Print Page | Close Window

Vice President choices.

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=51394
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 12:20
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Vice President choices.
Posted By: crimhead
Subject: Vice President choices.
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 13:17
With the news today that McCain has finally made his decision I thought that it was timely.



Replies:
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 13:24
All I can say about McCain's pick is I hope history repeats itself. Tongue


Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 14:53
I voted for a shruberry provided we can locate a qualified shrubber.

-------------
                


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 15:23
No offense but I think that with Bush, we have had enough shrubbery in office to last a lifetime and we really don't need any more shrubs running this country.

-------------


Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 15:37

As a Brit without a vote in this, I thought the Democrats had really stolen a march with their final 2 candidates for the nomination. It seems to me though that McCain has played something of a trump card with his choice for VP.

This could be the most entertaining election the US has had since West Wing finished.


Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 15:39
Bah! There's already too many shrubs in the American government as is.LOL Personally, I think McCain's choice, regardless of one's political affiliations, was an absolutely brilliant choice. It has great potential to draw more female voters toward the Republicans and highlights the riff that, I believe, still exists between Obama and Clinton.

-------------


Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 17:22
its the Vice President...

McCain and Obama look like pretty assertive figures... Unlike Bush.

So shouldn't really matter as much.


Posted By: febus
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 18:04
Originally posted by King of Loss King of Loss wrote:

its the Vice President...

McCain and Obama look like pretty assertive figures... Unlike Bush.

So shouldn't really matter as much.
 
Yes and no.......McCain is kind of old and if something bad happens to him, we have this governess from Alaska for 2 years as president. of USA..........so much for Obama..inexperience, supposedly!!!Wink


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 18:20
Originally posted by febus febus wrote:

Originally posted by King of Loss King of Loss wrote:

its the Vice President...

McCain and Obama look like pretty assertive figures... Unlike Bush.

So shouldn't really matter as much.
 
Yes and no.......McCain is kind of old and if something bad happens to him, we have this governess from Alaska for 2 years as president. of USA..........so much for Obama..inexperience, supposedly!!!Wink


yep... sharp minds.. intellects far greater than our own.. actually think age.. not race is going to be the decider that people won't 'admit' to.  And as usual.. those intellects don't reside on the right....  that was an odd selection.. not a good two days for McCain.  Getting violated up the ass  verbally last night by Obama LOL (priceless.. so much for a general feel good speech.. loved it) then this odd selection today.

in case you all were wondering... I had to tell him I was busy and couldn't do it.


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 20:11
Originally posted by birdwithteeth11 birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Bah! There's already too many shrubs in the American government as is.LOL Personally, I think McCain's choice, regardless of one's political affiliations, was an absolutely brilliant choice. It has great potential to draw more female voters toward the Republicans and highlights the riff that, I believe, still exists between Obama and Clinton.



hahhahah.. nope...

two points you ignore...

1)  put a black man on the ticket on the GOP... he doesn't win... excuse me for being a bit firm with you.  But that assumes that all that woman.. and extending the 'logic' of your post... blacks care about are shallow things as sex, or race.  People vote on candidates, issues, and how they effect them.  Figured you would have picked up on that somewhere along the line.

2.) riff....  look at the 'riff' in 2000.. how many McCain supporters who saw their candidate destroyed in the ruthless pursuit  and grab for power that was ..and is the heart everything W touches.  How many of them.. who had much more reason to hate Bush than woman do of Obama...  voted for the devil incarnate.. the Democrats.

not sure which world you are living in brother... but don't underestimate just how hated the current leadership is.. and by extension..  the Republican party is... by the Democratic Party.  These 8 years have seen the disregard of the Constitiution..  a needless war... a flaccid economy. There is no split...  you fall prey to oldest trick in book...  bitch and compain and make noise to draw attention.   The number of Democratic women... who will vote for McCain will be very small.. who relates as well to a middle class working mother as I relate to Vladimer Putin. 

dude.. you need to wake up and see what the state of this country is....  the GOP is not the only party that thinks the other side are the devil incarnate.   And we have the numbers.. always have.. just plagued by apathy.. always our weakness.  That.. is not an issue this year... I assume you saw the turnout for the primaries this year.



-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: YesFan72
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 20:19
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSBgH_wf5bc

LOL A short biography about McCain's choice.


-------------


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 20:28
hahahhahahhahha.. great find man!  You get the treasured clappies....

ClapClap

what town was that she was councilman of...

yes... McCain has the foreign policy experience...as long as he is alive

hahahhahhahhahha..


god I love politics...


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 20:59
I think Palin is a better choice, though neither candidate chose the best running mate they could have.


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:08
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

I think Palin is a better choice, though neither candidate chose the best running mate they could have.


I would love to know why you think so....  as was mentioned earlier..  sort of makes his inexperience argument shallower than it could be.. and that is one of the only selling points ..if not the only he has over Obama.  Not that it means anything... look at 2000 again.

the talk shows here were having some kind of fun with it....

this is a candidate Pat.. who has one... one state budget she overseen...  and unless Alaska has treaties with foreign countries. .she has no experience with that.

perception ... is reality.... 

it looks like a stupid move..  thus it will/could be seen as such.  It strikes me as a terrible decision.. don't you think people are going to realize.. and they will in debates when these two are face to face... just how much of a reality that there is a chance that the ex-city councilwoman from sh*thole Alaska could be the next President. In a VERY dangerous world today..

oh no Pat...  love you brother.. .but someone really has to explain just how this was a good move. 


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:12
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

I think Palin is a better choice, though neither candidate chose the best running mate they could have.


I would love to know why you think so....  as was mentioned earlier..  sort of makes his inexperience argument shallower than it could be.. and that is one of the only selling points ..if not the only he has over Obama.  Not that it means anything... look at 2000 again.

the talk shows here were having some kind of fun with it....

this is a candidate Pat.. who has one... one state budget she overseen...  and unless Alaska has treaties with foreign countries. .she has no experience with that.

perception ... is reality.... 

it looks like a stupid move..  thus it will/could be seen as such.  It strikes me as a terrible decision.. don't you think people are going to realize.. and they will in debates when these two are face to face... just how much of a reality that there is a chance that the ex-city councilwoman from sh*thole Alaska could be the next President. In a VERY dangerous world today..

oh no Pat...  love you brother.. .but someone really has to explain just how this was a good move. 


mick - I don't want to get into it too much, passions are running very high around here Wink

I still think McCain needed some energy in the conservative base and the conservatives love her.

But anyway if you think it's a stupid move, I guess you can breathe easy - if the hatred of the Administration and the Republican party is as deep as you believe, then there should be no problem come November.

Right?


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:13
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


what town was that she was councilman of...
Your Olympian condescension is really appaling......
 
Obama's experience in the Illinois Senate fares not much better.
 
