Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

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

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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   0 recs

stop

please no more mentions of marbury

Thank you, Dubs.

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

lying and deceit?

kinda like Biden with his plagerism?

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   0 recs

lmao.

rofl. touche good sir.

I’m sorry pet rock.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   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 up reply actions   0 recs

republican*

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions   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 up reply actions   0 recs

Werddd.

Sweet. I was gonna do that anyways.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions   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 up reply actions   0 recs

ehh

First of all I appreciat the civil nature of your post. I dont think Palin wants to subject everyone to all her views, what makes you say that? she’s religious and that influences her views, but I dont neccesarily think that makes her an eveil monster who wants to impose her views upon everyone else. The abortion issue is a very complicated one for me….to be perfectly honest I can’t make up my mind. I dont understand those who are pro-choice but anti death penalty, it makes no sense to me. And certainly there needs to be some time cut off point where abortions have to be illegal in all but extreme cases, but I dont know where the line should be drawn. I’m not in favor of the federal government controlling the lives and bodies of women either…I’m torn on that one, but honestly its totally irrelevant because its incredibly unlikely we would see roe v. wade overturned regardless of who is President or VP. How exactly do you think McCain is trying to DEstabilize the Russian situation? McCain is not Bush, he isnt Cheney. The links drawn between them by the Obama campaign are ridiculous and poor attempts to capitalize on Bush’s terrible approval rating. McCain has always been his own man, and he’s certainly never been a Bush admirer.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 4:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The abortion issue is a very complicated one for me….to be perfectly honest I can’t make up my mind. I dont understand those who are pro-choice but anti death penalty

 The time to make up your mind about abortion is when you need one. Otherwise it’s not your problem. In a free country people have to be free to make their own decisions about their body.
  There’s lots of free choicer’s who wouldn’t mind the death penalty if it wasn’t so costly and complex, as it stands now it’s just more efficient to go with life with no possibility of parole. I’d pull the switch on many of those killers myself if it was cut and dried.
   If you are not religious or a gun nut what is your attraction to Palin? Be aware that religious zealots aren’t satisfied with you having a life different than them so you’ll be on guard constantly if she becomes president by accident, that’s a risk hardly worth any of her perceived good qualities in my opinion.
  The McKane tie to Georgia was thru his foreign affairs adviser.
  Last I checked he is paid by the Georgian govt. to lobby for their interests, and probably gave them reason to believe they can destabilize the region and we’ll back them up? An adviser working for a foreign govt. should ring some caution bells?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 20, 2008 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

abortion

I get the armument about the govt not interfering with our bodies, but that also assumes that the child doesnt count as a body, because the govt can certainly tell us what not to do to the bodies of others….its a tough one, I dont understand how you can be totally on one side or the other of that issue.
  As I’ve said before I’m not a huge Palin fan, and have no particular religious beliefs. However, it is quite perplexing to me how the god-fearing christians are coming to be seen more and more as an evil cult in our society, particularly here in the bay. I don’t endorse their ideas particularly, but I’m not on board with the “damn them trying to spread their morality!” campaign either.
I still dont understand why you think McCain is causeing instability in the Georgia/Russia conflict, specifically what have he or his foreign affairs advisor done to promote unrest there? Your speculation is weak at best, and bold statements like that require SOME evidence otherwise its the same as me saying Barak Obama hates America and thinks 9/11 was the “chickens come home to roost” because the man who was one of his primary advisors and helped shape his morals preaches such pathetic, hateful, garbage.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Some useful links for sam samwise

1. Regarding McCain and Palin being bought and paid for lobbied by Georgia (keeping in mind that Palin has intimated that she’d consider starting a war with Russia):

John McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser and his business partner lobbied the senator or his staff on 49 occasions in a 3 1/2-year span while being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

The payments raise ethical questions about the intersection of Randy Scheunemann’s personal financial interests and his advice to the Republican presidential candidate who is seizing on Russian aggression in Georgia as a campaign issue.

McCain warned Russian leaders Tuesday that their assault in Georgia risks “the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world.”

link

2. Regarding Palin’s total religious nutbaggery:

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. “She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board,” said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, ‘Sarah, how can you believe in creationism — your father’s a science teacher.’ And she said, ‘We don’t have to agree on everything.’

“I pushed her on the earth’s creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she’d seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them.”

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, ‘Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.’

Bess is unnerved by the prospect of Palin — a woman whose mind is given to dogmatic certitude — standing one step away from the Oval Office. “It’s truly frightening that someone like Sarah has risen to the national level,” Bess said. "Like all religious fundamentalists — Christian, Jewish, Muslim — she is a dualist. They view life as an ongoing struggle to the finish between good and evil. Their mind-set is that you do not do business with evil — you destroy it. Talking with the enemy is not part of their plan. That puts someone like Obama on the side of evil.

"Forget all this chatter about whether or not she knows what the Bush doctrine is. That’s trivial. The real disturbing thing about Sarah is her mind-set. It’s her underlying belief system that will influence how she responds in an international crisis, if she’s ever in that position, and has the full might of the U.S. military in her hands. She gave some indication of that thinking in her ABC interview, when she suggested how willing she would be to go to war with Russia.

link

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 20, 2008 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

A day after

McCain made his statement on the Russian invasion, Obama came out with a near identical stance, man. The President should ALWAYS be WILLING to go to war. Willing and eager are two verry different things, and to we shouldnt assume that McCain wants to go to war (if fact he’s said many times how strongly he’d be opposed to us oppening up a war on another front) simply because he is willing to and sides with Georgia, who was after all, invaded.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry Sam

McCain is pro-NATO inclusion for georgia.

Not only is that incredibly stupid, it’s also not one of Obama’s stances.

by ohmangoAs on Sep 22, 2008 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I strongly question

the validity of the Munger article, as in the last few weeks she has contradicted several of the things she is said to have said in that article, looks like a sham to me sleepy.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Link?

Find me any interview here she’s explicitly contradicted it. I want to hear her say “NO. I don’t believe dinosaurs walked the earth 7,000 years ago with Adam and Eve.” Until such time, I’m going to assume Munger and Bess’s first-hand accounts of her are close enough to reality to be terrifying.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 20, 2008 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

a simple

wiki answers search did it for me-http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_Sarah_Palin_believe_that_dinosaurs_are_4000_years_old

I think we’re seeing more and more people believing what they want to believe. To be stereotypical, just as many in the south probably believed Obama was and Islamic extremist, many here are buying this garbage.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Er

I think you need to read that link more carefully. It does very little to dispel the notion that, for al intents and purposes, she’s a religious whackjob.

C’mon dude: it’s just silly to conflate “Palin is a religious fundamentalist” with “Obama is an Islamic extremist.”

One charge is patently untrue, is based wholly on the laughable Obama/Osama “connection,” and , despite its utter laughability, has been repeatedly denied the by the candidate in question.

The other charge has basis in fact, has been levelled by several first-hand sources, and has never been denied by the candidate in question.

Equating the two may pass as “fair and balanced” treatment among the wingnuts but it doesn’t convince anyone with a half-functioning brain.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 20, 2008 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ok

then it at least equates to obama thinks we deserved 9/11, after all that is PROVEN to be the type of rhetoric taught in his church.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

anyone can change wikipedia entries at any time

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

by playthegametherightway on Sep 21, 2008 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I get the armument about the govt not interfering with our bodies, but that also assumes that the child doesnt count as a body, because the govt can certainly tell us what not to do to the bodies of others….its a tough one, I dont understand how you can b

Don’t personalize it so much and you’ll be able to see it more clearly.Don’t put yourself in the place of the potential “baby” or the prospective parent and it will become easier.
   In essence if the govt. isn’t snooping in a womans medical records or subjecting her to body checks there’s no way they can even know whether she is or isn’t pregnant till the time she delivers the baby. Then the state has legitimate reason to take an interest in the child welfare, till then the process should be private. Most folks agree that the last three months are significant,
 I got no problem with that since that leaves 6 months to make a decision and plenty of time for free choice.
  The price of freedom is letting people make choices you don’t agree with. I can think of lots of things going on in this country I’d rather not happen but I don’t want to ban others from their freedom just because I don’t agree with them. That’s the difference between me and Palin, I’m willing to let her live her way but she wants to pass laws preventing some of us from living our own ways?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 20, 2008 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

well yea, but

you have to recognize that its not that she wants to restrict our freedoms so much as its that she wants to protect the freedoms of unborn children. The debate really just simply comes down to when you believe life begins because the government does tell you you cant just go kill someone simply becaus they are your child and dont want to raise them any longer. I totally understand both sides, but to come to an understanding rather than just trading insults its important to recognize that Palin isnt trying to inflict her opinions on us, she simply thinks of any abortion as murder. I dont neccessarily agree, but we shouldnt demonize her for opposing what she considers to be murder should we?

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There’s lots of free choicer’s who wouldn’t mind the death penalty if it wasn’t so costly and complex, as it stands now it’s just more efficient to go with life with no possibility of parole.

I dont know if I believe that. If thats the case, lets call for a reform on the judicial process instead of calling for the end of the death penalty. And hey, I’m a huge less taxes, smaller government guy, but I’d much rather pay 20 bucks to put a child rapist and murderer to death than 10 bucks to provide him with food and shelter for the rest of his life. Efficiency be damned.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

80% of the people on death row

Are minorities. In a country that’s over 70% white.

That tells you all you need to know about the fairness of the death penalty. (And that’s setting aside the question of whether it’s civilized and enlightened for a government to legislate the murder of its own citizens).

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 20, 2008 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

sleepy

that has nothing to do with the death penalty, and everything to do with the judicial system and our society in general. Minorities do commit more violent crimes and the causes for that need to be explored as well as the fairness in judgements passed down to criminals of different race. Those things need to be looked at but they have nothing to do with capital punishment at all. I dont understand how you can promote the “murdering” of unborn citizens but not the “murdering” of those who have proven their lack of worth. As I’ve said, I go back and forth on the abortion issue, but the pro-choice anti-death penalty (thus are you also pro-life) stance is perplexing. Please explain.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You really need an explanation?

Most of the enlightened secular world (the UK and pretty much all of Europe, e.g.) is overwhelmingly pro-choice and anti-death penalty. It’s not like it’s some whacky combo of views.

If you don’t see a distinction between allowing State governments to execute their residents and allowing a woman to retain control of her own uterus (within Roe v. Wade’s totally reasonable limits) I can’t help you.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 20, 2008 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

nope

thats my point, just because the UK and much of America endorses this point of view doesnt make it right, and dont make it anymore clear or justifiable to me. At some point abortion IS the murder of innocents is it not? I can understand that the means may justify the ends for abortion and that abortion is almost a neccesity, but for those same people to be opposed to killing murderers and rapists makes no sense to me. Perhaps if you believe life doesnt begin until the very moment of birth it makes a bit of sense, but its still kinda pushing it. Seriously I need it explained, I’m not trying to be rude, but it baffles me. You cant claim to be a protector of all human life if a woman’s right to choose is more important than a baby’s life, can you? Again I’m not against abortion, I just dont understand that combination of views. Pro choice/pro death penalty, pro life/anti death penalty, and pro life/pro death penalty all make perfect sense to me….its just the one combination of views that is bewildering.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

DAMN...

JUST VOTE! I don’t care who you vote for just dowhutchalike!

by Tony.psd on Sep 20, 2008 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha

you were one of the ones who started this whole mess.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

um

while minorities may commit more crimes, that doesn’t explain the DP statistics AT ALL. There are tons of studies that show minorities who kill are much more likely to be given DP than caucasians who kill. It has a lot to do with subconscious stereotypes of the “violent black man”. That stereotype makes juries see a cold blooded murder “that desrves to die” in the case of minorities, and a “life sentence with parole after 14 years” for caucasians.

You probably shouldn’t further the stereotype regarding violent minorities by arguing that they deserve their current rate of DP given their violence.

by ohmangoAs on Sep 22, 2008 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

+100

I was just thinking the same thing.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Sep 22, 2008 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1

Very well said. If the death penalty was fair, which it never will be, I would be for it.

by belilaugh on Sep 28, 2008 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The key is the word “murder.” If you do not accept that an embryo is a person with the same rights as someone breathing air, the issue of it being murder doesn’t apply. There’s a legitimate (and perhaps irreconcilable) difference of opinion between anti abortion and pro-choice individuals as to whether or not an embryo is indeed a person. Calling it “murder” and calling an embryo a ‘citizen’ does seem to mark you as someone who has made up his mind more than you’re letting on.

If you do not accept that an embryo is necessarily equivalent to a person, there’s not a contradiction between being against capital punishment but still being in favor of abortion rights. It’s certainly not as big a paradox as opposing abortion because of the sanctity of human life but still accepting the death penalty.

I oppose the death penalty for a few reasons. For starters, I don’t trust the system to be suitably infallible to guarantee that we’re not at times putting innocent people (adult people that no one disputes are people) to death. I’ve done quite a bit of work in the courts and I’m not suitably impressed with the system to believe that mistakes don’t happen and don’t have sufficient confidence that we always catch such mistakes in time.

I also oppose it because there are limits to how much power I want to cede to government and I cannot think of a bigger power than the power to decide who lives and dies. Yes, it’s only used in the case of convicted individuals, but it’s still used and it’s still an admission that we’re giving government power to decide who lives. I want that one off the table. It’s too much power to hand over.

I also do not like what it says from a standpoint of supporting vengeance. That’s entirely psychological, but it’s important to me to try and maintain my humanity, even in the face of great horrors, such that I do not want to take the lives of others. It is something that I want to happen only when absolutely necessary. Such cases do exist, but punishment is not one such instance. Once someone is incarcerated, it is not absolutely necessary.

by jae on Sep 22, 2008 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

ok

thats one of the strongest arguments for the position that I’ve heard. I still find it to be a bit hypocritical but it makes a little mores sense.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

you seemed to impy

that supporting the bridge to nowhere and earmarks makes you incompetent…..you do realize Obama/Biden supported the Bridge and have massive #’s of earmarks right?

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m not implying that they make you incompetent. It’s the lying and hiding the facts that make you incompetent. Then playing the sex card when you get called on your bullshit. That’s incompetent.

It’s either the sex card or the POW card with these two. If you call them out you’re partisan.

But seriously though, I didn’t have a kitchen table for 5 1/2 years.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

if you call them out

on honor, commitment to the country or ability to run a family while being the VP, then yes they will play the sexism or POW card.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yes, and...

Or if they forget how many houses they own. It’s just that simple. If I mess up, remember I was a POW.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

wow

the oh so relevant how many houses argument. great. you obviously want to have a strong issues based debate. As if Barak Obama is just a middle class joe.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're right, it's so not relevant.

It doesn’t lend credence to the ’he’s out of touch’ way of thinking, no not at all.

Sounds like something a conservative that is out of an argument would say. The least you could do is spell the Democratic candidates name correctly. What do I expect from the Republican party though.

by Amoc on Sep 19, 2008 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

lame

because the Harvard eduacated, Chicago politcal machine creation Obama is clearly in touch with small town Americans. Really? Come on man. If you spent half as much time arguing actual issues as you did petty issues that have nothing to do with the election and insulting opposing points of view we might be able to have a useful debate. Sleepy and I managed to have a somewhat productive discussion earlier without it devolving into a simple “youre a dumbass”/“I’m right, youre stupid” match. …..But then what do I expect from just another Democratic zombie who lets others shape his views for him.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haha

You were right. The last time politics came up you said that the discussion would end up like this. It is touchy stuff for everybody, it’s hard not to get emotional about. I just wanted to add that while I totally disagree with you on politics I know you have a pretty sharp mind from our other discussions (B-ball related) and I think that our differences have less to do with intellect and understanding than perspective and past experiences. There is no such thing as a no-spin-zone.

