Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: Sarah Palin Interview
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Germanator
Tell that to the "Straight Talk Express." Seriously. Back in 2000 (if I could have voted) I might have gone for McCain instead of Gore, but the guy has really lost his integrity.
Mccain on the view was the funniest thing ever. This video sums up a lot of thoughts:
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
1) If you read all of factcheck.org, you'll see a lot of dirt coming from Obama as well. The mud-slinging has gone both ways.
here is an excellent example:
The truth is that the hunting was culling wolf overpopulation that was destroying Carilbou herds. So I guess not the McCain camp should come out and attack Obama as anti-caribou? Do you see how silly all of the claims that McCain has been more negative than Obama? They've both been negative.
As for the sex-ed claim: Did you read the bill, or just repeat what Obama said? Read the legislation, and then get back to me. It was a LOT more than avoiding predadators.
2) What does segregation have to do with any of this? Do you honestly think that argument holds any water in today's political media scene? Why won't anyone challenge the points I made instead of dismissing them because "you've heard it before"? Once again, a spade is a spade, regardless of whther or not you've seen one before.
3) Palin was not my first, second or fourth choice, but you can't argue with the pick, politically. Now McCain is winning where he was being handed a drubbing before. Palin gave him a 10 point swing, got the Obama campaign on the defensive, mobilized the conservative base, raised a ton of money and will launch him into the debates. He needed that if he wanted to win. If you don't win you don't get to make any judgements, and with McCain's long history of independently minded legislation, I'm willing to forgive some actions taken during the heat of a campaign because I feel he is by far rthe superior candidate based on the issues (namely healthcare tax rebates, energy policy, vetoing earmarks, and international issues).
You want to question McCain's judgement because of the Palin pick? Fine. He was losing, now he's winning. How's that for judgement? Obama picked Biden because he needed experience on the ticket and he was scared to death of the Clintons. The truth is, if Obama had picked Clinton, this race would be OVER right now.
The strategy of attaching Bush to McCain HAS NOT WORKED. Voters over 30 with a memory remember the 200 campaign. They remember McCain coming out against certain Bush policies and a long history of centrist legislative leadership, and they aren't buying it. "McSame failed at the convention and it will fail again. You don't have to believe me, look at the polls:
Obama was slipping against McCain since the beginning of the summer, and now he's losing. YET they are going to go back to more of the same. I don't think they've figured out that McCain is bulletproof on that point.
Obama should be attacking McCain on where THEY differ, and leave Bush out of it. He should be putting out ads, with more specifics (all you need is a single sentence blurb as McCain has shown), about healthcare, taxes, Iraq strategy, etc. He needs to give more than just "lower taxes for 95% of Americans". "provide healthcare", and "get out of Iraq in a timely manner".
Instead, they'll continue with more of what has done nothing for them to gain new support. Once again, this shouldn't even be close.
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 09-15-2008 at 12:21 AM.
Now Playing: The Legend of Zelda : Twilight Princess
Posts: 6,031
Re: Sarah Palin Interview
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
1) If you read all of factcheck.org, you'll see a lot of dirt coming from Obama as well. The mud-slinging has gone both ways.
here is an excellent example:
The truth is that the hunting was culling wolf overpopulation that was destroying Carilbou herds. So I guess not the McCain camp should come out and attack Obama as anti-caribou? Do you see how silly all of the claims that McCain has been more negative than Obama? They've both been negative.
As for the sex-ed claim: Did you read the bill, or just repeat what Obama said? Read the legislation, and then get back to me. It was a LOT more than avoiding predadators.
2) What does segregation have to do with any of this? Do you honestly think that argument holds any water in today's political media scene? Why won't anyone challenge the points I made instead of dismissing them because "you've heard it before"? Once again, a spade is a spade, regardless of whther or not you've seen one before.