As for the foreign policy, if elected, she will have to learn it while being #2; he will have to take a crash course the way Clinton did. Remember that great foreign policy maker?


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:17
Both made interesting choices, that's all I have to say, other than may we live in interesting times. LOL

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:20
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

I think Palin is a better choice, though neither candidate chose the best running mate they could have.


I would love to know why you think so....  as was mentioned earlier..  sort of makes his inexperience argument shallower than it could be.. and that is one of the only selling points ..if not the only he has over Obama.  Not that it means anything... look at 2000 again.

the talk shows here were having some kind of fun with it....

this is a candidate Pat.. who has one... one state budget she overseen...  and unless Alaska has treaties with foreign countries. .she has no experience with that.

perception ... is reality.... 

it looks like a stupid move..  thus it will/could be seen as such.  It strikes me as a terrible decision.. don't you think people are going to realize.. and they will in debates when these two are face to face... just how much of a reality that there is a chance that the ex-city councilwoman from sh*thole Alaska could be the next President. In a VERY dangerous world today..

oh no Pat...  love you brother.. .but someone really has to explain just how this was a good move. 


mick - I don't want to get into it too much, passions are running very high around here Wink

I still think McCain needed some energy in the conservative base and the conservatives love her.

But anyway if you think it's a stupid move, I guess you can breathe easy - if the hatred of the Administration and the Republican party is as deep as you believe, then there should be no problem come November.

Right?


 

hahahha one of the joys of being a Democrat.. is enduring elections where you had the better candidate.. of course the better positions... everything lined up.. and yet still lose LOL 

jt shouldn't be a problem... .BUT if Obama pulls a Kerry out of his hat and forgets he has balls and has to respond to attacks rather than be a bigger man... then the Dem's will find a way to lose this as well. Which is why his speech was so important last night...  he did cast the gauntlet down...

but it is a LONG way to November.. you know that as I do...

and shoring up his weakened base might have been necessary.. but at the cost of having the middle wonder just what the world is he thinking... 

anyway...  it is why we love politics.. there are NO sure things... but I do love the start.LOL


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:23
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

I think Palin is a better choice, though neither candidate chose the best running mate they could have.


I would love to know why you think so....  as was mentioned earlier..  sort of makes his inexperience argument shallower than it could be.. and that is one of the only selling points ..if not the only he has over Obama.  Not that it means anything... look at 2000 again.

the talk shows here were having some kind of fun with it....

this is a candidate Pat.. who has one... one state budget she overseen...  and unless Alaska has treaties with foreign countries. .she has no experience with that.

perception ... is reality.... 

it looks like a stupid move..  thus it will/could be seen as such.  It strikes me as a terrible decision.. don't you think people are going to realize.. and they will in debates when these two are face to face... just how much of a reality that there is a chance that the ex-city councilwoman from sh*thole Alaska could be the next President. In a VERY dangerous world today..

oh no Pat...  love you brother.. .but someone really has to explain just how this was a good move. 


mick - I don't want to get into it too much, passions are running very high around here Wink

I still think McCain needed some energy in the conservative base and the conservatives love her.  you say "it looks like a stupid move" - guess what?  All the GOP thinks Biden was a stupid move, all the Democrats think Palin was a stupid move.  Surprise.

There's a difference between inexperience of the VP candidate and that of a Presidential candidate.  You call her an "ex-city councilwoman from sh*thole Alaska", even though she is the governor of that state - I guess people on the other side can call Obama a mediocre Illinois state senator who only ascended to the U.S. Senate in what can only be described as an utter farce of an election.  Neither has had a hell of a lot of time on the national scene - but again, it's Obama that's running for the head job.

Anyways, our new king President was coronated last night, so what I think matters little.  Seems like it should be a walk in the park for Obama come November, but I heard the same things said 4 years ago.

I know you're a dyed-in-the-wool Dem, and I'm...well let's just say I'm not.  Wink  I'll let you have the last word because we don't need to get into a big exchange about it.  However, on one main point we do agree - the Republicans have been utterly corrupted over the past 8 years and longer, to be honest I think a spell on the sideline would be good for them.

Lots of disagreement but ever with respect my friend.  Hug


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:23
I don't why I sort of double posted - sorry Embarrassed


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:25
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

just how much of a reality that there is a chance that the ex-city councilwoman from sh*thole Alaska could be the next President. In a VERY dangerous world today..
Substitute Arkansas for Alaska and you can see it's not unthinkable. An the world wasnt a less dengerous place 16 years ago. Nothing good came out of it though, I agree with you here.


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:27
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

I still think McCain needed some energy in the conservative base and the conservatives love her.

scary


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:29
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


what town was that she was councilman of...
Your Olympian condescension is really appaling......
 
Obama's experience in the Illinois Senate fares not much better.
 
As for the foreign policy, if elected, she will have to learn it while being #2; he will have to take a crash course the way Clinton did. Remember that great foreign policy maker?


I try my best...

yes... but he understands that is preferable to talk first then fight....   something the Republicans forgot on the way to the OK Corral LOL   Bring em' On?  Yeah... whose  blood was spilled when they did. I'll take his 'inexperience' over what passes for experience any day.

Clinton's foreign policy ... was his most underappreciated aspect to his presidency. He was quite shrewd at it..  he was a quick learner 


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:51
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


what town was that she was councilman of...
Your Olympian condescension is really appaling......
 
Obama's experience in the Illinois Senate fares not much better.
 
As for the foreign policy, if elected, she will have to learn it while being #2; he will have to take a crash course the way Clinton did. Remember that great foreign policy maker?


I try my best...

yes... but he understands that is preferable to talk first then fight....   something the Republicans forgot on the way to the OK Corral LOL  
  Maybe not all Republicans... It's hard to tell what would have happened had McCain stayed in the race in 2000. Maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq today.
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


Clinton's foreign policy ... was his most underappreciated aspect to his presidency. He was quite shrewd at it..  he was a quick learner 
Clinton's foreign and domestic policy is what we are payng for today and will be paying for years to come. And he was so shrewd at disguising it as his great achievments that lots of people still consider him a great president.


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:58
The vice presidential candidates match their presidential candidates counterparts in quality. Neither for me.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 22:07
god I love quote pyramids.. and in my mentors honor... a response LOL

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


what town was that she was councilman of...
Your Olympian condescension is really appaling......
 
Obama's experience in the Illinois Senate fares not much better.
 
As for the foreign policy, if elected, she will have to learn it while being #2; he will have to take a crash course the way Clinton did. Remember that great foreign policy maker?
,

I try my best...

yes... but he understands that is preferable to talk first then fight....   something the Republicans forgot on the way to the OK Corral LOL  
  Maybe not all Republicans... It's hard to tell what would have happened had McCain stayed in the race in 2000. Maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq today.

