| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
IVNORD 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
 Posted: September 18 2008 at 21:04 |
|
|
 |
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: September 18 2008 at 21:29 |
 jimmy_row wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
It's fun to see how everyone's screaming and yelling at the Republicans' clever tactics which may eventually steal the elections. All they did was putting on the ticket someone who did at least something of substance as opposed to a superficial talk about change. People are willing to ignore her Christian fundamentalism, and troopergate, etc. just because there is a tiny ray of hope that it may be a real change (which is probably not). Isn't it something for the Democrats to consider finally and present something real instead of playing the racial/feminist card |
In fairness, the GOP have played the "feminist" card well beyond what the dems have done with race... |
Hard to tell... probably you think this way because the dems play the race card for too long. It became customary, everyone got used to it. When the reps do that it's a shock.
jimmy_row wrote:
perhaps this stems from right wing thirst and ultimately shock at some level of artificial diversity, whereas the libs know that Obama isn't really as popular in the black community as many white folks assume. |
Is it really so?
jimmy_row wrote:
If experience were the real issue, we'd probably be looking at Richardson (possibly the right man for the job...?) vs. Romney at this point; it's not that either side was overly worried about this issue with American's hunger for "change" or at least the word in itself. Looking at Sarah Palin's "record of experience", do we honestly think that is why she is on the ticket? |
Of course it's not. On the other hand, looking at Barak Obama's "record of experience", do we honestly think that is why he is on the ticket?
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: September 18 2008 at 22:07 |
debrewguy wrote:
Oh yeah, the Dems have their share of blinded partisans. But the media(damn liberal journalists  ) & the Base of GOP christian conservatives (the Moral Majority, the Evangelicals, not including of course those preachers eventually found to have popped nitryl whatever and indulged in sex with male prostitutes) never seem to pick up on GOP hypocrites. |
I find it strange too, but could it be because it wasn't election time?
debrewguy wrote:
Remember the GOP heads stating that Clinton should step aside because of marital infidelities. |
I've always thought that the main point of impeachment was the oral sex definition.
debrewguy wrote:
As to how that was somehow unacceptable for a public figure who should be setting and be held to a higher moral standard for Americans. Do you recall Newt Gingrich crucifying himself in public for such activities ? Neither do I. How about Speaker-designate Bob Robinson ? DO you remember how he acted during the hearings ? Until he was found out, he was all gung-ho that 'ol Bill beggone for his carnal misdeeds. Then when it came out that Bob was guitly of the same thing, what was his response ? That at least he had the "grace" to resign once he was found out. Of course, the question begs as to why he wouldn't have resigned when he started fooled around. Or is it just wrong once you get caught ?
I could mention Rush Limbaugh's anti-drug double standard , but the guy could re-crucify Christ , and likely get away with it by stating that Our Lord masquaraded as a Christian while never renouncing his Jewish faith, and was in the end A LIBERAL, who preached forgiveness for those who sinned; along with some communist tendencies about "sharing the wealth and being your brother's keeper". |
What is the point of your phillipic? The Reps are hypocrites? It's nothing new. I never said they are not. I just say the Democrats are hypocrites too
debrewguy wrote:
Name a democrat that attacked the GOP or a GOP titan for sexual transgressions. Name a GOP star that is for the free market as a kind of God given perfect economic system. Then see how much governement intervention they seem to be able to stomach when they see the American middle class demand it. Or rather, I should say, when the CEOs, and multinational corporations need a bailout because they couldn't manage worth a sh*t. |
It would be worse without those bailouts
debrewguy wrote:
Remember Bush pushing for a bill to tighten up bankruptcy laws 'cause in his opinion ( and the credit card companies) too many people were getting away with financial irresponsability.And now when millions of Americans file bankruptcy, have their houses foreclosed, who gets federal relief ? Fannie Mae ? AIG ? Oh, they're just too big to let crash. |
It would be worse without those bailouts
debrewguy wrote:
Heck, have the government ever thought "Hey, if we give this same mega-amount of money to the American citizens based on their current income and financial situation, these folks might go out there and spend this country and the world economy right out of a recession" ! |
You really have to brush up on your economics. Even those meager handouts in the form of tax rebates were unnecessary.
