Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Race to the BCS: rankings, in-game scores & blogs Bar-right-arrows

Marbury going to be waived, not to beat a dead horse... but?

Tiny by warriorbum on

So news out of New York has Stephon Marbury being waived before the start of the season, I know everyone thinks he is a cancer... but could he use a change of scenery like Jackson, could he have a couple good years left in him? I think he is a viable option if he could be had for vet minimum and maybe build in some performance clause bonuses into his contract for a kicker. Golden State has been great for Jackson, could it renew Marbury's career, I think it could, maybe? Besides the fact I will get slammed for this, and probably mods will take it off, Why not? what are our other options? Monta will not be 100% all season, hopefully he gets back to 85-90%, without monta we don't have a shot at making playoffs unless, maybe? Well, either something like Marbury or maybe Morrow, Randolph, Wright, Buike or someone else would have to step up and play at All-Star Caliber to make playoffs without a major player infusion. Baron was considered a cancer as well, look how that turned out, Marbury might look good in a Dubs Uni....  

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

8 recs | Comment 519 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

The Warriors were so preoccupied with their fledgling playoff campaign last season that the team entirely neglected their rookies that had potential (I’m looking at B. Wright).
Marbury would be a waste of money and minutes when we have talented youth – youth – to develop at the PG position.
The Warriors are one of the youngest NBA teams this season; let’s not add some more Hudson’s, Webber’s or Croshere’s into this mix with Marbury.

by so ill so d0pe on Sep 18, 2008 3:42 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

adding Marbury would retard no one’s development at the PG position, unless you’re one of those who clings to the misguided perception that Marco is the answer there

gimmick lineups & strategies can be entertaining but won't win championships

by playthegametherightway on Sep 19, 2008 7:10 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Willams? CJ?

Marco isnt our only option at PG. I’m not sold on any of them, but they are as likely to succeed as Starbury and arent proven losers. We arent going to be competitive anyway so play the youngsters

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 11:23 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

well, MW/Watson are backups that were never intended to be starters

when signed, now that a starting caliber PG is available, perhaps cheaply, it makes some sense

not sure if Marbury is a Nelson-compatible player or not, but expecting Williams and Watson to pull the load until Monta returns isn’t likely to result in playoff-caliber record

wouldn’t be surprised if GSW didn’t pick up another PG when camps get down to their final cuts – expect it even

by hardcore on Sep 19, 2008 1:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

so

you think we can be a better team than we were last year by adding Marbury? We arent going to be a playoff team with or without Starbury so we may as well let the young guys play. And when was the last time he was a starting caliber PG? I dont really see him as any kind of upgrade over Williams, and I would think Mullin and Nelson DO envision Williams as a starter or at least a guy who was going to get starter type minutes considering they gave up a 1st round pick for him. CJ, Williams, Jack, Randolph, Belinelli, maybe even Morrow can all play some minutes at the 1, I dont see them picking up another PG unless its someon who could fit into their future plans like Livingston.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 2:24 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

so

you’re joining the chorus of people who put words in other people’s mouths?

did I write they’d be a better team than last year by adding Marbury? No.

As far as upgrade over Williams, Marbury has a track record of being a capable scorer as well as all his run-ins with Thomas in NY while Williams has little if any track record. Kind of like all the other guys you list other than Jackson …

As far as the rest of what you think, good, great. We’ll all see what Mullin and Nelson do (not “think” unless you are a mind reader) and one of us is wrong. yippeee

by hardcore on Sep 19, 2008 4:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

well

you said we would have a shot at the playoffs, which sorta implies we would have a shot at the playoffs. I really want trying to put words in your mouth. Do you think we would be a playoof contender with Marbury? If not then why not let the kids develop? I just dont see the argument for Marbury unless you think he can take us to the playoffs. Marbury has been garbage his last couple seasons, but I can see why some might think he could rebound outside of New York. But isnt Williams at least as likely to shine given that he’s 8 years younger and hasnt ever really received a lot of minutes? I really didnt mean to attack your opinion, just dont really understand why you want him.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 4:32 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

personally, I don’t want him but when trying to anticipate what Nelson or Mullin want I can see why they’d take a shot at him on the cheap & I was agreeing with the playthegame guy’s comment about not worrying about the other PGs development cuz I personally doubt Nelson will play CJ much, and don’t think Williams can deliver enough to keep us in the playoff hunt – so, IF we want to try to make the post-season picking up another PG off the training camp scrap heap makes sense … I’m not sure that is in our best interests anyway – been waiting for someone to write a post that maybe we should tank the season, play the young’ns and rebuild that way. Course, that flies in the face of having Nelson chase the record he wants, so … who knows, I sure as hell don’t

by hardcore on Sep 19, 2008 5:05 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The Warriors only have the vet min to work with, not the vet min with performance incentives if there’s any way that the incentives are likely to be met. Incentives count against the cap if they’re deemed probable.