I just have to say that I can’t see how exactly McCain plans to take this country in a different direction than Bush. They have agreed on most major issues for quite some time. They believe in the same fundamentals of what our governments role should be. He has proven to be quite inconsistent when it comes to advancing his career (in his own book he admitted that in 2000 he was running for pres. primarily out of personal ambition) willing to back away from his more moderate stances (see the Bush tax cuts in a time of war).

I’m ready for a real change.

Anyway, much respect for sticking it out in what appears to be enemy territory for you. I am always up for debating the issues. I don’t claim to know everything about this stuff but I like doing research and trying to see things from different perspectives so this is always constructive for me.

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

by olympicmike on Sep 19, 2008 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

thanks mike

for injecting some civility into the conversation and reminding me that there are some lefties out there who arent just pricks and have intelligent reasons for their beliefs. I totally agree there is no such thing as a no spin zone and our views have more to do with past experiences and perspective. I enjoy the views presented by the likes of you and sleepy (and jae had some interesting points in this conversation as well) It helps me to remember that not all Obama supporters are assholes and even if he is elected we probably arent doomed to become a socialist nation full of sissies. Its a shame this conversation devolved the way it did, and I accept nearly half the blame, but its tough to even respond to people like Amoc who give you guys the kind of bad name Rusch and O’Reilly give us. Our political system has always relied on compromise and sacrifice for success and its difficult to try to even understand the opposing point of view when you cant get through all the shouting of people who are trying to “win.” Amoc and I both know we arent going to win the other one over to our side, but he instead tries to give me a “beatdown.” That type of debate won’t help no matter who wins. I’ve been a McCain supporter since ‘99 because of his history of truly being able and willing to compromise and negotiate for a plan that may not accurately represent either his views or the oppositions, but both sides arent completely unhappy with. The man clearly has his flaws, and he will be the first to admit it, but he TRIES to live his life with honor and integrity. He is a strong military strategist and broke with the Bush administration on their Iraq strategy from the get-go. There was probably no harsher critic of Rumsfeld than McCain. Being something of a military buff, particularly on modern warfare strategy, I truly believe that if we had commited more troops from the start and drastically reduced the number of private contractors we’d be looking at a much more successful campaign. This is the strategy McCain has called for all along. That said I am also deeply concerned that our country has softened and am entirely unsure that we have the edge neccessary to ever truly win another war if we had to. I think a strong leader like McCain who truly respects the military and wont privatize it the way Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did is a start to restoring it and our countries pride in it. I think McCain is unafraid to surround himself with strong advisors, unafraid to listen to many different voices, and unafraid to go against popular opinion. Believe it or not the President’s job is not to always act as the majority want them to, and I feel this protection from ourselves is one of the most important powers of the federal government. I believe McCain when he says he’d rather lose an election than a war, and I don’t believe Obama would. I like that McCain doesnt think every country or group can be negotiated with and most negotiations must be done from a position of strength. I like that he believes in a small federal goverment that stays out of the day to day live of American citizens as much as possible and entrusts more power at the more local levels. because it is that way of thinking that has gotten us this far. I believe the primary duty of the federal government is protection not to level the economic playing field. I believe in a free market (with strong restrictions that limit corruption and promote growth within the US) and that rewarding success and promote small businesses are the key to economic success, not the redistribution of wealth by the government through the government. I believe Obama to be ambitious to a fault, a simple tool of his partiy’s leaders who has shown no willingness to break with the party on any issue (how can he unite?) and totally unprepared to be commander in chief. I dont believe John McCain to be the perfect candidate, and I have been saddened by his comformity to the right wing recently, but I also believe he has shown the propensity to break with the party when neccessary (the 10% of the time that he broke with Bush were almost all on large, important issue, and you cant expect a Senator to break with the Party much more often than and still expect to accomplish much, or even retain their seat, see Liebern, Joe) These are the main reasons why I’ll be voting Republican again this fall. Not because I’m a gun-toting, war mongering prick. Not because I think dinosaurs walked the earth 4000 years ago Not because Obama is Muslim or has some questionable friends. Not because of lipstick, or women, or blacks or whites. Not because I believe everything I see and hear on TV and not because I believe nothing I see and hear on TV. Not because I dont find John Stewart amusing (I really do, though he’s a bit too cocky for someone who doesnt know ALL that much) Mike, I know you and Sleepy can present this sort of explanation for why youre voting the way you are, I just wish Amoc and others on both sides could, without trying to “win” every argument. We can all be smart asses and sarcastic, but at the end of the day that just reafirms our own positions, makes us trust the opposition less.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

wow

that turned out much longer than I intended. ha and no paragraphs. sorry

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Then don't hold your breath for Obama

In my opinion the only way real change could happen is with a publicly funded election. I really hate it when the upper class essentially decides our elections before they begin by handpicking certain candidates and giving them more money, power, and publicity to pretty much stomp other opponents into submission. Then they give us a couple of months of telling us how much they care for the common man, then once we get suckered in and put them in the office, they go back to not caring for the common man. Obama’s sold out before, he can do it again. (I am voting for him btw).

by belilaugh on Sep 28, 2008 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you want to talk elitism...

Do you have any idea about John McCain’s personal history before Vietnam?

-He was the first son of two four-star Admirals (dad, grandfather) in the history of this country

-He finished 5th from the bottom of his Naval academy class (894/899)

-He had a lengthy disciplinary record (and earned the nickname "McNasty")

-He crashed five planes while in the Navy

And yet he STILL got promotions and progressed in the Navy.

So the guy who benefits from nepotism and familial reputation isn’t elitist but the kid who comes from a single mom who was on food stamps at one time and works his way to Ivy League schools is?

Come on.

by dprodigy19 on Sep 20, 2008 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hahahahaha FALSE!

Dude, you picked the wrong guy to try to start this argument with. Youre completely wrong on all accounts, and believe me I know much more about McCain’s background before AND after Vietnam than you.

-Sorry I’m not gonna hold the fact that his father and grandfather were great Americans and war heroes against him. And everyone knows what a wealthy and privilaged lifestyle military families have. While the US military is notorious for playing favorites I assure you, having served with the sons of several high ranking officers and politicians, it is not based upon a nepotism, and McCain was far from a military golden boy. If anything he was promoted LESS than he deserved. Inflated military records are rampant in DC, but those who question McCain’s are either stupid or ignorant, it appears you are both.

-You do understand that just about any officer from the Naval Academy, top 5, bottom 5 or anywhere in between will probably be among the top 10% of all officers in the Navy.

-The most undisciplined Navy cadet is still 10 times as disciplined as your average Harvard boy. Yea, he’s got a bit a reputation as a wild card, or maverick. so the same reputation you Dems are now questioning, youre trying to use against him? make up your mind.

-HE DID NOT CRASH 5 PLANES. Youve been reading too many ridiculous liberal blogs dude. McCain was commended by the Navy several times for his skill as a pilot. Two planes he flew died due to engine failure and there was no evidence of pilot error. A third was lost on the USS Forrestal when hit by a missile from another plane accidentally. McCain saved the lives of some of his commrades in the ensuing fire. And finally, yea he did crash a plane when it was shot down over Hanoi. What a reckless bastard!

-Take a closer look at Obama’s history, he was raised primarily by his grandparents, not by his mom. His grandparents werent wealthy, but certainly not as “middle class” as the campaign would like you to believe. “Barry” Obama attended one of the most elite private high schools in Hawaii. From there he scraped and clawed his way through Harvard, and then he so honorably rejected his chance to work on wall street to enter into the Chicago political machine.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

lmao. HE DID NOT CRASH 5 PLANES. IT WAS ONLY THREE, AND ILL HEAR ANY DRIVEL SOME RIGHT WING SAYS TO ME IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY IT!

by Amoc on Sep 21, 2008 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

what?

what three planes? the one over hanoi? the one on the deck during the carrier fire? or the engine malfunctions which the navy stated were in no way his fault?

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 1:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

none of those

 need any justifications. saying mccain crashed 5 planes is slander

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 1:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Focus

   WTF difference does it make how many planes he crashed? What does pilot ability have to do with executive decision making? Nada! When I was racing nascar the best driver I knew was an alcoholic 5th grade dropout who worked in a junkyard.
What does living in a POW box for 5 years have to do with competence? Double Nada!!
 This is like Reagan getting the middle class to vote against their own best interests by saying he’d arm them to the teeth and protect them from gays while transferring their wealth to the elite class. Actually not a smart move if the rubes had the sense to head for washington with all those “sporting” weapons :>) but hey they dint and now the middle class is shot and the fat cats are in control raiding the coffers then making the taxpayers bail them out. Next stop apparently a big "defense"build up to protect our 52nd state of Georgia2 ? I smell more heading money down the drain.
 What does this have to do with Obama? Well hopefully he’s not part of that good ole boy network, I sense a bit more concern for humanity from Barack. Maybe it’s his multicultural background or his community service or perhaps he’s just smarter?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 21, 2008 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

focus

I agree that the number of planes he crashed (zero by the way) has little to do with his ability to govern. However, I’m not just going to let blatant lies like that go uncorrected in an attempt to try to make McCain out to be something he isnt. I wouldnt expect you to let me spread the lies about Obama from ridiculous conservative blogs. Even his biggest political enemies who know him well say McCain is an honorable man. Attack his policies, maybe even his judgement, but dont try to attack him personally via his military record, its ridiculous. However, his experiences in Hanoi revealed true character, leadership, and commitment to the country. I dont think it makes him ready to be President, but it did reveal much about him. He’s already been tested in ways Obama never will. Personally I find Obama to be soft and all talk, and vulnerable to the hardened leaders of other countries like Putin. You see more empathy for humanity, I see ambition and weakness. His multicultural background should have less to do with this election than McCain’s military record. And are you seriously blaming Ronald Reagan for the woes of the middle class? If so thats another large discussion we can certainly have, but you arent gonna win that one.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Personally I find Obama to be soft and all talk, and vulnerable to the hardened leaders of other countries like Putin.

  That’s called diplomacy. Talk never hurts and he won’t be vulnerable with the US military backing him up.
   If Bush had tried diplomacy we’d have saved a ton of money in Iraq, of course that wasn’t the agenda of the ones who got Bush elected, they wanted to start a war because they profit greatly from it. But if Bush had sat down with Saddam and shown him the future and said something like. Ya know this war will cost us about 500 billion dollars and thousands of soldiers lives,. It will kill you and your family and hundreds of thousands of your people so how about a deal. We set you up in Libya or some spot where you’ll be comfortable, give you a few hundred million for expenses and call it a day? That’s the way a president should think.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 21, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

he won’t be vulnerable with the US military backing him up.

it will be when he strips military funding dramatically and retention and re-enlistment rates fall.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

seriously though?

because Sadaam was somebody we obviously could negotiate with. I wont argue the reasons for or against invading Iraq today, but you cant really believe we couldve sat down and just “talked it out” with Hussein, do you? You do realize thats also the approach we took for the 10 years in between the Iraq wars dont you?

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

you cant really believe we couldve sat down and just "talked it out" with Hussein, do you?

  I know I could have, our power advantage gave us all the leverage.
 I also know there was no chance Bush/Cheney could have because their agenda was war for profit. The money trail doesn’t lie. All the talk about motives doesn’t mean anything when you can see the money trail results. If humanitarianism was the goal they’d have invaded an African dictatorship for little cost and no cash cow to milk. Don’t trust what they tell you, trust what you can see.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 21, 2008 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

nice civility

you just called dprodigy19 stupid and ignorant. you like being talked to like an intellectual, but you really don’t deserve it. keep studying, poor college boy. how’s the rigorous academics at liberty?

"We're Menudo," -BB

by eshock on Sep 22, 2008 7:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What's said is that

only Republicans would call a self-made Harvard educated black man from HYDE fricking PARK on the SOUTH SIDE of Chicago be called elitist. The South Side during the years he was there was BAD. Like worse than Oakland in terms of violence bad. The idea that he doesn’t know what poor people look like, and that McCain, or even Clinton do, is a JOKE.

And unfortunately, only in America would people be stupid enough to buy it.

by ohmangoAs on Sep 22, 2008 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

hmm...

Obama is FROM hyde park? news to me. I commend him for his community service, and to be honest, I think it may be the strongest mark on his resume, but doing community service doesnt make you one of the people. Dems always talk about how leadership always send the poor off to fight their wars for them, so did McCain not spend the bulk of his young adult life, living and working with the lower class? The entire argument of who knows more about poor people is pretty ridiculous imo.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What does make you “one of the people” then? He’s apparently lived in Hyde park, was elected as representative of the district that includes the neighborhood. It’s where he’s lived most of his adult life.

by jae on Sep 22, 2008 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

see, you just shifted issues

you went from “he’s an elitist who attended private schools” to “all he did was community service…not experienced.”

And to argue that McCain knows poor people because he served misses the point. Knowing the poor isn’t the same as having met them. It’s seeing the structural inequalities throughout urban America, seeing how decent grocery stores don’t enter poor neighborhoods. etc. McCain’s not going to see that in Annapolis.

by ohmangoAs on Sep 24, 2008 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

seeing how decent grocery stores don’t enter poor neighborhoods. etc.

Great point, I’m glad you brought this up. These basics are more important to our health as a whole than all the guns under our beds or the fanatics hiding in the caves of Afganistan. The better our people live the stronger we will be. Happy people don’t let bad things happen to their hood.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 24, 2008 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

more important

right up until those fanatics come out of their caves and come back at us. Go ahead and call it fear mongering, but when it happens half the people who vote for Obama are gonna come clamoring back for someone like McCain. And, no, even Obama and all his smoothness cant make those people like us. As far as Obama’s background, stop buying the cute little raised by a single mom story the media is force feeding you and look at his background. His grandparents who really raised him were decidedly middle class at worst and he did attend an elite high school, before going on to an elite college before moving on to teach at another elite University and join the Chicago Political machine for elites. Now where would we get the idea that he’s an elitist?

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly

as opposed to McCain growing up in the middle class and having to work hard for everything. Oh wait…

by 15thefuture8 on Sep 24, 2008 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sam, what is your definition of “really raised him”? It looks like he lived with his mom until he was 10, then moved in with his grandparents and lived with them until he went to college at 18. I don’t see how this equates to that his grandparents “really raised him” at the absolute dismissal of his mother.

As far as the “elite” private school, the Punahou is a very good private school. But calling it “elite” seems more for flavor of trying to paint Obama with a label than anything else. It’s “elite” in the same way that a handful of Bay Area private schools are “elite” but I doubt very much any of us refer to their grads as ‘elite.’ The Hawaiian public schools are generally pretty lousy. If you’ve got more than average academic ambition, the choices are to either demonstrate that you’ve got native Hawaiian ‘blood’ and get into a Kamehameha school or try to get into Punahou. It’s about as ‘elite’ as deciding you’re going to send your kid to O’dowd because you didn’t want him to go to McClymonds.

But for that matter, what’s wrong with being elite. I don’t want a pedestrian point guard running my team. I want someone who is elite. Similarly, I don’t want a doofus joe average running the country. The sub-moron in the office right now is a pretty good indicator of just how crappy that’s turned out.