I agree, as I've posted before.. I have a great deal of respect for McCain.. and his judgment. Listen.. I don't talk about it much at all here..  it isn't anyone's business.. and the fact I was.. doesn't make my opinion better or worse than anyone's. but I served on the ground in the first gulf war. I respect a man who serves his country. Not everyone does that.. and I don't hold that against them either if they don't. McCain knows the cost of war. I would feel a LOT less comfortable with Obama if he WAS a hawk and ready to throw down lives first without doing everything possible first. I would trust McCain.. if he was elected.. to not needless waste the life of our people.. or anyone's people for that matter.  My problems with him.. are economic.
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


Clinton's foreign policy ... was his most underappreciated aspect to his presidency. He was quite shrewd at it..  he was a quick learner 
Clinton's foreign and domestic policy is what we are payng for today and will be paying for years to come. And he was so shrewd at disguising it as his great achievments that lots of people still consider him a great president.

You are the one who gives Clinton far too much credit brother.  People are not idiots..  you can stick a flower and spring perfume on a pile of sh*t.. and you know what.. it is still sh*t.  He was a great President to many.. because he WAS a great President to many. 

Let me ask you a question.. why did the GOP go to SUCH great lengths to destroy him.  They knew he was as well.. and his success... would have the birth of a new centrist Democratic Party... that the GOP would have had a world of problems defeating... so they went after the figurehead. From a purely intellectual point.. it was BRILLIANT strategy.. and it worked.  While they didn't get rid of him.. he spend the years defending himself from his PURELY PERSONAL issues... that he could have really changed the political dynamic in this country.  Great politics..  but look where we ended up. We are not paying for Clinton now.. in fact..we are paying for the what he was unable to finish doing.



-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 22:44
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

   My problems with him.. are economic. 
could you elaborate?

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


Let me ask you a question.. why did the GOP go to SUCH great lengths to destroy him.  They knew he was as well.. and his success... would have the birth of a new centrist Democratic Party... that the GOP would have had a world of problems defeating... so they went after the figurehead.
He was a great manipulator. The GOP went after him because he could have created a mirage called a "new centrist Democratic Party" that the GOP would have had a world of problems defeating, you are right. That was politics. A dogfight inside the two-party system. What good would it do to the people?
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

From a purely intellectual point.. it was BRILLIANT strategy.. and it worked. 
From a purely academic point it was. So what? Would you be better off?
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

While they didn't get rid of him.. he spend the years defending himself from his PURELY PERSONAL issues...
That was a soap opera. The entire 106th congress should have been publicly executed for that 
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Great politics..  but look where we ended up.
He ended up where he deserved. There are no miracles in this world.
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

We are not paying for Clinton now.. in fact..we are paying for the what he was unable to finish doing.
Don't you think we are still paying for the financial bubble he created just to get re-elected?
 
P.S. Do you realize that Clinton did more for the big money than Reagan and Bush together? speaking of the new centrist Democratic Party


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 22:50
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The vice presidential candidates match their presidential candidates counterparts in quality. Neither for me.
NOt going to vote?


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 23:15
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The vice presidential candidates match their presidential candidates counterparts in quality. Neither for me.
NOt going to vote?


Meh...for me, both suck so....pfft. I dunno. Confused


-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 07:33
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

   My problems with him.. are economic. 
could you elaborate?

easy.... while very liberal socially...  I am an economic moderate.  One of the more interesting developments over the last 20 years or so is how the GOP have lost their way with regards to economic policy. They used to be the party of economic convservatism. They are not that anymore. They have become the party of tax-cuts at any cost.  Holding on the silly idea that trickle down economics actually works.  When the companies make extra profits.. ask yourself brother.. do we see it... no we don't.  That money goes to larger executive saleries and benefit packages.  The rich have gotten richer... the middle class lives in fear..and lower class continues to struggle just to survive.  I believe in many of the old things that the GOP used to believe in.  Fiscal responsibility.  I pay taxes .. always have always will.  I don't mind paying them.. I don't mind paying more... as long as I know that money is going to places where it is needed. Not into a CEO's pocket.

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


Let me ask you a question.. why did the GOP go to SUCH great lengths to destroy him.  They knew he was as well.. and his success... would have the birth of a new centrist Democratic Party... that the GOP would have had a world of problems defeating... so they went after the figurehead.
He was a great manipulator. The GOP went after him because he could have created a mirage called a "new centrist Democratic Party" that the GOP would have had a world of problems defeating, you are right. That was politics. A dogfight inside the two-party system. What good would it do to the people?
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

From a purely intellectual point.. it was BRILLIANT strategy.. and it worked. 
From a purely academic point it was. So what? Would you be better off?
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

While they didn't get rid of him.. he spend the years defending himself from his PURELY PERSONAL issues...
That was a soap opera. The entire 106th congress should have been publicly executed for that

Amen
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Great politics..  but look where we ended up.
He ended up where he deserved. There are no miracles in this world.

Yes... Clinton got what he deserves.. he lost the opportunity to be considered one of the greatest Presidents in history ... for all he did accomplish.  Personally... I could care less.  what I am concerned about is the direction of this country.  The 'win at all costs' mentality that pervades the GOP.  Division rather than unity.  That is where we at today.. .did we deserve that. No.. and that is not because Clinton came on Monica's dress... that is because ...the politics of division.. and pursuit of power.. were far more important than the serious issues of governing and working FOR the people.  Was it any surprise that years down the road the failure of the GOP led Congress became apparant to all.  They never did care for governing.. only pursuing THEIR adjenda.
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

We are not paying for Clinton now.. in fact..we are paying for the what he was unable to finish doing.
Don't you think we are still paying for the financial bubble he created just to get re-elected?

we are paying for a great many things... blaming Clinton for them is shortsited and partisan. And simply the easy way out dude.
 
P.S. Do you realize that Clinton did more for the big money than Reagan and Bush together? speaking of the new centrist Democratic Party

that again is the point... he did... and he did for common Americans as well... the is why the common peope.. AND big business loved him.  Why the GOP so feared him..and his centrist policies.


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 11:19
A simplistic viewpoint is things will never change until the people get the smarts and the balls to vote in a third party into the Presidential office. Once we show them that we can put someone into the office that is not from a mainstream party they might take notice and fear that change many follow in the House and Senate as well. This is only a pipe dream but we created this fiasco. We allow it to continue because it is more harder to change things. We like to sleep at night thinking that these politicians actually care about the average man. They care little about anyone that cannot allow them to keep their power. They like to throw out things like town hall meetings but when was the last time either party held a $10 a plate fund raising dinner so that the average American can rub elbows with them? Even on the state level you are lucky to see a fund raising dinner for a Congressman or Senator that's under $250 a plate. Politics is not for the common man nor do the parties care about the majority of those that they serve. They care only about the top 5% of the food chain. Everyone will say that it is the top 5% that pay the majority of taxes, while this is true it is not the top 5% of the people are not doing the jobs that keep this country running. It is the bottom 95% that is.


Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 22:30
I hate to break up this serious discussion (ok, that's a lie), but



-------------



Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 02:02
Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

I hate to break up this serious discussion (ok, that's a lie), but



-------------


Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 02:03
I actually voted neither, lol.

-------------


Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 02:18
Both candidates suck for me.  Even the libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, sucks, and I'm pretty libertarian myself.  I'm not going to be quite old enough to vote in this election, and even if I was old enough I probably wouldn't vote.  

-------------



Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 04:00
Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

Both candidates suck for me.  Even the libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, sucks, and I'm pretty libertarian myself.  I'm not going to be quite old enough to vote in this election, and even if I was old enough I probably wouldn't vote.  
RON PAUL REVOLUTION?
 
As someone who is voting for McCain, he made a terrible choice. Obama made a fairly good one.


-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 07:10
When I first saw that McCain picked Palin for his VP candidate, I thought, sweet...Michael Palin for VP, I'm gonna change my vote to McCain now.  How disappointed I was when I found out it was some chick from Alaska.  Tongue
 
I mean Alaska's not even a real state.  How much experience can you get being the governor of a state with a population of 14 and an annual budget of $75? 


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 07:51
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

When I first saw that McCain picked Palin for his VP candidate, I thought, sweet...Michael Palin for VP, I'm gonna change my vote to McCain now.  How disappointed I was when I found out it was some chick from Alaska.  Tongue
 
I mean Alaska's not even a real state.  How much experience can you get being the governor of a state with a population of 14 and an annual budget of $75? 


LOL

yep..   like I say... never a good thing when your VP candidate is the punchline of jokes right off the bat.  This after having your judgment questioned... HAMMERED in a speech the night before which was seen by 40 million people.  If he wanted to shore up the 'right' ... he had plenty of experienced people to have done that.

He had met her once....  like 6 months ago... and just offered her the job.  wow...





-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 08:36
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

When I first saw that McCain picked Palin for his VP candidate, I thought, sweet...Michael Palin for VP, I'm gonna change my vote to McCain now.  How disappointed I was when I found out it was some chick from Alaska.  Tongue
 
I mean Alaska's not even a real state.  How much experience can you get being the governor of a state with a population of 14 and an annual budget of $75? 


It's got huge tracks of land. LOL


-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:28
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

Both candidates suck for me.  Even the libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, sucks, and I'm pretty libertarian myself.  I'm not going to be quite old enough to vote in this election, and even if I was old enough I probably wouldn't vote.  
RON PAUL REVOLUTION?
 


Paul aught to have run Libertarian.  He's a thousand times better than that spineless Barr.  Barr doesn't actually take a strong stand on any of the issues that define the Libertarian party.  He has no platform.  It makes me insanely angry.  ANGRY.


-------------



Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:31
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-shock-of-pa.html - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-shock-of-pa.html




Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:35
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-shock-of-pa.html - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-shock-of-pa.html




Even though he hates the pick, he admits being in the minority opinion among conservatives.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080831/pl_politico/13016 - http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080831/pl_politico/13016


Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:37
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

Both candidates suck for me.  Even the libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, sucks, and I'm pretty libertarian myself.  I'm not going to be quite old enough to vote in this election, and even if I was old enough I probably wouldn't vote.  
RON PAUL REVOLUTION?
 
As someone who is voting for McCain, he made a terrible choice. Obama made a fairly good one.


We all saw how well the RON PAUL REVOLUTION went . The media never gave him any credibility. True some of his ideas are out there but sometimes you gotta think outside of the box to bring change.


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:38
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-shock-of-pa.html - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-shock-of-pa.html




hahahhahah.. oh man

*spit Diet Coke on monitor from laughing so hard'

'He was the president of the Harvard Law Review; she was the point guard on her high school basketball team. '


right on Clap


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:53
again... said it yesterday.. stand by it still

Think about how the key factor in this decision was not who could defend this country were something dreadful happen to McCain in office but how to tread as much on Obama's convention bounce and use women's equality as a wedge issue among Democrats because it might secure a few points here or there. Oh, and everyone would be surprised. And even Rove would be annoyed.

This is his sense of honor and judgment. This is his sense of responsibility and service.

Here's the real slogan the McCain campaign should now adopt:

Putting. Country. Last.




-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:53
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-shock-of-pa.html - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-shock-of-pa.html




Even though he hates the pick, he admits being in the minority opinion among conservatives.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080831/pl_politico/13016 - http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080831/pl_politico/13016


And that's what is so scary.  I would expect more conservatives to be wary. 


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:57
just had a funny thought.

setting the VCR for the VP debate... suspect they are already coaching her on issues..

*Ms. Palin... can you find Georgia on a map

ehhhh

trick question*


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 14:30
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-shock-of-pa.html - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-shock-of-pa.html




Even though he hates the pick, he admits being in the minority opinion among conservatives.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080831/pl_politico/13016 - http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080831/pl_politico/13016
oh boy.  at least now we know what the most pressing issue of the election is...
 
Ermm
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 16:06
Hmm I have a different take on all this.  All of this conventions, VP choices are just smoke and mirrors.  Lets look at an entirely objective view (well as objective that can be expected).  I copied my post form another board. I leave you with a question if both of their  finite proposals can be so torn down where does that leave the ones that are not finite? I think we are in for far more trouble whomever is elected:
 
 
I rarely laud columnists of any kind because they seem to be just mouthpieces for either side of the coin but this guy, Robert J Samuelson takes a real world approach and cites errors in both candidates logic in their promises. The last paragraph is the most poignant especially for those buying into the rhetoric of either Obama or McCain. Here is the link to the entire article the quoted paragraphs are taken from:

http://tinyurl.com/6kpxte - http://tinyurl.com/6kpxte

"The most exhaustive examination of the McCain and Obama budget proposals I've found comes from the Tax Policy Center, sponsored jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. It's discouraging reading. Though details differ, neither plan would realistically limit spending or eliminate deficits. For example, both their health proposals would cost far more than $1 trillion over a decade, says the Tax Policy Center.

Obama and McCain have each embraced symbolic gestures that falsely suggest they've made tough choices. Democrats blame deficits on Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the Iraq War. OK, let's whack the rich. Obama would restore the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income-tax rates for couples with taxable incomes above $200,300 and $357,700. He's suggested higher capital-gains taxes and Social Security taxes for those with incomes exceeding $250,000. Together, these changes might generate about $80 billion of revenue in 2010, says the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the 2008 budget deficit is reckoned at $389 billion. Even saving $125 billion by winding down the Iraq War -- a highly optimistic estimate -- wouldn't erase the deficit.