3) Palin was not my first, second or fourth choice, but you can't argue with the pick, politically. Now McCain is winning where he was being handed a drubbing before. Palin gave him a 10 point swing, got the Obama campaign on the defensive, mobilized the conservative base, raised a ton of money and will launch him into the debates. He needed that if he wanted to win. If you don't win you don't get to make any judgements, and with McCain's long history of independently minded legislation, I'm willing to forgive some actions taken during the heat of a campaign because I feel he is by far rthe superior candidate based on the issues (namely healthcare tax rebates, energy policy, vetoing earmarks, and international issues).
You want to question McCain's judgement because of the Palin pick? Fine. He was losing, now he's winning. How's that for judgement? Obama picked Biden because he needed experience on the ticket and he was scared to death of the Clintons. The truth is, if Obama had picked Clinton, this race would be OVER right now.
The strategy of attaching Bush to McCain HAS NOT WORKED. Voters over 30 with a memory remember the 200 campaign. They remember McCain coming out against certain Bush policies and a long history of centrist legislative leadership, and they aren't buying it. "McSame failed at the convention and it will fail again. You don't have to believe me, look at the polls. Obama was slipping against McCain since the beginning of the summer, and now he's losing. YET they are going to go back to more of the same. I don't think they've figured out that McCain is bulletproof on that point.
Obama should be attacking McCain on where THEY differ, and leave Bush out of it. He should be putting out ads, with more specifics (all you need is a single sentence blurb as McCain has shown), about healthcare, taxes, Iraq strategy, etc. He needs to give more than just "lower taxes for 95% of Americans". "provide healthcare", and "get out of Iraq in a timely manner".
Instead, they'll continue with more of what has done nothing for them to gain new support. Once again, this shouldn't even be close.
Did I miss something, Professor? Explain to me where the ad you posted says that it is approved by Barack Obama. It doesn't? Oh yeah, it doesn't. It actually specifically says it is not affiliated with any candidate. Nice try though. All of the ads I mentioned were specifically endorsed by McCain. The things dismissed by Factcheck were about smears from liberal blogs, not anyone in Obama's camp.
He wasn't even a sponsor, but he voted for it. Parents didn't have to agree to it and it didn't teach anything explicit. What exactly is the problem here? I couldn't find the full legislation, but only every major news organization denouncing it as absurd. Spin it your own way though, go ahead.
In the end, yeah I agree, in the short term, the Palin pick has worked. I don't think the enthusiasm will last for more than another week or so, but maybe I'm wrong. I've never said that the Obama was running a great campaign, and yeah, the point is to win, but I respect Obama's take on it. He called the media's bullshit on the "lipstick on a pig" story when McCain ran with it and he immediately said Palin's family was off-limits from the get go. The Republicans cry sexism every time a criticism has run against Palin, but didn't feel that way when Hillary was a threat. In the end, the Republicans will do whatever they can to win, whether that means bending the truth or taking any position when it favors them. Yes, this is politics, and if they need to play dirty to win, great, but it feels better to root for the good guys who actually seem to have the country's interests in hand rather than their own power. Call me naive if you want, but nothing about McCain's borderline untruthful campaign tells me he's going to help this country. When is the last time he mentioned a specific policy of his own and how it will help America? I wish I was being facetious in asking this question, but I really can't remember. In the end, I'd rather believe in truth and hope than fear and lies, but I suppose we differ there.
And I did challenge your assertion on the "liberal media." I asked you whether it's possible that Palin just really has more skeletons in her closet than Obama. The media has had 19 months to run at Obama and they've dug up what they could (secret Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, anti-American wife, Jeremiah Wright, etc). The media was presented with somebody the general public didn't know with just 60 days left in the election and you expected nothing to happen? Palin has had a questionable past (Troopergate, congressional earmarks, Bridge to Nowhere, hiring friends to high-level positions in Alaskan government) and these are all legitimate concerns.
Last edited by The Germanator : 09-15-2008 at 12:55 AM.
Did I miss something, Professor? Explain to me where the ad you posted says that it is approved by Barack Obama. It doesn't? Oh yeah, it doesn't. It actually specifically says it is not affiliated with any candidate. Nice try though.
Honestly, I missed that. I don't try and "slip things passed". I thought it was an approved Obama ad, and I'll concede the point.
