Me too.

jerseyhoya wrote:

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

You guys absolutely suck at this.

And just think - we still have almost two months to go!!

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:Beautiful, spot-on blog post by Andrew Sullivan on "McCain's Integrity"

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... tegri.html

Well, considering he refers to Obama as "the most talented politician of the next generation", and later states "it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president", we can probably assume it didn't come from an unbiased perspective.

It's a column. I never claimed it to be unbiased, and Andrew Sullivan, albeit no liberal generally speaking, made no claims to complete objectivity either.

Say we provide everyone with basic education and health care, which I thought public schools and Medicaid were already doing,

lollerz

Laexile wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:I would frame it differently. I think people are operating off of poor information. They haven't come to their views and conclusions with a full set of accurate information. They are being controlled alrgely with propoganda and other manipulations. Idon't think I know it all either.

Frame it any way you want, but you believe that you know more than they do and that if they just knew only as much as you they'd think like you. Don't you see the arrogance in that? You do know that this is the attitude of the Bush administration? I'm amazed that you think you know what people who you have never met and know nothing about need.

Philly the Kid wrote:I also appeal to common sense, and have a value system that says, its not ok for some peoplel to suffer and starve and be denied basic education and devekopment and health care, when others live like royalty. And you can say, that's just my opinion blah balh... but I can't really respect anyone who thinks its ok for some people to be impoverished so that others can live like kings.

There are two different concepts here. Few people think it's okay for people to suffer and starve and be denied basic education. Even the evil Republicans. Are you aware that no President has ever done what President Bush has to wipe out disease and starvation in Africa? It's one of his great successes.

Say we provide everyone with basic education and health care, which I thought public schools and Medicaid were already doing, what then? Is it government's responsibility to make sure everyone has a job making a certain amount of money and has everything they need? Do people have any personal responsibility?

Your second concept is people living like kings. Many Americans may resent people wealthier than themselves, but if they were told they could live like a king while others didn't most would seize it in a second. You live in a country where people strive to live like kings. Only a small percentage would deny Steven Speilberg or Bill Gates their wealth. America believes in work ethic. Work hard and get rewards. That doesn't always happen, but people don't have a problem if it happens for the other guy. In fact, it motivates many to work harder.

I've asked this before and I ask again. You believe if people knew what you know they'd agree with you. Have you convinced anyone on this board that your socialist utopia is better than their previous beliefs?

I can't go point by point and debate you ad infinitum becsuse I actually have a life and other responsibilities...

Let's leave it like this Lax. I have a view of what I think is better for mankind, more sustainable, and more egalitarian. Its world that would have less violencs, less poverty and less ignorance and more equality. I believe that if the picture could properly get painted, that most peope, perhaps even you, would be open to this paradigm shift. I don't see it happening, I see the atoms bouncing around more and more violently, I see those with power and wealth, hanging on with a tighter and tighter grip. Where I differ from you really, is that I don't believe that there is any real democractic process in place. I believe that powerful forces rule and the rest of it, the majority of the details we dicker over here are distraction.

Have I convinced anyone on this board to vote the P-t-K/Woody in 2012? Doubt it. I don't have it all figured out, but I can tell you, the system we have now is failing and won't survive history and one way or another things will change -- they will be forced to change.

This stuff about working hard and getting your just rewards is totally silly. There's no equation that says if you work hard and bring innovation you will be fairly rewarded. We have no measure of effort and contribution. It's all about who controls things. Everyone is not born with the same stake. We didn't all start the game with the same $500 and the same opportunities. That's what a class analysis and a historical analyses teach. You can call me an elitist or worse, a whacko, but I'm trying to get to some balance and greater fairness. The biggest criminals are people like Bush Cheney and corporate elites.

Your view of things I think is flawed at its source. Can I convince you of anything? Unlikely.

It's a moving train. And maybe most people would rather just live, being poisoned, lied to, distracted, feeding on lies and myths and prejudice all the while hoping to 'win the lottery' rather than change the system? I don't know... but I suspect thatif things were really layed out as they are, and people felt they had power and could actually input on the laws and other factors that govern their lives, they would likely side more with my views than the mirage, the mythology that has been sold to them hook line and sinker.

I'm talking paradigm shift. You are talking Republican conservative status quo.

Laexile wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Do you think Palin speaks for the majority of women? What percentage does she represent? Her views on woman-hood seem secondary to her views on Religion. Does she even have any secular views on being a woman and woman's rights?