McCain denounces wasteful spending, citing congressional "earmarks." These are projects usually designated by individual members of Congress for their districts. OK, let's scrub them all. In 2008, earmarks numbered 11,610 and cost $17.2 billion, estimates Citizens Against Government Waste. That's less than 1 percent of federal spending.

Elections serve, in civics textbooks, to reach collective decisions about the future. The real world is different. Many campaign proposals are so unrealistic or undesirable that they may never be enacted. McCain would cut taxes again for the rich. Is that needed or likely? No. Obama would create more special tax breaks for homeowners, college students, workers and retirees, among others -- further clutter in an already complex tax system.

All this makes sense only as fantasy politics. Proposals aren't necessarily intended to be adopted. They're selected to win applause and please voters -- just as quarterbacks, in fantasy football, are selected for their accuracy. In November, one candidate will win this game. But the country as a whole may lose."



-------------


"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"


Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 17:25
I select fantasy quarterbacks based on the potential of the offense as a whole, rather than the accuracy of the individual quarterback, because I feel that a good offense is going to give even a mediocre quarterback plenty of scoring opportunities and that a good running game makes long-yardage passing significantly easier.

But seriously, that's a good article.  And it's pretty much how I feel: whether Obama or McCain wins, we're screwed, because neither is going to make the unpopular but necessary decisions to significantly limit spending. 


-------------



Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 20:28
Originally posted by Garion81 Garion81 wrote:

Hmm I have a different take on all this.  All of this conventions, VP choices are just smoke and mirrors.  Lets look at an entirely objective view (well as objective that can be expected).  I copied my post form another board. I leave you with a question if both of their  finite proposals can be so torn down where does that leave the ones that are not finite? I think we are in for far more trouble whomever is elected:
 
 
I rarely laud columnists of any kind because they seem to be just mouthpieces for either side of the coin but this guy, Robert J Samuelson takes a real world approach and cites errors in both candidates logic in their promises. The last paragraph is the most poignant especially for those buying into the rhetoric of either Obama or McCain. Here is the link to the entire article the quoted paragraphs are taken from:

http://tinyurl.com/6kpxte -

"The most exhaustive examination of the McCain and Obama budget proposals I've found comes from the Tax Policy Center, sponsored jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. It's discouraging reading. Though details differ, neither plan would realistically limit spending or eliminate deficits. For example, both their health proposals would cost far more than $1 trillion over a decade, says the Tax Policy Center.

Obama and McCain have each embraced symbolic gestures that falsely suggest they've made tough choices. Democrats blame deficits on Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the Iraq War. OK, let's whack the rich. Obama would restore the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income-tax rates for couples with taxable incomes above $200,300 and $357,700. He's suggested higher capital-gains taxes and Social Security taxes for those with incomes exceeding $250,000. Together, these changes might generate about $80 billion of revenue in 2010, says the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the 2008 budget deficit is reckoned at $389 billion. Even saving $125 billion by winding down the Iraq War -- a highly optimistic estimate -- wouldn't erase the deficit.

McCain denounces wasteful spending, citing congressional "earmarks." These are projects usually designated by individual members of Congress for their districts. OK, let's scrub them all. In 2008, earmarks numbered 11,610 and cost $17.2 billion, estimates Citizens Against Government Waste. That's less than 1 percent of federal spending.

Elections serve, in civics textbooks, to reach collective decisions about the future. The real world is different. Many campaign proposals are so unrealistic or undesirable that they may never be enacted. McCain would cut taxes again for the rich. Is that needed or likely? No. Obama would create more special tax breaks for homeowners, college students, workers and retirees, among others -- further clutter in an already complex tax system.

All this makes sense only as fantasy politics. Proposals aren't necessarily intended to be adopted. They're selected to win applause and please voters -- just as quarterbacks, in fantasy football, are selected for their accuracy. In November, one candidate will win this game. But the country as a whole may lose."



Great article, thanks for posting this.


Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 22:08
Dont know much at all about Governor Palin, but it is pretty cool McCain chose a female VP
but the governor of Alaska!????!!!??LOL
All 11 people and the thousands of polar bears


Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 22:43
Originally posted by crimhead crimhead wrote:

Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

Both candidates suck for me.  Even the libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, sucks, and I'm pretty libertarian myself.  I'm not going to be quite old enough to vote in this election, and even if I was old enough I probably wouldn't vote.  
RON PAUL REVOLUTION?
 
As someone who is voting for McCain, he made a terrible choice. Obama made a fairly good one.


We all saw how well the RON PAUL REVOLUTION went . The media never gave him any credibility. True some of his ideas are out there but sometimes you gotta think outside of the box to bring change.
Almost all of his ideas were out there.
 
Alaska gets more federal funds per capita than any other state.


-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you


Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 22:47
I liked Ron Paul because the President has more influence on foreign policy than on anything else and Paul seems to be the only candidate who has the sense to want to get the hell out of this Iraq trainwreck as quickly as possible.  

-------------



Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 22:55
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

   My problems with him.. are economic. 
could you elaborate?

easy.... while very liberal socially...  I am an economic moderate.  One of the more interesting developments over the last 20 years or so is how the GOP have lost their way with regards to economic policy. They used to be the party of economic convservatism. They are not that anymore. They have become the party of tax-cuts at any cost.  Holding on the silly idea that trickle down economics actually works.  When the companies make extra profits.. ask yourself brother.. do we see it... no we don't.  That money goes to larger executive saleries and benefit packages.  The rich have gotten richer... the middle class lives in fear..and lower class continues to struggle just to survive.  I believe in many of the old things that the GOP used to believe in.  Fiscal responsibility.  I pay taxes .. always have always will.  I don't mind paying them.. I don't mind paying more... as long as I know that money is going to places where it is needed. Not into a CEO's pocket.
Wish I could disagree with you ... but how your economic moderate philosophy conforms to the democratic spending agenda? Obama came to the DNC with lots of nice promises. How is he going to pay for all his programs? We run budget deficits every year for tha past 40+ years. Last year tax revenues were about $2.5T. THe spendings were close to $3T annually. Where the money for the new programs will come from? Forget about Obama cutting taxes for the middle class. Let's hope he won't raise them. Tax your much-hated CEO's? Let's say they collectively make $20B a year (I don't want to waste my time to search for real numbers, sorry). Even if you tax them at a rate of 100%, it's a drop in the bucket. Who's left? Corporations and the rich. Let's assume the rich pay $250B in taxes presently (10%). How much do you want to tax them? Raise their bracket another 5%? It's bubkes. Double their rate? You know how much you'll collect then? Zero! They will leave the country the way the British rich left when they were taxed at the rate of 95% in the 60's. Now corporations. They're the best bet. According to the IRS, in 2002 the corporations paid $150B in taxes on the income of $560B with total receipts of $19, 700B. Again, double their rates? Come on my friend, you must know better  that Obama will never do that. So what fiscal responcibility are you talking about?
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Great politics..  but look where we ended up.
He ended up where he deserved. There are no miracles in this world.

 what I am concerned about is the direction of this country.  The 'win at all costs' mentality that pervades the GOP.  Division rather than unity.  That is where we at today.. .did we deserve that. No.. and that is not because Clinton came on Monica's dress... that is because ...the politics of division.. and pursuit of power.. were far more important than the serious issues of governing and working FOR the people.  Was it any surprise that years down the road the failure of the GOP led Congress became apparant to all.  They never did care for governing.. only pursuing THEIR adjenda.
I can say the same about the Democrats. Word for word. Except for Clinton and Monica, of course. And th Dems are more hypocritical at that.

