OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:42 pm

webdanzer wrote: I never blew up any frogs, though, so maybe I'm still entitled to a few of those JackB1 points!

You got em!!!

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:43 pm

Brando70 wrote:
Slumberland wrote:
Naples39 wrote:Who wouldn't want to vote for this;

MESMERIZING.
It is, and appropriate to the discussion since it would fall under the category of "MILF hunting."

What's funny is Biden's look too

Anyone know what's she's really saying?

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:03 pm

My Thanksgiving meal.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:04 pm

Slumberland wrote:

My Thanksgiving meal.

Racking up the points Slumber!!!

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:23 pm

Slumberland wrote:

My Thanksgiving meal.

It's what the San Francisco pilgrims ate when they landed in the Market District.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:26 pm

Brando70 wrote:
Slumberland wrote:

My Thanksgiving meal.
It's what the San Francisco pilgrims ate when they landed in the Market District.

.....Nice....

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:40 pm

JackB1 wrote:
matthewk wrote:
And who would those people be, other than the disgruntled McCain campaign workers that did a poor job and are looking for a scapegoat?

Uhhhm....how about the American public?
http://www.zibb.com/article/4287588/Maj ... ePresident

60% thought she wasn't qualified then...and that was a month ago.

So the "most of those around her" includes the general public? Here was your original statement:

JackB1 wrote: The weird thing is that Palin still insists she's perfectly qualified to be VP...even after most of those around her now admit she was in over her head.

How can you tie in "most of those around her now admit..." with what the general public thought a month ago?

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:44 pm

JackB1 wrote:Tell me this....give me the "acceptable" times when it's OK to kill another animal?

When I'm hungry

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:50 pm

matthewk wrote: So the "most of those around her" includes the general public?

Yes. Make that "most around her AND the American public".
Happy now?

You can nitpick all you want, but the point remains...she's not qualified...never was....and she lost. Sorry.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:56 pm

Teal wrote:
Feanor wrote:It's not that Palin was too inexperienced, it's that she was too f***in dumb to be anywhere near the Presidency. Something that McCain's handlers were able to confirm about 10 minutes after McCain conceded and they didn't need to protect her anymore.
Those were Leiberman holdouts, and you just want that to be true to buttress up your own hateful, ignorant rantings about the woman. Carry on.

Me calling her dumb is neither hateful nor ignorant, just an opinion based on a ton of evidence. Palin displayed her stupidity repeatedly throughout the campaign and it was one of the reasons McCain was so soundly defeated, no matter how much you wish that weren't true.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:00 pm

Feanor wrote: Me calling her dumb is neither hateful nor ignorant, just an opinion based on a ton of evidence. .

Cant argue that....Thats why I call Hillary a f***in c***. Its my opinion based on a ton of evidence.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:02 pm

Since we are going to spend the next 4-8 years of an Obama presidency discussing Palin...Im going to start her next campaign right now.

Palin 12...because you doth protest FAR too much.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:03 pm

JackB1 wrote:
matthewk wrote: So the "most of those around her" includes the general public?
Yes. Make that "most around her AND the American public".
Happy now?

You can nitpick all you want, but the point remains...she's not qualified...never was....and she lost. Sorry.

SHE didn't lose, Jack...because SHE wasn't running for president...but, given the level of obsession, I can see how you'd forget that...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:08 pm

Feanor wrote:
Teal wrote:
Feanor wrote:It's not that Palin was too inexperienced, it's that she was too f***in dumb to be anywhere near the Presidency. Something that McCain's handlers were able to confirm about 10 minutes after McCain conceded and they didn't need to protect her anymore.
Those were Leiberman holdouts, and you just want that to be true to buttress up your own hateful, ignorant rantings about the woman. Carry on.
Me calling her dumb is neither hateful nor ignorant, just an opinion based on a ton of evidence. Palin displayed her stupidity repeatedly throughout the campaign and it was one of the reasons McCain was so soundly defeated, no matter how much you wish that weren't true.

McCain was defeated, because deep down, conservatives didn't really want the guy. To us, it was a matter of holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two evils. True conservatives didn't have a dog in this hunt. If people would get their heads out of the republican ass long enough to see the viability of the Libertarian Party, and it's resultant conservatism in the key areas, we'd have HAD a dog in the hunt.

Palin really had nothing to do with it...but that's the way it's going to be spun, because a conservative, strong, pro-life woman in a seat of power, is a threat to everything that liberals hold dear.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:10 pm

XXXIV wrote:Since we are going to spend the next 4-8 years of an Obama presidency discussing Palin...Im going to start her next campaign right now.

Palin 12...because you doth protest FAR too much.

I think it's hilarious. They got the damned candidate they wanted, but all they want to talk about is Palin...and she wasn't even running for president.

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:14 pm

Teal wrote:
XXXIV wrote:Since we are going to spend the next 4-8 years of an Obama presidency discussing Palin...Im going to start her next campaign right now.

Palin 12...because you doth protest FAR too much.
I think it's hilarious. They got the damned candidate they wanted, but all they want to talk about is Palin...and she wasn't even running for president.

