Palin Power! Politics Thread

by gr » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:50:26

dajafi wrote:gr, is that noted Ovaltime comic Kenny Banya in your avatar?

DINNER AT MENDI'S!!!

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:03:14

by **Philly the Kid** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:45:53

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBo2xQIWHiM[/youtube]

Which party is poised to best improve the situation? Tired old Republican policies of tax breaks for the wealthy, while the middle-class supports corporate bail-outs and a bloated military chasing terrorist bogey-men. Or should we all join prayer circles waiting for the 'end of days' ...?

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:58:29

Art Hogan, chief market strategist for Jefferies & Co., said the magnitude of the financial industry fallout is unprecedented, and could only be compared to the Great Depression of the 1930s or the railroad bankruptcies of the 1800s.

Remember, vote Republican this November!

:lol:

by **FTN** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:59:19

if the dems dont win in november, its time to disband the party.

by **Philly the Kid** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 13:03:12

FTN wrote:if the dems dont win in november, its time to disband the party.

A that's not happening
B if it did, we'd be a one party nation
C what we need is proportional representation and elimination of the office of President to be replaced with a Prime Minister

by **drsmooth** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 13:03:54

Warszawa wrote:
Art Hogan, chief market strategist for Jefferies & Co., said the magnitude of the financial industry fallout is unprecedented, and could only be compared to the Great Depression of the 1930s or the railroad bankruptcies of the 1800s.

Remember, vote Republican this November!

Funny, the guy who wrote the contrarian WaPo article TenuredV quoted on the previous page used to work for Jeffries.

Must be true what they say about laying economists end-to-end

by **Woody** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 13:05:38

Philly the Kid wrote:
FTN wrote:if the dems dont win in november, its time to disband the party.

A that's not happening
B if it did, we'd be a one party nation
C what we need is proportional representation and elimination of the office of President to be replaced with a Prime Minister

I think he was joking, Kid?

by **drsmooth** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 13:15:17

Philly the Kid wrote:C what we need is proportional representation and elimination of the office of President to be replaced with a Prime Minister

No one's allowed to smoke
Or tell a dirty joke
And whistling is forbidden...[twee twee twee twee twee tweedledee]
If chewing gum is chewed
The chewer is pursued.
And in the hoosegow hidden...

If any form of pleasure is exhibited
Report to me and it will be prohibited.
I'll put my foot down, so shall it be.
This is the land of the free.

by **Laexile** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 13:15:54

BuddyGroom wrote:
Laexile wrote:
Mountainphan wrote:
BuddyGroom wrote:America is being dumbed-down, and the conservatives are leading the charge.

And this is a dumb statement.

Especially considering that the Dems have a candidate who is running on the important policy issues of "hope" and "change." It took Hillary a long time to figure out running on experience and understanding the issues was a little too complicated for America.

Wrong. There is no sense among Democrats that Barack Obama doesn't "understand the issues" - whatever that means. The narrow selection of Obama over Clinton was based on a lot reasons - among them not wanting a return to Clintonism, a sense that Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton would smack of monarchy, and, oh yeah, the fact that Clinton supported much of the Bush administration war policy and Obama did not.

Not sure, either, how campaigning on themes of hope and change is dumbing down - at least not to the extent of right-wing themes like creationism, homophobia, hatred of the poor and hatred/distrust of the "other." Their may be an equivalence there - but I really don't think so.

They are concepts that require no knowledge, no research, and no thought. I never said Obama didn't understand the issues, only that Clinton was running on that premise while Obama was running on concepts. And some people supported him because he was about "hope" and "change." He kept hammering those home because they made people feel good and they didn't have to think about anything more. He's the anti-John Kerry, who explained endlessly why America should vote for him. In today's dumbed down world Obama's ten second "hope" and "change" message was all he needed to win over voters who don't want to watch TV news or peruse the Internet for political information.

Mickey Kaus understands how Obama can make a comeback. Will the Obama campaign get it?

by **Laexile** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 13:17:26

Woody wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:
FTN wrote:if the dems dont win in november, its time to disband the party.