(While you’re at it, once again: What does make you "one of the people" then? You skipped right by that after you said he wasn’t really from Hyde Park.)

by jae on Sep 24, 2008 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ok, but

the picture the media is painting of poor little Barry Obama raised by a single mom is far from the truth.(as a side note its also the story lots of liberals say is no longer possible because of the perceived inequality of power) He is elite, I didnt say there was a huge problem with that, but you guys are the ones who tried to paint McCain as out of touch with the average American. The fact that Obama relates better to those from major metropolitan areas doesnt make McCain out of touch.

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I haven’t really noticed that picture of him by “the media” but I tend to not think of “the media” as a monolith and tend to think it doesn’t matter one way or another, so perhaps I just tune out for that. He didn’t grow up rich, nor was he destitute. His life doesn’t compact to a line line write-off. You appeared to want to simplify it to meet YOUR agenda.

The whole personality contest for president is a ridiculous litmus anyhow. It’s more or less the campaign that Bush pushed through as being more the average joe. He’s the worst president ever presiding over a corrupt, deceitful administration that has seen the country fall apart in so many ways. Who gives a rat’s ass if someone seems more like someone you’d want to have dinner with. The policies have been TERRIBLE. I don’t want McCain because he favors far more of these abysmal policies. Enough is enough.

(and again, what does someone have to do to be “one of the people”? You seem to be glossing past this again.)

by jae on Sep 24, 2008 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

what do YOU

consider to be one of the people. I consider it to be someone who people can relate to. I think McCain is relatable outside the bay area.

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sam

Just so you know, your harping on Obama’s “elitism” and “not being someone people can relate to” and having “delusions of grandeur” (all your words) are not only pure fabrication but also have more than a faint whiff of “uppity negro” about them. On this particular topic, I would seriously STFU.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 25, 2008 2:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just to elaborate

Do you actually think if BO were an “average” black man — say, more along the lines of Baron Davis or Stephen Jackson — he could have risen to anywhere near where he is now?

Put another way, imagine if Obama were an ignorant, gun-loving sh*t-fer-brains like Sarah Palin, with five kids, and a pregnant unwed 17-year-old daughter with a self-professed “thug” of a boyfriend who planned on marrying her. You think mainstream America would find that cute, and proclaim Obama “one of us”? Sh*t, that version of Obama would be happy to be out of a jail, with a steady job, let alone a candidate for POTUS.

“Delusions of grandeur”… I mean, seriously.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 25, 2008 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

if BO were an "average" black man — say, more along the lines of Baron Davis or Stephen Jackson — he could have risen to anywhere near where he is now?

 Actually Boom or Jax are far above average people of any color and I’d gladly vote for either one for president. They’ve show a lot more character, fortitude, tolerance, and leadership than most politicians.
  Love your bizarro image of Palin’s lifestyle by the way, Sleepy . Makes total sense to me but Hey What do I know?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 25, 2008 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh for sure

I’d happily vote for Baron or Jack for President. Over McCain/Palin, anyway. I don’t know a thing about their politics, but they obviously have the required intelligence, charisma, strength and leadership.

The point was that it’s hard to imagine “mainstream America” would have an easier time voting for an average, hardworking lower-middle class African American for Prez than they would for an “elite” black man like Obama.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 25, 2008 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Baron has maxed out his allowable donation to Obama’s campaign ($2300).

Why would anyone want to vote for an average candidate? I’m looking for the elite to run things. I don’t want average players on my teams. I hope to get financial advice from people who have above average knowledge of finances. What the hell is the appeal of the average joe for what appears to be an exceptionally difficult and exceptionally important position like POTUS.

by jae on Sep 25, 2008 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

When it happens, if McCain is in office, he will just spiral deeper into the circle of violence that creates more of these “fanatics that come out of their caves and come back at us.” I respect Obama’s attempts at diplomacy much more because while violence is a short term solution that can look better on a president’s “instant results” resume, the actual fight to temper the extremists will be long and hard and will never be won with fire.

by belilaugh on Sep 28, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

RE: The idea that Palin was picked simply to syphon the Hillary voters is flat out ignorant AND sexist.

I would argue and say it was one of the most transparent attempts at pandering in the history of forever. I don’t have a problem with that either. The fact that she’s a staunch conservative makes her ideal in that it won’t upset the Republican base.

So she serves a dual purpose, she augments McCains perceived weakness with hardcore conservatives and women and makes an attempt at tapping the “Hillary Block”.

Most of the Hillary supporters I’ve heard (mostly on NPR) have been both ignorant AND sexist and not really able to articulate why she’d make a good president. She’s a woman and her name is Clinton, beyond that I find it difficult to see what she brings to the table that Obama doesn’t. They agree on almost everything and have relatively little practical experience.

Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 19, 2008 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The issue is her lack of qualification

if she were very qualified (as Clinton was) it’d be wrong to imply she’s there bc she’s a woman.

On the other hand, given that she was selected over several more qualified candidates lends a lot of credence to the argument that she’s a token woman designed as a plea to the hillary base.

by ohmangoAs on Sep 22, 2008 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

so

women will vote for women regardless of ideology? Yea, I’m not gonna deny that it helps to diversify the republican ticket, but I think her primary politcal appeal is to the right wing. Up til he picked Palin, McCain was considered by many pundits to be too left to rally the base and win the election. Now he’s painted as too far right. VP’s arent traditionally the most experienced, and it actually would have been surprising if there were no govenors on either ticket. I agree Palin may not have been the best republican to step in and govern should something happen to McCain, but imo Obama is similarly not the best Dem to step in and govern in Jan.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

who would have been a "better Dem" than BO and why?

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

by playthegametherightway on Sep 22, 2008 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Biden

for one. Cant stand his ideology but at least his entire career hasnt been a giant campaign and the first quality that comes to mind isnt ambition.

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dude, you're not getting it

If the goal was to rally the right wing, he did it. My only point is that he could have done the same with Huckabee or any other right of center republican. The choice of a severely underqualified, inexperienced woman SCREAMS of tokenism designed to appeal to HIllary supporters. It’s a disgraceful insult to women to engage in this kind of tokenism. Luckily, based on the polls, no-one in the center even likes Palin anymore. Hillary’s people aren’t falling for it.

BTW, what’s up with hiding Palin from the press? She still hasn’t answered a single question outside of completely scripted interviews.

by ohmangoAs on Sep 24, 2008 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

sorry

she hasnt spent the last 3 years campaigning, so she may not be as ready to deal with the media as Barack. But the foreign leaders havent had one bad thing to say about her. Would you prefer she dazzle the media or impress foreign leaders?

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the foreign leaders havent had one bad thing to say about her.

    Cause they thought she was gonna serve tea before the candidate showed up. By the time they figured out she was it , was too late to complain.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 24, 2008 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and

where do we get off accusing you guys of sexism?

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Whether or not she’s ‘spent the last 3 years campaigning’ or not still doesn’t explain why she’s still not had a press conference to face real questions. NO ONE has done this before. No candidate has been less accessible than Palin.

I don’t know of foreign leaders having anything to say about her one way or another. Saying they have nothing bad to say about her is like saying they have nothing bad to say about Milton O’Malley. She’s a black box of a candidate right now, hiding from any real scrutiny.

by jae on Sep 24, 2008 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

since when?

only difference between and candidates of the past is that the media cant supply enough info on her to meet the demand so theyre throwing a hissy fit. and youre eating it right up. meanwhile Obama, the PRESIDENTIAL candidate, spent the summer skirting not the almighty media, but his oponent and the issues and it was rarely mentioned. Every foreign leader HAS had good things to say about her, apparently MSNBC didnt report that. weird.

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, Sam, you’re just factually wrong. In the past, candidates have had press conferences, opening themselves up for questions. Palin hasn’t met with the press. Quayle met with the press for piss-sakes. It’s fair to ask questions of her rather than rely on prepared statements, many of which contradict positions she’s taken in the past and contradict factual events. It does appear that she’s hiding. It really appears that way.

Which foreign leaders have said good things about here? Where did you get this information? I’m not disputing it at this point, but “every foreign leader” makes it sound like it should be a huge list. Do you have a source? Would you care to share it? Would you care to address this without resorting to your time tried and all too predictable “but Barack did blah blah blah” which really doesn’t address this.

I don’t really know what MSNBC has to say. I realize it would be more convenient for you to paint me as being fed lines from them, but it’s not true. I don’t watch MSNBC. It’s in the netherregions of the dial where nothing’s ever on, so I don’t even flip past it to pause. I suspect I’ve seen Olbermann maybe twice since he left Sportscenter and I had to look up who Fallow was to have a clue who he was.

by jae on Sep 24, 2008 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I dont understand why

the candidate OWE the media anything. She’s admittedly inexperienced. I havent denied that. Let her focus on getting some experience with foreign leaders etc. rather than experience schmoozing the media. Maybe Obama should try the same.

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The candidates don’t owe the media anything, but they owe the people something, and by avoiding the press, she’s avoiding the people. I can’t ask her anything, though there’s much I’d like to ask. It’s not realistic for 300million people to get to shower her with questions. The realistic way is to have this done by proxy, and this proxy is the press (note the distinction between press and media—they are not synonyms).

Let’s focus on asking her some real questions, on actually being able to get something that isn’t a statement that she’s prepared, because prepared statements aren’t the best way of knowing what someone thinks.

Seriously, do you not think it’s even a little bit irresponsible to avoid questions from the press? No other candidate has done this. Not in this election or other elections past. It’s outright weird and more than a little scary.

Are you saying now that Obama has no experience with foreign leaders? That he hasn’t met with any? It certainly sounds like you’re trying to imply this. No matter, it doesn’t have anything to do with Palin avoiding press conferences. I don’t think it’s impossible for her to answer questions and meet with foreign leaders. You seem to be putting up dichotomy where none actually exists.

Seriously, do you think you’re making sense? You are not. I

by jae on Sep 24, 2008 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

this is ridiculous

Obama gets a free pass every day from the media in the form of softball questions and/or questions not asked. Palin cant get 1 freakin day? When did the media demand to be present when candidates meet with foreign leaders? not every candidate has been subjected to that, and its not likely Palin hasnt been exposed to the media at all. Youre painting a picture that simply isnt true. You talk about how my arguments are so full of fallacies without examining your own. This is ridiculous jae, youre obsessed with proving something that simply is not true. Try as you might, you arent gonna make McCain/Palin evil. I know my reasons dont appeal to most in the crazy liberal bay area, I think we’ve established that. Seriously, stop being so ridiculous.

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What’s not true, Sam? Has Palin had a press conference?

by jae on Sep 25, 2008 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why is no one hounding Biden

for more press time? He’s on the campaign trail just like Palin, but I haven’t seen a “press conference”

by sam23 on Sep 25, 2008 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And he responds to a question with another question! Bingo, sammy, your nothing if not predictable.

Why is no one doing this? Actually people are. Biden’s been criticized for not holding one in the last couple weeks. He has held press conferences since being nominated however. He’s also far, far less of an unknown than Palin to begin with.

Seriously, do you make any attempt to actually inform yourself before you post something? Sam, you keep falling back into this (tired) routine of defending Palin by saying “but so and so also…”. It’s not an excuse that if someone else does something irresponsible it’s ok for your guy (or gal) to do the same.

by jae on Sep 25, 2008 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Come on now guys

Bin Laden is awesome, look at him compared to Hitler. Hitler was WAAAAY worse.

Too off color?

I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!

by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 26, 2008 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Too off color?

 No, Palin has hardened us to the depths of bad taste.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 26, 2008 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is ridiculous jae, youre obsessed with proving something that simply is not true

   You are likely showing ignorance here grasshopper by not recognizing that jae always does his homework. You might not like the message but I would seriously avoid disbelieving his statements.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 25, 2008 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

LOL

first of all could you stop with that typical “Crazy liberal bullshit.” I hate when conservatives paint the liberals ideas as out of touch with reality to mask the massive deficiencies in their own ideas. Conservatives usually take the simpler, easier at first glance point of view, which I believe can be correct in some cases (I am pro-life and pro-bearing arms), and then bombard the viewers with the same obvious mainstream facts and when some “crazy liberal” cites a fact that is not given much credence by the extremely corrupt media, they are suddenly wacko nutjobs.

And did you see Obama on the O’Reilly Factor? Would Palin ever do something like that (obviously not on the O’Reilly Factor, but whatever the left wing equivalent of that is. I wouldn’t know, I don’t watch any news stations besides occasionally Fox.)

by belilaugh on Sep 28, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Daily show?

I would guess… Lefty nut jobs watch it religiously.

I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!

by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 29, 2008 6:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

hey I admitted

that McCain needed to make his ticket “sexy” (again not a reference to her appearance) and I also said she would not have been my pick. I’m not saying it wasnt made for political purposes, but really YOU arent getting it. I’m just saying if you think Palin was picked to steal Hillary voters it is a bit demeaning to those voters.

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

so

if Palin wasn’t picked for politcal purposes, but wasn’t picked because she has two X chromosomes, why do you think she was picked?

by 15thefuture8 on Sep 24, 2008 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm sure

the fact that she was a woman FACTORED into the decision. But to say its the sole reason or that it was an appeal to Hillary voters is ignorant. I’m tired of saying that over and over and over and over.

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So what was the reason?

by jae on Sep 24, 2008 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

read above

Its difficult having trying to have debate with so many of you guys when you make me repeat myself over and over and over. jae thats the third or fourth comment youve posted in row that I’ve already answered.

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guess it’s the quality of your answers that make me ask questions again. I don’t think you make much sense and I’ve found your answers elusive or just plain stupid.

by jae on Sep 24, 2008 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the feeling is mutual jae

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The feeling is mutual because, and only because, you’re backed into a corner. Rather admit you’re wrong, and that the RIGHT is crazy, you’ll just say NEENER NANNER NO NO NO BLAH BLAH I CANT HEAR YOU. Get a clue.

by Amoc on Sep 25, 2008 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha you again?

i thought you went away.

by sam23 on Sep 25, 2008 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

at least sam

is facing the heat of questions,
ahem, Pa (cough) Lin

by hardcore on Sep 25, 2008 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Voting for either of these clowns,

or voting for anyone who has enough money and power to have a shot at being elected president is ridiculous and ignorant.

How’s that for alienating EVERYONE here?

Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 19, 2008 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bloodsweatndonuts for President!

(And Skeptic for VEEP…)

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 19, 2008 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would love to Skeptic debate the candidates

Talk about fighting dirty, he would destroy them.

Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 19, 2008 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i really doubt it

but at least we’d get another Dan Quayle moment if someone asked him to spell Randolph (randolf) or Monta (montay)

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you watch the Quale/Gore debates now

It’s shocking how much more qualified Quayle was to be president over Bush II, Obama or Hillary. Plus it really underscores how political debates have deteriorated to the point where nobody answers the questions asked by the moderator.
Quayle got a bad rap for being an dumb when he wasn’t, he was just a complete tool.

I do think Skeptic could kick ass in the debates, he is a fantastic arguer, I just disagree with almost all of his premises. His arguments are very clever and misleading. The average voter doesn’t check facts.

Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 19, 2008 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s very easy to assign some collective action to a group (e.g. the same liberals" but in doing so I’d expect some sort of citation that it is “the same liberals” and not just your archetype assigning the same words to different people that YOU have classified as “liberal.”

If you’re gonna assign action to a group, don’t be ridiculous and ignorant. Name names. WHO exactly is it who has been indignant over attacks at Clinton but is now making similar attacks on Palin? Do you have a Limbaugh like example (making fun of the way a 13y/old Chelsea Clinton looked and then seeing him act indignant at attacks on Palin) or are you just lumping “liberal” as a collective group as if the voice of one individual speaks for all?

by jae on Sep 19, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, most of the gang on CNN

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Mathews? Olberman?

