OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 3

[JRod]

[quote="Teal]
'Evangelicals' voted for Bush, Reagan, Bush II. Sure. But 'used'? What the hell kind of terminology is that? And to be sure, not all 'evangelicals' did so-ever hear of Tony Campolo? He's a liberal.

And I lumped the 'liberals' all together to make a point-a point you helped cement...thank you. Just because I am a conservative doesn't make me some right wing GWBJ (that would be 'Blow Jobber') who wants to beat you over the head with a bible, and force you to put the ten commandments in your front yard.[/quote]

You are the JackB of the right.

1) I say used because there are more than enough evidence that Bush pandered to the Evangelical base to get their votes but he did not deliver on what they wanted. I'm not talking about the abortion issues or gay rights. They had a more complex agenda than what the mainstream media makes them out to be.

2) I didn't call you conservative in my last post, did I? No. You are just looking for some persecution of conservatives that it makes most of what you post a joke. I didn't say you are a bible thumper nor did I say anything about religion expect to talk about how our country is perplexed on the effects religion and the role it should play.

If you want to get into the nuances of conservatism than we can do that and that ranges from the Reagans, Goldwaters to the Bushes and McCains. That's quite a range of conservatives ranging from policy attitudes to social attitudes.

You take anything anyone posts and try to find how its bashing conservatives.

[XXXIV]

34, that last part wasn't in the post I read and quote. I didn't know it was cut off.

You're right, it wasn't. The last part was in Naples' response to your request for clarification, it wasn't in the original post. Still, the complete scenario *was* included in your original quote and I think this is what 34 was referring to.

Correct...I was referring to Naples response.

[FatPitcher]

To be fair, I see a lot more condescending and insulting behavior towards Republicans and conservatives on the internet than the other direction. It's probably because of the demographics, as message boards skew younger, and there are many people from outside the U.S. on them as well.

For example, there was a thread on neogaf where some guy with a McCain/Palin avatar called someone (the subject of the post--a big wig from EA or something, not another forum user) a retard or retarded. Immediately after that were a couple dozen people juxtaposing his post with his avatar and making a laughing face, as if supporting the Republican ticket was something only an idiot would do.

It also reminds me of the girl in 2004 who started Kids for Kerry and the Democratic Club at her school. Their motto was, "The few, the smart, the Democrats!"

On a side note, the internet is also full of partisans who call themselves independents in a futile attempt to convince others of their rationality.

[Brando70]

And, as a public service announcement, Jonah Goldberg should never, ever be used an example of anything except how to be an intellectually lazy oaf and get paid for it. His brain is like three ribeye steaks, with the meat cut out and the fat held together with chewing gum.

You just don't like him because he beat you out for that gig at National Review.

True. I could be spending my days blogging about the fertility of teenage girls, the gay menace, and the white man's burden with John Derbyshire.

I'm more annoyed that the Doughy Pantload has a regular gig at the LA Times. I hate when they have to bus in a conservative to take media jobs from a perfectly good liberal.

[JRod]

To be fair, I see a lot more condescending and insulting behavior towards Republicans and conservatives on the internet than the other direction. It's probably because of the demographics, as message boards skew younger, and there are many people from outside the U.S. on them as well.

The internet... I don't think that's any sort of barometer and is nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

It would depend on what sites you visit. If you visit Daily Kos than I would agree with you. I stay away from political blogs because they are nothing more than reading Teal/Jack post's in blog form. I read the BBC, Politico, CS Monitor, and some others. I find it tough to find good independent views. I like a lot of stuff from outside the US. I also try to find out what slant do the news organizations take before I read their stuff. For example I like the Financial Times but I also know most non-US
are very progressive and more left of the US.

As for major news sites, I think they are slanted towards who's in office. The Clinton's thought there was a conservative bias. The Bush's think there is a liberal bias. I think it's the media being the media going after whoever is in office. The media are equal oppurtunity sensationalists.

[TheHiddenTrack]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/p ... in070.html

Let me phrase this just right.

Are you f***in kidding?

She was the mayor. She fired the police chief, librarian and others. Shockingly, the police chief filed a wrongful termination suit, which was summarily dismissed. No trial. No settlement. Dismissed with prejudice. No case.

Despite the court finding that there was no wrongful termination, the little junior Woodward and Bernsteins at The Seattle Times write that article which proves nothing except that they can appparently figure out the complexities of pulling a file from a Federal Courthouse. They rely on the fired police chief's own notes and recollections regarding significant portions of what they claim Palin said or thought.

Much like the police chief, these reporters have no case. There isn't a reform executive at any level of government (or business for that matter)in either party that doesn't ride into town, shitcan deadwood and typically trigger a flurry of wrongful termination suits.

The article acknowledges:

But Palin had won other folks over. When she ran for governor, one opponent ran an ad quoting one of those blistering editorials from the Frontiersman. Vicki Naegele, the former managing editor who wrote the editorial, defended Palin.

"As a community newspaper, we held her feet to the fire," Naegele wrote. "This was one of those scorching editorials. I remember the need for such harsh words diminished as the months wore on."

Palin herself said at that time: "If nothing else, the old Frontiersman editorial points out the importance of administrative experience at the chief executive level. I grew tremendously in my early months as mayor, managing the fastest-growing city in the state, and I turned my critics around."

The article is trying to describe her early years as Mayor. I don't think it's unfair to say that it didn't go perfectly smooth early on as Palin said herself, "I grew tremendously in my early months as mayor." The local newspaper wasn't happy with her, people protested against her firing of the librarian and she had to rehire her. But if you're drinking the McCain campaign kool-aid then I guess this summary of it would suffice, "Maria Comella, spokeswoman for Palin's campaign for vice president, said of Palin's first year as mayor: The bottom line was that this was Gov. Palin challenging the good-old-boy network and shaking up the status quo to get things done."

She did fire the librarian, after she brought up the idea of banning books. Obviously we don't have a blunt statement saying the exact reason why she fired her.

Now the main part of the article Stambaugh, they give evidence that he was effective at his job (municipal employee of the year, etc) They present a motive for why she wanted to fire him. They then present the events that occurred that lead up to his termination. Her letter to the Police Chief is right there and she gives her reasons for the termination:

I have worked with you for approximately three and one-half months since my election, trying to gain you support. You never gave me that...You know when you have someone's full support, and you know hen you do not...Shortly after I took office I made it clear to my Department Heads that one of my goals was to achieve budget reductions in each department. You immediately replied that such a cut would be virtually impossible in the police department. It was clear that you would not even give this goal serious consideration, though you know how supportive I was of a reduced budget. You never came forward with a proposed way of even considering a reduced budget...I wanted you to extract the relevant information because I wanted your views as to what you thought was positive...etc

If anything this supports her image as a barracuda who wants to lower the budget. So she was clearly disappointed in him and felt she had enough reason to bring someone else in. She chose not to fire him "with cause" but she didn't need to. And as you succinctly put it, "There isn't a reform executive at any level of government (or business for that matter)in either party that doesn't ride into town, shitcan deadwood and typically trigger a flurry of wrongful termination suits." So neat, nobody was saying she should be in jail (she was within her legal means), the argument isn't if what she did was legal. But you described the guy as "deadwood" when I think they presented enough evidence to contradict her claim. And I think it's worth knowing that she fired somebody who was actually effective at his job. Now her letter she cites many reasons and clearly Stambaugh believes it was linked to him pissing off the NRA. That may not be exactly the way it happened, Palin listed many reasons in her letter why she didn't like him and also said that she thought he was trying to intimidate her.

Now clearly, there are two sides to the story and I never claimed that her earlier experiences as Mayor defined Palin's governing style. But with the McCain campaign touting her executive experience I don't think it's out of bounds to get a few different perspectives on that executive experience. And yes, truthfully I think the article makes a decent case that she had a little bit of a tough time at the start but given that she is the "true reformer" who wants to cut unnecessary spending of course there's going to be some pissed off people and you should always keep a healthy amount of skepticism on hand when dealing with each individual claim.

And from my original post:
"She also asked three people to decide which one of them would be fired in a ploy that reminds me of something you find on a reality show. She also tried to fill two spots on the city council but failed because it wasn't her job."

So I assume she was trying to reduce the budget by getting rid of someone at the museum. That may be reasonable but I don't approve of the method she chose. And trying to fill the two spots on the city council makes me think of cronyism.

Of course this article is an example of cherry picking the negative but so are all the completely positive articles. I'm not taking this as the bible on Palin. I'm very interested in learning about her time as a mayor considering her time as a governor isn't long.

But if you think this was supposed to be the ultimate hit job smack down of Palin, then I think you may be suffering from the newly discovered Palin supporter persecution complex. And while I agree that she has been taking a lot of unjust heat from the far-left that doesn't automatically dismiss any inquiries. You posted an article about Obama's time as a community organizer and you acknowledge the reporter may be reading too much into it but you still found it worthy enough to post. I think the reporters did a pretty good job here and I learned things about Palin, but of course I don't think it was perfectly accurate portrayal, of course it isn't. Just like the article that you posted wasn't a perfectly accurate portrayal. And the funny thing is, that article had far more editorializing then this article did.

If you have some in depth articles that I've been missing that you find more objective then go ahead and post them.

[Teal]

[quote="Teal]
'Evangelicals' voted for Bush, Reagan, Bush II. Sure. But 'used'? What the hell kind of terminology is that? And to be sure, not all 'evangelicals' did so-ever hear of Tony Campolo? He's a liberal.

And I lumped the 'liberals' all together to make a point-a point you helped cement...thank you. Just because I am a conservative doesn't make me some right wing GWBJ (that would be 'Blow Jobber') who wants to beat you over the head with a bible, and force you to put the ten commandments in your front yard.

You are the JackB of the right.

1) I say used because there are more than enough evidence that Bush pandered to the Evangelical base to get their votes but he did not deliver on what they wanted. I'm not talking about the abortion issues or gay rights. They had a more complex agenda than what the mainstream media makes them out to be.

2) I didn't call you conservative in my last post, did I? No. You are just looking for some persecution of conservatives that it makes most of what you post a joke. I didn't say you are a bible thumper nor did I say anything about religion expect to talk about how our country is perplexed on the effects religion and the role it should play.

If you want to get into the nuances of conservatism than we can do that and that ranges from the Reagans, Goldwaters to the Bushes and McCains. That's quite a range of conservatives ranging from policy attitudes to social attitudes.

You take anything anyone posts and try to find how its bashing conservatives.[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? The only joke here is you-and it ain't just in political threads, either. I understand that you are going to find the turd in the punchbowl, no matter if there's one there or not, regardless of the subject at hand-be it video games, politics, whatever. It's your calling card.

I'm not talking nuances with someone who only ever sees his own asshole, and thus assumes that it must be like everyone else's asshole. You can't be talked with.

[FatPitcher]

If you have some in depth articles that I've been missing that you find more objective then go ahead and post them.

It would be nice to find an article that got the other side of the story.

I seem to remember hearing something a while back that some of the people who got fired had actively supported her "establishment" opponent in the mayor's race. If that's true, perhaps she had good reason to believe that she needed to replace a chummy network that didn't respect her with other people.

In any case, the sheer amount of unimportant and misleading accusations out of both camps lately is depressing.

[JRod]

You contintually redicule those that don't agree or hint at not agreeing.

Your last post is a prime example of just how you take any point and fly off the handle with it.

I think everyone in this forum though is guilty of getting little heated and saying something they shouldn't. Though people like PK, Rob, MattK, FP can debate and not contintually fly off the handle at everything. Just because someone disagree with you doesn't mean they are attacking you.

I'm done responding to all of the closeminded, beligerent nonsense you write in this thread.

[RobVarak]

But if you think this was supposed to be the ultimate hit job smack down of Palin, then I think you may be suffering from the newly discovered Palin supporter persecution complex.

To the contrary, I think it was an amateurish and fruitless attempt at a hit job. They'll learn though.

You posted an article about Obama's time as a community organizer and you acknowledge the reporter may be reading too much into it but you still found it worthy enough to post. I think the reporters did a pretty good job here and I learned things about Palin, but of course I don't think it was perfectly accurate portrayal, of course it isn't. Just like the article that you posted wasn't a perfectly accurate portrayal. And the funny thing is, that article had far more editorializing then this article did.

I don't think I suggested that you shouldn't have posted it, and it's more than reasonable to do so. If the authors had openly editorialized (as the author of the TNR article did) I wouldn't have had much of an opinion about it. But they presented the article in a fashion which glossed over the dubious nature of their sources and even went out of their way to try to strengthen their principal source's credibility. Not good journalism.

[Jackdog]

If someone posted this link already...sorry.

I'm getting confused. NY Gov. Patterson just said that "community organizer" is a Republican euphemism for "black" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jjEjsI_HwA Now it means "Jesus"?

Damn those Democratic evangelicals! Oh my bad, Steve Cohen is Jewish.

Hey Dems. Not going to win over those evangelical votes like this.

[RobVarak]

So now people are accusing Palin of claiming that the war in Iraq is a crusade because of these remarks made at her church:

"Pray for our military. He is going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God, that is what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Somebody sent this to me during the convention and it seemed clear to me that she was saying pray that our national leaders are sending them on a task worthy of their sacrifice, not that God is commanding our national leaders to wage war on the infidels

[Jackdog]

So now people are accusing Palin of claiming that the war in Iraq is a crusade because of these remarks made at her church:

"Pray for our military. He is going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God, that is what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Somebody sent this to me during the convention and it seemed clear to me that she was saying pray that our national leaders are sending them on a task worthy of their sacrifice, not that God is commanding our national leaders to wage war on the infidels

Palin told Charlie Gibson she made that comment in the same light as Abraham Lincoln's

“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right”

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/ ... 6&src=news

[JRod]

So now people are accusing Palin of claiming that the war in Iraq is a crusade because of these remarks made at her church:

"Pray for our military. He is going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God, that is what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Somebody sent this to me during the convention and it seemed clear to me that she was saying pray that our national leaders are sending them on a task worthy of their sacrifice, not that God is commanding our national leaders to wage war on the infidels

You do realize that every word in a Presidential race is scrutinized?


