and the innuendoes!

If it takes a dirty piece of literature to crack your cherry, so be it. I suggest The White Hotel, by D.M. Thomas. Luscious, crackling sex is the very thread of a story that is ultimately devastating in its reach and depth. Since you've read some Freud, it'll resonate even more richly, as the heroine is his (fictional) patient.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
Obama and McCain Acceptance Speeches, Issue by Issue
Posted: 9/9/2008 1:24:44 PM
I've been pretty adversarial in the election threads, so I thought I would "reach across the aisle," as the phrase goes. I have combed Obama and McCain's acceptance speeches for specific text on specific issues and put their statements on each issue next to each other, to make it easier for everyone to see what each man said in his speech on that subject.

I admit freely that I made editorial choices here and there. Speeches are often not about one thing at a time, and I'm sure I omitted text from both that someone else would have quoted. I may have left out an issue altogether, though I tried not to. I couldn't help repeating a little text under multiple headings. I invite and welcome any and all corrections and additions. I don't mean to prove anything by this exercise. I only want to provide the forum with a tool, a foundation for productive discussion.

So: I've given every subject a header. Under it, Obama's text comes first (which is only fair, right?) and is in italics. McCain's text follows, and is in bold. On a couple of issues, one candidate said nothing. At the end, I added a number of substantial issues neither candidate addressed. That strikes me as worth discussion, too.

When you comment on one issue or another, please be kind and name that issue right at the top of your comment. If you are addressing the speech as a whole, please indicate 'SPEECH.' If an unaddressed issue, either name it or say 'OTHER ISSUES.'

OK? Enjoy!


Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.
When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as president of the United States.

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.
But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it. Because I've lived it. I've seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work. I've seen it in Washington, when we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans and keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands.

And I've seen it in this campaign. In the young people who voted for the first time, and in those who got involved again after a very long time. In the Republicans who never thought they'd pick up a Democratic ballot, but did. I've seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day than see their friends lose their jobs, in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb, in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.

I’m not in the habit of breaking promises to my country and neither is Governor Palin. And when we tell you we’re going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country’s problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We’ve got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you.

You know, I’ve been called a maverick; someone who marches to the beat of his own drum.

Sometimes it’s meant as a compliment and sometimes it’s not. What it really means is I understand who I work for. I don’t work for a party. I don’t work for a special interest. I don’t work for myself. I work for you.

I’ve fought corruption, and it didn’t matter if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. They violated their public trust, and had to be held accountable. I’ve fought big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on things you neither need nor want, while you struggle to buy groceries, fill your gas tank and make your mortgage payment. I’ve fought to get million dollar checks out of our elections. I’ve fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes. I fought crooked deals in the Pentagon. I fought tobacco companies and trial lawyers, drug companies and union bosses.

I fought for the right strategy and more troops in Iraq, when it wasn’t a popular thing to do. And when the pundits said my campaign was finished, I said I’d rather lose an election than see my country lose a war.

Thanks to the leadership of a brilliant general, David Petraeus, and the brave men and women he has the honor to command, that strategy succeeded and rescued us from a defeat that would have demoralized our military, risked a wider war and threatened the security of all Americans.

I don’t mind a good fight. For reasons known only to God, I’ve had quite a few tough ones in my life. But I learned an important lesson along the way. In the end, it matters less that you can fight. What you fight for is the real test.

I fight for Americans. I fight for you. I fight for Bill and Sue Nebe from Farmington Hills, Michigan, who lost their real estate investments in the bad housing market. Bill got a temporary job after he was out of work for seven months. Sue works three jobs to help pay the bills.

I fight for Jake and Toni Wimmer of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Jake works on a loading dock; coaches Little League, and raises money for the mentally and physically disabled. Toni is a schoolteacher, working toward her Master’s Degree. They have two sons, the youngest, Luke, has been diagnosed with autism. Their lives should matter to the people they elect to office. They matter to me.