I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure Mathews himself was accused of making sexist comments against Hillary during the primary. And Olberman was never one to feel too sorry for Hillary as far as I remember(Hillary supporters called him sexist when he asked her to step out of the race in one of his “special comments”), but I didn’t watch his show regularly during the early stages of the primary.

I know as a conservative you probably don’t watch these guys much but I think you’ve got a bad read on this one.

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

by olympicmike on Sep 19, 2008 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

before

she went head to head with Obama. I agree they turned on her when they caught up in Obamamania.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So what was it that these people said?

I’ve found that things work much, much better when you try to avoid generalizations, whether it be about what “liberals” OR “conservatives” do as a group. Your initial stance DID have the appearance of ascribing the actions of some to a particular group and presented the inconsistency not from what a group as a whole believes but what individuals did. As you presented it, no distinction was made, making it intially a totally vacuous statement that itself presented nothing of substance.

Now I’d be very, very curious to see what the actual examples are, what IN PARTICULAR did Olbermann, for example, say that presents the inconsistency in his stance. Are there particulars, or is it just a general feeling you get?

by jae on Sep 19, 2008 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and to be clear

I dont mean ALL liberals, I dont mean that all of you are attacking her, just as not all conservatives were attacking Hillary (or Chelsea, Rusch doesnt speak for all of us)

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

McCain?

How about McCain himself making a pretty nasty joke about Chelsea’s appearance and lineage. I’m pretty sure at this point he kind of speaks for the Republicans. That’s a pretty big turn around in the sensitivity department.

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

by olympicmike on Sep 19, 2008 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

in fairness

the joke was absolutely innapropriate and inexcusable. however, the joke cant really be seen as an insult to women in general, and wasnt really made for political gain, so its not quite the same situation. Its not as if any of us has never made a sexist or racist joke, and while a public servant and anyone speaking in public should be more careful, McCain has never been one who cared a whole lot about his image, unlike……..

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Image

He seems to be spending a whole lot of time and money carefully crafting his “Maverick” image while trying to still hold to conservative values as to not alienate the right. I hope you don’t really believe that he doesn’t care about his image.

And personally I don’t really get your point about political gain. I don’t see how sexism is any better if you don’t have anything to gain from it. And on the other hand I’m not really sure what you suppose anyone really gained from being sexist. The whole thing puzzles me really.

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

by olympicmike on Sep 19, 2008 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

like it or not

the maverick image was tagged on McCain long before this campaign. I’m just saying McCain’s joke was meant only as a joke, crude as it was, it wasnt meant to dragsomeone down.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah...

I’m aware of the history of McCain the maverick and the “Straight Talk Express” tm. In fact, don’t tell any of my fellow “lefties” but I used to vote Republican and I in fact supported McCain in 2000. I had a good deal of respect for him at the time, and while I was disappointed in the result of the primary I walked the party line (peer pressure is a b!tch) and voted for Bush (GASP!!!). I didn’t make that mistake twice, as one of the side effects of Bush’s disastrous policies was my own personal political “awakening”.

As far as the joke goes, you can believe what you like, but i don’ t know what else that joke was meant to do if not drag someone down. Namely the family of the Democrats in the Whitehouse and Janet Reno.

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

by olympicmike on Sep 19, 2008 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

not in an election sense

and again I’m not defending the joke, just saying its not the same as questioning whether Palin can raise a family and be VP

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Questioning whether Palin can raise a family and be VP would seem fair game if she’s claiming she can do both. I think it’s a nonstarter since without a family, I see nothing in her that makes me think she’s even remotely competent for the job. Her seeming indifference towards being worldly is, frankly, terrifying.

by jae on Sep 19, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

examples or her indifference?

and should we question whether Barak can raise his family and be President? or whether Biden should have continued to serve in the Senate while trying to raise his sons alone? Its flat out sexist. What makes you certain that Obama is competent? His 143 days in the Senate? Or his time in the state legislator where he rarely voted? Or is it simply because he’s a product of Harvard and the Chicago political machine? or because he’s “run” a massive campaign? I dont like to use these lame talking points, but you leave me no choice when you use these broad, vague, attacks on Palin in an attempt to make her out to be almost evil simply because she isnt like most of us in the Bay Area. I love this area but its the most intolerant place in the world that claims to be tolerant.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’ve personally never defended Clinton. I’ll attack Palin for being a hypocrite, for presenting information in such a way that it borders on lying (if it is not an outright lie), for seeming ridiculously ignorant of points of policy both foreign and domestic as to instill deep, deep fear in me that she could ever be president. She appears neither particularly interested in these points nor particularly intelligent to figure them out. I don’t pretend to know why McCain picked her, but I question his judgement significantly that he did. She’s not fit or ready to be president and nothing in how she’s presented herself makes me think that time or experience will change this.

by jae on Sep 19, 2008 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

how

is Obama more ready to be president?

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Frankly, he comes across as being significantly more intelligent. He comes across as actually being aware of foreign affairs, as someone who has been paying attention (e.g. to understand what “the Bush Doctrine” is). I’m certain that, as a former Constitutional Law professor he’s more aware of what the U.S. Constitution that the Prez is supposed to protect actually says.

I consider someone who believes that creationism should be taught in science classes to be unfit as they’re neither aware of what science is nor aware of the constitutional provisions regarding the separation of church and state. In this sense, not being delusional puts Obama a significant step up on Palin.

by jae on Sep 19, 2008 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

more intelligent?

because he is a better speaker? Thats not a measure of intelligence at all. The “bush doctrine” DOES have many different aspects. One could easily agree with some parts of it but not others, the “deer in the headlights” story is an absolute myth and another example of trying to politicize everything. Has McCain ever NOT protected the Constitution in his many years of service? fact is he’s done more to protect the constitution than Obama ever will.
Palin doesnt want creationism to be the only thing taught in schools, just for both sides to be presented. I’m not religious at all, and am fully aware of the scientific evidence of evolution, but I dont have a huge problem with that, and again, like the abortion argument, its totally irrelevant because she could never impose that. I think Obama has delusions of grandeur, thinking he will succeed in uniting the country.
But none of what you said has anything to do with evidence of him being more prepared. I dont understand how your side talks about her inexperience over and over and over again…..admittedly it would be a decent argument if Obama wasnt your candidate. Regardless of election results Palin wont be the President in January, Obama could be.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It wasn’t that Palin didn’t have a clue what the Bush doctrine was but her Yes, it’s sufficiently vague that many reasonable interpretations were possible. She gave none of them. She decided instead to talk, and when she did, she showed herself to be clueless.

Asking a question like “by Bush Doctrine, what do you mean” would have shown her to at least care. I didn’t see that. I saw BS from a confused person who, in addition to being ignorant, didn’t appear to me to care that she’s ignorant.

Frankly, I consider thinking that creationism has ANY place in a science classroom to be a sign of either low intelligence or sufficiently poor schooling or outright delusions as to disqualify someone from being able to effectively govern. It is not a matter of it being taught alongside real science. It has zero place as it’s entirely religious. It isn’t science and the ONLY evidence for it is religious. To say it should be taught alongside biology is absurd. It’s not a matter of teaching “both sides”. Creationism isn’t a side of science at all. It lacks any scientific evidence whatsoever. Want it taught? Teach it where is should be taught: in your church or synagogue or mosque or whatever place of worship you care to visit. But it’s not science and believing it is shows a degree of mental incompetence. I DO have a huge problem with that because it shows neither an appreciation for what science is OR an appreciation for the separatioon clause of the constitution. Seriously, that you don’t have a problem with it makes me believe that we don’t have enough common ground to go further since it doesn’t appear that you care to separate out religion from science.

I don’t believe it’s irrelevant because I believe that someone who rejects science has made a decision to reject the world of evidence and that sort of ignorance is dangerous. I prefer my politicians to be grounded in reality. And YES, rejecting science does enter into public policy or have you not been paying attention to Bush’s repeated stalling on denying that global warming is real.

Your statement that McCain has done more to protect the constitution than Obama ever will is again YOUR opinion. It is subjective. It is not quantifiable. Frankly, voting to cede the sort of power to the executive branch that has happened in the last several years doesn’t appear to be protecting the constitution, at least as I see it. Again, your mileage (and apparently, values) on this differ with mine.

by jae on Sep 20, 2008 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

umm…McCain doing more to protect the constitution is pretty quantifiable, to say it isn’t is downright lunacy and makes ME question whether we can continue this discussion…what has Obama done? I can list a thing or two McCain has done. The 9/11 discussions about “service” were downright laughable. Obama worked honorably in his community, served in the state legislator and served in the Senate for 143 days before beginning his campaign. Its a great start, but nothing more. For his entire life, other than his time as a community organizer he’s shown only ambition. I dont reject science, and absolutely believe in the separation of church and state, but I also dont know that we should be teaching science which IS still debatable to kids when it contradicts their faith. I’ve and agnostic, bordering on atheist all my life, but can still recognize and appreciate the value religion CAN play in society. And you do know the Church Obama has been attending for 20+ years teaches creationism dont you?

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Quantify it then if McCain has done more to protect the constitution. Count ‘em up, but be prepared to defend why what you’re counting ain’t rather subjective. Go ahead. Quantify it. I never said that Obama has done more. I said that your measures were subjective. You’ve not indicated to me that this is not the case. You’ve merely asserted what you believe.

I don’t care what Obama’s church teaches. Teaching creationism in church is a perfectly valid place to teach it. Putting it along side science in a science class is entirely different. Do you actually not see this, or are you delusional as well?

That you believe that evolution is still debatable as science indicates to me that you don’t seem to have a legitimate grasp on what science is. It’s about as debatable as is gravity. There is not legitimate debate about whether or not evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on earth. None. Zero. Zip. The only “challeges” are not scientific challenges but ones rooted entirely in religious dogma. Creationism has no place in a science class. None. It isn’t science. It’s not even close to science.

by jae on Sep 20, 2008 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There is not legitimate debate about whether or not evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on earth.

  Let me add that scientists don’t know all the answers but they are willing to look for them where religion is closed to any new ideas. If you look at religion as a social construct instead of a divine concept it become clear how it evolved and what it’s motives are. In the past it served to keep things in order and provide some common sense rules to live by that helped ease some troubled lives but now days it needs to update it’s tenets and focus if it wants to best serve our needs. People have access today to education that can serve us better than 2 thousand year old rules. Human psychology is both evolving and constant, we can figure out how to make a lot of new stuff but we can’t figure out how to best use it for the common good? We know how babies are made but can’t control over population of the world? We can see between the stars but still think the void is the word of god?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 20, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If

you check Palin’s record she has never in any way sought to have creationism taught in schools. Youre being played into fears of nonexistent threats. And the Dems always accuse US of being fear mongerers. Do you really need me to quantify John McCain’s service to the country vs. Obama’s? If so youre living in a deeper darker hole than anyone who believes in strict creationism.

by sam23 on Sep 20, 2008 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I do not ask to quantitate his chronological service. I asked you to quantify his protection of the constitution. I also never asked you to compare it to Obama’s. You appear deadset on insisting that I’m putting it up as some contest between the two. I said that it was subjective. You appear to have dodged by saying that it wasn’t, that it could be done (though you haven’t done it) and then by saying it’s greater than Obama’s, none of which is really what I said at all. Your seem to have a problem focusing your ideas ‘sam’. It really does help if you respond to what someone said rather than what you’d like them to have said.

by jae on Sep 21, 2008 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

how are service to the country

and protection of the constitution different?

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You’re responding to my question with a question, sam. Why don’t you just quantitate it, if you believe it can be done. Yet you don’t do this. You’ve weaseled, dodged, asked other questions rather than do something you claimed you could do. You’ve tried to put up comparisons to Obama where I made none. You’ve abandoned logic believing you know something about the point I’m trying to make (perhaps believing you know something about me—you do not).

But here’s something I’ll provide about my beliefs. I do not believe that service in the armed forces automatically qualifies as “protecting the constitution.” I do not believe that the constitution was under attack by forces external to this country that were repelled in Vietnam or Korea or presently in Iraq. Your mileage may vary, but the heart of this was that I said that the measure that McCain has done more is subjective.

by jae on Sep 21, 2008 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

How do you want me to quantitate it?

do you want me to create some point system or what? McCain’s entire adult life has been in service to this country, which I (call me crazy) translate into protection of the constitution. Obama’s adult life has been dominated by ambition. Do you want me to make a scoreboard and a some sort of fantasy constitutional protection game or what? I’m not squirming or weasling out of any your questions or arguments, I just dont know what you want me to do.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You are correct. You do not know what I want you to do.

You said you could quantify something. I didn’t think you could. Why exactly you’d expect me to give you pointers on how to do something I didn’t believe you could do is a bit of a mystery. Are you just not very smart?

by jae on Sep 21, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

that must be it

nicely done, way to really enhance this conversation.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I do not believe that service in the armed forces automatically qualifies as "protecting the constitution."

theres a fundamental difference between us that isnt going to be resolved. As long as you serve your country honorably in some capacity, whether it be in the military or some other public service I consider that to be protection of the constitution and America’s values. Anything can be “subjective” if one side simply rejects the evidence of the other side.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

put it this way

if the men at the constitutional convention were forced to pick between the policies of McCain or the policies of Obama, who do you honestly think they would choose? I dont see how you could say Obama unless you dont know what youre talking about, or youre simply kidding yourself.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

read up them before you assert that they'd prefer Obama

Miracle at Philadelphia would be a good place to start your education and move on to Madison’s papers …

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

by playthegametherightway on Sep 21, 2008 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I've read Madison's papers

and they certainly lead me to believe he’d strongly oppose Obama’s policies….havent read Miracle at Philadelphia but I’ll check it out. did you mean to say before I assert they’d prefer McCain?

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s not an argument, Sam. That’s an opinion that you’re asserting, and now your asserting that any disgreement must be wrong.

What a fantastic style you’ve got sam! I realize you believe that you’ve just made a point. I realize you do not see how sad and pathetic it appears to people who actually think.

by jae on Sep 21, 2008 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

present an argument jae!

I’m sick of the critiques on my style of debate, present an argument yourself, because you certainly arent proving to me that you think. Sad and pathetic are those who sit back and simply tear apart the opinions of those bold enough to present them. Show me some, any, evidence that the founding fathers and creators of the Constitution would support the big government favoring Obama and I’ll cede this point to you.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So now you’ve taken to saying that I’m sad and pathetic or petty.

I NEVER said that the founding fathers would believe that Obama was more in line with their opinions on goverment. It’s not upon me to demonstrate something I’ve not presented. You’ve made a number of statements that I don’t think you can defend. You seem to fall back on some comparison to put it upon me that Obama has the qualities that you’ve ascribed to McCain. That’s pretty ridiculous, but I guess it’s what you’re left with.

Were I to believe you knew the difference, I’d care.

by jae on Sep 21, 2008 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

no

I’m simply asking you to present ANY argument.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Argument for what? That you’re lost? That you’re confusing a subjective scale with assertion of fact? I’ve already presented those arguments, sammy.

You appear to be hopelessly lost, asking me to defend points I haven’t made instead of addressing the points you asserted but did not defend.

You made the point that McCain had done more to defend the constitution. I believe that to be your assertion that cannot be supported without resorting to a subjective scale. Asking me to show that Obama has done more is irrelevant. It’s not a position I took.

You implied strongly that the members of the constitutional convention would favor McCain’s view of government. Your actual words were that you “dont see how you could say Obama unless you dont know what youre talking about, or youre simply kidding yourself.” That’s again, your assertion, but not an actual argument. You’ve supported it with nothing. It’s not on me to show that they’d support Obama more. I never made that argument. Not once. You’re prone to asserting things, then demanding that I prove what you appear to see as a binary counter point.