A that's not happening
B if it did, we'd be a one party nation
C what we need is proportional representation and elimination of the office of President to be replaced with a Prime Minister

I think he was joking, Kid?

While it was a different era, the Republican Party was founded on the disbanding of the Whig Party.

by **BuddyGroom** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 13:38:07

Laexile wrote:Mickey Kaus[/url] understands how Obama can make a comeback. Will the Obama campaign get it?

FWIW, Democrats listen to Mickey Kaus about as much as Republicans listen to Linc Chaffee. Kaus has his roots in the "neo-liberal" movement (I have no idea what neo-liberalism is supposed to be other than a good government movement that has some agreements with fiscal conservatism) but he's about as pro-Democrat these days as Bill O'Reilly or Bill Kristol.

I think we'll safely ignore his remedies.

by **BuddyGroom** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 13:41:09

FTN wrote:if the dems dont win in november, its time to disband the party.

I think hard-core liberals - the kind who hold their nose while voting Democrat because the Democrats are "too corporate" - fantasize about this far more than dismantling, or even just beating, the Republicans.

Might be part of why our side loses more than a few it could or ought to win.

by **Woody** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 14:02:32

BuddyGroom wrote:
Laexile wrote:Mickey Kaus[/url] understands how Obama can make a comeback. Will the Obama campaign get it?

FWIW, Democrats listen to Mickey Kaus about as much as Republicans listen to Linc Chaffee. Kaus has his roots in the "neo-liberal" movement (I have no idea what neo-liberalism is supposed to be other than a good government movement that has some agreements with fiscal conservatism) but he's about as pro-Democrat these days as Bill O'Reilly or Bill Kristol.

I think we'll safely ignore his remedies.

Most of Kaus' suggestions are just good marketing sense--something the Dems don't always seem to have. But I guess that's the point; they'll ignore his remedies, but it won't help them win the election.

by gr » Mon Sep 15, 2008 14:59:41

All Hail Freedonia!

by **Philly the Kid** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 15:40:46

Laexile wrote:
Woody wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:
FTN wrote:if the dems dont win in november, its time to disband the party.

A that's not happening
B if it did, we'd be a one party nation
C what we need is proportional representation and elimination of the office of President to be replaced with a Prime Minister

I think he was joking, Kid?

While it was a different era, the Republican Party was founded on the disbanding of the Whig Party.

If the idea is to get the best and brightest and that what unifies us as Americans is ultimately doing what's good for the nation as a whole -- then we should have lots of parties and proportional representation. This way, Lax can get all the seats in govt that agree with him and P-t-K can get a percentage that agree with him. If as you contend, you are more grounded in the mainstream, then you will hold the majority. I don't like 2 party limitations -- and I don't like winner takes all.

by **mpmcgraw** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 16:02:28

Woody wrote:
Laexile wrote:
mpmcgraw wrote:Cancer is life threatening.

So is crossing the street. Skin cancer results in death less than 1% of the time.

Skin cancer is almost always caught early, and if it is, it rarely is fatal.

True. But having a melanoma or three ain't your garden variety skin cancer.

I'd imagine the mortality rate quoted below has improved slightly since 2001 (pasted from an article about McCain, btw) but it's still no picnic--and much higher than the 1% you threw out there.

This year, the American Cancer Society estimates, 51,400 people will be diagnosed with melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer, and 7,800 will die from it, Kalb reports.

7800/51400 = 15.2%

I don't think McCain's health history is that big of a big deal, but since he's had melanoma on at least three separate occasions, it's not totally insignificant, either

The whole getting shot down by a SAM and then getting tortured for 5 years can't be great for your health either.

by **Woody** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 16:03:56

Maybe he's Unbreakable like Bruce Willis in that very underrated Shyamalan movie.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 16:06:04

This country is too large for a parliamentary system. This is elementary.

by **Woody** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 16:07:51

VoxOrion wrote:This country is too large for a parliamentary system. This is elementary.

I mean really. Move to Finland, already

Archived

Palin Power! Politics Thread

Sarah Palin: Great VP pick, or the greatest VP Pick?