I think we'd quit talking about her if she (and those close to her) would also stop. CNN reports today:

"Pro-Palin ads 'thank you' ads hit the airwaves
Posted: 01:00 PM ET

A pro-Palin ad campaign hits the airwaves this week.
(CNN) — Election Day was three weeks ago, but political ads praising former Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin are still hitting the airwaves.

The Our Country Deserves Better PAC has begun running spots in Alaska — two 60-second ads, and two 30-second versions — that pay tribute to Palin, with plans to expand the ad buy to the rest of the country sometime this week.

"Governor Palin inspired millions of Americans by fighting for common sense conservative principles in a positive and uplifting manner," chief strategist Sal Russo said in a statement. "I worked with President Ronald Reagan since his first days in the California Governor’s Office, and I can tell you that I see so many similarities between President Reagan and Governor Palin."

The 60-second Thanksgiving-themed spot — which comes days after footage of a Palin interview on a turkey farm hit the airwaves — also points to the Alaska governor's fondness for moose chili as a turkey alternative.

The PAC — which sponsored the "Stop Obama Now" bus tour during the campaign season — said it plans to spend at least $50,000 airing the ads in Alaska. It has not yet released details of the ad buy on national broadcast and cable networks."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

She lost, people...give it up, already.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:23 pm

JackB1 wrote:
matthewk wrote: So the "most of those around her" includes the general public?
Yes. Make that "most around her AND the American public".
Happy now?

You can nitpick all you want, but the point remains...she's not qualified...never was....and she lost. Sorry.

Nitpicking? There's a BIG difference between "those around her" and "everyone". By your revised definition, the entire country is now "those around her".

What you should be sorry for is constantly posting crap and then trying to back out or redefine your words when people call you on it.

Now back to my chicken for lunch......

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:27 pm

macsomjrr wrote:Didn't you guys ever watch Bambi????? You heartless sonssabitches!

Hunters are a strange breed. Shooting living creatures for fun has got to be one of the cruelest pastimes we've got. I understand hunting for food if you can't find it any other way but when a pound of beef costs $5-6/lb at your local butcher you won't be able to convince me that the time wasted sitting in a field, the cost of the rifle, the bullets, the camo gear, and the cigars that you smoke post-kill are a much more cost effective way of feeding your family.

I've heard that a fair number of Americans do depend on hunting for animal protein, that they couldn't regularly afford to buy meat.

Even heard that some people will check out roadkill!

I don't know about fun but it does seem to be a rite of passage in some rural areas.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:30 pm

GTHobbes wrote:I think we'd quit talking about her if she (and those close to her) would also stop. CNN reports today:

*snipped for brevity*

She lost, people...give it up, already.

So because some group (not directly related to her) is running a few ads in Alaska, it's forcing you to keep talking about her.

Are you guys jealous that she's getting just as much attention as the president elect or what?

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:38 pm

matthewk wrote:
GTHobbes wrote:I think we'd quit talking about her if she (and those close to her) would also stop. CNN reports today:

*snipped for brevity*

She lost, people...give it up, already.
So because some group (not directly related to her) is running a few ads in Alaska, it's forcing you to keep talking about her.

Are you guys jealous that she's getting just as much attention as the president elect or what?

They just want her to go away...AND they want an excuse as to why they keep on talking about her.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:55 pm

Teal wrote:
JackB1 wrote:
matthewk wrote: So the "most of those around her" includes the general public?
Yes. Make that "most around her AND the American public".
Happy now?

You can nitpick all you want, but the point remains...she's not qualified...never was....and she lost. Sorry.
SHE didn't lose, Jack...because SHE wasn't running for president...but, given the level of obsession, I can see how you'd forget that...

OK - She was part of a losing ticket.

But....McCain's poll numbers went up when she was selected, but went down below pre-Palin levels before the election. So she actually lost him ground. What I find odd is that not many on the Republican side will admit that she lost him votes. True, other factors were equally influential (economy, wall street crash, "the economy is fundamentally sound", etc), but there is no denying she weakened the ticket substantially.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:05 pm

JackB1 wrote:
Teal wrote:
JackB1 wrote: Yes. Make that "most around her AND the American public".
Happy now?

You can nitpick all you want, but the point remains...she's not qualified...never was....and she lost. Sorry.
SHE didn't lose, Jack...because SHE wasn't running for president...but, given the level of obsession, I can see how you'd forget that...
OK - She was part of a losing ticket.

But....McCain's poll numbers went up when she was selected, but went down below pre-Palin levels before the election. So she actually lost him ground. What I find odd is that not many on the Republican side will admit that she lost him votes. True, other factors were equally influential (economy, wall street crash, "the economy is fundamentally sound", etc), but there is no denying she weakened the ticket substantially.

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.

Now...could you please stop this?

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:22 pm

OK (translated - I admit I was wrong. You busted me.)

But (translated - Here's a whole new line of crap for you to waste your time unravelling)

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:23 pm

matthewk wrote:
Nitpicking? There's a BIG difference between "those around her" and "everyone". By your revised definition, the entire country is now "those around her".

What you should be sorry for is constantly posting crap and then trying to back out or redefine your words when people call you on it.

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.

What's also funny is how you never question any of your fellow Republican pals when they make general remarks without footnotes, a bibliography and references. I guess it's just me? Well, at least I'm keeping you busy.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:29 pm

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...