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

We are not paying for Clinton now.. in fact..we are paying for the what he was unable to finish doing.
Don't you think we are still paying for the financial bubble he created just to get re-elected?

we are paying for a great many things... blaming Clinton for them is shortsited and partisan. And simply the easy way out dude.
And not blaiming Clinton is even more shortsited and partisan. You refuse to admit obvious failures of the Dems and dare to accuse me of bias. At least I spread the blame evenly. Reagan and Bush presided over a huge deficit but that served some purpose, the cold war. Creating a bubble to get re-elected??? 

 
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

P.S. Do you realize that Clinton did more for the big money than Reagan and Bush together? speaking of the new centrist Democratic Party

that again is the point... he did... and he did for common Americans as well... the is why the common peope.. AND big business loved him.  Why the GOP so feared him..and his centrist policies.
What exactly did he do for common Americans? Created a stock market bubble? So everyone felt rich for a while until the paper profits were taken away? It's like having a nice dream that you're rich; then you wake up and go to work. It was done so artfully that people still recall it as his greatest achievment. THey don't even realize they were taken for a ride.


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 22:59
oh christ.. .LOL  A little late in the evening to tackle that one hahahha.  I'll get to that tomorrow. Wacko

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 23:05
Originally posted by Garion81 Garion81 wrote:

Hmm I have a different take on all this.  All of this conventions, VP choices are just smoke and mirrors.  Lets look at an entirely objective view (well as objective that can be expected).  I copied my post form another board. I leave you with a question if both of their  finite proposals can be so torn down where does that leave the ones that are not finite? I think we are in for far more trouble whomever is elected:
 
 
I rarely laud columnists of any kind because they seem to be just mouthpieces for either side of the coin but this guy, Robert J Samuelson takes a real world approach and cites errors in both candidates logic in their promises. The last paragraph is the most poignant especially for those buying into the rhetoric of either Obama or McCain. Here is the link to the entire article the quoted paragraphs are taken from:

http://tinyurl.com/6kpxte - http://tinyurl.com/6kpxte

"The most exhaustive examination of the McCain and Obama budget proposals I've found comes from the Tax Policy Center, sponsored jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. It's discouraging reading. Though details differ, neither plan would realistically limit spending or eliminate deficits. For example, both their health proposals would cost far more than $1 trillion over a decade, says the Tax Policy Center.

Obama and McCain have each embraced symbolic gestures that falsely suggest they've made tough choices. Democrats blame deficits on Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the Iraq War. OK, let's whack the rich. Obama would restore the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income-tax rates for couples with taxable incomes above $200,300 and $357,700. He's suggested higher capital-gains taxes and Social Security taxes for those with incomes exceeding $250,000. Together, these changes might generate about $80 billion of revenue in 2010, says the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the 2008 budget deficit is reckoned at $389 billion. Even saving $125 billion by winding down the Iraq War -- a highly optimistic estimate -- wouldn't erase the deficit.

McCain denounces wasteful spending, citing congressional "earmarks." These are projects usually designated by individual members of Congress for their districts. OK, let's scrub them all. In 2008, earmarks numbered 11,610 and cost $17.2 billion, estimates Citizens Against Government Waste. That's less than 1 percent of federal spending.

Elections serve, in civics textbooks, to reach collective decisions about the future. The real world is different. Many campaign proposals are so unrealistic or undesirable that they may never be enacted. McCain would cut taxes again for the rich. Is that needed or likely? No. Obama would create more special tax breaks for homeowners, college students, workers and retirees, among others -- further clutter in an already complex tax system.

All this makes sense only as fantasy politics. Proposals aren't necessarily intended to be adopted. They're selected to win applause and please voters -- just as quarterbacks, in fantasy football, are selected for their accuracy. In November, one candidate will win this game. But the country as a whole may lose."

That's the p[roblem. Neither one talks real issues. Only symbolic gestures and unrealistic promises


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 23:08
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Dont know much at all about Governor Palin, but it is pretty cool McCain chose a female VP
He certainly made a better choice because she would make a much better-looking VP than Biden


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 23:11
Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

I liked Ron Paul because the President has more influence on foreign policy than on anything else and Paul seems to be the only candidate who has the sense to want to get the hell out of this Iraq trainwreck as quickly as possible.  
Ron Paul has a few good ideas but he's so confused on the economy... is it true he used to be a Libertarian? His economic views are pretty close to theirs


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 23:24
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Dont know much at all about Governor Palin, but it is pretty cool McCain chose a female VP
He certainly made a better choice because she would make a much better-looking VP than Biden


Hmmm.....I'm not so sure......though the glazed eyes sort of distract from the awesome mullet.  But I do agree that anyone with their finger on the nuke button should at least have some sports reporting under their belt, and in particular a good doggie storyWink
Wink



Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 23:41

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Dont know much at all about Governor Palin, but it is pretty cool McCain chose a female VP
He certainly made a better choice because she would make a much better-looking VP than Biden


Hmmm.....I'm not so sure......
  O please....

 
In fact she has better looks than McCain too
 
 
She definitely beautifies the Republican ticket


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 23:51
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

[QUOTE=IVNORD][QUOTE=JJLehto]Dont know much at all about Governor Palin, but it is pretty cool McCain chose a female VP
He certainly made a better choice because she would make a much better-looking VP than Biden


I don't know, Joe's pretty hot.  LOL  



Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 00:03
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

I liked Ron Paul because the President has more influence on foreign policy than on anything else and Paul seems to be the only candidate who has the sense to want to get the hell out of this Iraq trainwreck as quickly as possible.  
Ron Paul has a few good ideas but he's so confused on the economy... is it true he used to be a Libertarian? His economic views are pretty close to theirs


He ran for president as a Libertarian once, and he is very much aligned with that party, but he has always remained a registered republican.  He's got some economic ideas that I'm not a fan of, but a) I'm not sure that the president has very much power over the economy and b) unless you write-in Alan Greenspan you're not voting for a candidate who knows much about the economy anyways. 


-------------



Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 00:41
Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

I liked Ron Paul because the President has more influence on foreign policy than on anything else and Paul seems to be the only candidate who has the sense to want to get the hell out of this Iraq trainwreck as quickly as possible.  
Only? Have you never heard Obama speak?