Baron had issues in Nawlins, but was almost always a productive player who made his team better, who regularly made it to the playoffs and, when on the court, brought wins. Marbury has not similarly shown that when he’s with a team, they’re better than when he’s gone. The comparison of the two as being the similar is superficial at best.

Marbury at the vet min is a fine gamble, but I suspect that at that price, others still lured into the marketing of him as a star, will get him there instead. He’ll head to a contender, who, if armed with enough other talent, may do well in spite of him.

by jae on Sep 18, 2008 4:41 PM PDT   0 recs

I suspect that Cleveland will put in a bid, as might Detroit. I don’t think that he’s really going to radically improve either team, but it’s the sort of move I can see happening.

by jae on Sep 19, 2008 8:46 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Cleveland?

even with Mo Williams on board and West looking like he may return? guess they are desperate for another scoring threat, but…..Detroit makes some sense, like Moss to the Patriots in a way.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 10:51 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

NO

Let the young guys play! I dont think we could make the playoffs even if Marbury were here, stayed happy and posted the same kind of season Baron did last year and all of those things are highly unlikely. Let Wright, Williams, Randolph, Beans, Buike, Morrow, and Marco log heavy minutes this season. We have plenty of vets with Maggette, Jack, and Harrington, no need to add any more age to this roster, the only PG aquisition I would consider is Livingston.

by sam23 on Sep 18, 2008 4:42 PM PDT   0 recs

NellieBall

Not to mention Don Nelson is still the coach here. Nellie played a big part in the “Warrior Revival.” Where would all the 06-07 players if they didn’t play Nellieball? Marbury can still put up 20 ppg + 8 apg and he shoots a good free throw %. We would have so many options on offense! Just like the good ol’ days (06-07). I like the idea, warriorbum.

by SPREEE4THREEE on Sep 18, 2008 4:45 PM PDT   0 recs

MARCUS WILLIAMS IS STARTING!!!!!!!!!!!!

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Sep 18, 2008 5:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I will mark that comment and see how you feel 2 weeks into the season.

Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.

by miggyk2 on Sep 18, 2008 5:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

stop

please no more mentions of marbury

Thank you, Dubs.

by misterho on Sep 18, 2008 5:37 PM PDT   0 recs

NO

Sure, JAX had a sort of rebirth at GS, he was thought to be a thug with no class, and he has proven everyone wrong while here. Why wouldnt Marbury have that kind of results here? Because he’s another type of Crazy, the kind you give medicine for and hope it goes away. Marbury has had 3 teams to show he can live up to the hype, to Starbury. He hasn’t done it yet. I wouldnt sacrifice Marcus Williams playing time for Starbury.

by q00pster on Sep 18, 2008 6:00 PM PDT   0 recs

Go for it.

If the price is right, why not? I don’t care about his reputation and i’m not scared of having him on the team; he just needs a change of scenery, Golden State would be perfect for him.

Stephon Marbury has great point guard skills and can lead a team, it’s just that all of his good attributes are getting overshadowed by all the crazy and weird shit that he’s done throughout the years. I believe that our organization is capable of keeping him in check; guys like Chris Mullin, Don Nelson and Stephen Jackson are perfect for a spontaneous individual like Marbury to be with in order to get his head straight. He’ll be with a great group of people… our young players will probably cause him to think as a leader, he’ll have veterans like Maggette and Jackson to help keep things balanced, and a great coach in Nellie to make sure his head is straight.