All of the ads I mentioned were specifically endorsed by McCain. The things dismissed by Factcheck were about smears from liberal blogs, not anyone in Obama's camp.
He wasn't even a sponsor, but he voted for it. Parents didn't have to agree to it and it didn't teach anything explicit. What exactly is the problem here? I couldn't find the full legislation, but only every major news organization denouncing it as absurd. Spin it your own way though, go ahead.[/quote]
I never said that there was a porblem, I said that the statement the Obama campaign made in saying it was only about child protection was dishonest, AND IT WAS regardless of what anyone says about it. I never made value judgements on the legislation, only Obama's dishonest response to it. The fact is the legislation involved teaching chjildren as young as 5 about intercourse, same-sex couples, etc., and not just protection. No spin needed.
Quote:
In the end, yeah I agree, in the short term, the Palin pick has worked. I don't think the enthusiasm will last for more than another week or so, but maybe I'm wrong. I've never said that the Obama was running a great campaign, and yeah, the point is to win, but I respect Obama's take on it. He called the media's bullshit on the "lipstick on a pig" story when McCain ran with it and he immediately said Palin's family was off-limits from the get go. The Republicans cry sexism every time a criticism has run against Palin, but didn't feel that way when Hillary was a threat.
I agree completely. I think the Republicans have lost their mind in trying to push everything as an attack against women/age/etc. Republicans don't do well playing themselves as victiums, nor should they do so.
Quote:
In the end, the Republicans will do whatever they can to win, whether that means bending the truth or taking any position when it favors them. Yes, this is politics, and if they need to play dirty to win, great, but it feels better to root for the good guys who actually seem to have the country's interests in hand rather than their own power. Call me naive if you want, but nothing about McCain's borderline untruthful campaign tells me he's going to help this country. When is the last time he mentioned a specific policy of his own and how it will help America? I wish I was being facetious in asking this question, but I really can't remember. In the end, I'd rather believe in truth and hope than fear and lies, but I suppose we differ there.
My biggest complaint here is the willful blindness you show in this post. You blame Republicans for doing whatever it takes, and not Democrats? Obama has been dishonest down to his policies, renaming government grants as "tax breaks" when they are really redistributiuon of wealth programs. He has said that McCain was against Bush's tax cuts, without explaining that he was against the tax cuts not being associated with cuts in spending, and not against the tax cuts themselves. That is a lie of omission and a misrepresentation.
Quote:
And I did challenge your assertion on the "liberal media." I asked you whether it's possible that Palin just really has more skeletons in her closet than Obama. The media has had 19 months to run at Obama and they've dug up what they could (secret Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, anti-American wife, Jeremiah Wright, etc). The media was presented with somebody the general public didn't know with just 60 days left in the election and you expected nothing to happen? Palin has had a questionable past (Troopergate, congressional earmarks, Bridge to Nowhere, hiring friends to high-level positions in Alaskan government) and these are all legitimate concerns.
No, you aren't arguing my point. My point wasn't about whether or not the media addressed Obama's skeletons, but how they did so. It took over a YEAR from Obama's announcement that he was running for the media to even mention William Ayers or Reverend Wright. It took 4 DAYS for them to dig up everything on Palin. If you can't see the difference, nothing I say will help you see it.
And for the record, the media never claimed that Obama was a secret Muslim, they debunked the assinine e-mail that went around claiming that he was a secret Muslim.
And as long as we're posting SNL skits, remember thje debate parody when Obama was asked if he needed a pillow? Yeah, its like that.
Did I miss something, Professor? Explain to me where the ad you posted says that it is approved by Barack Obama. It doesn't? Oh yeah, it doesn't. It actually specifically says it is not affiliated with any candidate. Nice try though.
Honestly, I missed that. I don't try and "slip things passed". I thought it was an approved Obama ad, and I'll concede the point.
Quote:
All of the ads I mentioned were specifically endorsed by McCain. The things dismissed by Factcheck were about smears from liberal blogs, not anyone in Obama's camp.