I don't think anyone speaks for the majority of women. I think women speak for themselves. Palin represents herself. As a woman, she has her beliefs. What beliefs are private and what beliefs are part of governing are up to her. She has an opinion on women's issues. Some may agree and some may disagree, but I think most women would recognize she's coming from a standpoint of living these issues. It's up to women, not Joe Biden, to decide whether she's good for women.

Philly the Kid wrote:Do you ask all the men who organize and fund anti-abortion activities to step back because abortion is something that involves a woman and her body, and no man could ever get it?

Of course they can't. How can a man know what it's like to carry a baby? Men can have opinions like, "women have a right to choose" or that "abortion is wrong and should be prohibited" or on equal pay. It's a leap from having an opinion on this and a man deciding what is and isn't an advancement for women.

Your losing your grip. This is one of your weakest arguments ever.

Biden can't speak about women's experience because he's not a woman, but men can speak about abortion, a women's issue even though they are not women?

There are views that are majority view and minority views. Palin's views on women's roles, and her views on relgion and social policy are well known to be minority views. It is then easy to deduce she does NOT represent any majority, let alone that of women. There are other women in politics, and social cause life, who hold views that are supported by majorities.

I don't really know what you are trying to say?

You resent some remarks from Biden and 'how dare he think he can comment'? C'mon. It's election time, final furlongs, they are all going for sound bytes and saying all kind of untrue, distorted rhetoric.

Palin's private views are not just her business, when she becomes the VP of the nation I'm a citizen in. When she clearly does not respect the separation of Church and State, because relgigious fanatics, radivcal evangelicals like her don't believe in the separation. They feel their morality and religious views super-cede everything else. And that's something I'll fight in a civil war, because I won't ever live under some Evangleical fanatics who are so brazen and overt.

She's out of step, the Hilary supporter is not the Palin supporter on issues relevant to women. Palin as a "woman" advancing the cuaseof women is like saying Clarence Thomas forwarded the cause of African Americans. It takes more than your race and gender to forward things. If you are a radical extremist as those two are, it cancels out.

Philly the Kid wrote:Palin's private views are not just her business, when she becomes the VP of the nation I'm a citizen in. When she clearly does not respect the separation of Church and State, because relgigious fanatics, radivcal evangelicals like her don't believe in the separation. They feel their morality and religious views super-cede everything else. And that's something I'll fight in a civil war, because I won't ever live under some Evangleical fanatics who are so brazen and overt.

Could you support this statement? I'm serious, I'd really like to know what she's done so far that supports your comment. I'd welcome any information you have.

And I love your radical extremist comment. Based on Obama's voting record, he could be considered the Left's version of Thomas.

cshort wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Palin's private views are not just her business, when she becomes the VP of the nation I'm a citizen in. When she clearly does not respect the separation of Church and State, because relgigious fanatics, radivcal evangelicals like her don't believe in the separation. They feel their morality and religious views super-cede everything else. And that's something I'll fight in a civil war, because I won't ever live under some Evangleical fanatics who are so brazen and overt.

Could you support this statement? I'm serious, I'd really like to know what she's done so far that supports your comment. I'd welcome any information you have.

And I love your radical extremist comment. Based on Obama's voting record, he could be considered the Left's version of Thomas.

I'll work on some hard analyses, but I don't recall in most of my life hearing someone in the excutive branch talking about "God's will for us to be at war ... or rhetoric of that sort... ( i know i botched teh quote) but the mere fact she is even brining that kind of talk to the pulpit -- i mean podium -- is terrifying... and portends very much against my views.

THe USA of industrialized nations, is overwhelmingly the most religious -- and I'm not one of those radical fanatics, neither were the founding fathers.

I went to the gym while you were all watching the Phillies season come to an end. By the elliptical machines, there are 4 tvs, and one was on CNN Headline news. For 50 minutes, you had a discussion of the pig and lipstick comment, a bit on oj, and something about some girl who has gone missing. If Ghostbusters hadn't been on one of the other tvs, I'm sure I'd be 5 iq points stupider right now.

TenuredVulture wrote:I went to the gym while you were all watching the Phillies season come to an end. By the elliptical machines, there are 4 tvs, and one was on CNN Headline news. For 50 minutes, you had a discussion of the pig and lipstick comment, a bit on oj, and something about some girl who has gone missing. If Ghostbusters hadn't been on one of the other tvs, I'm sure I'd be 5 iq points stupider right now.

But was the girl blonde?!?!

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I went to the gym while you were all watching the Phillies season come to an end. By the elliptical machines, there are 4 tvs, and one was on CNN Headline news. For 50 minutes, you had a discussion of the pig and lipstick comment, a bit on oj, and something about some girl who has gone missing. If Ghostbusters hadn't been on one of the other tvs, I'm sure I'd be 5 iq points stupider right now.