debrewguy wrote:
|
I am outraged but it doesn't matter.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: September 18 2008 at 22:32 |
debrewguy wrote:
Oh, forgot - Bill's draft dodging - the media did cover that. Until the voters showed them that most didn't care, and that GOPers had their share of them. |
Yea, they did cover that. The same way they covered his extramarital affairs and pot-smoking, and later the cattle futures trading. As a result of that coverage he became president unlike Gary Hart
debrewguy wrote:
As far as Quayle, don't you think he was better off with them questioning his 'opting out", than his intelligence  . |
No doubt, but he provided excellent entertainment.
debrewguy wrote:
Of course, Bush was excoriated by the media and the patriotic americans for his failure to face combat. And MADD managed to organize a massive anti-Bush vote when his alcohol and cocaine days became public knowledge. Somehow, the police report about Georgie boy having once been pulled over for driving in an "interesting" manner never really got that much attention either. |
You forgot Dan Rather. He proved once again that he's a fool. As opposed to simply making a fool of himself.
debrewguy wrote:
AS for Kerry, a lawsuit would have accomplished what ? First, it would have kept the story in the media, and in many sections of the GOP, portrayed him as weakling and whiner. Second, by the time it was settled, Bush was already in the White House. Support our Troops. Except when they contradict your message or oppose your anointed ones.
|
I didn't want to muse about the merits of the lawsuit but rather to point out that defamatory statements should trigger a predictable action. Unless, of course, there was something behind those claims
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: September 18 2008 at 22:35 |
stonebeard wrote:
debrewguy wrote:
chances are the GOP will find a way to look the other way. Yes, the party of the righteous, the religious, the moral, will accept leaders who have and do transgress; while screaming for the rack for those opponents who have been accused of less
|
And more often than not, the party of mass hypocrites. 
The Dems are too probably, but they don't wear their "Christianity" on their sleeves.
|
Why probably? The Dems are too.
THe basis of the tw-party-system is hypocrisy
Edited by IVNORD - September 18 2008 at 22:37
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: September 19 2008 at 09:16 |
IVNORD wrote:
jimmy_row wrote:
perhaps this stems from right wing thirst and ultimately shock at some level of artificial diversity, whereas the libs know that Obama isn't really as popular in the black community as many white folks assume. |
Is it really so?
Well just look at how the GOP base, especially the far right, reacted to the pick...they were so happy to find someone who shoots guns, opposes abortion, and otherwise compensates for that panzy centrist McCain. Now you have idiots like Dick Morris, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al...they all get to cry SEXISM now, something they've always been on the defense about; THEY"RE the complainers, and they've found that it feels pretty damn nice!
jimmy_row wrote:
If experience were the real issue, we'd probably be looking at Richardson (possibly the right man for the job...?) vs. Romney at this point; it's not that either side was overly worried about this issue with American's hunger for "change" or at least the word in itself. Looking at Sarah Palin's "record of experience", do we honestly think that is why she is on the ticket? |
Of course it's not. On the other hand, looking at Barak Obama's "record of experience", do we honestly think that is why he is on the ticket?
haha, that's exactly the point. But Obama's experience hasn't been touted the same way the reps have built up Palin...they've even tried to make the case that she is more qualified than him which is hogwash. The dems know that people just want to hear grandiose speeches and promises, and that is what the dems have given the people...thus the logical counterattack is to draw attention to his lack of experience. BUT, the GOP thought that the gender card would work best in this case because McCain carries that image of a seasoned decision-maker. Who suffers from these games...