He wasn't even a sponsor, but he voted for it. Parents didn't have to agree to it and it didn't teach anything explicit. What exactly is the problem here? I couldn't find the full legislation, but only every major news organization denouncing it as absurd. Spin it your own way though, go ahead.
I never said that there was a problem, I said that the statement the Obama campaign made in saying it was only about child protection was dishonest, AND IT WAS regardless of what anyone says about it. I never made value judgements on the legislation, only Obama's dishonest response to it. The fact is the legislation involved teaching chjildren as young as 5 about intercourse, same-sex couples, etc., and not just protection. No spin needed. It is what it is.
Quote:
In the end, yeah I agree, in the short term, the Palin pick has worked. I don't think the enthusiasm will last for more than another week or so, but maybe I'm wrong. I've never said that the Obama was running a great campaign, and yeah, the point is to win, but I respect Obama's take on it. He called the media's bullshit on the "lipstick on a pig" story when McCain ran with it and he immediately said Palin's family was off-limits from the get go. The Republicans cry sexism every time a criticism has run against Palin, but didn't feel that way when Hillary was a threat.
I agree completely. I think the Republicans have lost their mind in trying to push everything as an attack against women/age/etc. Republicans don't do well playing themselves as victiums, nor should they do so.
Quote:
In the end, the Republicans will do whatever they can to win, whether that means bending the truth or taking any position when it favors them. Yes, this is politics, and if they need to play dirty to win, great, but it feels better to root for the good guys who actually seem to have the country's interests in hand rather than their own power. Call me naive if you want, but nothing about McCain's borderline untruthful campaign tells me he's going to help this country. When is the last time he mentioned a specific policy of his own and how it will help America? I wish I was being facetious in asking this question, but I really can't remember. In the end, I'd rather believe in truth and hope than fear and lies, but I suppose we differ there.
My biggest complaint here is the willful blindness you and many other Obama supporters show reflected in this post. You blame Republicans for doing whatever it takes, and not Democrats? Obama has been dishonest down to his policies, renaming government grants as "tax breaks" when they are really redistributiuon of wealth programs. He has said that McCain was against Bush's tax cuts, without explaining that he was against the tax cuts not being associated with cuts in spending, and not against the tax cuts themselves. That is a lie of omission and a misrepresentation.
Quote:
And I did challenge your assertion on the "liberal media." I asked you whether it's possible that Palin just really has more skeletons in her closet than Obama. The media has had 19 months to run at Obama and they've dug up what they could (secret Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, anti-American wife, Jeremiah Wright, etc). The media was presented with somebody the general public didn't know with just 60 days left in the election and you expected nothing to happen? Palin has had a questionable past (Troopergate, congressional earmarks, Bridge to Nowhere, hiring friends to high-level positions in Alaskan government) and these are all legitimate concerns.
No, you aren't arguing my point. My point wasn't about whether or not the media addressed Obama's skeletons, but how they did so. It took over a YEAR from Obama's announcement that he was running for the media to even mention William Ayers or Reverend Wright. It took 4 DAYS for them to dig up everything on Palin. If you can't see the difference, nothing I say will help you see it.
And for the record, the media never claimed that Obama was a secret Muslim, they debunked the assinine e-mail that went around claiming that he was a secret Muslim.
And as long as we're posting SNL skits, remember thje debate parody when Obama was asked if he needed a pillow? Yeah, its like that.
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 09-15-2008 at 03:28 PM.
Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: Sarah Palin Interview
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
You want to question McCain's judgement because of the Palin pick? Fine. He was losing, now he's winning. How's that for judgement? Obama picked Biden because he needed experience on the ticket and he was scared to death of the Clintons. The truth is, if Obama had picked Clinton, this race would be OVER right now.
That's a good point, however it goes against what he stood for in the begining. He didn't pick her because she's fit to be president in case he dies. He picked her to scoop up a few extra votes and to get more attention. Basically Mccain has sold completly out to try and win this election.
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
Re: Sarah Palin Interview
Hybrid Mode