Do you see how ridiculous you’re looking?

by jae on Sep 21, 2008 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ok well

then heres one argument-Those at the constitutional convention favored a very small federal government whose primary duty was to protect the citizens of the United States. Obama favors a much larger federal government than John McCain. Stop spending two paragraphs telling me how ridiculous I sound and make a argument against me, if you find what I say to be false, tell me why?! dont just point out that its my opinion, I KNOW its my opinion man.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sam, I’ve told you time and time and time that you’re asserting things that are subjective. That IS the argument against you.

When you present a statement like “I dont see how you could say Obama unless you dont know what youre talking about, or youre simply kidding yourself.” It doesn’t come off as something that you recognize as merely your opinion. It comes across as something that you’ve determined to be fact. It isn’t.

I’ll stop telling you how ridiculous you sound when you stop sounding ridiculous. Deal?

by jae on Sep 21, 2008 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Those at the constitutional convention favored a very small federal government whose primary duty was to protect the citizens of the United States

  Like a 2 thousand year religion, a 230 year old constitution is a bit out of date.
   Since they were working before electricity was discovered they probably aren’t the best group to tell us how to live our lives now days :>) . The old guys did the best they could with what they had to work with but we can use our knowledge to do better now, so stop worrying about what they would think of McCain or Obama and start worrying about what would be best for our people today.
 World peace, over population, global environmental damage, energy research, a reasonable minimum standard of living for the poor, and freedom from conservative oppression are a lot more important than debating the fine points of 1776.
  You are young, Live you life in modern times , Look forward not behind you. History is the record, Not the goal.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 21, 2008 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Obama favors a larger federal government?

Where did you get that? From carefully comparing their proposed budgets? From observing how federal spending rates (military and non-miltary) have increased under Bush compared to Clinton? Or just, as usual in this thread, from O.O.Y.A.?

Paul Krugman, one of the fairest and most insightful economic analysts going, and a frequent critic of Bush, McCain, and Obama and sums up the “small government” myth well:

One thing I’ve written about a number of times, but becomes especially worth emphasizing now that John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, is the myth of runaway federal spending under the Bush administration. McCain has said on a number of occasions that he doesn’t know much about economics — although, straight-talker that he is, he has also denied having ever said such a thing. But one thing he thinks he knows is that the Bush administration has been spending like a drunken sailor. Has it?

Consider the actual record of spending. Never mind dollar figures, which grow because of inflation, population growth, and other normal factors. A better guide is spending as a percentage of GDP. And this has increased, from 18.5% in fiscal 2001 to 20% in fiscal 2007.

But where did that increase come from? Three words: defense, Medicare, Medicaid. That’s the whole story. Defense up from 3 to 4% of GDP; Medicare and Medicaid up from 3.4% to 4.6%, partially offset by increased payments for Part B and stuff. Aside from that, there’s been no major movement.

Behind these increases are the obvious things: the war McCain wants to fight for the next century, the general issue of excess cost growth in health care, and the prescription drug benefit.

So the next time Mr. McCain or anyone else promises to rein in runaway spending, they should be asked which of these things they intend to reverse. Are they talking about pulling out of Iraq? Denying seniors the latest medical treatments? Canceling the drug benefit? If not, what are they talking about?

link.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 21, 2008 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

well I think I can answer his question

and believe it or not its defense spending that McCain would cut. The war has been unneccessarily costly because of the Bush/Rumsfeld strategy. Significant cost reductions and imo significant strategic advantages could have been gained but increasing troop levels from the onset and dramatically reducing the # of private contracts handed out. Bush’s spending has been ridiculous and is the primary reason why I’m not a fan.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

jae

your style of debate could be seen as logical, but its simply petty. Stop trying to pick apart my arguments on their literal basis, and more on the broad ideas being expressed. Sure I may not be focusing my ideas well and I may have mispoken when I said you could literally quantify protection of the constitution, but my general point seems pretty clear. McCain has still done more than Obama, when you put their records side by side its obvious, you dont need some point system to quantify it. It doesnt neccessarily make him the better candidate, but it is true. Your attempts to distract by picking apart words and making the debate into something entirely different than it was meant to be is a popular strategy among pundits and can seem logical and intelligent, but does none of us any good at all. your last several posts have been entirely about my wording and strayed from the initial argument.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Stop trying to pick apart your arguments on a literal basis? WTF? When you have only your words, your literal word are what you have. And now you whine that I’m holding you to your words rather than the ‘broad ideas’?

I disagree with your “broad ideas” in many, many ways. It appears that your broad idea is that McCain was in military, ergo he’s done more. I do not accept this as an axiom. Interpretation of your “broad ideas” seems to suggest that you do not believe that this is subjective. I do not think that this is “petty.” It is a genuine difference of opinion in value. That you took it to be something that you insisted could be quantified (and you’ve had many opportunities before to say that you misspoke or exaggerated about this) suggests to me that you either do not recognize the difference or don’t care. That you kept squirming out and trying to put up some comparison vs. Obama rather than either acknowledge the subjective interpretation of what it means to “protect the constitution” or even just assert that you do take it to be axiomatic that miltary service = protecting constitution suggests to me that you were either confused or you’re living in such a narrow worldview that you can’t accept that people don’t see it your way. If you’re going to call me ‘petty’ (and you did), I’m going to call you afflicted with an extreme intellectual stenosis.

by jae on Sep 21, 2008 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

if

serving in the military isnt protecting the constitution, what is?

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Serving in Vietnam?

You mean like, killing a couple million people, many of them innocent civilians, women and children, in a country that had never lifted a finger to harm us, and had no interest in ever doing so — at least till they were forced to do so to defend their own?

I think you can call that a lot of things — “protecting the constitution” ain’t one of them. Fortunately, in this instance the true “protectors” won, and the naked aggressors lost.

(Feel free to reply, Brother Sam, but realize that you’re not obligated to have the last word in every thread in this diary…)

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 21, 2008 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

P.S.

Assuming military service is your bottom line for fitness for POTUS:

Can we all assume you voted for Al Gore — who enlisted in the Army, despite coming from an elite family who would gladly have landed him a cush National Guard job — and War Hero John Kerry, rather their rich pussy chickenhawk opponents, Bush and Cheney?

Just wondering. You’re not obligated to respond. And of course, feel free to play the sexism card again for my pejorative use of the word “pussy.” We all know what champions of feminism the Republicans are. ;-P

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 21, 2008 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha

I dont think serving in the military is required for President, nor does it even qualify you, I think I said that earlier, but its certainly good jump off point and builds character and leadership. John Kerry’s “war hero” status is more than just overrated. I’m not one to generally question military service but nearly any serviceman who looks at his military records and self-awarded medals will repeat this sentiment. Thats not partisan, there are several repubs in government with similar military track records. I’ve never been a Bush supporter and I do applaud Gore for joining the army. I’ve been a McCain supporter for 9 years and if you must know, I wrote his name in on my ballot for the past two elections, despite my feelings about wasting a vote.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dude

That’s “not partisan”? Come now.

From wikipedia:

Navy officials say that there is no evidence that Mr. Kerry’s Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts were ever rescinded and that there is no evidence of misconduct in his records.

Commenting on the Silver Star issue, Republican Sen. John Warner, who was Under Secretary of the Navy at the time, stated “We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal, a very high one, when it goes through the secretary…I’d stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition.”

Elmo Zumwalt, Commander of the United States Naval Forces in Vietnam at that time, signed Kerry’s original Silver Star citation and defended the award in 1996, saying “It is a disgrace to the United States Navy that there’s any inference that the [medal] process was anything other than totally honest.”

Whatever the nuances in the accounts of the various battles, it’s not even a question that the young Kerry showed courage where the young Bush and Cheney wet their diapers.

Or if, you prefer, Kerry has the balls to kill innocent civilians, women and children with his bare hands (i.e. guns), while shameless pussies like Bush and Cheney prefer to send others (basically non-wealthy hardworking citizens like you) to do it for them.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 21, 2008 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

wikipediea isn't a reliable source, ANYone can change it at any time ...

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

by playthegametherightway on Sep 21, 2008 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know about wikipediea

But wikipedia is generally quite reliable, despite, or perhaps because of, its changeability.

Look at the people cited in the excerpt: Navy officials, John Warner. Elmo Zumwalt. If you have any reason to believe the citations are fabricated, do share. If not, you’re not adding a lot to the debate.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 21, 2008 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the fact that

certain politico insiders were in Wiki changing bio info on certain soon-to-be celeb politicos just hours prior to her being annointed to VP status SHOULD concern us all in that our perceptions and supposed reliable information sources are subject to the manipulation of those who take the time to do so … someone of your political bent should also be expected be concerned about things like that, but perhaps we overestimate your intelligence on the matter

so sorry if that tidbit doesn’t meet your smell test

go on back to the quibbling with your buddy sam

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

by playthegametherightway on Sep 22, 2008 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dude

It’s the nature of wikipedia. Everyone knows you can edit it. Therefore, when citing stuff from it, it always behooves you to cite specific sources, which I did. As I said, if I had misquoted anyone, I would have been happy to learn about it.

Your post was useless because it (a) added nothing to the discussion; and (b) is obvious to anyone over the age of 5.

Nothing against you personally: I’d gladly quibble with you, too, if you put 1/10th as much thought and effort into your posts as (my lover) sam does. In this instance, your post got the reply it deserved. I’m sure you can do better.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 23, 2008 1:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm confused

are you guys fighting amongst yourselves about the merits of wikipedia? stop playing into the Democratic stereotype! jk. anyway, sleepy, look up Kerry’s actual military records. You’ll see that the officer that nominated John Kerry for his purple hearts and silver star is John Kerry. Its possible things were different in the Vietnam era, but I dont know a single self respecting officer that would nominate himself for a medal. John Kerry’s FitReps are also not exactly stunning to say the least. Take a look at his actual records.

by sam23 on Sep 23, 2008 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

sleepy, da kid is making a point about reliable information – may not be the point you want to argue with sammy, but it’s fair & accurate – ya, most of us understand the limits and likability of wikipedia but it’s a bit harsh to say his post deserves your backhanded treatment. In fact the more you reflect on the importance of unbiased information (particularly in this thread!) the more relevant his point is to your discussion & in the context of the current administration the truth is a valuable commodity indeed

by hardcore on Sep 24, 2008 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

While this is true...

And Sleepy may have been a little backhanded, citing Wikipedia as a source is one thing, and citing Wikipedia sourcing a 3rd party is something else entirely. It just so happens that he found the information through Wikipedia, but the information comes directly from a separate source in the end.

A wikipedia entry that reads “Monta Ellis injured his leg motorcycling”, it may be true. But if the Wikipedia entry reads “On September 25th, it was reported by the San Francisco Chronicle that, according to several team sources, Monta Ellis injured his leg riding a moped” it’s a little more believable.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3608428

I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!

by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 25, 2008 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

to steal from jae

thats a rather subjective and imo ignorantly simplified view of the Vietnam war and what took place there. Its also offensive, and I only hope 20 years from now I’m not categorized as a baby, or civilian murderer for serving in an unpopular war. I joined the military to serve, protect, and uphold the constitution and did so to the best of my abilities, I think John McCain would say the same thing.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Coma, man

That’s pretty uncalled for. I for one have a ton of respect for the people who put their lives on the line every day (soldiers, police, etc.) while I sit on my ass and blog and make pretty pictures on my computer. It’s the leaders who order the wars, for reasons other than national defense or saving lives, who deserve your anger.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 21, 2008 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't really think so.

Never said I was mad at him. Guaranteed though, when all is said and done, this war will be looked upon just like Vietnam was. The US playing world police and killing innocents. I believe that regardless of what comes of Iraq, the American people will look at it as a colossal waste of money and resources (which intelligent ones already see him as.)

I respect the troops, and I respect that they’re working hard out there. They will still be made out to be the villains in all of this. Bush and Cheney will just wipe the blood off of their hands onto their fatigues.

I’m keeping it short and sweet with him because he has some right wing ignorant answer to everything. Maybe it was blunt, and harsh, but whatever.

by Amoc on Sep 21, 2008 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

except there wasn't any oil in Vietnam

plus no Haliburton, no Blackwater, … lot’s of differences in who was funding campaigns …

interesting how the US is the world’s largest arms dealer in the world

or how the US Defense Industries are making the most profit off the war

kinda like the bad loans we’re all going to pay for now (and did with the S&L’s in the 80s) the war(s) are all going to come back to us in the shorts

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

by playthegametherightway on Sep 21, 2008 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

wow

nice dude. thanks.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I joined the military to serve, protect, and uphold the constitution and did so to the best of my abilities, I think John McCain would say the same thing.

 You are underestimating the success your service . You have come back in far better mental shape than MCCain. You say you are not a religious fanatic, don’t care about the gun lobby and are for small govt. McCain is pandering to the right wing while advocating spending our money bailing out the wall street fat cats who cause the mess. I traded for many years without a safety net so who’s the real conservative?
When you get old enough to run for president I’ll vote for you, by then you’ll have worked out your conflicts and will put your heart on it’s true course. The link sums up my feeling about our young soldiers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6SQvQKl0Q

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 21, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i appreciate it, but

I find that a lot of Dems like to have it both ways. They love to say they support the troops but not the war they are fighting. Its extremely difficult to walk that line, and what it really amounts to is just talk. You can support the troops with supporting the administration or leadership or even the causes for the war, but you cant really respect or support them without supporting their life’s mission. I’m not nearly eloquent enough to put this into words to make it clear, and I’ve seen and heard it written and said much more clearly than I am, I’ll try to find a link. And Amoc, youre still a just a straight dick and personify almost everything that is wrong with the left.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Absolutely.

And you’re just a right wing toolbag who will justify every wrong thing the right does with some stupid ass excuse.

I am a dick. I come by it honestly, and I always have. And no, I don’t personify everything that is wrong with the left. Just because I’m a democrat doesn’t mean that democrats are dicks like me. If you are going to act like a retard, I’m going to call you a retard.

And yes, I can support the troops without supporting the war.

by Amoc on Sep 22, 2008 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

have you seen me

defend Bush yet? And disregard my last, I’d say youre more pussy than dick. I’m more of a dick. See Team America for explanation.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You’ve defended every lie McCain has told. What’s worse is everyone knows Bush is a jackass, but you’ll hide behind the fact that you haven’t defended him, like it deserves a medal or something. Talk about jaded.

by Amoc on Sep 22, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

no

I simply dont agree with many of his policies. I’ve said several times his and Rumsfeld’s privatization of this war is an embarrassment. Dont give me a medal, just dont say I defend every republican lie. Are the Dems entirely without fault or do you defend all their lies?

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No. The democrats are just as big a joke, I vote democratically because they focus on issues stateside, which is what we need. The republicans have and will probably continue to pad their pockets on my dime while in office. George H.W. did it, and Dubya did it. I’m 21 years old. My memory goes back to H.W.

I don’t want to fight unnecessary and unfounded wars, I want to ease the national debt, and bring Social Security back to being respectable for retiring elders.

If you don’t agree with Bush’s policies, how can you vote for McCain? I could understand if you were a fan of McCain 2000 (which admittedly, I respect him a lot more than this McCain) but as soon as he won the ticket, he has shifted further to the right on almost every issue concerning Americans stateside.

Look at what the Dems have accomplished in congress the last couple of years. I’m not particularly happy with my party either. It doesn’t mean that I’ll vote for an old fart.

by Amoc on Sep 22, 2008 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haha

Oh Sam… this is strange. When we stick to basketball I usually agree with you and disagree with Skeptic. When we switch to politics everything turns upside down.