|
Edited by jimmy_row - September 19 2008 at 09:16
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: September 20 2008 at 12:38 |
IVNORD wrote:
debrewguy wrote:
Oh yeah, the Dems have their share of blinded partisans. But the media(damn liberal journalists ) & the Base of GOP christian conservatives (the Moral Majority, the Evangelicals, not including of course those preachers eventually found to have popped nitryl whatever and indulged in sex with male prostitutes) never seem to pick up on GOP hypocrites. |
I find it strange too, but could it be because it wasn't election time?
debrewguy wrote:
Remember the GOP heads stating that Clinton should step aside because of marital infidelities. |
I've always thought that the main point of impeachment was the oral sex definition. DB asks - a difference over definitions ? Was Rush Limbaugh fired because of substance abuse ?
debrewguy wrote:
As to how that was somehow unacceptable for a public figure who should be setting and be held to a higher moral standard for Americans. Do you recall Newt Gingrich crucifying himself in public for such activities ? Neither do I. How about Speaker-designate Bob Robinson ? DO you remember how he acted during the hearings ? Until he was found out, he was all gung-ho that 'ol Bill beggone for his carnal misdeeds. Then when it came out that Bob was guitly of the same thing, what was his response ? That at least he had the "grace" to resign once he was found out. Of course, the question begs as to why he wouldn't have resigned when he started fooled around. Or is it just wrong once you get caught ?
I could mention Rush Limbaugh's anti-drug double standard , but the guy could re-crucify Christ , and likely get away with it by stating that Our Lord masquaraded as a Christian while never renouncing his Jewish faith, and was in the end A LIBERAL, who preached forgiveness for those who sinned; along with some communist tendencies about "sharing the wealth and being your brother's keeper". |
What is the point of your phillipic? The Reps are hypocrites? It's nothing new. I never said they are not. I just say the Democrats are hypocrites too DB - no disagreement there as far as both being Hypocrites. Just the double standard as far as the raking over the coals that Dems get from The Religious Right compared to GOPers when it comes to moral transgressions.
debrewguy wrote:
Name a democrat that attacked the GOP or a GOP titan for sexual transgressions. Name a GOP star that is for the free market as a kind of God given perfect economic system. Then see how much governement intervention they seem to be able to stomach when they see the American middle class demand it. Or rather, I should say, when the CEOs, and multinational corporations need a bailout because they couldn't manage worth a sh*t. |
It would be worse without those bailouts DB - How about you distribute these funds to those who've lost their homes, or about to. Then they can start paying the mortgages again, thereby giving SOME value to worthless investments.
Also, is there a reason why the folks who made millions off these investments will not suffer any financial loss ? Higher risk for the possibility of higher return is the trade-off. Government bailouts, do they enable excessive risk-takers with the knowledge that they're too "important" to let fail no matter how much it is their fault ?
Why is your middle class having to pay welfare to corporations ? In a country where welfare is seen as a sin, why is it O.K. when rich people get it ?
debrewguy wrote:
Remember Bush pushing for a bill to tighten up bankruptcy laws 'cause in his opinion ( and the credit card companies) too many people were getting away with financial irresponsability.And now when millions of Americans file bankruptcy, have their houses foreclosed, who gets federal relief ? Fannie Mae ? AIG ? Oh, they're just too big to let crash. |
It would be worse without those bailouts
debrewguy wrote:
Heck, have the government ever thought "Hey, if we give this same mega-amount of money to the American citizens based on their current income and financial situation, these folks might go out there and spend this country and the world economy right out of a recession" ! [/QUOTE
You really have to brush up on your economics. Even those meager handouts in the form of tax rebates were unnecessary.
DB - we're talking $700 billion. Why is the middle class American tax payer paying for multi-millionaire CEOs, Execs and Investment industry insiders' rusks gone bad ? Where is the mantra " the people know better than the government where their money should be spent" ? And if AIG et al are going to be bailed out, will the government then turn around and lay claim to all the profits that were made and distributed to the lucky few when there was really no profit in the first place ? In other words, if I was paid a dividend of a million dollars by AIG for the year 2007, when in fact, this was based on assets and earnings that were completely out of line with the actual value of the investments product(s).