-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you


Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 00:46
We won't get out of Iraq during a term of Obama.  

-------------



Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 10:01



Reasons to pick Palin as vice presidential running mate

By REX W. HUPPKE

Why Sarah Palin would be a good choice for vice president:

-Offers proof positive that the only inexperience that matters is Barack Obama's inexperience.

-Will ensure that no American child will ever grow up without learning to spell "Iditarod."

-Her peppy, youthful demeanor will make McCain look grandfatherly rather than just old.

-Will be a highly motivated candidate, as election victory would get her the hell out of Alaska.

-Has degree in journalism, a surefire sign of brilliance.

-Believes nothing would spruce up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge like a few hundred oil derricks.

-Nearly 30 years McCain's junior, she'll open the door for him to frequently use the term "whippersnapper," thus making the candidate more appealing to octogenarians and people yelling at kids to get off the damn lawn.

-Has kids named Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig. Those are some kick-ass names.

-Should easily attract disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. As long as they close their eyes and abandon every ideological issue they've ever stood for.

-Country couldn't have handled the international indignity of a vice president named "Mitt."

-She's not Dick Cheney. LOL

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tih/story/299211.html - http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tih/story/299211.html

Sarah Who???
By Madeleine  Begun Kane

Dear Johnny, I can not conceive
What could possibly make you believe
That your anti-choice pick
Could possibly click
With us Hillary-gals.  How naive!

You must think that we women are sheep,
Who would swoon at a female for Veep.
But a right-wingnut gal
Who’d control our canal?
Oh, that hole that you’re digging is deep.

Yes, your pick has a beautiful face
And she’ll help you to shore up your base.
But she’s wrong to the core
And (like you) she’s just more
Of Bush/Cheney … with feminine grace.

http://www.madkane.com/madness/2008/08/30/sarah-who/ - http://www.madkane.com/madness/2008/08/30/sarah-who/




-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 13:51
Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

We won't get out of Iraq during a term of Obama.  
Any factors that would prevent him would also prevent Ron Paul and his campaign blimp.


-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you


Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 14:29
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

I liked Ron Paul because the President has more influence on foreign policy than on anything else and Paul seems to be the only candidate who has the sense to want to get the hell out of this Iraq trainwreck as quickly as possible.  
Only? Have you never heard Obama speak?
 
Just in case no one has noticed but the Iraq government and the present administration are working on a withdrawal schedule right now and should have it concluded before the election.  So unless the new president  wants to piss off our manufactured ally I would suppose they will just honor this agreement so the point is moot.
 
 


-------------


"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"


Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 15:05
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Dont know much at all about Governor Palin, but it is pretty cool McCain chose a female VP
He certainly made a better choice because she would make a much better-looking VP than Biden


Hmmm.....I'm not so sure......
  O please....

 
In fact she has better looks than McCain too
 
 
She definitely beautifies the Republican ticket


Well she is a former Miss Alaska contestant. I don't think she is using that for her qualifications for VP though.


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 08:58
I think McCain's choice was either unbelievably stupid, unbelievably cynical, or both.
 
Another ignorant, science-denying "born again" Christian fundamentalist politician -- just what the world needs now....Dead
 
So, disappointed female would-be Hilary voters are supposed to vote for Palin now are they,  just because she is a woman? What an insult to women, to reduce the whole decision to a mere issue of gender!
 
I mean, I'm not making a direct comparison, but Madame Mao and Eva Braun were women too!
 
This little former mayor an aged  heartbeat away from "leader of the free world" and the helm of the most powerful nation and military machine on earth? I shudder to think! Would the Book of Revelations guide her Mid-East actions? Wacko
 
Hopefully, most 21st-century American women (and men) are just not that stupid. Stern%20Smile
 
I think Obama's choice was brilliant, and McCain's is just ridiculous (leading me to suspect that the Reps know they won't win this time, anyway).
 
 
thank god.... Wink
 
 
And no, I don't want to "debate" my opinion with anyone who blindly follows party allegiance over brain.Exclamation


-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 09:03
(deleted by the CIA)
 
What about these rumours about secret grannies and a pregnant teenage daughter? Oh dear, I feel a bad case of hypocracy coming on.


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 11:16
Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

I liked Ron Paul because the President has more influence on foreign policy than on anything else and Paul seems to be the only candidate who has the sense to want to get the hell out of this Iraq trainwreck as quickly as possible.  
Ron Paul has a few good ideas but he's so confused on the economy... is it true he used to be a Libertarian? His economic views are pretty close to theirs


He ran for president as a Libertarian once, and he is very much aligned with that party, but he has always remained a registered republican.  He's got some economic ideas that I'm not a fan of, but a) I'm not sure that the president has very much power over the economy and b) unless you write-in Alan Greenspan you're not voting for a candidate who knows much about the economy anyways. 
1) no one man has very much power over the economy but  men can influence certain economic trends in a very profound way; 2) politicians must not know a lot about the economy but they have to have a rudimentary level of understanding how it works. Have you ever watched a Greenspan/Bernanke congressional testimony? Some questions from the committee members sound idiotic.


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 11:18
Originally posted by Garion81 Garion81 wrote:

Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

I liked Ron Paul because the President has more influence on foreign policy than on anything else and Paul seems to be the only candidate who has the sense to want to get the hell out of this Iraq trainwreck as quickly as possible.  
Only? Have you never heard Obama speak?
 
Just in case no one has noticed but the Iraq government and the present administration are working on a withdrawal schedule right now and should have it concluded before the election.   
Really? How do you know?


Posted By: GoldenSpiral
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 11:28
I agree with peter, it was both phenomenally stupid and amazingly cynical.
 
It's increasingly clear that the choice was made ONLY because she's a woman, hoping to swing Hillary voters, and no other reason than that.
 
I thought it was brilliant at first until I looked at her record.  Why would any woman vote for ANYONE who votes against equal pay for equal work??  Apparently Palin thinks she should be paid less to do the same job as a man.


-------------
http://www.myspace.com/altaic" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/altaic
ALTAIC

"Oceans Down You'll Lie"
coming soon


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 11:29
I think he meant the schedule, not the withdrawal, if that's what you're asking.  Would have to be some kind of freakin' miracle to complete the withdrawal by then.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 11:37
As much as people on the internet hate to admit when they're wrong...Wink

The more I'm finding out about Palin the more nutty things are coming out, and I'm starting to think this was a bad move.  Apparently the vetting process was minimal to non-existent (story about it in the NY Times).  About the only good thing about the pick is that hardcore social conservatives love her, but I'm starting to think McCain may have sacrificed more votes then he's gained - and perhaps even more astonishing, I'm not sure how much thought the campaign put into this - bizarre considering how much time they've had to do so.

The "wooing" of Hillary supporters is pure B.S. - I live with a Hillary supporter and the Palin pick was a turnoff, not a booster.


Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 13:45
Originally posted by Peter Peter wrote:

I think McCain's choice was either unbelievably stupid, unbelievably cynical, or both.
 

Another ignorant, science-denying "born again" Christian fundamentalist politician -- just what the world needs now....Dead

 

So, disappointed female would-be Hilary voters are supposed to vote for Palin now are they,  just because she is a woman? What an insult to women, to reduce the whole decision to a mere issue of gender!

 

I mean, I'm not making a direct comparison, but Madame Mao and Eva Braun were women too!

 

This little former mayor an aged  heartbeat away from "leader of the free world" and the helm of the most powerful nation and military machine on earth? I shudder to think! Would the Book of Revelations guide her Mid-East actions? Wacko

 

Hopefully, most 21st-century American women (and men) are just not that stupid. Stern%20Smile

 

I think Obama's choice was brilliant, and McCain's is just ridiculous (leading me to suspect that the Reps know they won't win this time, anyway).

 

 

thank god.... Wink

 

 

And no, I don't want to "debate" my opinion with anyone who blindly follows party allegiance over brain.Exclamation

I don't think he knew about all the ridiculous scandals that are now coming to light (State trooper, close association with Ted Stevens, etc.). Right now the talking heads are still going on gut feel reactions, once people start talking about all that it's over. I didn't think anyone would win a landslide, but she has made it possible.

I am positive that McCain and Palin will be remembered as the ones who put the final nails in the coffin the Republicans have been building for themselves for the last 8 years. And I'm saying that as someone who was kind of hoping that McCain would win.

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you


Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 17:43
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Garion81 Garion81 wrote:

Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

I liked Ron Paul because the President has more influence on foreign policy than on anything else and Paul seems to be the only candidate who has the sense to want to get the hell out of this Iraq trainwreck as quickly as possible.  
Only? Have you never heard Obama speak?
 
Just in case no one has noticed but the Iraq government and the present administration are working on a withdrawal schedule right now and should have it concluded before the election.   
Really? How do you know?
 
because Iraq wants it.


-------------


"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"


Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 17:45
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

I think he meant the schedule, not the withdrawal, if that's what you're asking.  Would have to be some kind of freakin' miracle to complete the withdrawal by then.
 
Yes exactly.  It is more in the  form of a treaty.  Be hard for either new candidate to change it because this is what Iraq wants.
 
 


-------------


"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 21:29
OK, I needed to move some stuff since I posted it into the totally wrong political thread:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Heyyy, lookie what I found:



and there's also this:
















And by request:











-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: September 03 2008 at 00:31
Merely for the record: that picture of her at the cocktail party is photoshopped. The shadow doesn't match her head and it's fairly poorly cropped if you look closely.

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 03 2008 at 22:43
I believe in empty vacuous speeches!

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: September 03 2008 at 23:49
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Merely for the record: that picture of her at the cocktail party is photoshopped. The shadow doesn't match her head and it's fairly poorly cropped if you look closely.


as does the picture of her in a bikini holding a rifle.


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 07:56
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

I believe in empty vacuous speeches!
Meaning Palin, Obama, or both?


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 08:24
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

I believe in empty vacuous speeches!
Meaning Palin, Obama, or both?


Everyone at the RNC


-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 10:50
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

I believe in empty vacuous speeches!
Meaning Palin, Obama, or both?


Everyone at the RNC
You haven't been so critical of the DNC. Have you heard any speech of substance there?


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 11:02
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

I believe in empty vacuous speeches!
Meaning Palin, Obama, or both?


Everyone at the RNC
You haven't been so critical of the DNC. Have you heard any speech of substance there?


Didn't watch it. My roommate turned on the RNC last night and thus began my rage.

The DNC would surely make me rage, because these speeches are just persuasions and rhetoric, with no substance or support. But the Democrats don't usually appeal to the lowest common denominator (well, perhaps the LCD for the Dems is just not as low as it is for the Reps...).


"Oh, by the way, liberal tax tax tax liberal tax liberal liberal."

**applause**

"Hate our freedom."

*applause**

"9/11"

**huge f**king applause**


And as far as I can gather, Palin's qualifications for VP are being a hocky mom and a governer of a small town.

"Oh dontcha know, I'm jus' a regular hockey mom from ...."

Well, splendid. Why don't we elect one of the other 50,000 hockey moms in Alaska instead of you?


-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 11:09
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


And as far as I can gather, Palin's qualifications for VP are being a hocky mom and a governer of a small town.



Alaska is neither small, nor a town.


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 11:12
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


And as far as I can gather, Palin's qualifications for VP are being a hocky mom and a governer of a small town.



Alaska is neither small, nor a town.


Oh yeah, I forgot about that bit. She was gov. of a small town though, before that.


-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 11:14
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


And as far as I can gather, Palin's qualifications for VP are being a hocky mom and a governer of a small town.



Alaska is neither small, nor a town.


Oh yeah, I forgot about that bit. She was gov. of a small town though, before that.


LOL  Try "mayor".


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 11:15
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


And as far as I can gather, Palin's qualifications for VP are being a hocky mom and a governer of a small town.



Alaska is neither small, nor a town.


Oh yeah, I forgot about that bit. She was gov. of a small town though, before that.


LOL  Try "mayor".


Whatever. Wink


-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 12:52
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


And as far as I can gather, Palin's qualifications for VP are being a hocky mom and a governer of a small town.



Alaska is neither small, nor a town.


Oh yeah, I forgot about that bit. She was gov. of a small town though, before that.


LOL  Try "mayor".
As she nicely put it a community organizer with actual responsibilities. It seems her qualifications are in close competition with those of Obama.  The only difference he's applying for the #1 position.


Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 12:56
Here are some interesting Palin articles:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html?hpid=topnews - Palin is a phony article


http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3671/the-reform-candidate#comment-1994895 - then an article about her poor record and a lovely comment from one of her constituents after the article

One more reason to not vote for McCain, but still no reason to vote for Obama.


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 12:59
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


But the Democrats don't usually appeal to the lowest common denominator
Pretty low too... third-term-of-Bush, 90%-of-the-vote... what our resident-cheerleader friend said
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

what town was that she was councilman of...
  How classy is that?


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 13:08
Originally posted by BroSpence BroSpence wrote:


One more reason to not vote for McCain, but still no reason to vote for Obama.
that's the problem. Lots of people vote not FOR a candidate, but against the other one.


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 14:00
Thank God those damn conventions are about over.  I've been having Coundown withdrawal even though Keith is covering them. LOL

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 18:40
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Thank God those damn conventions are about over.  I've been having Coundown withdrawal even though Keith is covering them. LOL


I miss the Worst person segments of his show during this time. I work with a Glenn Beck fanboy. He's been bating me saying that Keith gets all his info from blogs. Have you heard about this?




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk