OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:26 pm

JackB1 wrote:
Teal wrote: Now...could you please stop this?

(BTW..that's a kangaroo )

As long as she makes news, I'll keep talking about her.
Is this a new rule that you aren't allowed to talk about
losing candidates? Problem is, she gives us so much to
talk about. Heck, the writers at Sat Night Live should be
sending her half their paychecks for the last 6 months.

She keeps putting herself out there, then she is subject to
criticism. I seem to recall someone telling me the same
exact thing about posting here...

Whatever gets you off, then, Jack.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:32 pm

Teal wrote:WHY is there 'no denying'? Because you think so? McCain didn't have a snowball's chance in hell before he put her on the ticket. Not one. I don't expect you to understand that, but when there's not a clear, clear choice between one or the other (liberal or "moderate"-sheesh, what a choice for a conservative to have), then you vote, for all intents and purposes, 'present'. The bullshit about her diminishing the ticket is just a bunch of spin-he had no chance without her. None. Obama didn't get a landslide, but he sure as hell would've if she hadn't bolstered the ticket.

Yeah, Palin bolstered the ticket by starting off with a 59% favorable rating that dropped down to 46% by the time the American people had a few months to hear from her and form a judgement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03346.html

The idea that Obama would have won in a landslide if McCain has picked another VP candidate is nothing more than a fantasy. To simply call it bullshit or spin would be too kind.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:34 pm

JackB1 wrote: What's funny is how you ignore the main point because you have no argument there. You prefer to go after my wording. Doesn't change anything. You just argue to argue. Does it really matter exactly who those "people around her" are? I was referring to her campaign manger and several others who became close to her during her campaign. Forgive me for not knowing their exact names.

Ok, one last spin on the merry-go-round and I'm done with this.

Your wording makes a BIG difference. You started out by using "most around her". You then changed that to "most & the American public". Now, you're saying it's "several close to her". So which is it? How can someone argue a point that isn't even clear? If anything, I'm arguing that your point is invalid because you failed to produce any factual evidence that "most of the people around her" felt she was unqualified.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:35 pm

It was just the ones that had to explain to Palin that Africa is a continent, not a country.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:36 pm

Feanor wrote:
Teal wrote:WHY is there 'no denying'? Because you think so? McCain didn't have a snowball's chance in hell before he put her on the ticket. Not one. I don't expect you to understand that, but when there's not a clear, clear choice between one or the other (liberal or "moderate"-sheesh, what a choice for a conservative to have), then you vote, for all intents and purposes, 'present'. The bullshit about her diminishing the ticket is just a bunch of spin-he had no chance without her. None. Obama didn't get a landslide, but he sure as hell would've if she hadn't bolstered the ticket.
Yeah, Palin bolstered the ticket by starting off with a 59% favorable rating that dropped down to 46% by the time the American people had a few months to hear from her and form a judgement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03346.html

The idea that Obama would have won in a landslide if McCain has picked another VP candidate is nothing more than a fantasy. To simply call it bullshit or spin would be too kind.

See post above to Jack to receive your reply...just insert your name.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:43 pm

You might need someone to explain this to you, but your bitter moaning in this thread since the election results came in make even Arsene Wenger look like a gracious loser. Is it that big a deal that the countless links you have posted this year from the conservative blog echo chamber were all in vain?

Palin was such a poor choice, that a leading conservative by the name of Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Reagan, withdrew his support for the McCain campaign and publically announced that he had voted for Obama.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plan ... obama.aspx

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:46 pm

Feanor wrote:It was just the ones that had to explain to Palin that Africa is a continent, not a country.

In that case, you're getting your facts from imaginary people (which doesn't surprise me):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_ ... lin_hoax_1

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:11 pm

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:14 pm

matthewk wrote:
Feanor wrote:It was just the ones that had to explain to Palin that Africa is a continent, not a country.
In that case, you're getting your facts from imaginary people (which doesn't surprise me):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_ ... lin_hoax_1

Matt, you do realize that the story in the link you posted also states this, don't you:

"The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin — not the Fox News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony."

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:39 pm

Feanor wrote:You might need someone to explain this to you, but your bitter moaning in this thread since the election results came in make even Arsene Wenger look like a gracious loser. Is it that big a deal that the countless links you have posted this year from the conservative blog echo chamber were all in vain?

Palin was such a poor choice, that a leading conservative by the name of Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Reagan, withdrew his support for the McCain campaign and publically announced that he had voted for Obama.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plan ... obama.aspx

I'm as bitter as you are intelligent. Which is to say, not at all. You want to call me bitter while you're boy won the election, and yet you continue to rant and rave about something that isn't even viable anymore. You want to continue to kick dirt in the eye of a woman that wasn't even running for president, for reasons that only morons like you understand. She's gone back to her governorship in Alaska, yet you act as though she's still campaigning. So I'd say the one who's bitter here looks much more like you, rather than me.

You're a f***in liberal, anyway...what the f*** do you care? You should be HAPPY if you live under the illusion that Palin was a poor choice, not acting a child.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:51 pm

And you know what else? The f***in election is over. Go support the president, and shut the f*** up about the other stuff. It matters not one whit. All I've done is speak in defense of a woman who doesn't deserve your pathetic vitriol. When you shut it, I'll stop coming to the defense.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:52 pm

GTHobbes wrote:
matthewk wrote:
Feanor wrote:It was just the ones that had to explain to Palin that Africa is a continent, not a country.
In that case, you're getting your facts from imaginary people (which doesn't surprise me):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_ ... lin_hoax_1
Matt, you do realize that the story in the link you posted also states this, don't you:

"The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin — not the Fox News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony."

Yes.

She denies it. No one has come forward to say that she is lying. Who would you believe, the person out in the open or some "unamed source"?

GameSeven · Post by **GameSeven** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:03 pm

matthewk wrote:She denies it. No one has come forward to say that she is lying. Who would you believe, the person out in the open or some "unamed source"?

It seems to be a requirement of the Democratic Party to demean the intelligence of prominent Republicans. Consider: Palin, Bush I and II, Quayle, Reagan (even later in life during his Alzheimer's), Ford. Not McCain, per se, he's just SOOO OOOOLD.

It's as if they've a compulsion to appear intellectually superior to their political adversaries.

Edit: That's too broad a generalization and I don't mean to insult all of my counterparts across the political divide. The more provocative among their number likely know who they are.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:21 pm

GameSeven wrote:
It seems to be a requirement of the Democratic Party to demean the intelligence of prominent Republicans. Consider: Palin, Bush I and II, Quayle, Reagan (even later in life during his Alzheimer's), Ford. Not McCain, per se, he's just SOOO OOOOLD.

It's as if they've a compulsion to appear intellectually superior to their political adversaries.

Edit: That's too broad a generalization and I don't mean to insult all of my counterparts across the political divide. The more provocative among their number likely know who they are.

It's not just the Democrats.

And they regard Mrs Palin’s apparent ignorance not as a problem but as a badge of honour.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedst ... d=12599247

And American conservatives such as David Brooks have bemoaned the predominantly lowbrow road the Republicans have taken.

It sometimes seems it was more important for Republican candidates to demonstrate how they're like "real Americans" than showing intellect and command of policy.

It wasn't just this year that a figure like Romney railed against the "elite." Bush touted his "plain" speaking, as if displaying a little verbal sophistication would be an affront to the nation.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:39 pm

wco81 wrote:
GameSeven wrote:
It seems to be a requirement of the Democratic Party to demean the intelligence of prominent Republicans. Consider: Palin, Bush I and II, Quayle, Reagan (even later in life during his Alzheimer's), Ford. Not McCain, per se, he's just SOOO OOOOLD.

It's as if they've a compulsion to appear intellectually superior to their political adversaries.

Edit: That's too broad a generalization and I don't mean to insult all of my counterparts across the political divide. The more provocative among their number likely know who they are.
It's not just the Democrats.