Golden State would be presenting him with an opportunity to redeem himself as both a player and a person. I don’t think he’ll ruin a fresh start like most people say he will. Marbury always has such a positive attitude about the game, he just needs an organization to “show him the light”. I’m not saying he’s the perfect ‘diamond in the rough’, I just think that he can help out and be a starter. Marcus Williams as our starting point guard would be too overwhelming for him, he’s better coming off the bench to keep the offense flowing smoothly and take over.

by Five Ten Entertainment on Sep 18, 2008 7:42 PM PDT   0 recs

To all those who doubt my man Warriorbum

realize that Marbury would be low risk/high reward if the asking price is right. Baron Davis wasn’t exuding a zeal to play during his last couple of years for a sub-standard Hornets team and a change of scenery worked out remarkable fine for him. And for Jax. Maybe playing in front of real fans in the Bay would be the difference. And who would want to play in front of a bunch of cro-magnons in NY anyways…..

by SinceRunTMC760 on Sep 18, 2008 8:09 PM PDT   0 recs

ahahaha.

lmaooooooooooo. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs to just go home. It’s like voting for McCain.

by Amoc on Sep 18, 2008 8:29 PM PDT   0 recs

It’s like voting for McCain

  No, this would be entertaining, McCain would be torture.
   Starbury has to be more fun to watch than a bunch of rookies. We could use a new head case to replace Mikael and we certainly could use an experienced point guard. I say we sign him and send Randolf back to school for a year or two?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 18, 2008 9:48 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

i'd vote McCain over Obama...

…and i’d also like to see Marcus Williams, Watson, and the greasy italian at point..

screw cohan, screw mullin, screw baron

by DMJR on Sep 18, 2008 10:40 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

He don't look

 Too happy? Maybe Palin turned out to be a pain in the ass??

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 19, 2008 7:59 AM PDT to parent up   1 recs

Palin's glasses...

I wish I had $3-500 glasses! I get mine at Costco’s whole sale price!

by Tony.psd on Sep 19, 2008 9:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

$3-500 glasses!

  She spends $500 for that whitetrash granny look? Dang!

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 19, 2008 11:17 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

ha

if she was the Democratic VP nominee you’d say she’s hot.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 11:20 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

you’d say she’s hot.

  Not my type, she reminds me of the ex-wife from hell.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 19, 2008 2:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

sooooo...

you married someone who looks like a “whitetrash granny”? you dont make much sense, man.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 2:44 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

the ex-wife from hell.

  I dint say MY ex-wife from hell.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 19, 2008 3:05 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

If

Palin is the ex-wife from hell, whats that make Hillary? funny how the same liberals who got so indignant about attacks on Hillary’s personality are all over Palin for her voice, look, glasses, lipstick, outfits, etc… If you’re gonna talk politics dont be ridiculous and ignorant.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 3:48 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wait

It’s “the same liberals?” Weren’t Obama supporters meant to be sworn enemies of Hillary supporters?

The whole point of the laughable Palin VP choice was to siphon off the angry soccer/hockey moms who would have voted for Hillary. Palin basically admitted as much in the Charles Gibson/ABC interview: she couldn’t stop gushing over Hillary’s grit and determination, and grinning maniacally at how much Obama probably regretted not picking Hillary as his VP.

Now all the polls are showing that not only is Palin an overall negative for McCain, but that she’s MORE of a negative among women than among men. Yup: that’s what the Repubs get for dissing women and assuming that they’re stupid enough to conflate an educated, experienced champion of women’s rights like Hillary with a backwater anti-choice religious whackjob like Palin. Payback is bee-yotch… ;-)

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 19, 2008 4:10 PM PDT to parent up   1 recs

Palin

Sleepy I’m frankly surpised at this from you. The idea that Palin was picked simply to syphon the Hillary voters is flat out ignorant AND sexist. She’s a strong conservative meant to unite the party and she brings youth and a history of reform. Yes, McCain admittedly had to make his ticket more “sexy” (and I am in in no way alluding to her appearance) but I dont think any conservative strategist realistically thought they were going to gain more than a fraction of Hillary supporters. Choosing Palin as VP is frankly no more baffling than the Democrats choosing Obama over Clinton, and the view that it is, like the much repeated sound bite saying she wasnt vetted is simply false. The liberal media is simply upset they were caught completely unprepared, and the prepared attacks they had for Romney, Pawlenty, Lieberman and Crist went right out the window. I know you’re probably excited by Obama’s rebound in the polls due to his exploitation of a roller-coaster economic week, but Sleepy I really expected more than simple repeated Democratic talking points straight from Olbermann’s idiotic mouth from you. I’m disappointed, man.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 4:24 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Fair enough.

I’ll own up to spouting liberal Talking Points (though I’m not an Olbermann fan at all — more Maddow or Jon Stewart). But how is everything you just wrote not straight out of the Limbaugh/rightwing playbook?