I fight for the family of Matthew Stanley of Wolfboro, New Hampshire, who died serving our country in Iraq. I wear his bracelet and think of him every day. I intend to honor their sacrifice by making sure the country their son loved so well and never returned to, remains safe from its enemies.

I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption.


Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that, we owe him our gratitude and respect. And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.
But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time?
The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives, on health care and education and the economy, Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this president. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisers, the man who wrote his economic plan, was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under $5 million a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.
For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy — give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is, you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well, it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.

Finally, a word to Senator Obama and his supporters. We’ll go at it over the next two months. That’s the nature of these contests, and there are big differences between us. But you have my respect and admiration. Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other. We’re dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. No country ever had a greater cause than that. And I wouldn’t be an American worthy of the name if I didn’t honor Senator Obama and his supporters for their achievement.

Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies.

Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power.


Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the startups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes — cut taxes for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

[Governor Palin}’s balanced a budget, cut taxes, and taken on the special interests.

[Republicans] believe in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.

I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them.

My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them.

Keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs. Cutting the second highest business tax rate in the world will help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas. Doubling the child tax exemption from $3500 to $7000 will improve the lives of millions of American families.


And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stopgap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies retool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy; wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

My fellow Americans, when I’m President, we’re going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.

Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that. We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet.


Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American — if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.

Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I’m President, they will.


Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.


For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a president who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice, but it is not the change we need.

I fought for the right strategy and more troops in Iraq, when it wasn’t a popular thing to do. And when the pundits said my campaign was finished, I said I’d rather lose an election than see my country lose a war.

Thanks to the leadership of a brilliant general, David Petraeus, and the brave men and women he has the honor to command, that strategy succeeded and rescued us from a defeat that would have demoralized our military, risked a wider war and threatened the security of all Americans.


We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans — Democrats and Republicans have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly and finish the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

Today, the prospect of a better world remains within our reach. But we must see the threats to peace and liberty in our time clearly and face them, as Americans before us did, with confidence, wisdom and resolve.

We have dealt a serious blow to al Qaeda in recent years. But they are not defeated, and they’ll strike us again if they can. Iran remains the chief state sponsor of terrorism and on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons. Russia’s leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of a responsible power. They invaded a small, democratic neighbor to gain more control over the world’s oil supply, intimidate other neighbors, and further their ambitions of reassembling the Russian empire. And the brave people of Georgia need our solidarity and prayers. As President, I will work to establish good relations with Russia so we need not fear a return of the Cold War. But we can’t turn a blind eye to aggression and international lawlessness that threatens the peace and stability of the world and the security of the American people.

We face many threats in this dangerous world, but I'm not afraid of them. I'm prepared for them. I know how the military works, what it can do, what it can do better, and what it should not do. I know how the world works. I know the good and the evil in it. I know how to work with leaders who share our dreams of a freer, safer and more prosperous world, and how to stand up to those who don't. I know how to secure the peace.


We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.

[Republicans] believe in … a culture of life.


The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.


I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.


Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.


we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable….
Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it….

I’ve fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes.


I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease.


[Palin]’s tackled tough problems like energy independence and corruption.

I’ve fought corruption, and it didn’t matter if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. They violated their public trust, and had to be held accountable.

We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption.


Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.


Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.


And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.


Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime, by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less because we cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy.


And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility — that's the essence of America's promise.

If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our Armed Forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.








Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2026 (view)
Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home
Posted: 9/9/2008 12:36:12 PM
If you're not lying, Redd, then you can give us a citation we can check for ourselves. That's how the grownups do it.

But, even if you don't make the effort, you do realize, don't you, that every word these four people say is transcribed and searchable online? If Senator Obama ever said the words, "Americans are stupid," I could enter that phrase and 'Obama' in the google and find the date and place and the full context of the quote. And I do not find it anywhere.

Telling us you saw it on TV is not a citation. You are claiming to be the source yourself. I'm not calling you a liar now, no more than I did before. But, like any other fair minded person, I recognize what liars do. And I beg you not to do that any more.