Correct. The disingenuous and the lazy inhabit both parties.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:33 pm

XXXIV wrote: Correct. The disingenuous and the lazy inhabit both parties.

s***, without the disingenuous and lazy we wouldn't even have a political class.

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:55 am

Excellent article from Economist, WCO...thanks for sharing. It very well sums up my frustration with the present Republican party.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:06 am

matthewk wrote:
Feanor wrote:It was just the ones that had to explain to Palin that Africa is a continent, not a country.
In that case, you're getting your facts from imaginary people (which doesn't surprise me):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_ ... lin_hoax_1

As has already been said, you really should read the the whole article before you link to it. An unnamed source is not the same thing as an imaginary person.

The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin — not the Fox News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:30 am

Teal wrote:You're a f***in liberal, anyway...what the f*** do you care? You should be HAPPY if you live under the illusion that Palin was a poor choice, not acting a child.

If I was a liberal, then why I am so pleased that the conservative National party and their even more right-of-center coalition partner ACT run my country? This idea you have that it's just liberals who think Palin dragged down McCain's campaign is bizarre. If you could give the tourette's syndrome a rest for five seconds and actually look at the polling data from the nopartisan Pew Research Center, you would see how Palin's unfavorable rating grew throughout the campaign as she continued to show she was unsuitable to be VP to a 72 year old with a history of health problems.

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1406

Of course, you have proved all year that any evidence which doesn't fit your ideology is simply dismissed.

Teal wrote:And you know what else? The f***in election is over. Go support the president, and shut the f*** up about the other stuff. It matters not one whit. All I've done is speak in defense of a woman who doesn't deserve your pathetic vitriol. When you shut it, I'll stop coming to the defense.

You think you're Jared now?

Don't try and tell me what I should and shouldn't talk about in these Election threads. If Palin manages to get herself videoed in front of another animal slaughter or gives a talk to children on how humans used to walk with dinosaurs, I'll post that link too, and you can come in and cry some more about how the liberal media is out to get her.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:34 am

RobVarak wrote:
XXXIV wrote: Correct. The disingenuous and the lazy inhabit both parties.
s***, without the disingenuous and lazy we wouldn't even have a political class.

We wouldnt want that...

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:20 am

Feanor wrote:
matthewk wrote:
Feanor wrote:It was just the ones that had to explain to Palin that Africa is a continent, not a country.
In that case, you're getting your facts from imaginary people (which doesn't surprise me):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_ ... lin_hoax_1
As has already been said, you really should read the the whole article before you link to it. An unnamed source is not the same thing as an imaginary person.

The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin — not the Fox News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.

If you know this has already been said, then why repeat it? I even answered this already. Did you read that?

The source was a made up person. No one has come forward to back up this rumor, so at this point all we have is an imaginary person.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:32 pm

Feanor wrote: Don't try and tell me what I should and shouldn't talk about in these Election threads. If Palin manages to get herself videoed in front of another animal slaughter or gives a talk to children on how humans used to walk with dinosaurs, I'll post that link too, and you can come in and cry some more about how the liberal media is out to get her.

THANK YOU!!!

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:23 pm

matthewk wrote:The source was a made up person. No one has come forward to back up this rumor, so at this point all we have is an imaginary person.

No, the basis for the original Fox News story was people "in the McCain campaign" who don't want to lose their ability to work for the Republican party by revealing their identities. It would only be an imaginary person if Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron had invented the source and the story out of own his personal dislike for Palin, something which seems rather unlikely.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:07 pm

Not sure why you are so stuck on the word imaginary. The mysterious source is still unknown, and this so-called "news" is very likely a bunch of crap. Palin has denied it, and no one has come forward to explain how/when (or even if) this occurred. This is no more a solid piece of evidence than claims that Obama is a Muslim.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:52 pm

matthewk wrote:Not sure why you are so stuck on the word imaginary. The mysterious source is still unknown, and this so-called "news" is very likely a bunch of crap. Palin has denied it, and no one has come forward to explain how/when (or even if) this occurred. This is no more a solid piece of evidence than claims that Obama is a Muslim.

THANK YOU!