[QUOTE=debrewguy]
|
I am outraged but it doesn't matter. |
DB - You can't give up IVNord. We disagree on a number of things. But you seem to take enough time to think about your country that would seem to me that you do care deeply for it & its' wellbeing.
Somewhere, somehow, someone has to stand up and say enough ! The old thinking isn't and hasn't worked. Extending a financial helping hand to the poor is considered to be discouraging people from working. Yet, bailing out the rich, and yes, that is who will benefit from this, the rich; that is acceptable time after time. Chrysler needs a half billion "loan" to survive after its' management manages the company to the threshold of death. No CEo or Executive loses a dime, or bonus. Savings and Loans - millionaire investors put $10 000 in , come out with another million, and see their lower income fellow citizen foot the bill for the bailout. Enron ? How many hard working Enron employees who lost ther retirement funds after that mess were bailed out by their government ? How many Enron Execs were forced to re-pay their earnings from this shell game of a business model ?
It's not whether the government needs to do something. It's whether doing the same old thing over and over again is really going to avoid this happening time & again. And over-regualtion is not the answer. It should be simple - any and all profits/windfalls/returns gained during a time when the books (values, earning, etc...) were not reflecting the eventual reality , well .... simply, they should be seized as ill-gotten gains. And don't tell me that that will affect the middle class the most. The biggest slice of the pie always goes to the upper crust.
So talk to your local rep. Write your Senator. Heck for many voters, that would mean finding out who that is !
Make your voice heard. And when the politicians don't deliver on the promises they've made to you, then vote for someone else the next time. And if the same happens, don't go back to the first guy, vote for a third party. Shake things up.
Use your Freedom of Choice !
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: September 20 2008 at 12:44 |
IVNORD wrote:
debrewguy wrote:
Oh, forgot - Bill's draft dodging - the media did cover that. Until the voters showed them that most didn't care, and that GOPers had their share of them. |
Yea, they did cover that. The same way they covered his extramarital affairs and pot-smoking, and later the cattle futures trading. As a result of that coverage he became president unlike Gary Hart
debrewguy wrote:
As far as Quayle, don't you think he was better off with them questioning his 'opting out", than his intelligence . |
No doubt, but he provided excellent entertainment. DB - in some cases , medical care (Doctor to guy in a coma - Guess what George Bush died, Quayle's the Prez ) Beats electro shock.
debrewguy wrote:
Of course, Bush was excoriated by the media and the patriotic americans for his failure to face combat. And MADD managed to organize a massive anti-Bush vote when his alcohol and cocaine days became public knowledge. Somehow, the police report about Georgie boy having once been pulled over for driving in an "interesting" manner never really got that much attention either. |
You forgot Dan Rather. He proved once again that he's a fool. As opposed to simply making a fool of himself. DB - strange how Walter Cronkite thought he was a great journalist. Of course, Wally thought Vietnam was a mistake. But a good example of the idea that " my enemies' mistakes/lies/fabrications are a serious matter, mine are misunderstandings and to be quickly forgot.
debrewguy wrote:
AS for Kerry, a lawsuit would have accomplished what ? First, it would have kept the story in the media, and in many sections of the GOP, portrayed him as weakling and whiner. Second, by the time it was settled, Bush was already in the White House. Support our Troops. Except when they contradict your message or oppose your anointed ones.
|
I didn't want to muse about the merits of the lawsuit but rather to point out that defamatory statements should trigger a predictable action. Unless, of course, there was something behind those claims
DB - there wasn't. It was another example of third party advertising doing dirty work that the candidate can disavow without really fighting against. And even Kerry has publicly stated recently that he should have fought back much much harder than he did. And that Obama and the Dems cannot afford to play nice in those sorts of situations. Ever. The voting public sticks on the negative more than any positive.
|
Edited by debrewguy - September 20 2008 at 12:47
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: September 20 2008 at 12:49 |
No, the basis for the two party system is blindness and complacency on the part of the citizen. Frankly, you have to wonder if the U.S. might not be better off if Perot or Nader had actually won.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
explodingjosh
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 10 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 507
|
Posted: September 21 2008 at 15:14 |
VP Debate Rules Changed to Compensate Sarah Palinhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26819782/
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: September 21 2008 at 17:16 |
if you can't take the heat, scuttle your failboat and gtfo.