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

by olympicmike on Sep 19, 2008 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know

it makes it difficult because I almost always agree with guys like you and sleepy and dubsfaninboston but the political talk twists it all up.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

im used to it though

being a conservative (or a right leaning independent) in norcal you encounter such problems fairly often.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That whole thing was a good read. You guys should have a TV show.

by 15thefuture8 on Sep 20, 2008 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha

if its me and Amoc going toe to toe, you may as well just turn on Hannity and Colmes, since our debate will surely devolve into us simply yelling useless partisan banter at each other (or me choking him out) But yea I’d love to have a series of issue debates with Sleepy or Mike who seem to be able to keep me a little more level headed.

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

what's with the sleepy/mike man-love?

i think you’re being overly-friendly?

"We're Menudo," -BB

by eshock on Sep 22, 2008 8:01 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haha

What can I say? He has good taste…

Seriously though, no matter what your views are, being able to discuss them with some level of civility and understanding goes a long way. It’s amazing how quickly things can stray off course when people get the slightest bit personal.

I think this is a pretty good cross section of the scale of discourse that you can find when talking politics. This thread has everything from calmly stated reasoning, to slightly snarky assumptions, to mind-numbing debate, to borderline paranoia, to all out fingers in your ears screaming the talking points as loud and as harshly as you can.

Overall it’s gotten a little overwhelming, but I can definitely say that starting up an off-topic political thread every now and again can be fun, informative and all in all more valuable than another “trade idea” FanPost. IMO of course…

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

by olympicmike on Sep 22, 2008 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ha

yea, but where would it be without me? just one post and series of +1’s I think. Face it you guys need me! And yea the man love is due to the fact that Sleepy, Mike, and Skeptic (who I initially dismissed because his hoops ideas are usually terrible imo, but has provided some good insights here) keep me grounded and remind me that I dont want to punch ALL liberals in the face. So yes they complete me.

-And Amoc, yes, I know I left myself open for several of your lame insults with this, so have a field day

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What a joke.

LOL. You choking me out. Since I’m a democrat it must mean I’m weak. Stfu.

by Amoc on Sep 22, 2008 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

how about

we open up an open gsom political thread so we dont have to be constantly mixing hoops with the election for the next 40 days?

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

TONY.PSD

That is freaking AWESOME.

The illustration is gorgeous and the wordplay is perfect. My only gripe is that you made him look younger, healthier and way more dignified than he actually is. I’d totally consider voting for an angry curmudgeon like the one you drew if he had (1) a fully functional brain, (2) a semi-coherent 21st century world view, (3) concern for the average person, and/or (4) the soul of a genuine “maverick.” Unfortunately, I think he has none of the above. After the interview where he confused the elected President of our Nato ally Spain with a South American dictator, I’m pretty much convinced he’s not only a dim bulb but quite possibly going senile.

Worse, I think he’s immoral and a bald-faced liar, even by the dirt-low standards of politics.

And even worse than all that, I think there’s about a 50% chance he’s going to kick the bucket while in office, which will leave that podunk gun-toting fundamentalist religious whackjob Palin as the Leader of the Free World. Honestly, the lipstick and glasses and other crap people talk about should be the least of our worries. Matt Damon, my Cambridge homie, pretty much sums up my fears about her perfectly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anxkrm9uEJk

Seriously, has she ever even met an African American or Latino or Asian person? Does she have any fvcking clue about anything in the world other than breedin’ and prayin’ and huntin’? Fortunately, the American people are starting to see through the lame hockey mom schtick and share Damon’s fears. Her poll numbers have completely tanked in the last week, dragging McSenile’s numbers with them.

Anyway, Tony.psd, f you could capture all those thoughts and fears in that one drawing, I’d change it to my webpin in a heartbeat. I’d also try to nominate you for a Pulitzer.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 19, 2008 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

sleepy

keep in mind Damon’s fears were the result of him reading a blog of ENTIRELY made up quotes from Palin.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Could be.

The “banning books” charge sounds sounds like it was based on pretty flimsy evidence.

That said, I want someone to ask her straight up if she believes in the Second Coming and the Rapture and velociraptors roaming the earth 4,000 years ago with Adam and Eve.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 19, 2008 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the dinosaur charge was totally false, the guy who posted that quote admitted he made it all u. Funny that its still out there though and even educated intelligent voters like you buy it. Its like if I said Obama is an Islamic extremist. Matt Damon admits he knows nothing about her before he begins his tirade…..seems like you ought to take a minute and learn something about her before blasting her like that. When I first heard about this Obama character beginning his campaign one year into his Senate term I thought it was odd, but didnt immediately come out swinging.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe these people will ask for you

Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 19, 2008 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Awesome x2.

I totally needed that. I completely need to chill the fvck out. I’m losing sleep over this, and we’re still two months off…

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 19, 2008 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Political Vacation!!

Give yourself a couple days off. I can’t believe how much I care this year. I’ve always been kind skeptical about politics in general, but I really believe that this election may be the most important one of my life. We are really at a crossroads.

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

by olympicmike on Sep 19, 2008 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

please tell me

thats a joke, I’d rather vote Obama! make a Jordan election poster Tony!

by sam23 on Sep 21, 2008 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Awesome...

Er, not so much this time.

I mean, shouldn’t the caption be edited to read RAPE?

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 21, 2008 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

LOL I don't draw these!

I just find em’ and add it 2 the madness!

Starbury who?!

by Tony.psd on Sep 21, 2008 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

please, no

no no and no. this is one player whose baggage is WWWAAAYYY to large. i wouldn’t put him on the team for free. any effort put into the self proclaimed starbury is effort lost, and that could have gone elsewhere.

by Run Dubz on Sep 18, 2008 11:23 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

The Warriors young guns...

need experience. This is the best time to do it. Give ‘em the minutes to play so Nellie can determine who’ll put up and who’s a bust. Besides, even with Monta out, I still think the Dubs will be a exciting team to watch. And if they play the same way they did during the 2006 – 2007 season, especially with the depth they have now, good things can really happen.

by Misternightrod on Sep 18, 2008 11:31 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

if they play the same way they did during the 2006 – 2007 season

  That would be easier if we still had Boom, JRich, Pietrus, and Barnes? We don’t even have Montay now??

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 19, 2008 8:01 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and

no “f” in Randolph. see above comment.

by sam23 on Sep 19, 2008 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

sign him

for the minimum then waive him once monta comes back! split his time with the other pg’s and see if we are competitive. If we aren’t, slap him on the bench.

by Foulacy on Sep 18, 2008 11:32 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

for the minimum then waive him once monta comes back!

  Seems like a no brainer. I doubt he’d sign for the minimum though. If it could happen we might be surprised by his play. if not as you say turn him loose.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 19, 2008 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry I'm a Poli Sci major, out of town the last few days, more political chat. Everyone will hate me

There were many good points in this debate, but unfortunatley, there was way more recycled corporate news rhetoric than anything else. Notice how I say “Corporate” news. Liberal media is a stupid name. CNN has nothing liberal about them, they are just another news corporation that is owned by the same corporations that own your politicians. All they do is recite the same, generally unimportant and biased news. They aren’t biased to the right and certainly not to the left. They are biased towards keeping you blinded to real issues and focused on petty issues that won’t interfere from them owning us all. Like abortion and gay marriage. Even their coverage of the market collapse was pitiful. They don’t tell you how are economy really works and why the US style of capitalism is set to lead to this sort of travesty. I dont want to even spend the 30 minutes and multiple pages I would need to describe to you why the media in this country is pathetic, shameful and void of all morals.

As for FOX news. They are purely right wing neo con propaganda and nothing else. Rupert Murdock owns FOX he also owns the Dow jones industrial(thats right the whole thing) as well as politicians on both sides. He is one of those people that benefits from our society of sheep. He gets richer and richer by the day while FOX news aires propaganda that is obviously inspired by NAZI’s. Thats right, Nazi’s. I know that is a bad word in our country, and it should be, but the real people in charge of this country, not politicians but filthy stinking rich owners of the 6 major corporations benefit from this. I’ll elaborate.
We are all taught to believe that a great leader and a great country is determined by how great of an economy they can create. If that is true than the greatest president of the last century of any republic or democracy would be Adolf Hitler. He did more with Germany’s economy in a shorter time than any leader ever. What made Hitler so powerful and so well backed was the fact that he would do anything to make more money, and he had great propaganda. I have a friend who speaks German and we were watching clips my teacher let us borrow from Nazi germany, from speeches to comercials to photos of adds. He translated, and I wet myself. Not for fear, because I dont let hateful and fearful rhetoric bother me(Maybe thats why I didnt buy into the wars from the get go, even though I was only 13). I wet myself because it was the exact same techniques that are used in corporate news, especially on FOX. They use scare tactics and powerful words and images to brainwash you, simple techniques. “Terror” was a word utilized often by Hitler, but not as much as its used by Bush and the rest of those soul less politicos in charge.

The fact of the matter is this, the odds are against you. It doesn’t matter if you vote for Obama or McCain, not just because the electoral college decides the president and not the people, but also because they are republicans and democrats, the two parties that were bought along time ago and neither of them has produced a president of the people since Kennedy, and even before that. So to use the phrase “throwing away your vote” properly. You’re all throwing away your votes by voting for republicans and democrats. You’re just insuring that which is already planned, domination by the uber rich. Multi Billionaires, the people who own the banks, the insurance companies and the federal reserve.

However, when compairing Obama and McCain, its obvious that Obama is a better candidate. He is clearly more intelligent, he is clearly more well liked world wide, which is important, and he has also been around Washington less. Just in case you skipped the rest of my post, thats a good thing, because Washington is run by lobbyists and business, and maybe risking the vote on Obama will pay off and he’ll turn out to be playing them not us. If you’re voting for McCain, just write in Dick Cheney or Rupert Murdock, casue he is now nothing but a neo con puppet. he wil kill the Public sector including public school, and he will give more of your tax money to the war profiteers, KBR Haliburton, Blackwater, and big oil. Neo con affiliated businesses, what a surprise.

Think outside the box and consider other options otherwise you’re just going to get the same empty results.
If you’d like to know where I get my info and why I feel this way I’d be happy to talk to you or show you videos. You all just had to bring up a subject of passion for me on a website about my other passion.

No real change in ‘08! Who’s with me?… oh all of you.

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 21, 2008 10:41 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Finally, someone who knows something

The election is a huge DISTRACTION!!! Anyone waiting for evidence of the New World Order… Umm, Wall Street just collapsed.

"We're Menudo," -BB

by eshock on Sep 22, 2008 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

umm...

the economy is in the dumps due to massive national debt, but wall street isnt hurting, they finished higher than they started last week.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"not hurting"

may be a bit of an overstatement, but lets not lump wall street, the ecomonomy, and national debt all together.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"Wall Street isn't hurting"

LOL.

I’m no economic expert, but from everything I’ve read the #1 thing that prevented the crisis from being a full-on global meltdown was Hank Paulson’s ballsy $700 billion dollar federal bailout — one of the most socialist acts in our nation’s history (or at least since FDR).

Put that in your “small government” pipe and smoke it.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 22, 2008 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hank Paulson’s ballsy $700 billion dollar federal bailout — one of the most socialist acts in our nation’s history

  Yeah, Shows their true colors. Privatize the profits and socialize the losses.(and hurt the people who played this market right)

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2008 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

sorry man

both sides have exchanged a lot of the talking points you see and hear on fox and msnbc, but it sounds to me like youre simply spewing what some angry poli sci teacher has been preaching. The “angry at both sides, but vote left” rhetoric sounds shockingly like several of profs I’ve had. I think I can speak for sleepy, mike and skeptic in saying that while the news we watch has some gatekeeping power over what issues are important to us, our values and beliefs have mostly been shaped by our experiences and upbringings, to dismiss us as sheep, and minions of a Hitler-esque Murdoch or NBC makes you sound a bit aloof or self-righteous. Some poli-sci classes, some Hitler videos, and dismissing both sides (a popular tactic to try to gain the upper hand) doesnt make you more well informed. I’m not a fan of Murdoch, but I find him to be a fascinating character and I think if you take closer look at his life you’ll find that while he is certainly a right wing advocate, he is far more concerned with making money than gaining political power or pushing his beliefs. I’d also like to hear why you feel Fox is more right than MSNBC is left. I agree the media has too much gatekeeping power, but what can we do? Why do you think McCain will give more money to Haliburton and Blackwater when he’s been one of the most outspoken critics of the private contracts given out in Iraq? Your general feeling that neither candidate is perfect, is dead on, but again, the American politcal system is, and always has been about compromise…voters must compromise as well. The two party system is also imperfect, but the electoral college and single member district representation type voting are effective ways to limit voting corruption and the system inherantly creates the two party system. I’m open to your ideas of ways to fix that, but do understand there is no easy fix, and while the system in place is imperfect, its served us well for 200+ years, been tested many times, and may well be the strongest large scale political system in the history of human civilization.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Stop.

lmao. just stop.

It doesn’t matter what anyone says. If you don’t agree with it, they’re just spewing the words of someone else, (be it Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow ,or now ‘Angry Poli Sci Teachers.’)

It’s time for you to shut the hell up, because you’re out of arguments to make. Go do something constructive with your time. You aren’t intelligent enough to change anyone’s opinion, or have anyone respect your arguments. It’s honestly a joke. You will do whatever it takes to justify whatever it is Republicans do wrong. What’s the point of even conversing about it? Your argument remains the same. We all spout nonsense of whoever it is whose view you chose not to respect this time.

by Amoc on Sep 22, 2008 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

dude

chill out. First of all the guy made a lot of good points, sorry if I didnt commend him enough for that. His way of looking at things is a refreshing change from the angry left you represent, and the more moderate or at least calmer left of some others, but I still disagree and it sounds a lot like many of the profs I’ve had who seem angry at a pretty damn good system without offering any solution. I’m not saying he’s only repeating them, he may have a solution to the imperfections and I’d like to hear more, he said he was trying to keep his initial post short, so I just wanted present some questions and difficulties I have with his theory. Its funny that youre chasing me around here trying to insult my intelligence, if you dont want to hear from the other sides, stop reading.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

wow

as soon as I finished writing this I flipped to Fox and they immediately made me regret defending Murdoch with some ridiculous chatter about Obama. Had to flip back to MSNBC and it took a whole 5 minutes for me to hear a similarly ridiculous attack on McCain/Palin. However, I’ll stand by my stance that the two, though each worthless in their own right, essentially cancel each other out and the majority of the rest of the media lean left.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and actually

youre right, after rereading that response to his post, I sounded a little more hostile than I intended maybe its just you getting me so riled up. The left seems to be doing just fine in this discussion without you, so maybe YOU should just go away.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1 sam23 for owning up to hostility

sam’s all alone on the right with this thread, but selectively saves up all his invective for coma (amoc). maybe its time to bury the hatchet as GSOMers and Dubs fans. just goes to show how asleep at the switch the crew is as i believe the entire community guidelines were tossed out the window. but there ain’t nothing going on in dubsland, and this is one whopper of an election.

i think that amoc’s (as anyone else not named GSDubz) comments are welcome by many around here, and its not particularly democratic of you to try and muzzle him.