But was the girl blonde?!?!

I dunno. Ghostbusters was on. By the way, my workout today was 50 minutes.

Philly the Kid wrote:

cshort wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Palin's private views are not just her business, when she becomes the VP of the nation I'm a citizen in. When she clearly does not respect the separation of Church and State, because relgigious fanatics, radivcal evangelicals like her don't believe in the separation. They feel their morality and religious views super-cede everything else. And that's something I'll fight in a civil war, because I won't ever live under some Evangleical fanatics who are so brazen and overt.

Could you support this statement? I'm serious, I'd really like to know what she's done so far that supports your comment. I'd welcome any information you have.

And I love your radical extremist comment. Based on Obama's voting record, he could be considered the Left's version of Thomas.

I'll work on some hard analyses, but I don't recall in most of my life hearing someone in the excutive branch talking about "God's will for us to be at war ... or rhetoric of that sort... ( i know i botched teh quote) but the mere fact she is even brining that kind of talk to the pulpit -- i mean podium -- is terrifying... and portends very much against my views.

THe USA of industrialized nations, is overwhelmingly the most religious -- and I'm not one of those radical fanatics, neither were the founding fathers.

Her quote was more along the lines of hoping it was God's plan and we were doing the right thing - not that it was God's will. That's a big difference. And FWIW, I never go to church, so don't count me as a fanatic. I always thought Falwell, etc. were over the top. I just think Palin isn't getting a fair shake.

I can't go point by point and debate you ad infinitum becsuse I actually have a life and other responsibilities...

Your weakest argument yet. Do you expect me to buy that?

Everyone wants a world with less violence, less poverty, less ignorance and more equality. You don't need to convince anyone of that. What you need to convince people is that your vision of how that's achieved is what they want. No one asked you to be perfect but if you feel you know what's best for people you don't know and have never lived in their shoes then it shouldn't be hard to sell your plan.

But you don't seem to have anything to sell the ignorant unwashed masses, only that the current world stinks and they are getting a raw deal. Complaining about the problems in society isn't a solution. You remind me of the people who have the "War is not the Answer" bumper stickers. I don't care what the answer isn't. Tell me what it is. Sometimes I get the idea that you believe in socialism, a system where the government nationalizes industries giving to the people and taking from the evil rich people who have made their money by exploiting poor people. Venezuela and Bolivia are doing this. But then you say you don't want to destroy corporations. So, yeah I have no idea what this utopian society your selling is really all about, only that everyone is happy, equal, educated, and non-violent. How can I buy something that I can't figure out what it is?

I have never called you an elitist or a whacko. I don't think you're either. But saying that I do ends discussion. I'm somehow unreasonable. Yet I'm one of the more reasonable people around. I'm not that religious and I vote for the best man over Party. If you can't even try to sell me what you've got how do you anticipate "educating" people who put a candidate's religious beliefs above "their interests?" Rather than try you tell me that I'm just too ignorant to realize that I'm " being poisoned, lied to, distracted, feeding on lies and myths and prejudice all the while hoping to 'win the lottery.'"

So please lay things out as they are. I'm not nearly as stupid as you think. And no, I've never been talking Republican conservative status quo. Having recently 'won the lottery,' using your terminology, I'm talking to Republican leadership telling them I've had it with Republican conservative status quo. While you sit there in your ivory tower pitying the 99% of America that's not enlightened enough to see the truth I'm actually doing something about it.

http://gawker.com/5048106/is-this-the-m ... -since-911

NSFW? just strong language
that dude posts on another local board i'm on.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I went to the gym while you were all watching the Phillies season come to an end. By the elliptical machines, there are 4 tvs, and one was on CNN Headline news. For 50 minutes, you had a discussion of the pig and lipstick comment, a bit on oj, and something about some girl who has gone missing. If Ghostbusters hadn't been on one of the other tvs, I'm sure I'd be 5 iq points stupider right now.

But was the girl blonde?!?!

I dunno. Ghostbusters was on. By the way, my workout today was 50 minutes.

Not bad, not bad.

Meanwhile, I just got back from the gym and saw that Larry King's whole show, at least to the point I left a bit after 9.30, was on "lipstick." He had--I kid you not--Ari Fleischer, Chuck Norris and Arianna Huffington debating this vital, vital topic. Fortunately, it wasn't closed-captioned and the Tampa-Boston game was on the next monitor.

Still... we're so screwed.