Edited by stonebeard - September 21 2008 at 17:38
|
|
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: September 22 2008 at 03:05 |
|
It seems as Biden doesn't mind the change, but thats still really lame that they were so bothered to have it changed so Palin would have a "chance".
I guess they're doing that lame public question sh*t again. Which will really bring the debates down with hard questions like "What's on your ipod?" or "Whats your favorite political event to watch on youtube". The public is dumb. Leave the questions to the just as crappy but a bit better, media.
|
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: September 22 2008 at 13:03 |
 How can you take a woman seriously that looks like she belongs on SNL?
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 22 2008 at 14:58 |
crimhead wrote:
How can you take a woman seriously that looks like she belongs on SNL?
|
Hey! I love Tina Fey!
Anyway, I BET you that Fey would out-debate Palin anyday day of the week.. not only in wit and quick responses but also in deep questions about foreign policy, the Bush doctrine, quantum physics, child care, Barney the dinosaur...
|
|
|
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: September 23 2008 at 15:04 |
The T wrote:
crimhead wrote:
How can you take a woman seriously that looks like she belongs on SNL?
|
Hey! I love Tina Fey!
Anyway, I BET you that Fey would out-debate Palin anyday day of the week.. not only in wit and quick responses but also in deep questions about foreign policy, the Bush doctrine, quantum physics, child care, Barney the dinosaur...
|
But can Tina see Russia from her house? 
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 24 2008 at 14:27 |
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080
"The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that
half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual
qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of
mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is
the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists
have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it
once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.
We
have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked
by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah
because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such
sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American)
detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration
must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global
climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of
China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct
United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of
energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and
Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order
of importance, much less address any one of them."
... "I believe that with the nomination of Sarah Palin for the vice
presidency, the silliness of our politics has finally put our nation at
risk. The world is growing more complex—and dangerous—with each passing
hour, and our position within it growing more precarious. Should she
become president, Palin seems capable of enacting policies so detached
from the common interests of humanity, and from empirical reality, as
to unite the entire world against us. When asked why she is qualified
to shoulder more responsibility than any person has held in human
history, Palin cites her refusal to hesitate. "You can't blink," she
told Gibson repeatedly, as though this were a primordial truth of wise
governance. Let us hope that a President Palin would blink, again and
again, while more thoughtful people decide the fate of civilization." Sam Harris
The op-ed is a four pager on the site.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: September 24 2008 at 15:01 |
|
Funny how Palin is a mom is repeated often, but Biden's daily trek back to his home to be with his kids gets very little traction with the "they're just like me" brigade.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
markosherrera
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 01 2006
Location: World
Status: Offline
Points: 3252
|
Posted: September 24 2008 at 15:05 |
|
I dont like Palin she is too conservative
|
|
Hi progmaniacs of all the world
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 10:44 |
|
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 11:16 |
The T wrote:
crimhead wrote:
How can you take a woman seriously that looks like she belongs on SNL? |
Hey! I love Tina Fey!
Anyway, I BET you that Fey would out-debate Palin anyday day of the week.. not only in wit and quick responses but also in deep questions about foreign policy, the Bush doctrine, quantum physics, child care, Barney the dinosaur...
|
Bush is not and was never stupid, nor was he ever a "normal person"--the man was a millionaire groomed for the Presidency by his father. And before you say that he didn't deserve to go to Yale and only got in because of his father, I ask you: who doesn't?
I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.
Edited by Henry Plainview - October 03 2008 at 11:17
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Sarah Palin: A Maggie Thatcher for America
I think the media are gravely overdoing it this time, almost to the point of alienating the few rational-minded individuals that still tune in from time to time,