Why Sarah Palin is BAD news for the CF and everyone else

[foeofthelance]

So, let me get this straight. If Obama makes a mistake or chooses to associate with radicals, we're supposed to simply accept this because "the past is the past"? And if Palin makes a mistake, or chooses to associate with radicals, we're supposed to be up in arms and willing to tear her down over it? For the third time, they are both radicals. The difference to me is that Palin isn't the lead on her ticket, probably won't end up in the office in the first place, and even if she did, wouldn't have a complacent congress willing to indulge her every whim.

Obama, meanwhile, is the lead on his ticket. All we have to judge him on are his past actions and associations, which in just about everyway are just as bad as hers. And no, Biden won't be a moderating influence on him. Pelosi isn't going to try and stop him from doing anything either, not unless he tries to do something extremely stupid. Why would they? Now they've got the same situation the Republicans held for so long, and they plan on carrying on just the same. They haven't proven otherwise.

So yeah. If I have a choice between Radical A and Radical B, I'd much rather the one that's going to have to fight to get anything done, with the expectation that anything their allowed to do will be so heavily negotiated that it just might actually accomplish something. I'd much rather have four years of political deadlock then have to spend yet another administration trying to repair the damage done trying to repair an already damaged structure. That's the very reason the whole systems of checks and balances were put into place.

[bookworm51485]

Another article on Palin:

As governor, Palin at times bonds church and state

So, let me get this straight. If Obama makes a mistake or chooses to associate with radicals, we're supposed to simply accept this because "the past is the past"?

You like taking things out of context huh? I said who cares if he's used drugs in the past, it is the past. Get it right

The difference to me is that Palin isn't the lead on her ticket, probably won't end up in the office in the first place, and even if she did, wouldn't have a complacent congress willing to indulge her every whim.

So you suppose, can you say for certain?

Obama, meanwhile, is the lead on his ticket. All we have to judge him on are his past actions and associations, which in just about every way are just as bad as hers.

That's arguable and depends on whether or not you choose to believe or make a big deal out of minor associations.

And no, Biden won't be a moderating influence on him. Pelosi isn't going to try and stop him from doing anything either, not unless he tries to do something extremely stupid. Why would they? Now they've got the same situation the Republicans held for so long, and they plan on carrying on just the same. They haven't proven otherwise.

And if that's the case, I say 'Hell yeah'. You say that like it's a bad thing:)

So yeah. If I have a choice between Radical A and Radical B, I'd much rather the one that's going to have to fight to get anything done, with the expectation that anything their allowed to do will be so heavily negotiated that it just might actually accomplish something. I'd much rather have four years of political deadlock then have to spend yet another administration trying to repair the damage done trying to repair an already damaged structure. That's the very reason the whole systems of checks and balances were put into place.

Meh, whatever. You act like a democratic administration will ruin the country. Look what a democratic administration did for us 8 years ago. Now look at what the Republican administrations (all the recent ones) have done for us: Bush, Bush #1, Reagan).

*Edit*

Another article:

Palin the reformer? In fact, a pattern of stonewalling and hiding

[foeofthelance]

You like taking things out of context huh? I said who cares if he's used drugs in the past, it is the past. Get it right

I did get it right. If you're willing to ignore one aspect of his past, why not ignore all of it, or any of it that you choose? The past covers every major decision anyone makes, him, her, you, or me. I called him on something that troubles me. You're rebuttal was that I should ignore it or forget about it because it was in his past.

That's arguable and depends on whether or not you choose to believe or make a big deal out of minor associations

I can and I do. There's an old saying that "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is enemy action". No one forced Obama to make these associations, and there are as many piling up for him as there are for Palin. Which yes, is a much more terrifiying for me because he is the lead on his ticket, and there is a much stronger chance that he'll end up as the President rather than Palin.

And if that's the case, I say 'Hell yeah'. You say that like it's a bad thing:)

Because it is a bad thing. Most of the major mistakes in American political history have occured when one side had full control of the active government. (The courts, while an effective tool for long term corrections, are just that, a long term tool. They require that someone bring case in the first place for something to get done. In order for someone to need to bring case, there has to be damage done in the first place.) If you really want a bipartisan government, if you really don't want a repeat of the last eight years of the inmates running the asylum, then why would you want to simply turn the reigns over to the other side? Case in point...

Meh, whatever. You act like a democratic administration will ruin the country. Look what a democratic administration did for us 8 years ago. Now look at what the Republican administrations (all the recent ones) have done for us: Bush, Bush #1, Reagan).