"We're Menudo," -BB

by eshock on Sep 22, 2008 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

bury the hatchet

nice effort to broker peace and as far as I’m concerned theres not even a hatchet to bury with any of the rest of you guys, I respect everyone else’s opinion and the way theyve expressed ‘em here, and I think we can agree to disagree on most of the issues that will decide this election. amoc though….. doubt there will be much fence mending there unless he was willing to retract several of his more offensive statements. Admittedly I’m just as guilty for getting down in the mud with him. And to be clear I dont really expect to muzzle him, it was simply a smart-ass suggestion.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I could understand why you feel that way,

we are all fed copious amounts of red white and blue bullshit since we were young. I’m not brainwashed by angry poli sci professors, I go to community college. I need 4 poli sci classes to transfer to state school, I’ve taken one and my second one starts tomorrow, and then i take one for the other two quarters this year. I actually enjoy reading a lot and i watch many documentaries. I was way more liberal than my poli sci teacher. I would say I was more in line with my sociology of globalization from the third world aspect prof than anyone. And the only US issues we discussed were international “trade” agreements and our role in controlling the World Bank and IMF.

Anyways, to adress your counterpoints. I’m not voting for Obama, I just dont understand how anyone thinks McCain and the Anti Christ are going to “change” anything. If we have learned anything since the 70’s its that republicans are notorious liars, you cant believe anything they say(dems aren’t much better). However, republicans are notorious for lying to get more money into the hands of the private enterprise, especially through war. Being as all their friends are in the oil trade and the weapons trade. Shoot they dont even use the army anymore, they have Blackwater and the like, as well as KBR. I dont need to go into detail on how this war is just one big excuse to establish ourselves in another middle eastern country with oil after our largest base, in the world, was shut down by the Suadi government in 2002, and how Sadam said he wanted OPEC to trade in euros. And also how this war is nothing but an excuse to put more money into the hands of people who value nothing but money. If you want a great movie about this subject watch a movie that was made with the help of the troops and former KBR and Halliburton employees called “Iraq for sale”, FOX and CNN lie.

Thats exactly what Murdoch is, a man who only values money. They only care about politics so they can get elected officials from both parties to help them make more money. Dont trip dude, people like Murdoch and the Rockafellers arent like you and me, they dont have morlas or decency, they have money and greed. I’m just callin the parties out especially the republicans cause they help this continue to happen, only republicans like Paul are worth a damn to the people, the media wants you to think otherwise.

Lastly, how the hell do you think that about the electoral college??? The Electoral College doesn’t do anything but take power away from the people. It was designed by rich white land and slave owning males, who felt women had no right to vote and people of color weren’t people. Plus when it was created we lived in an agrarian society where the majority of people couldnt read. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, 49-47, but the electoral college fkd him up. Easy solution, abolish the electoral college and use the popular vote. Voting fraud exists, see for yourself. This is a hearing infront of congress by a fool who worked for the company that produces electronic voting machines, never televised or reported, wonder why?: Warning this video may induce tears
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3hUPP_bdOo

My solution. People walk into a room wit eyewitnesses that is videotaped and they say who they vote for aloud. And say yay or nay to props. Pretty easy.

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 22, 2008 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m not voting for Obama,

 If you don’t vote for Obama you are voting for MCCain by default. If you think they are equally offensive then that’s OK but if you think Obama is one tiny heartbeat better than McCain you should reconsider.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2008 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

CA population will vote Dem as always and Obama will win the EC votes

 Ok, but how will you feel if McCain wins Ca. by one vote?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2008 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s highly likely that CA will go to Obama, but the “as always” part of CA going to the Dems requires a rather narrow concept of “always”. Once upon a time (as recently as G.H.W. Bush) republicans could and did take the state. Recall that we have a Republican governor and it’s not too hard to see a republican carrying the state..

by jae on Sep 22, 2008 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Recall that we have a Republican governor

  Yeah, How did that happen? A population with 50% women,more dems, more non-rich, more non-actors, even more non smokers but somehow he got the votes?
 We have seen the enemy and it is us?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2008 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha

the actors werent your problem. So-cal, outside of LA, is actually pretty conservative and central california is so ag-heavy I would think its gotta go republican. Obama has CA all wrapped up, I wouldnt swaeat it guys, but at least gsw_knowledge isnt complaining about the 2 party system and then voting for a major candidate.

by sam23 on Sep 23, 2008 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, except GHWB was 20 years ago.

Now people like myself who were born in that year are old enough to vote, we’ve seen a decent(i guess)Clinton and two Crappy repubs in the Bush’s. The youth is more engaged and we’re fed up with this republican non sense, the youth vote in CA is voting for Obama. There is no way Obama will get less than 52 percent of the vote in CA. That fool is making people care again.

Arnold got elected because people wanted to “fix” our economy after the energy debacle, so they threw one party out and brought the other one in, kinda like now.

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 23, 2008 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Reagan carried CA, so did Nixon

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

by playthegametherightway on Sep 23, 2008 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ron Paul?

really? is that who youre voting for? you have some interesting ideas that are kinda out there. I think the electoral college was created as a buffer between the population and government and to serve like the senate half of the legislative branch giving a bit more power to the smaller states. Thats what the Federalist papers say. Part of our government’s purpose is to protect the citizens from themselves while still giving them a voice. I’d say if you look at the big picture it does a pretty decent job of it. The 2 party system is flawed, but again I dont see a strong alternative.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No I am not going to vote for ron paul.

And no I am not voting for McCain by default. The population in CA is going to vote dem and Obama will collect all the delegates

Yeah its a buffer between the people and the government, thats lame. I know we are a repiblic and a representative democracy, but 1 voice one vote is my preference.

Overcome the two party monopoly? Easy, publicly funded elections, and allow all candidates of all parties to debate. Props to Obama for saying he’d want Nader and be on the debates. Its also smart because it will make him appear in the center and in touch, while McCain would appear super right leaning and stupid. Also the parties pay for a third of the debates.

When are the debates?

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 22, 2008 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

correction

nader and Bob barr to be on the debates

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 22, 2008 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the first one

is friday night I think. I see what youre saying, but I dont think publicly funded elections and letting all candidates to debate is going to eliminate the two party system. IMO the ideological seperations in this country almost inherantly lead to a two party system. Its extremeley difficult for a party system to move from a 2 party system to a multi party system without completely overhauling the government system. I’m fine with Nader and Barr participating in the debates, but they should be on the ballot in every state first.
side note-did Obama just come out with an economic plan that is pratically identical to the one McCain came out with yesterday? I’m no economic expert, but it doesnt sound any different from his overview.

by sam23 on Sep 23, 2008 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

IMO the ideological seperations in this country almost inherantly lead to a two party system.

because we either want the answer to be yes or no—black or white… while we view the world as stark contrast, the truth of it is we exist in the gray areas where critical, nuanced thinking allows us to navigate successfully. the all or nothing approach to broadcast politics has dampened our need to sort through the complex issues (when a candidate changes his/her mind on an issue, he/she is called a flipflopper, instead of someone who’s reconsidered the facts and thought better (or worse)) now, we get a side- red, blue… we can be rooters—my team rules, yours sucks kind of sh*t.

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Sep 23, 2008 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yea

I see your argument, I just think almost any party system will gradually move towards a two party system, so its extremely difficult to move from 2 to multiple parties. I dont think its so much that we see things in black and white as it is that we are willing to unite, or leave our own ideology, or comprimise and side with the lesser of two evils. If we could figure out a way to make the coalition building take place AFTER the elections rather than inthe primary and campaign process it would be possible, but I dont know how thats feasible without messing with the entire system.

by sam23 on Sep 23, 2008 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would love to see dems and repubs unite

so people have only one party to hate. And then people will begin, especially with the internet killing the mainstream media in ways, to vot for parties that REALLY represent them, like green and libertarian.

Otherwise moving to a one party system is bad, ask the people in China about freedom in a one party system

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 23, 2008 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

oh no

I didnt mean I think we are moving towards, or should move toward a one party system. I’m just saying I dont think youre gonna see another party rise to power in this country unless one of our major parties fades rapidly. The government’s design CREATES a two party system and you arent gonna get a multi party system unless you change the election or government structure. How do you propose we do that without ruining the pretty good system we’ve got in place?

by sam23 on Sep 23, 2008 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

As I stated before

its not going to happen rapidly. Steps are required. First we need publicly funded elections, and to get rid of the electoral college one voice one vote is simple. Also, the debates need to be open to all candidates and the media should report fairly on all candidates. The two party system works because of the money they possess and the private entities that endorse them. The media is also paid and owned by those same endorsers, so we just need unbiased reporting, although everyone is all about skrill in this country.

Our media is a soundbyte media. Play 5 or 10 seconds of people talking and then summarize the rest of what they say in a generally biased fashion. I have the luxury of living in Santa Clara part time and there is a Portuguese station that airs news from Lisbon. I speak Portuguese and retrieve a lot of my news from them. They also play German news in english and Italian news, which with the help of a dictionary, I can understand. I am really impressed with the unbiased reporting that goes on there, and the level reporting that goes out to all parties, at least the major ones, which is around 4 a country, Germany has two parties that dominate(Christian Democrats and the Socialist Democrats), but thats my next point.

I do agree with you that there will always be two parties that reign supreme. But with more options and more balanced reporting, it would force the parties to be about the people and not about the money.

I’m also stoked on the internet. I just hope it doesn’t become hella commercialized and all about money as well. I hope it will continue to allow people with no money to gain credibility and expand their reach. The internet will hopefully kill the sphere of influence that radio and TV have.

PS if you want a great American News program Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman, democracynow.org

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 23, 2008 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

its a chicken or the egg argument

I think the money and power the parties have is caused by the governmental structure and the two party system, the other way around.

by sam23 on Sep 23, 2008 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

issues are deliberately pared down to red v. blue

to promote the idea of separation, promote our differences as frightening and something to get so fired up about that 300+ posts won’t even begin to scratch the surface.
the issues of iraq, abortion, global warming, the economy are so complex they can’t be distilled into a sound bite. but yet they are and we accept that. we accept that and we vote and claim to be informed.
the two party system will never change b/c they will never relinquish power to someone else (i.e. the people) regardless of who “wins” or “loses” the election, both political parties will be in a seat or unimaginable power and continue business as usual, profiteering off the people, looking the other way for cronies…

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Sep 24, 2008 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Power elite theory

pretty much sums it up.

by dajrichshow on Sep 22, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

did you know what else Murdock owns

London Guardian, probably the most leftist media entity in the world!!! Why is like that, because he’s allowed his son to run it. And guess what his son is taking over Fox News. For poli sci major you should be on top of this. Shit my BS degree from Cossack U in poli sci and philosophy taught me to look beyond fools like you. Have fun voting for Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, Ralph Nadar or who ever else you were getting at when you chastised us for voting either the DEMS or REPS.

A Sonics fan without a team.. Though I'm auditioning GS Warriors this season.

by mcwalter44 on Sep 23, 2008 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dude I dont insult people, but thats foolish.

Murdoch also owns Comedy Central. The fool doesnt care about left and right, he cares about MONEY, he has no soul, just money, and thats all he wants. He will buy anything that will get him money regardless of their political affiliation. His son just wants money too. And yeah you are foolish for continually electing officials from parties who don’t do anything progressive or positive for the people. Man and you have no idea who I’m going to vote for, voting for the president in this country is just a show to make us all feel like this is a fair and balanced democracy. I do hope Obama is playing them and not us though. I think the fact that he said No thanks to Billary was awesome, it might mean he doesnt want any part of the Biltaberger group and all that slave owner non sense.

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 23, 2008 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not attacking you dude.

I just want you to understand that 80% of the wealth is in the hands of 5%. The people who run this country aren’t like you and me they are souless bastards who view money as the only thing of value other than their own lives and bloodlines. I’m hoping Obama will change that, I just dont know if I want to vote for him. The fact that Naders old VP is endorsing him and the fact that he listened to an outside and progressive person like the Rev for 20 years is also reassuring. I havent COMPLETELY made my mind up on who I’m voting for. I just wish people would send a message by voting outside the game of the 2 parties

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 23, 2008 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

dude

You’re coming off as a little bit condescending. You’ve taken a couple political science classes, quit acting like you know everything there is to know.

by 15thefuture8 on Sep 23, 2008 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I dont act like I know everything there is to know, whatever that means.

Everything I’ve stated is a fact, if you don’t know it I suggest you do some reading and research, I’ve never had a poli sci teacher with my views

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 23, 2008 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Join the club

I haven’t decided on who to vote for either… it seem this cycle of Prez electing people are more “vote like me… otherwise your a fool” type attitudes. Oh well, keep up the 3rd party fight. As for Murdock, I only brought up the London Guardian because you equated him to NAZI for the way Fox News runs. Anyways, keep up the poli sci class and if you haven’t see this site check out www.electoral-vote.com. It’s a great site run by a computer sci guy in the Netherlands.

A Sonics fan without a team.. Though I'm auditioning GS Warriors this season.

by mcwalter44 on Sep 23, 2008 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thats sick, thanks for showing me that website.

it also reinforces my theory that Obama will win CA regardless of my vote.

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 23, 2008 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We’ve had a Republican administration for 8 years and Republican majority congress for most of that time. In that time, we’ve gone from a surplus to the largest deficit ever, been dragged into a quagmire war that we didn’t need to be in to begin with while spending far, far less energy on the people who actually attacked us. We did this without the admin expecting the sort of sacrifices that you have to have to pay for a war, and the flip side of this is that it will be paid for on borrowed money (mostly borrowed from overseas lenders who now own more of the US capital assets than ever before) that the next generation will be saddled with. It’s the most irresponsible economic policy of all time. We’ve alienated our allies. We’ve seen the dollar crumble and oil soar (to the benefit of oil companies but the expense of everyone else). We’ve got an economic crisis that is, in almost everyone’s views is either the most serious since the Great Depression or more serious than the events that led to the depression. It’s not even close. This is the worst administration ever.

And we’ve seen McCain go right along with all of the administration’s policies 90% of the time. His solution for the economy is for the most part to continue the failed policies of the current administration. His tax proposal (essentially to make the failed deficit soaring policy of the present idiot in the Whitehouse) benefits the ultra rich more than anyone else and hasn’t produced a healthy economy. Supporting more of this is lunacy. His foreign policy appears to push us into yet another war and he makes jokes about it.

This should not be a personality contest but it appears to some it is. On stand of what has happened, on whose policies have driven us into the dumpster, McCain doesn’t have a leg to stand on. McCain is not change. He’s more of the same, but with a different personality. We’ve tried it his way and it is not working. It’s not even close. It’s disaster on all fronts. Enough is enough!

by jae on Sep 23, 2008 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

neither of them has produced a president of the people since Kennedy,

   Are you purposely leaving out Jimmy Carter, the best man we’ve had since JFK?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 21, 2008 11:11 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

No Carter was definitely cool

He was a good president, even cooler after office, but too many people think your full of it when you mention carter. Thats generally a reflection of the corporate media’s opinion of carter, that upets me

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 21, 2008 11:28 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

"carter was cool"

what good to he produce? And how was Reagan NOT a president of the people? What is your definition of a president of the people?

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What is your definition of a president of the people?

  One with the interest of the common man in his heart, not one who wants to enhance the rich.
  Jimmy Carter is an example of a christian I can admire. He embraces his faith but is tolerant of others lifestyles. He’s spent a lot of time working for Habitat for Humanity, how many ex-presidents have donated their later years helping people? Carter is also willing to engage in dialog with our so called enemies and question the tactics of so called allies like israel. You could do a lot worse than following Jimmie’s example.
    Regean was basically an actor who knew how to appeal to the weak spots of the common man to fleece us , the income inequality of the country took a huge spike after Reagan had his way, but hey, we still have all our guns, a job at walmart, and a elmer gantry in every village.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2008 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think we're gonna have

to agree to disagree…..again. Carter seems like a nice dude but that doesnt really make a great president. The Iran hostage cisis was totally botched, but so was the bay of pigs, so I guess he and Kennedy do have that in commom. Carter’s approval rating was only slightly higher than Nixon’s when each left office. Not really a president of the people. Seems like you could make a stronger argument for your boy Bill, no?