Not it's a strange choice of words. She alludes to God's plan and God's task not in reference to protection her son's well-being. That last sentence is interesting. I don't know how else you are supposed to take the last sentence, "that plan is God's plan."

It's nit-picking a statement but the choice of words leaves her open to criticism. I don't take it the same way you do.

[XXXIV]

[

You do realize that every word in a Presidential race is scrutinized?

I dont think he has a clue.

[Jackdog]

I dont think he has a clue.

Shhhh! Let's keep it that way. If Rob finds out he might stop posting in this thread. I don't want that to happen. Dude is wicked smart.

[JRod]

[

You do realize that every word in a Presidential race is scrutinized?

I dont think he has a clue.

I meant to put in a smiley in that sentence BTW.

[XXXIV]

[

You do realize that every word in a Presidential race is scrutinized?

I dont think he has a clue.

I meant to put in a smiley in that sentence BTW.

Me too

[Teal]

You contintually redicule those that don't agree or hint at not agreeing.

Your last post is a prime example of just how you take any point and fly off the handle with it.

I think everyone in this forum though is guilty of getting little heated and saying something they shouldn't. Though people like PK, Rob, MattK, FP can debate and not contintually fly off the handle at everything. Just because someone disagree with you doesn't mean they are attacking you.

I'm done responding to all of the closeminded, beligerent nonsense you write in this thread.

Good, because you don't know your asshole from your elbow. You complain about the fire, but buddy, you're holding a big assed torch, and you swing that damned thing too wildly. If you think I'm belligerent and closeminded, well...that's a compliment coming from you. Get over yourself.

I can talk to JackB, I can talk to PK, I can talk to most people on this board, no matter their stripe. I can't talk to you, because you hear everything in a language all your own, apparently. Please do me a favor, and honor your last sentence. It will eliminate 90% of what you say to 90% of the people in here about 90% of the topics.

[RobVarak]

Of course I know that every word is scrutinized. And we should all keep in mind that these statements were made in June.

I'm an old-school Catholic, so I tend to get jumpy around evangelicals, pentecostals, Lutherans, and Masons, but nothing she said struck me as anything but generic pray for our boys speak. Every mass I've been to for the last 7 years has some variation on, "Pray for our leaders that they may have the wisdom to see God's plan in world events and work to carry out those plans" etc. Just standard riffing

--Edit. I see the smiley. I didn't interpret any venom in the line.

[Teal]

If someone posted this link already...sorry.

I'm getting confused. NY Gov. Patterson just said that "community organizer" is a Republican euphemism for "black" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jjEjsI_HwA Now it means "Jesus"?

Damn those Democratic evangelicals! Oh my bad, Steve Cohen is Jewish.

Hey Dems. Not going to win over those evangelical votes like this.

I alluded to the idio...er, governor's stupi...er, interesting remarks in an earlier post, but didn't include the video of this buffoo...er, man making an ass...er, unfortunate observation.

Sorry for all the hiccups; just trying not to be belligerent and close minded...

[Jackdog]

I alluded to the idio...er, governor's stupi...er, interesting remarks in an earlier post, but didn't include the video of this buffoo...er, man making an ass...er, unfortunate observation.

Sorry for all the hiccups; just trying not to be belligerent and close minded...

No problem.

[Feanor]

So now people are accusing Palin of claiming that the war in Iraq is a crusade because of these remarks made at her church:

"Pray for our military. He is going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God, that is what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Somebody sent this to me during the convention and it seemed clear to me that she was saying pray that our national leaders are sending them on a task worthy of their sacrifice, not that God is commanding our national leaders to wage war on the infidels

I posted this link about that in the old thread:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/0 ... 23205.html

[GTHobbes]

Truthfully, watching this forum tonight with McCain and Obama, I really don't have a problem with either of these guys and won't mind seeing either one win. Both seem to be leaps and bounds better than what we've had for the past 8 years. Now I just need to decide who to vote for between now and November.

[Jackdog]

Truthfully, watching this forum tonight with McCain and Obama, I really don't have a problem with either of these guys and won't mind seeing either one win. Both seem to be leaps and bounds better than what we've had for the past 8 years. Now I just need to decide who to vote for between now and November.

I agree. Damn man,let's not make this a habit.