Reagan left office with a 64% approval rating; one point behind Clinton's 65%. His biggest mistake was to cut too much out of government spending from some of the aid programs such as Medicaid. This is coupled with 3.4% economic growth a year, which probably helped pick up a lot of the slack. This being the eighties, and admittedly a Republican period in the executive branch, the environment was treated as much of the issue it has been for the last few years. Otherwise, damned good job or at least thats what most people think. Sort of the reason why most of the Republican nominees were pushing themselves as the next Reagan during the primaries. Unsurprisingly, Democratic controlled congress.

Bush Senior wanted to try to get rid of the legendary national debt; he wanted to do so through budget cuts, the Democrats pushed for the higher taxes, as they had control of congress. They won. He helped push the North American Free Trade Agreement- there's 25 million new jobs under Clinton once it passed, or a 54% economic growth. Lets be fair and split the difference. Unfortunately, the whole thing with taxes (again, Republican trying to be nice with a Democrat controlled congress) cost him the election in '92. 54% approval rating, suffering heavily under the tax increases amongst the Republicans, who were pissed at his reneged promise of "No new taxes". Still, more than fifty percent isn't bad. Democratic controlled congress. Notice the trend? Strong Republican president with strong Democratic congress equals good things.

Clinton comes up next. Strictly politics, we ignore the personal scandals. Not really much to say, is there? Strong economy, both on the tech and white paper side. Highest approval rating ever, and lots of reforms across the board. Ready for the not so surprising surprise? Strong Republican congress to keep a lid on him for the better part of 3/4ths of his term. There's that "Democratic Administration" you're so proud of.

Now, for some more simple numbers, and to keep a long post short. The last time a Democrat President sat on a Democrat congress was Carter. Final approval rating? 34%. Last time a Republican president sat on a Republican congress? George W. Bush, and I have no idea how low the numbers have sunk for either side of that unhappy relationship. Which brings us to...

So you suppose, can you say for certain?

No, I really can't. Any more than you can be positive that McCain is going to drop dead while in office. If either of us could, there would be people willing to pay us rather large sums of money in exchange for that knowledge. But what I can do is look at the past and learn the lessons that are waiting there. Time and again, giving both the Executive and Legislative branches to one party has led to trouble. When there is a strong leader on one side, and a strong opposition on the other, good things tend to happen for the American people. So I look at my choices now. I can vote for Obama, who has done nothing but alienate the right, and who would have a Congress coddling him into doing whatever it wishes. Or I can vote for McCain, who has proven that he can work with people who disagree with him to get stuff done. And I can look at Biden, and think its unfortunate that they didn't run him as the lead instead, so that Obama might actually get some functional experience to temper his outlook. And I can look at Palin, and realize that while there is a chance that she might end up in the hotseat, but the odds are low and lower still that she might be able to cause some damage. And I can look back at the past, and see who made what mistakes where, and what lessons they learned from it, and how those lessons might be applied to the future. And yeah, if the worry is about what might happen if a radical gets into the Oval office, then I am going to do what I can to make sure that the checks that are supposed to be in place to balance out the scales are actually working the way they were designed.

[bookworm51485]

I did get it right. If you're willing to ignore one aspect of his past, why not ignore all of it, or any of it that you choose? The past covers every major decision anyone makes, him, her, you, or me. I called him on something that troubles me. You're rebuttal was that I should ignore it or forget about it because it was in his past.

Whatever you say If we use your logic, 80% of this country wouldn't be qualified for jack. He used drugs, past tense. Only an idiot would hold on to something that was done so long ago and try to apply it to a present situation.

I can and I do. There's an old saying that "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is enemy action". No one forced Obama to make these associations, and there are as many piling up for him as there are for Palin. Which yes, is a much more terrifiying for me because he is the lead on his ticket, and there is a much stronger chance that he'll end up as the President rather than Palin.

Your making a big deal out of an association with Ayers, one that consisted of them being acquaintances at best. You think that compares to being in a church directly supporting someone who's clearly anti-US?

Because it is a bad thing. Most of the major mistakes in American political history have occured when one side had full control of the active government. (The courts, while an effective tool for long term corrections, are just that, a long term tool. They require that someone bring case in the first place for something to get done. In order for someone to need to bring case, there has to be damage done in the first place.) If you really want a bipartisan government, if you really don't want a repeat of the last eight years of the inmates running the asylum, then why would you want to simply turn the reigns over to the other side? Case in point...

It's your opinion that'll be a bad thing. Personally, I'd see it as just what this country needs. We've had a Republican gov't for too long, we need a bit of Democrat in there to set things right. Don't know if Obama will manage to pull a Clinton but he can not do any worse than Bush. And personally, I'd trust that over a man who talks about voting with Bush over 90% of the time. And also over a person who's a member of a party that seems to favor voting together over voting for what they really feel.

Reagan left office with a 64% approval rating; one point behind Clinton's 65%.