If the Senator really said "Americans are stupid," then I want to know it. I want all of us to know it, because this is serious business, far more serious than whether anybody believes you or not. Stop making this about you. Prove your charge, or stop making things up.

If you can't prove it, you see, you are making it up. That's how this always works. That's why I prove the assertions I make. You don't have to believe me. It's a fact that George and Sarah are telling the same big lies in every appearance. You can go to the facts I provide sources to. If I don't source something, you can ask, and I will. If I can't, I will retract. Those are the rules for everyone, so please don't whine as if they are only being applied to you. You're only demanding special treatment that no one deserves or gets. Stop it.

And for dog's sake, don't quote NewsMax. Even the fringiest tightie righties are embarrassed by that swill. Read it again, will you, and notice the made up stuff and the unsupported opinions and inferences mixed in with the carefully selected facts. It's not journalism - not even bad journalism. I would call Drudge journalism before NewsMax. Hell, I would call FOX journalism before NewsMax. No one quotes them but people who've got nothing else, and there's good reason for that. You're insulting even the people you agree with when you drag that shit up.

Let's get serious now, OK?


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 84 (view)
What ever happened to courtship?
Posted: 9/9/2008 12:04:46 PM
The only thing I ever learn from these "how come the world is different than I thought it would be?" threads is that too many Americans do not read history or otherwise develop a frame of reference more reliable than their assumptions.

Here it is: there was always decorous and chaste courtship, and there is today. There was always backing a street tart into a doorway and going at it, and there is today. (That last image comes from James Boswell's London Journal, c. 1763. He describes, matter-of-fact-like, a wink and a nod and a poke in the street with some grubby girl, to whom he tossed a few coins after. Jimmy was, btw, from aristocratic parentage, but young, free, and horny.)

There was also lots of hot, crazy sex in every other historical period, in every other place. Don't confuse the pronouncements of self-appointed moral authorities with what people ever did. I mean, if people weren't fvcking willy-nilly, why would priests and other busybodies always be telling them not to?

As a single example I just love, look at Barbara Stanwyck's iron slut in her 1933 star turn, Baby Doll. After she throws over John Wayne because he can't help her career, she's about to get fired, and drags her boss into the office ladies room to do him. They come out "disheveled," and his boss catches them, so she does him, and etc. She's like a supervillain in this thing!

No, wild 'n crazy is as old as genitalia. What has changed is only our awareness of all the do being done. Social pressure used to keep people mum about these things (except in our diaries); now, thank dog, there is less stigma attached to what people are going to do regardless. So there's more talk, more acceptance - indifference, really. But I don't think it is possible that there is more sex.

Sure, some choose to be chaste, and good for them, if that's what they want. The only point, after all, is what you want, and finding someone who wants it, too. It's on that last point that men have always tripped. We are, sad to say, poisoned with testosterone for much of our lives. It persuades us that everybody wants to fvck, and right now! I know how stupid that sounds to women - it sounds like a cop out on responsibility, and it is. But it is also true. Our glands tell us to get some now! It feels like one of the necessary bodily functions coming to call, and not one of the optional ones. It feels like the urgency you feel underwater, when you absolutely have to take a breath.

That explains to me why there are six billion of us, and counting. It isn't the nesting instinct.

Throughout history, women have endured, managed, and complained of male urgency and insistence. We have always been pigs, and you have always said so, unless you were in a porky frame of mind. Some of us learn to sublimate that urgency, and we've filled libraries and museums with the product of that energy. Much of that product, of course, has large, pendulous breasts and epic scenes of debauchery. I wonder why?

All this comes down to that prim piece of advice many young girls get - to be firm with little Johnnie Humpstump from the get go. As soon as he grabs, shut him down and establish your boundaries. It isn't a bit fair to girls and women to make you responsible for the pace of our enjoyments, and for birth control, and for breakfast. I hope future generations find a better way. Until now, and for now, that's what we've got.

OPie, you only have to tell him. Maybe twice.

OK, I don't know how many times. Why not ask him?


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 2021 (view)
Palin Lies In Lee's Summit
Posted: 9/9/2008 11:08:52 AM
The issues, people. The future? The stakes?

Oh, OK, character. The Antiques Road Show was in Lee's Summit, MO, yesterday. That's a prosperous, anglo suburb of Kansas City. You can read a local account here:

George and Sarah continue to tell bald-faced lies about past acts in government, a testament both to their character(s) and to what we can expect in their future - four more years. (emphasis added)

[Palin] once again described her decision to reject federal money to build the infamous "bridge to nowhere" because she she said if her state wanted the bridge it would build it itself. It's been widely reported, however, that she first championed the project and kept the federal appropriation for Alaska even after the bridge idea died.

[McCain] criticized Obama for decrying earmarks while seeking nearly $1 billion in those special appropriations.

However, Congressional and GAO records are clear. Not only has Senator Obama requested only one third of that amount in earmarks over the last two years, but Governor Palin requested over $700,000,000.00 -seven hundred million dollars - in earmarks last year alone. That was the biggest earmark request for any state per capita.

Personally, I know earmarks themselves are not evil. There should be a better way to do business in Washington, but this is how it is done now. I don't fault Senators McCain or Obama or Governor Palin or anybody else for looking out for their own state. That's what they were elected to do.

However, lying about straightforward and publicly available numbers is something else again. George and Sarah think you are stupid. They think they can scare you with big numbers and comfort you in your willful ignorance. They are betting that you will cling to your fear and their lies and refuse to inform yourself.

They are betting, in short, that you don't have the stuff to be Americans.

These are not the only whoppers these two are repeating ad absurdum in their tightly scripted appearances. It's all they have to run on, after all. They have to do everything they can to distract you from the record of the last eight years - the Republican record, a record they advocated and celebrated until this campaign began.

I know you are better than they hope you are. If and when you choose to be.



BTW, what's the difference between George W. Bush and Sarah Palin?


VVV Redd, if you're not lying, you are hallucinating. That never happened. The single remark I think you are referring to was not at all disparaging, though it was tea-leaved to be so by flacks on the right. But I'll let you prove it or eat it.

Besides, that was a single, off-the-cuff remark in a one-on-one conversation. George and Sarah are lying everyday from their campaign script to crowds of people! You do understand the difference between deliberate and casual remarks, don't you?

Don't you? VVV
Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 127 (view)
What's your favorite secret ingredient?
Posted: 9/9/2008 10:42:56 AM
Could be salt . . . .


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 725 (view)
Reporting And deleting Main images
Posted: 9/9/2008 12:35:21 AM
Moderators show us what the world would be like if there were a god.


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 1923 (view)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/7/2008 1:56:10 PM
Here's a current review of the anecdotes and evidence of McCain's volatility:

I'll only quote one of McCain's defenders on the point, to remind us all which campaign is taking the low road, and which is taking pains to tell it straight:

"Yeah, he has a temper. . . . It's obvious. You've seen it. But is John whatever his opposition painted him to be, this unstable guy who came out of a prisoner or war camp not capable of (acting rationally)? I don't buy that at all," said Democratic vice-presidential nominee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden of Delaware.

That was an easy opportunity to land a low blow, and Sen Biden told it straight, as he has and will.

Don't skip the article. It reads like Moe Howard was elected to the Senate from Arizona. Do we want someone like this choosing our Vice President?


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 90 (view)
Is Good a God Dating Coach???
Posted: 9/7/2008 1:26:03 PM
Thanks, O-Soul. You saved me from a mess o' typin'.

The voices tell me the voices are real.
The dreams mingle dreams and tomorrow.
If I challenge them, then would I still feel
the companions of air whom I borrow?


Joined: 10/30/2006
Msg: 123 (view)
Is the way to a woman heart through her mind?
Posted: 9/7/2008 1:09:22 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: straight in under the sternum, through the mesothelia, then up three or four inches, and there you go!

Kind of a disturbing question, though. Am I the only one who thinks so?


Show ALL Forums