“Strong conservative” my eye. She’s straight podunk, and she’s absolute slap in the face to the 6.5 billion people in the world who aren’t backwater, smalltown Americans. The vast majority of people in Europe and Asia are absolutely horrified by her.

It’s the 21st century, for crying out loud. I’m totally disappointed in McCain; and believe me, I didn’t think there was much more he could do to disappoint me.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 19, 2008 4:33 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

she's as much

of a slap in the face to “people who arent backwater, smalltown Americans” as Obama is to everyone not from a San Francisco type metropolis. I really dont think I repeat the Limbaughs or Hannitys and find their views as absurd as Olbermann and Matthews. You arent gonna hear me touting her experience with the Alaskan national guard or her executive experience. Honestly, the Palin pick doesnt excite me, her lack of experience makes me uneasy, and I think it politics factored too strongly into it. It would not have been my choice. But, Biden was a similarly exploitive pick for experience and the fact remains that Palin has virtually the same amount of experience as Obama and she will be VICE president. Yes, she will be “a heartbeat away” but McCain, contrary to popular belief, is in outstanding health and one of the primary duties of the VP is to prepare to be Pres.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 4:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Biden was a similarly exploitive pick for experience

Agreed, as well as his popularity with the blue collar, union types and likely to make some middle-aged white men feel a bit more comfortable.
That’s par-for-the-course as far as VP selection goes: augmenting the Presidential candidate’s perceived weaknesses with voters in swing states.

Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 19, 2008 4:59 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

agreed

but I still dont think Palin was meant to draw the Hillary voters. I maintain that it was meant to draw the conservative base, and perhaps offset Obama’s star appeal

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 5:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Agree to disagree on pandering to the Hillary set

See comment below.

Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 19, 2008 5:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

yea

thats fine, you present a good argument…I just dont buy that they really thought they were going to get voters who should be so ideologically similar to Obama unless the Obama campaign really fucked up, or there were a considerable # of women who were Hillary supporters only because she is a woman. but yea, agree to disagree on that point.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 5:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

This is honestly silly.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that irritates me about the right. You will blatantly lie in order to get any point across, because nothing you say holds water otherwise. McCain is in outstanding health? The 72 year old cancer survivor who can’t even lift his hands over his head? Outstanding? It’s a stretch, and you know it. The fact that you would even stoop to lying (much like the McCain campaign has done since Obama wrapped up the nomination) already lets me know that you’re just a blind goat.

The reason Palin isn’t a good choice is this; she’s terrible at her job. It doesn’t matter what your experience level is if you have to lie just to seem somewhat competent. No earmarks? Lie. No bridge to nowhere? Lie. The chick is a pet rock.

If McCain didn’t run from the middle to the right, I think we’d be seeing him destroy Obama at this point. But he didn’t. he compromised everything to appeal to the far right. Now no one is sure of him, or his stupid pick of Palin as president.

The experience pick is moot, sir. Look at our history. Some of our least experienced presidents have done the best things for our country. Palin is STILL getting vetted by the press for one simple reason: where there’s smoke, there’s fire. There is so much smoke surrounding her that the media is just itching to find that fire. They will eventually. If not we get another term of Bush/Cheney, and take another big hit to our economy.

But yeah, I’m just spewing what Olbermann spews. It has nothing to do with common sense or logic.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 5:03 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

McCain-excellent health considering he was a POW. now I’m sure youll blast me for bringing up his time as a POW, because somehow thats now against the rules. I dont hold it against him that he had his arms broken in so many places that they dont function properly now, and its unfair for you to do so. He’s beaten cancer three times. so has Lance Armstrong…is he in poor health? come on now, theres nothing CURRENT in his medical reports to worry anyone, youve been watching too much MSNBC if you think there is.

Palin is so bad at her job she is has the highest approval rating of ANY govenor. terrible. No one ever said she had never asked for any earmarks, just that she asked for a lot less than most, which is true. (unlike Obama or Biden) No one ever said she ALWAYS opposed the bridge to nowhere, but she DID vote against it, so she was against it when it counted. (again UNLIKE Obama)

The experience point isnt moot to me because our President today deals with a much larger and more complicated government than those historically great ones did. I think its POSSIBLE for an inexperience pres to suceed, but not likely, and not one who cares more about his popularity and image than doing the right thing.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 5:15 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Come on. You're reaching.

Oh, so now it’s excellent health considering he was a POW? That’s not what you said before. Who knows what the median of health is for a former POW. And please, lets not front like the guy is Lance Armstrong. Lance is 37 years old. McCain is 72. You know that. The fact that you even tried to spin that lets me know that reason isn’t something you’re willing to listen to. The guy could drop dead any day now, and you want to put some gun wielding biblethumper in the biggest seat in the entire world. Sike.

No one ever said she never asked for any earmarks? Dude, get your head out of the sand. If you aren’t going to pay attention to anything other than far right blogs, this conversation is over.

http://mccainliesfund.org/

I guess since they back what they say up with truth, it’s just more Olbermann Matthews bullphooey.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 5:36 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Excellent health for a 72 YO former POW. Is that like being the best low fastball hitter in Tajikistan?

by jae on Sep 19, 2008 6:02 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

gotta say

As a vet I find the disrespect for his health rather disrespectful, and thats not me simply spewing right wing banter to counter you, it really simply offends me. Theres NOTHING in his physical that says he is currently in poor health other than the injuries he incurred as a POW which he has been living with for 40 years.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 6:14 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Boohoo.

I bet you do. Excuse me but I don’t like my presidents with a side of senility. Cry me a river. It’s fair game.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 8:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Huh? Disrespect? I do not think that word means what you think it means. The question of his health is fair game. From an actuarial basis, being 72 is a risk for death in itself. So is having had cancer, even one without any signs. These are real concerns when talking about voting for someone who seems to have seen fit to have picked someone who appears to me to be too ignorant to be president.

I don’t see what you or anyone else being a vet has to do with “respect” vis a vis questioning McCain’s health. Does he get some sort of ‘get out of question free’ card because he was a vet? Please recall that it was YOU brought up that his health was excellent health considering he was a POW. That was your qualification. If it was not fair game to mention his health, in light of him being a POW, why did YOU bring it up? That qualifier led me to believe that excellent health for a 72 year old is somehow different from excellent health for a 72 year old who was also a POW, else why would you mention it. Why that qualification? Sorry if I find your indignant stance a bit perplexing in this light. It simply doesn’t make sense.

by jae on Sep 19, 2008 10:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

lying and deceit?

kinda like Biden with his plagerism?

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 6:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Another joke.

You’re going to bring this up, but then bash me on the ‘how many houses’ bit? I guess that’s what I should expect from a right wing, hypocrisy. So he plagiarized in law school. I can get just as petty, dude.

McCain called his wife the ‘c word’ on record. See how much relevance that has in what we’re talking about?

McCain has gone ON record with lies several times in the last few weeks alone. Biden plagiarized something years ago. I guess we know who’s the bad guy now.

Also, I hate to attack you on your grammar and spelling, but come on. if you’re going to spew argumentative drivel the least you can do is spell it correctly.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 8:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

?

he plagiarized in law school too? wow. interesting because he plageriazed as a politician too.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 8:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

and i realize

i again spelled plagiarism wrong. so I MUST be wrong

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 8:26 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t remember calling you wrong. It’s ridiculous to bring something up that happened in law school.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 8:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

again

I wasnt talking about what he did in law school, I was talking about the speech he stole, but if he’s habitually plagiarizes then….

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 9:05 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Okay, this is what I don't get

It’s okay to talk about McCain being a POW, and it is okay to mention that Palin’s kid is enlisting in the military, but her pregnant daughter is out of bounds? It seems like having it both ways, like not wanting personal information to be discussed only when it is negative.

And please quit using the “you are spouting typical liberal bias” or “you watch to much MSNBC” or “you sound just like your hero Keith Olbermann.” People always try to attack the messenger of the information rather than the information itself. If the Huffington Post compiles a damning review of Palin’s time as a governor, right wingers will call the Huffington Post BS and disregard the facts presented. It is a shady form of arguing, one that this country is too focused on (and yes I know both sides do it).

http://brightideasgroupblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/matt-taibbis-lies-of-sarah-palin.html

This article is written by a completely liberal man who is very biased, but I don’t see how you can refute most of what he said without attempting to turn the pressure back on Obama. The system in general is very effed up, but Palin is probably the most representative politician of everything wrong with it.

Hopefully that will be all I write in this thread. I usually stay away from politics here, but this thread seems very political.

by belilaugh on Sep 28, 2008 11:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

My pet rock is offended by the unflattering comparison

and demands an apology.

And yes, I do put lipstick on my pet rock.

Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 19, 2008 5:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

lmao.

rofl. touche good sir.

I’m sorry pet rock.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 5:39 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

that

Bush/Cheney=McCain/Palin talk is RIDICULOUS, and yes, on that one you are absolutely simply spewing what youve heard repeated over and over on MSNBC and CNN. If you had been paying attention for the last 9 years you’d know McCain and Bush are nothing alike, his support for Bush after losing in the primaries was even in doubt for a while….funny you dont hear that on the Daily Show or Hardball do you?

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 5:20 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The press

This is a pretty funny theme that I see conservatives constantly tossing out. They act as if the whole world is against them just because there are liberals in the media. It’s just as easy to find the conservative talking points on television as it is to find the liberal ones.

What are we just sheep if we occasionally watch Olberman or Maddow? Are you, just because you might enjoy O’Reily or Hannity?

And for the record I have seen that discussed in the “liberal media”. The only problem is that it’s usually followed by disappointment in the fact that he has flipped on so many of his “Maverick” stances. His support for Bush being in question had far more to do with Bush’s Rove style campaign than with actual policy anyway. The guy did circulate rumors that McCains adopted daughter was an illegitimate child from a “mixed-race relationship”. I’d be pretty pissed too.

"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy

by olympicmike on Sep 19, 2008 5:39 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

not really

fox is the only conservative outlet and even they present more liberal views than MSNBC does conservative. CNN, ABC,NBC, comedey central and almost all other cable networks are all extremely liberal. the “liberal media” is not some fantasy invented by conservatives. I’m not saying youre sheep for watching them, but you are if you draw your arguments straight from them. You gotta get your news somewhere, but you also have to put it into persepctive no matter what slant it comes with.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 6:03 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Jokes.

I wonder why? Because the conservative way of thinking is selfish as well as laughable. Until you and your party get the ability to put yourselves in other peoples shoes, you won’t get respect from people who aren’t gun-toting, biblethumping, money hungry wackjobs.

Don’t cry about it.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 8:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

hmm..

I’m a poor college student, non-hunter or gun owner, with absolutely no religious affiliation. but yea thats exactly who I am. And I thought Democrats were supposed to be open and minded, and didnt stereotype…. Seriously, stop aruging, leave the heavy lifting to Olympic Mike and Sleepy, youre embarrasing yourself, your candidate and your party by sounding like just another angry liberal And trust me Amoc, you arent gonna make me cry.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 8:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Those are the big core issues the left and the right disagree on. I don’t give a shit if they apply to you or not. The fact of the matter is that the democratic party you affiliate yourself with are guilty of those things. Just because you’re some guy in the middle (most of us are) doesn’t mean that me stating that makes it less true when you tell me that you aren’t.

I am open minded. I don’t have any less respect for you than I did before we started arguing this topic. I’ll be damned if you tell me I can’t argue it anymore.

Now that you’re out of meaningful things to say, we can stop though. Enjoy that terrible beating you just took from this left wing Olbermann, Matthew, Maddow loving hippie.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 8:48 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

republican*

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 8:59 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

ok

enjoy the pretend “beating” you gave me. Must make you feel so tough and smart, huh? I’d bring you down a notch or two but you just arent worth the time and energy, this is going nowhere and doing nobody any good, so fire back with the most sarcastic little snide remark you can think of so you can continue thinking you “beat” me and then consider this discussion over.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 9:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Werddd.

Sweet. I was gonna do that anyways.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 10:12 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m a poor college student, non-hunter or gun owner, with absolutely no religious affiliation.

so what is it about Palin that makes you thing she’s the best man for the job? What does Obama represent that you dislike?
    My view is Obama is more interested in a wider range of people, he seems to understand different viewpoints and try to work out a reasonable middle ground.
    Palin seems to me to only want to promote her religious view of the world. She wants to subject everyone else to her own beliefs. If she doesn’t want an abortion then she should not be forced to have one , but she should also not force other people to not have one by trying to make laws that interfere in private personal health matters.
    I think Obama would strive to move us into the wider world where Palin would just cause us to spend a ton of money on armaments cause she is so intolerant and will breed a reflex response. Look at McCane’s foreign policy guy who’s already working for the Gerogian govt. trying to destabilize the Russian situation. That should be reason enough to not trust them, it ’s similiar to Cheney invading Iraq to transfer taxpayer wealth to his cronies. How much have we spent over there so far? what good could we have done here at home with the money?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 19, 2008 10:14 PM PDT