And that's because Americans are easily charmed (as proven by the re-election of Bush), Reagan was a charming man who didn't do the country much good. Interesting quote from an article I found online:

"Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending." http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Doesn't say much about Republicans being in office does it?

Notice the trend? Strong Republican president with strong Democratic congress equals good things.

That's in your head.

Clinton comes up next. Strictly politics, we ignore the personal scandals. Not really much to say, is there? Strong economy, both on the tech and white paper side. Highest approval rating ever, and lots of reforms across the board. Ready for the not so surprising surprise? Strong Republican congress to keep a lid on him for the better part of 3/4ths of his term. There's that "Democratic Administration" you're so proud of.

What? So no 'Strong Democratic president with strong Republican congress equals good things' in this case?

Now, for some more simple numbers, and to keep a long post short. The last time a Democrat President sat on a Democrat congress was Carter. Final approval rating? 34%.

Personally, as a president, I'd say that Carter was before his time. People just didn't appreciate the progressive things he was doing then, as they likely would now as we've begun to realize some of the problems he was trying to avoid. Another quote to address this point:

"He put the power of government behind reducing our dependence on foreign oil. He also made the brave decision to ask citizens to actually change the way they live and conserve. History has proven his choices were the right ones and his methods worked but he was very unpopular for making us face the truth. Our future leaders will need to find his courage to ask for unpopular sacrifices of all Americans to bring the nation’s economy back to a sustainable model."

[bookworm51485]

*Had to split post*

No, I really can't. Any more than you can be positive that McCain is going to drop dead while in office.

There is always the chance of dying, whether by health issues or accidents. Do you really want to take the chance of a woman who's proven herself to be incompetent, unintelligent and morally questionable gaining such a position of power? That chance is just too great.

I can vote for Obama, who has done nothing but alienate the right, and who would have a Congress coddling him into doing whatever it wishes.

So you say. I think people on the right just want to be alienated.

Personally, I think the 'right' need to gain a bit of intelligence anyway. Where do you think the rest of the world stands, on the left or on the right? People might want to think that this is America, screw the rest of the world, but our country partially relies on it's international connections (as evidenced by the stock situation worsening when people in several foreign countries removed their money). Who do you think will work better with the world, someone on the right or someone on the left? (Obama enjoys huge global support over McCain: BBC poll)

And I can look at Palin, and realize that while there is a chance that she might end up in the hotseat, but the odds are low and lower still that she might be able to cause some damage. And yeah, if the worry is about what might happen if a radical gets into the Oval office, then I am going to do what I can to make sure that the checks that are supposed to be in place to balance out the scales are actually working the way they were designed.

I think your underestimating the woman. Personally, I think we need someone on the left to undo all the damage that the far right has done.

And I think I'm going to leave it at that with you because you've clearly made up your mind. I've made up my mind, so this is a waste of time.

[Guest MortiferLascivio]

As a Republican, I'm really torn about this whole election. I do NOT like most Democratic ideals, so voting for a Democratic president might go against a lot of my own beliefs. However, I'm not fond of McCain (whenever I see him, I just get this WEIRD, creepy feeling) and I'm not too sure about Palin at this time. Right now she doesn't strike any sort of feeling, positive or otherwise, within me. I don't like Obama because to me he's a nobody and a media sweetheart.

However, I feel Obama would be a little less...I don't know the right word...harmful in office?

[Psychostorm]

However, I'm not fond of McCain (whenever I see him, I just get this WEIRD, creepy feeling)

Thats becuase he walks like a fucking penguin and laughs like the Penguin off the old Batman show. Also PALIN IS A DUMB CUNT. If you can't tell how unqualified she is to be vice President, let alone President when McPenguin dies, you're probably on her same intelligence level. Also fuck conservatives, they are for stagnation and against change and change is the life blood of any society. If you aren't evolving then you are on the road to extinction. And fuck God too, willful ignorance is the worst plague on the face of the planet, if you can't look at the facts objectivly then you're a tard.

[Guest MortiferLascivio]

Thats becuase he walks like a fucking penguin and laughs like the Penguin off the old Batman show. Also PALIN IS A DUMB CUNT. If you can't tell how unqualified she is to be vice President, let alone President when McPenguin dies, you're probably on her same intelligence level. Also fuck conservatives, they are for stagnation and against change and change is the life blood of any society. If you aren't evolving then you are on the road to extinction. And fuck God too, willful ignorance is the worst plague on the face of the planet, if you can't look at the facts objectivly then you're a tard.

Um, are you having a bad day or are you just trying to start something because that was a pretty aggressive reply. You should try calming down a little, that type of attitude doesn't really endear me to any of your points. God wasn't even brought up in my comment so please, leave that out of this.