Politico examines Palin's earmark wishlist:

Many ... are of exactly the sort that McCain has made a career of mocking—like animal research.

“We’re not going to spend $3 million of your tax dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana,” McCain has said during this year’s campaign, referring to a study he’s mocked for years of whether grizzlies need to keep their status as an endangered species.

Palin, meanwhile, has requested $3.2 million to be spent in part researching the “genetics of harbor seals,” in one of the state’s many requests for federal funding of research into Alaska’s fauna.

She’s seeking $1 million, for instance, for a project to investigate rockfish fisheries, a request that, according to the Alaska document, was presented to and refused by Congress last year.
...
The rockfish research is one of several requests for federal help studying marine wildlife, which, coming from another candidate, might have drawn McCain’s mockery.

Here are a few, with the state’s description of the project:

• $400,000: Alaska Invasive Species Program: Continues to comprehensively prevent, identify, and respond to the threat of invasive species on the Alaska environment.

• $494,900: Assessment of Recreational Halibut Harvest in Alaska: This is an ongoing effort to collect data on the recreational halibut fishery that is conducted by federal agencies though relying on the state for data.

• $2 million: Bering Sea Crab Research and Management: Researches Bering Sea crab productivity and sustainability as necessary to restore crab stocks.

• $3.2 million: Seal and Steller Sea Lion Biological Research: Funds monitoring of ice seal populations in Native villages, research on the species delineation and genetics of harbor seals to understand the declines in population and provide for population restoration, and continues research into Steller Sea Lion population decline.

The McCain-Palin campaign didn’t respond to the questions of whether Palin still backs those specific requests, or how she would defend them in light of her opposition to earmarks.

Maybe the press could be tricked into talking about this because "pork" is relatable to "pig."

Does Obama really want to go there? He requested $936 million in earmarks in 2005-2007, including $330 million in 2007. Of course we know this because of Obama's transparency bill. Are earmarks bad? Here's his statement in April 2008 on them:

We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project. The entire earmark process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting Sen. DeMint's amendment and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois.

I get confused about Obama's positions. If the earmark process is wrong, why request more and more every year? Sarah Palin's requests to her senators and congressman pale in comparison.

dajafi wrote:Politico examines Palin's earmark wishlist:

Many ... are of exactly the sort that McCain has made a career of mocking—like animal research.

“We’re not going to spend $3 million of your tax dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana,” McCain has said during this year’s campaign, referring to a study he’s mocked for years of whether grizzlies need to keep their status as an endangered species.

Palin, meanwhile, has requested $3.2 million to be spent in part researching the “genetics of harbor seals,” in one of the state’s many requests for federal funding of research into Alaska’s fauna.

She’s seeking $1 million, for instance, for a project to investigate rockfish fisheries, a request that, according to the Alaska document, was presented to and refused by Congress last year.
...
The rockfish research is one of several requests for federal help studying marine wildlife, which, coming from another candidate, might have drawn McCain’s mockery.

Here are a few, with the state’s description of the project:

• $400,000: Alaska Invasive Species Program: Continues to comprehensively prevent, identify, and respond to the threat of invasive species on the Alaska environment.

• $494,900: Assessment of Recreational Halibut Harvest in Alaska: This is an ongoing effort to collect data on the recreational halibut fishery that is conducted by federal agencies though relying on the state for data.

• $2 million: Bering Sea Crab Research and Management: Researches Bering Sea crab productivity and sustainability as necessary to restore crab stocks.

• $3.2 million: Seal and Steller Sea Lion Biological Research: Funds monitoring of ice seal populations in Native villages, research on the species delineation and genetics of harbor seals to understand the declines in population and provide for population restoration, and continues research into Steller Sea Lion population decline.

The McCain-Palin campaign didn’t respond to the questions of whether Palin still backs those specific requests, or how she would defend them in light of her opposition to earmarks.

Maybe the press could be tricked into talking about this because "pork" is relatable to "pig."

mccain loves his earmark warfare, but like anything else, there are probably decent earmarks and really bad ones.

"many"? i certainly see an issue with the first one, but the 4 at the bottom, maybe i'm not getting it, but they seem like small beans and not really unreasonable. in fact, i keep hearing here in town that palin is anti-environment. but of those 4 at the bottom, 3 are for wildlife stock preservation (which i'm guessing have economic repercussions in some cases) and the other is to comply with a federal process.

earmarks to me are kind of like revenue sharing in baseball. they're annoying if you're a have but if you're a have-not, the alternatives are slim. as with our economy as a whole, there's a smart balance somewhere between pure free markets and reasonable redistribution efforts.