[foeofthelance]

As a Republican, I'm really torn about this whole election. I do NOT like most Democratic ideals, so voting for a Democratic president might go against a lot of my own beliefs. However, I'm not fond of McCain (whenever I see him, I just get this WEIRD, creepy feeling) and I'm not too sure about Palin at this time. Right now she doesn't strike any sort of feeling, positive or otherwise, within me. I don't like Obama because to me he's a nobody and a media sweetheart.

However, I feel Obama would be a little less...I don't know the right word...harmful in office?

I admit that I made up my mind to vote for McCain a long tme ago, because the timing isn't really right for Obama. He's too much a product of the far left, and with the Democrats holding Congress there is just too much of a chance to see a repeat of the last eight years. It wasn't Bush's poltics that was the problem, it was the bloody sense of entitlement that ran rampant after both the Legislature and White House was given to the Republicans. The Democrats in Congress have been basically doing the same thing the Far Right has been doing, and Obama is just going to make the same mistakes Bush did. If there was a stronger moderate presence on either side, I'd be happier, but right now the only two to show any sign of bipartsanship have been McCain and Biden. Unfortunately, Biden isn't an option....

[Guest Agaib]

Get used to her. you'll be seeing 4-8 years of her if not more. Obama failed to get any boost in the polls from his convention and, in a month, has squandered a 10 point lead in the polls.

Judging from the current state of the campaign PorkChop, I think you'll be eating your words. Political views aside, the campaign isn't going well for McCain or Palin at this point.

From what Foe has been saying I must be a pretty extreme liberal considering the fact that I consider Obama to be damn close to being right wing. I guess he has a mostly liberal perspective, but the things he's liberal he takes a fairly moderate position on. I haven't seen him take many extreme stances, not as I see it anyway.

[bookworm51485]

From what Foe has been saying I must be a pretty extreme liberal considering the fact that I consider Obama to be damn close to being right wing. I guess he has a mostly liberal perspective, but the things he's liberal he takes a fairly moderate position on. I haven't seen him take many extreme stances, not as I see it anyway.

I think he's probably considered far left in a political context, not necessarily in the world of the average citizen.

[foeofthelance]

QUOTE (Agaib @ Oct 18 2008, 06:20 PM)

From what Foe has been saying I must be a pretty extreme liberal considering the fact that I consider Obama to be damn close to being right wing. I guess he has a mostly liberal perspective, but the things he's liberal he takes a fairly moderate position on. I haven't seen him take many extreme stances, not as I see it anyway.

I think he's probably considered far left in a political context, not necessarily in the world of the average citizen.

More this than anything else.I've heard McCain panned as being "too liberal" in just the same way. About \half of it is probably a result of campaign masquaredes. One of the key bits in the Democratic primaries was the run-up between Clinton and Obama, because most of Obama's support has been coming in from the wings of the party, while most of hers was mostly the moderates-center. That was where McCain got his first slight boost. And while I probably sound like a broken record at this point, yeah, the thought of a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President strikes me as nothing more than the same of what we've dealt with for the past eight years. And yeah, considering the way the polls are looking, all I can do at this point is hope there's a another change of hands with the next Congressional rounds.

As far as your personal politics Agaib, there's no way for me to tell. The only thing we've really discussed in any depth os personal relations to religion, and while there are those who will base their politics on their priest, something tells me that's not something I should expect from you... B)

[PorkChopExpress86]

Man, this thread has been active since i've been away. Foe, good job. And even if McCain's campaign isn't doing well right now Bush was looking at a one term presidency at about the same time last cycle. It's going to come down to the same thing it always comes down to, who shows up at the polls and the 8% of the country that never makes up their mind until they walk into the polling booth. Observe: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...ded-focus-group

[Guest Agaib]

Funny video PorkChop, its too bad undecided voters, who are often the dumbest of our voters, are the ones who decide the election.

[bookworm51485]

Funny video PorkChop, its too bad undecided voters, who are often the dumbest of our voters, are the ones who decide the election.

That's probably why McCain is trying so damn hard to smear Obama and to bring up a bunch of nonsense about Ayers (A man who according to McCain said 'he didn't bomb enough', when what he actually said was 'he didn't do enough') and ACORN (though he forgets about his own connection to ACORN) and how he's supposedly attacking 'Joe the Plumber'. He's getting desperate and trying to sway those last minute idiots who haven't been paying any attention to the campaign before now.

McCain should be so proud

[foeofthelance]

That's probably why McCain is trying so damn hard to smear Obama and to bring up a bunch of nonsense about Ayers (A man who according to McCain said 'he didn't bomb enough', when what he actually said was 'he didn't do enough') and ACORN (though he forgets about his own connection to ACORN) and how he's supposedly attacking 'Joe the Plumber'. He's getting desperate and trying to sway those last minute idiots who haven't been paying any attention to the campaign before now

Eh, its late in the fourth and the score is damned near tied. Is it any wonder that both sides are flinging as much mud as they can? As far as I can tell both sides have made up their mind at this point. My only suggestion at this point is that each side round up its idiots and send them off to a rather private barbecue on a deserted island, which just happens to be a military property expected to go through a new round of weapons tests...

[bookworm51485]

Eh, its late in the fourth and the score is damned near tied. Is it any wonder that both sides are flinging as much mud as they can? As far as I can tell both sides have made up their mind at this point. My only suggestion at this point is that each side round up its idiots and send them off to a rather private barbecue on a deserted island, which just happens to be a military property expected to go through a new round of weapons tests...

I haven't heard nearly as much nonsense coming from Obama or those supporting him. I'm being bombarded with crap about Obama though. I can't turn on the tv without hearing something bad about him.

[foeofthelance]

Well, as one of those evil, racist, society killing Republican bigots who thinks Obama's proper place is just under the lash, I can assure that there is plenty of hate coming out of both sides. "McCain is going to die in office." I know its because of his age, but everyone seems so sure of it I can't help but think there's plans out there to assassinate him if he fails to croak on schedule. "Abort Palin" also comes to mind. I take it you heard her private emails were hacked and distributed? I'm not talking about by any investigative agency, I'm talking about a Democratic legislature's son (might have been a governor).

Neither does the near-riotous reaction of Obama supporters to a McCain-Palin sign in Democrat-dominated Prince George's County, Md. Buried in a back local section, The Washington Post reported this week that "pandemonium" broke loose when an unsuspecting businessman erected a "Country First. McCain/Palin." message on the marquee at his Colony South Hotel & Conference Center.

"Operators of neighborhood e-mail group lists cried foul to their memberships. The NAACP logged calls. Community leaders demanded boycotts of the hotel, a common venue for Democratic events," the little-noticed article reported. A black professor called the sign "a stink bomb in the middle of the living room" of Obama land. The poor hotel manager, Alan Vahabzadeh, surrendered. "I didn't even realize it was going to be like this."

-- Obama supporters on the heavily trafficked Democratic Underground website (where such mainstream Democrats as Elizabeth Edwards hang out) saw the ghost of the Ku Klux Klan in Sarah Palin's white suit jacket. Yes, white clothes equal racism.

"Palin is wearing white again, inciting the racist crowds. She should just drop all pretense and put on her white hood and light up a cross. She is a despicable human being," fumed a DU poster. "Grand Princess of the KKK," proclaimed another. They're "trying to send subtle signals to their rabid base," declared yet another member of Obama's rabid base.

Quotes courtesy of Michelle Malkin

And since we're such fans of videos on this site...

So if all you're hearing is that McCain is evil and doing nothing but sliming the spotless Obama? Maybe its because you're not hearing the other side of the story.

EDIT: Actually, I think Orson Scott Card sums it up best for me:

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

Edited October 23, 2008 by foeofthelance

[Psychostorm]

Um, are you having a bad day or are you just trying to start something because that was a pretty aggressive reply. You should try calming down a little, that type of attitude doesn't really endear me to any of your points. God wasn't even brought up in my comment so please, leave that out of this.

lol I don't give a shit and Jesus is my proctologist

[bookworm51485]

Well, as one of those evil, racist, society killing Republican bigots who thinks Obama's proper place is just under the lash, I can assure that there is plenty of hate coming out of both sides. "McCain is going to die in office." I know its because of his age, but everyone seems so sure of it I can't help but think there's plans out there to assassinate him if he fails to croak on schedule. "Abort Palin" also comes to mind.

When I was talking about people talking trash, I was more addressing candidates themselves than their supporters. But some of those things sound like your own speculation and none of it sounds as bad to me as McCain supporters going around screaming 'Barack Osama Bin Laden' or 'Kill OBama' or walking around with a stuffed monkey with an Obama sticker on it's head, proclaiming it to be the man.

And can I just add, if McCain is elected, I doubt any of Obama's would run in to try to assassinate the man. We're not stupid, we would know that he'd be the only thing standing between a moron running one of the most powerful countries in the world.

I take it you heard her private emails were hacked and distributed? I'm not talking about by any investigative agency, I'm talking about a Democratic legislature's son (might have been a governor).

So as far as I've heard, no one really knows who hacked her account, but you know? In the end, we've just found yet another thing she's doing wrong. Can you imagine her as VP or president, using hotmail or yahoo to send out sensitive information. The hacking should be considered a lesson to her. Don't be so damn stupid in the future.

Quotes courtesy of Michelle Malkin

And since we're such fans of videos on this site...

This doesn't seem nearly as bad to me for two reasons:

1) I hear mainly booing. Whooptie, they booed.

2) Personally, I think there's likely more to the situation than the poster of the video is saying.

So if all you're hearing is that McCain is evil and doing nothing but sliming the spotless Obama? Maybe its because you're not hearing the other side of the story.

It's what I'm hearing. I've heard McCain misquote Ayers in an attempt to make Obama look back. The worst I've heard from Obama is saying that he's convinced he's a better dancer than McCain.

[foeofthelance]

When I was talking about people talking trash, I was more addressing candidates themselves than their supporters. But some of those things sound like your own speculation and none of it sounds as bad to me as McCain supporters going around screaming 'Barack Osama Bin Laden' or 'Kill OBama' or walking around with a stuffed monkey with an Obama sticker on it's head, proclaiming it to be the man.

Actually, you're remark was that all you were hearing was bad stuff about Obama, and that there wasn't anything coming out of his camp. My point was that both sides were being just as bad. Both sides have been more than willing to let their proxies make the attacks for them. Obama is trying to make sure he has the ability to deny everything, and McCain is doing everything he can to avoid the cries of racism that have been dogging Republicans since Obama won the nominiation. But trying to villify the McCain campaign for playing the politics game when the Obama campaign has been doing the same is somewhat hypocritical to me. And no, I'm not really surprised that there's an emphasis on the smears from the Right while the ones from the Left get played down, not when Obama's managed to raise, and spend, about twice as much as McCain...

Then there's this little gem:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/ob...ida-tv-station/

So as far as I've heard, no one really knows who hacked her account, but you know? In the end, we've just found yet another thing she's doing wrong. Can you imagine her as VP or president, using hotmail or yahoo to send out sensitive information. The hacking should be considered a lesson to her. Don't be so damn stupid in the future.

Actually, the kid who did it got caught and confessed. Do you really think I would have referred to him as the son of a Democratic Legisturalist/Governnor, if I hadn't seen that? I'll try to find the cite for later. And no, it wasn't sensitive information involving her work; it was her personal account, and he was looking for ammo for personal attacks to distribute.

Ah, wait, here we go!

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-scienc...ak-w-2008-09-19

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_h.../22/133155.html

And of course, it might be hard for Obama to argue against some of the claims, all things considered.

'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

Those quotes are all courtesy of Dreams of My Father, by Barack Obama.

My point stands. You can be upset about smear campaigns all you want, I'm not going to stop you. Some of them have even been really stupid, like the recent rumors that Obama isn't actually an American citizen or that he's secretly a Taliban sleeper agent. But seriously? The idea that the Left has clean hands in all of this is ludicrous.

[bookworm51485]

Actually, you're remark was that all you were hearing was bad stuff about Obama, and that there wasn't anything coming out of his camp.

Let me directly quote what I said: "I haven't heard nearly as much nonsense coming from Obama or those supporting him." If you misunderstood what I said, that's not my fault. I said I wasn't hearing as much nonsense coming from Obama, the man.

McCain is doing everything he can to avoid the cries of racism that have been dogging Republicans since Obama won the nominiation.

Well..... if his supporters are going to rallies with stuffed monkeys with Obama's name on it and screaming out slurs calling him an Arab (which is also a slur against Arabs).... what else can you call it but Racism.

But trying to villify the McCain campaign for playing the politics game when the Obama campaign has been doing the same is somewhat hypocritical to me.

I said I'm not hearing nearly as much crap from Obama or those supporting him as I am from McCain. If you see that as vilifying, okay, but I'm stating what I see.

Actually, the kid who did it got caught and confessed. Do you really think I would have referred to him as the son of a Democratic Legisturalist/Governnor, if I hadn't seen that? I'll try to find the cite for later. And no, it wasn't sensitive information involving her work; it was her personal account, and he was looking for ammo for personal attacks to distribute.

I didn't see anything that said he got caught and confessed. I saw that he was under suspicion. Many innocent people come under suspicion. And I saw things pertaining to the gov't that weren't personal at all. One that comes to mind was a draft of a letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger about some proposed bill. That doesn't sound like something personal to me.

Those quotes are all courtesy of Dreams of My Father, by Barack Obama.

My point stands. You can be upset about smear campaigns all you want, I'm not going to stop you. Some of them have even been really stupid, like the recent rumors that Obama isn't actually an American citizen or that he's secretly a Taliban sleeper agent. But seriously? The idea that the Left has clean hands in all of this is ludicrous.

.... I find myself wondering why a quote from a book by Obama is using his name instead of I. He addresses himself in the third person ?

Anyways, outside of who's smearing who more, I still find McCain to be too much of a concern to be President. I was two videos on youtube, the man sounds like his brain is going:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-vaCnjFQhA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4FADXTI-vc

[foeofthelance]

Let me directly quote what I said: "I haven't heard nearly as much nonsense coming from Obama or those supporting him." If you misunderstood what I said, that's not my fault. I said I wasn't hearing as much nonsense coming from Obama, the man.

And I find that disconcerting, because its been fairly evident to me that both sides have been slinging as much mud as fast as it takes to get the dirt wet.

Well..... if his supporters are going to rallies with stuffed monkeys with Obama's name on it and screaming out slurs calling him an Arab (which is also a slur against Arabs).... what else can you call it but Racism.

McCain is too old: Agism.

Palin shouldn't take the post because she's a mother: Sexism

"Abort Palin": I'd say sexism again, but considering what we mean when we generally talk about aborting someone that strikes me more as a wish the person was dead.

Are we then supposed to then bind everyone up in one group and paint them all with the same brush? Because I'm more than willing to bet that I'm as much a racist homophobe as you are a sexist/agist bigot. I'm not denying that there are idiot fanatics on both sides; we've already seen plenty of evidence of that on this forum, and I've seen much worse on others. I'm more than willing to claim our side's exists; why not acknowledge yours?

I said I'm not hearing nearly as much crap from Obama or those supporting him as I am from McCain. If you see that as vilifying, okay, but I'm stating what I see.

Becuase what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but all I've heard so far is deny, deny, deny. Obama's associations shouldn't be counted, because they've either reformed, or I wasn't there to validate the claims. His past actions shouldn't be judged, because they were in the past. Obama's campaign isn't playing dirty because there are racist Republicans. These are the arguements I'm hearing.

.... I find myself wondering why a quote from a book by Obama is using his name instead of I. He addresses himself in the third person

What? All the quotes I posted were in the first person. I pointed out that the book they were from was written by him...

And if we're covering dumb, stupid mistakes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ-WZut0iYM...id=event_975451

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEIzEfm6N6Q...feature=related

And you know what's really scary?

That got raised on another forum I frequent. It was passed off that he was referring to the Peace Corps and Americorps.

in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

I've added my own emphasis to a few key phrases. We'll start with the first one, national security. Generally we use this when we talk about preventing an actual attack, or responding to such. In this case I'll assume Obama meant that he was going to try and prevent attacks on U.S. holdings. Ok, I can see how expanding the Peace Corps might help in that case. Buying goodwill from other nations has always been a good way to keep them from getting ticked off at you for other things. I don't see how expaning Americorps would help all that much though...

But then we get to the second half of the statement. He says the force needs to be "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." As what? The lead in mentions the military, so based on the way the English language works we'd have to assume that's the organization he's comparing this hypothetical civilian national security force to. Well, what makes the military strong and powerful? It's ability to deploy and use force of arms to break, take, and hold objectives. Sure the modern infrastructure has the ability to deployed in a variety of support roles, but let's be honest. The military was established to break dams, not build them. So if you want to make a force "just as powerful, just as strong" you're effectively telling me that you want a force that could stand toe to toe with the military, because that's what you're basing strength and power on. We already have plenty of different groups assigned to protecting the nation in one degree or another, but none of them have the "power" to take on the military in a stand up fight. Instead they are limited to what would be expected of trying to deal with armed civilians. (Actually, figuring the black market and congressional panic attacks, the civilians are probably better armed.)

Just as well funded... Well, the average battle vehicle, whether tank, plane, or battleship, can run anywhere from a few hundred million to a small billion or so. What kind of civilian force, in any capacity, would need to spend that kind of money? On what? We (sort of) know what the military spends its money on. New equipment, maintence of old equipment, paying the soldiers and buying ammo, up to date communications technology and satellites, experimental tech, even the maintence of all those nukes we keep in the closet. What would this "civilian" force be playing with that could cost that kind of money?

If Obama really meant a more public works oriented group, why not refer to the Roosevelt programs of the New Deal? Why not refer to the Peace Corps and Americorps? These are all much better references for a new public works program he might be envisioning. So either he meant what he said, or he made a very stupid (in my opinion) public gaffe. Because otherwise what he's talking about is essentially a domestic military under the control of the President. Not something akin to the national guard that is beholden to the states; not an investigative branch like the FBI; not an intelligence agency like the CIA or NSA. But essentially a force that gets around the Posse Comitatus rule that keeps the military from acting inside the U.S. That scares me.

[bookworm51485]

McCain is too old: Agism.

Palin shouldn't take the post because she's a mother: Sexism

I haven't heard any say McCain's too old to be president, just too old to be president with Palin as Vice-president. That I agree with. I haven't heard anyone say she shouldn't take the post because she's a women, though I've heard plenty of people say she shouldn't take the post because she's a moron. Which, again, I agree with.

Are we then supposed to then bind everyone up in one group and paint them all with the same brush? Because I'm more than willing to bet that I'm as much a racist homophobe as you are a sexist/agist bigot. I'm not denying that there are idiot fanatics on both sides; we've already seen plenty of evidence of that on this forum, and I've seen much worse on others. I'm more than willing to claim our side's exists; why not acknowledge yours?

And I never all of McCain's supporters were one thing, but when you have multiple rallies held and 90% of the crowd screaming out such things, it's kind of hard to say that it's only a few idiot fanatics.

Becuase what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but all I've heard so far is deny, deny, deny. Obama's associations shouldn't be counted, because they've either reformed, or I wasn't there to validate the claims. His past actions shouldn't be judged, because they were in the past. Obama's campaign isn't playing dirty because there are racist Republicans.

I'm guessing your referring to Ayers with that first part and I will say, no it shouldn't be counted. A vague acquaintanceship with a man who bombed some places 40 years ago and who's since been to prison and, yes, been reformed, shouldn't be counted. It's damn absurd to say it should be. I haven't seen any reformed or not, I haven't seen any evidence that shows that they're anything more than two people who served on a council together.

As for the the second, I'm guessing your referring to Obama's past drug use. And again I say, No, it shouldn't be counted. It is in the past. You might not like that, but it's true. Does he take drugs now? I doubt it. Has he taken drugs recently? Again, I doubt it. So yes, it IS in the past.

And as for Obama's campaign playing dirty or not, I'm telling you what I've seen. But first I should say, again, I was referring to Obama the man. Somehow you seem to keep losing that. I haven't heard nearly as much crap from him as I've heard from McCain. I just haven't. You say you have, okay, but I haven't.

What? All the quotes I posted were in the first person. I pointed out that the book they were from was written by him...

I missed the quotes the first time, but now that I've read them and can understand where he's coming from completely. As a black person, it's something that's often dealt with. Personally, for me, things started young. I remember when I was much younger, walking down the aisle of a story, a white woman coming up in my face and calling me things that I won't repeat here. I also remember once being in Toys-R-Us, on one of the video game stations they have set up. I was playing a game, minding my own business, when a white guard comes up to me and tells me that I can't be there without a parent (of course ignoring the many white children that surrounded me, without their parents). And proceeds to escort me all around the store until we find my mother. And not all things are so blatant as these. So I will say, as a black person, I can't/won't fault him for feeling those things at some point. It's how he deals with himself now, and given how he's handled himself, I think he's likely dealt with those feelings.

And if we're covering dumb, stupid mistakes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ-WZut0iYM...id=event_975451

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEIzEfm6N6Q...feature=related

I don't know why, but none of those videos would play without jerk/skipping, so I'm not sure how much was the video and how much was him. But for the first video, most of it was a news story. I didn't really see how it proved anything except that he got new information that changed his opinion. The second one was funny, but to me it sounds more like Obama's stumbling over his words. McCain sounds, at least to me, like he's confused. As for the 3rd video, I got halfway through before my computer really started going retarded, so I don't know what's in the second half of it. I am a bit confused though, this video and the first video seem to contradict each other. For the second clip (of the comments on Iran), the one says May 18 but the other video says May 20?

And you know what's really scary?

That got raised on another forum I frequent. It was passed off that he was referring to the Peace Corps and Americorps.

in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Civilian as in non-military. How's that scary? Sounds like the police to me.

[foeofthelance]

Civilian as in non-military. How's that scary? Sounds like the police to me.

Because we already have federal police forces. Their known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Parks Service, the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobaaco, and Firearms, the Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Agency and to a certain point the Department of Homeland Security in its role as border guard. Above that we have the National Guard units, which are each responsible for the defense of their own state, responding to local emergancies, and serving as a reserve for the military.

Out of all of them, the only one with anything close to the funding and power of the military is the National Guard units. They exist as a way around the limits of Posse Comitatus, which prevents the military forces from actively deploying in the U.S. They get around this rule by deploying under the independent authority of the state governors rather than under any federal orders.

So, in ascending rank of jurisdiction, you have:

Local police, who deal with everything inside their city county

State Police, who deal with everything on the highways/cross county lines

FBI, which handles all crimes that cross state lines, or may have

Parks Service, which is responsible for all Federal parks and land

Secret Service, which handles counterfeiting and other Treasury crimes

Drug Enforcement Agency, which is responsible for counter drug ops

BATF, which does the same thing for guns and such

DHS, which handles the borders, generic smuggling, and the airports

Then there is the military, which can't deploy inside the United States for combat operations against Americans, and can only be deployed for so long at the President's will before he has to either get permission from congress to leave them there, or bring them home. They're also the most expensive of the lot, because maintence and purchases of their equipment, not to mention personnel, puts them heads above the rest.

So again I ask: for what do we need a Federally controlled, country wide police force, and why should they have as much power as the military?