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bay of Pigs was Ike’s CIA plan inherited by JFK who had to “prove” he was tough on communism because Nixon (who was McCarthy’s right hand man during the red scare) pushed the debate in that direction … shivers accompany the thought of what another couple years with the neofascist Nixon in the WH would have meant for the country and the world – recall he considered using nukes in the Vwar … Approval ratings? ha, isn’t leadership when someone brings the country to the right place not when a prez follows the idiots down the rat hole? leader or follower?

ya know, this “dialogue” has done more to cement my convictions against neoconservative bs than all the crap on tv – thanks, owe you for that

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

by playthegametherightway on Sep 22, 2008 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Iran hostage cisis was totally botched,

  Focus. Dang! The Iran hostage crisis had little impact or importance to the average stay at home and go to work american, it only effected those meddling in a foreign country. It’s nothing compared to losing our industrial base, making our wives work to afford what one man could provide before RayGun’s trickle down( golden shower on the working man) economy.
 If you are one of the rich idle spoiled brats then more power to you but if you are one of the great middle class you should examine why you are against your brothern, think in soldier’s terms, my brothers or the enemy?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2008 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I can't comment on that...

But look over here!!! See! Look! Look! Look!

Jimmy Carter worked with Habitat for Humanity and was tolerant of differing religious views? But he botched a military operation 8000 miles away!!!

Clinton balanced the budget and decreased the national debt? But he got a BJ from an intern! Impeach!!!

Classic republican strategies. You want to know about Palin’s foreign policy experience? Hey, did you know that McCain served in the military and was a POW? John McCain has lots of foreign policy experience. By the way, gays want to get married, and evolution is taught in SCIENCE classes without creationism!

You want to know about John McCain’s health and whether that should be a consideration when evaluating his and his running mate’s abilities to lead? Considering where he’s been, he’s doing pretty well! What? You’re concerned that a 72 YO 3 time cancer survivor who’s been physically abused in a POW camp for 5 years might not make it through 4 years in the white house? How dare you bring in his military background into this! John McCain is a good man who’s been “defending the constitution of America” (I don’t know how he can do that off American soil, but… I’ll go with it).

I’m with droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style here, and the Dems aren’t much better, but I have serious reservations about McCain and his disappearing straight talk express and the way every single McCain representative who goes on an interview just turns every single question they’re asked into a talking point dialogue instead of directly answering the question. Maybe I just listen to NPR too much and don’t see the in depth interviews on FOX News.

I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!

by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 24, 2008 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol

Fox News=Truth :)

by 15thefuture8 on Sep 24, 2008 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ok

-Jimmy Carter worked with Habitat for Humanity AFTER he was president. He completely botched what was probably the biggest decision he made AS President. ……but it was 8000 miles away?! what the fuck does that have to with anything? The statement was that Carter was a good PRESIDENT. your argument seems a bit nonsensical there.

-Clinton disgraced his office and his family doing something that would get any of us FIRED from our job, but he seemed like a pretty cool dude. And Kennedy did it and he was super COOL. Oh and even better, he made us some money. Let it slide. Seems like something you would say characterizes the Republican way of thinking, no?
 
- Our Presidential Candidate served in the Senate for 143 days before beginning his campaign for President while theirs has an incredible resume and leadership and experience? hey look over here, look over here….see how good he looks and sounds!!!! oh and the BOTTOM of our ticket is way more experienced than the bottom of yours and its all about the bottom of the ticket really. If you guys were cool you’d know the bottom is the new top. You’re making community organizer jokes? pssssh POW? what do they do anyway?

-McCain’s health is a huge issue, even though our party’s idol, FDR, was in waaaaaaaaaayyyyy worse shape when we elected him, and advances in medicine dont mean shit. This stressful election may just kill the man, no chance in HELL he makes it another four whopping years. He cant lift his arms…and hasnt been able to for 40-some years. I heard once you cant lift your arms over your head it means you have less than 50 years to live. They teach that in those science classes we’re so keen on protecting. Lets start digging his grave now, and how dare you say we owe McCain the slightest bit of respect. (you can bring up his military background as much as you want, but trying to use the injuries he incurred defending his fellow sailors, soldiers and marines, even if you want to say not every active duty serviceman protects the constitution, seems a bit disrespectful)

-All republicans love FOX news and its all they watch and we ALL know how much more biased it is than MSNBC because Jon Stewart tells us so. And everyone knows Olbermann, Matthews, and Maddow and the real “fair and balanced bunch” We know this because we are smarter, accepting, more humane, and better educated than everyone who disagrees.

-Our candidate spent the summer ducking and dodging invites to debate with McCain at townhall meetings across the country, but now HE thinks he can duck out on this debate uphold his duties as a Senator while the Congress makes a decision on one of the most important and urgent issues facing us today? How dare he! Even worse I bet he’s doing it as a political move! Making a political move to suspend his campaign while I continue on. Bastard!

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Alright dude, you're starting to just be senseless

I think that most democrats would say that Kennedy is the party"s idol, the same guy you referred to as “super COOL”. And as someone who isn’t repub or dem i would say he is the best candidate either party has produced in the 20th century. Also if you think Carter is not a good president solely because of the Iran situation, you’re silly. Mostly because the Iran situation was a result of our own meddling in Iranian politics long before Carter. Also because you can’t state another reason for him being a bad president. Where as I could state ample reasons for every president besides Carter and Kennedy that qualifies them as a bad, or not good president.

Dude why are you about McCain? What’s up with that? You said that you’ve been a McCain fan for something like 12 years, then you must be pissed that he is so different now. Maverick my ass. That guy is just spewing the Bush policy now. If you dislike what Bush has done, don’t vote McCain. There are countless videos of McCain contradicting himself on the web, I’m sure you’ve seen them. He is just a tool all about money. I would really like to hear some reasons for voting for McCain that make sense, because I haven’t heard a single one anywhere that does, or isn’t a lie.

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 24, 2008 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Correction

You’ve been senseless, but now you’re sounding straight foolish.

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 24, 2008 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Let's see...

The statement on Carter was that he was a “President of the people”, not just that he was a good president. When you compared him to Regan, Skeptic provided a reasonable explanation (religiously tolerant, works for HFH now…) for what that means while explaining that Regan was different. You couldn’t refute those comments, so you switched the topic and started arguing that Carter was a bad president because he botched a military operation halfway across the world. Explain to me how military operations halfway across the world have a great, direct effect on “the people” of America. It doesn’t. You switched the topic to an argument you thought you could win.

Clinton, yeah… he had his problems, but the fact that the Republicans spent so much time and effort to get a man impeached for getting a BJ while ignoring everything else that was going on in the world is selfish Washington politics. They wanted to disgrace the Democratic party. I just thought that it was ironic that Bob Livingston, the speaker of the house at the time, had to resign because he was worse than Clinton on the sex front.

I don’t care about the inexperience. Obama’s been in the senate for 143 days great. Palin’s been a mayor and governor, great! What I take issue with is how Rep. campaign reps turn direct questions about Palin’s foreign policy experience and talk about something else. They blatantly ignore the question and talk about whatever they want. That’s what pisses me off. I don’t care what the topic is, just stay on it. If you don’t, I’m going to doubt your honesty.

FDR trained his sons to be strong enough to hold him up without straining. Back in those days we had no TVs and snake oil salesmen were still in business. I bet FDR wouldn’t have been elected if everybody knew he had polio. Unless they were confident in his Veep. Look, I respect that McCain served in the military and I respect that he toughed out a POW experience the likes of which I will never experience or understand. But don’t tell me that the man’s health (irrespective of how he got that way) shouldn’t be an issue when considering his candidacy for the President.

Here are some facts:
1. I don’t have confidence in Sarah Palin to lead our nation. For whatever reason, I feel that way. You don’t have to agree with me.
2. If John McCain dies in office, God forbid, she will become the President. I don’t want that to happen.
3. John McCain is a 3 time cancer survivor, he’s 72 years old, and he has various physical ailments due to his incredibly difficult ordeal means that there’s a possibility that he might die in office. The average age at death for American men is 74. The odds are against him lasting much longer.

I’m sorry if you don’t like my purely logical attitude to John McCain’s health is too cold hearted for you. Too bad. I don’t want Sarah Palin running our country.

The FOX news comment was meant to be avoid any assertions that the liberal media interviews are unfair to John McCain. I’m sure Fox News has interviewed McCain, and I’m sure it was a solid in depth interview about whatever topics they covered. I didn’t mean that as a snide or sarcastic comment. Sorry if you took offense to that… I understand that many others here have made sarcastic Fox News comments, but mine was not meant to belittle you, or the “fair and balanced bunch” (Your words, your quotation marks).

I don’t even know what you’re getting at with the last bit about debates. Probably something about the whole “we should suspend the election so we can focus on the economy”. Wait, Senators doing their job? Holy hand grenades batman! What a revolutionary idea! I haven’t heard too much about the Obama ducking “town hall” style meetings. If he did so, shame on him. Maybe McCain sent those requests over the day before as a PR stunt. Maybe Obama is afraid to get into a debate with McCain. Maybe they both tried to make it work but could never settle on a list of topics to debate because each only wanted to focus on their talking points. Who knows.

One thing I do know, from my NPR, is that the McCain camp has basically banished reporters from his “straight talk express” plane. Whereas they used to just sit and chat with him all the time, he’s closely guarded now. Where he used to be open and off the cuff when talking to the press, his responses now either seem rehearsed or non-responsive. I attribute this to the fact that it’s now a two horse race. Everything either of them do/say is disected, and repeated out of context or just plain misquoted. When there were 8 people vying for the Republican candidacy while 8 people were simultaneously vying for the Democratic candidacy, it was harder for the candidates to focus on one another and harder for the press to put their full attention on any one of 16 candidates. Now it’s Option 1 vs. Option 2 and differentiation is the key, as opposed to the message. McCain is the Republican candidate and Obama is the Democratic candidate. They aren’t John McCain andd Barack Obama anymore…

I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!

by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 25, 2008 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What do you mean? Palin’s got foreign policy experience. Alaska’s real close to Russian. Why shouldn’t they turn to a different issue when asked about her experience? It speaks for itself! (And I can see a tree out my window. I must be a lumberjack!)

by jae on Sep 25, 2008 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What's up Jae!

You going to GSoM Night 5?! We should kick it!

by Tony.psd on Sep 25, 2008 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If I’m in town, I’d love to go. Got a nasty work travel schedule coming up though.

by jae on Sep 25, 2008 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Did you watch the Couric interview?

Oh. My. God.

Not sure which is more cringe inducing, watching it or reading it…

COURIC: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land— boundary that we have with— Canada. It— it’s funny that a comment like that was— kind of made to— cari— I don’t know, you know? Reporters—

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our— our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They’re in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia—

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We— we do— it’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where— where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is— from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to— to our state.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 25, 2008 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

She’s got experience because Alaska is close to Russia.

Did she mention that Alaska’s close to Russia?

Jeez, sam, aren’t you even the slightest bit embarrassed by McCain picking such a f#@%ing dolt?

by jae on Sep 25, 2008 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Here's another

If you can stand it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec

Watch how long it takes her to completely lose track of the question. Like three seconds? I mean, jeez, when all you’re doing is spewing rehearsed talking points, how hard is it to stay on topic?

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 25, 2008 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and

“we like our leaders to know what theyre talking about….when the stock market crashed FDR got on TV….” yea, cuz Obama picked a genius.

by sam23 on Sep 25, 2008 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Huh? Are you drinking heavily before posting?

by jae on Sep 25, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He's quoting Biden

Because misstating a historical point is the same as being completely clueless about, you know, everything.

C’mon, Sam. Did you watch actually watch the interview? “Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace”?This isn’t elitism or gotcha politics based on an isolated incident. This is a repeated, demonstrated lack of mental ability — and worse, a seeming pride in said inability. Do you actually feel comfortable with the possibility of this imbecile as President?

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 25, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe she’s not stupid but has been bewitched.

You know she’s prays for protection from witchcraft. Could be that her inability to sound like anything other than a moron is a hex. (We’ll certainly all be cursed if she’s ever president.)

by jae on Sep 25, 2008 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I admitted

she’s got almost no foreign policy experience and wasnt the greatest VP choice!!!! I’ve told you that a dozen times now. But NO govenor we’ve elected has had much foreign policy experience. Their value is their executive experience. What foreign policy experience does Obama have? Yea I just watched the interview and it was ridiculous how it was an obvious attack on the republicans. No way Obama or Biden receive that type of questioning from any network other than FOX. (It took him much longer to sit down with FOX than it did for Palin to sit down with the other networks.) “What has McCain done for the economy, other than aggresively going after Fannie and Freddie for the past several year?” are you kidding me what kind of question is that? She completely throws out a MAJOR answer, thus dismissing it as almost irrelevant. The media is ridiculously in the tank. I would feel about as comfortable with Palin as President as Obama. Good thing she IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. I saw somewhere else on here someone mentioned the life expectancy being 74. That age is dramatically affected by infant mortality rates. Discounting newborns who dont survive their first week of life the life expectancy of males in the US is approaching 85. McCain’s POW injuries ARE irrelevant, they have no impact whatsoever on his life expectancy. Yes he is a three time cancer survivor. Again, his medical records report NO lasting effects. Lots of perfectly healthy people are cancer survivors. Again its totally irrelevant. His health IS fine. Worst case scenario, Palin takes over after a couple years of on the job training as VP. Its not my favorite idea but its better than turning the reigns over to a just as inexperienced Obama who has never run ANYTHING on day 1.

by sam23 on Sep 25, 2008 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

disregard my last

I just saw another “hard hitting” interview with the Obamas on Access Hollywood. You’re right Palin needs to get out there and talk to the media like Barack. How can we know if she’s really ready to be President until we let the Access Hollywood gang have at her. The little circle jerk with the Obama campaign and 90% of the media is a joke.

by sam23 on Sep 25, 2008 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Are you really trying to suggest that Obama has been hiding from the media? That he doesn’t answer questions?

If Palin could talk like Barack, I’d have a far less negative opinion of her. But since every time she opens her mouth, she looks more and more like a colossal mistake and makes McCain’s decision to run with her look worse and worse and worse, I have the negative opinion of her. Putting someone on the ticket so completely incompetent speaks to McCain’s judgement, and it says “wow, this guy has some really, really lousy judgement.” I guess from a practical standpoint it wouldn’t matter to him as in any situation where she was president, he’d most likely be too dead to have to deal with the repercussions of having another moron in office.

by jae on Sep 25, 2008 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

he has no reason to hide

they go to great lengths to make him look good.

by sam23 on Sep 25, 2008 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And he helps this out by not being a moron, by being more than competent at what he’s done, by taking the time to educate himself on things. If you disagree with him on matters of policy, fair, but you appear to me to be suggesting that he’s a fraud, that his outward appearance is something of a mirage. Is this accurate? Do you have reason to believe that he is something otherwise?

by jae on Sep 25, 2008 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

misstaking a historical point?

dude thats a pretty big error. You guys brought up Matt Damon’s concerns about when Palin thinks Dinosaurs lived (which were based on a completely made-up rumor, and who the f cares what Matt Damon’s concerns are? when did Hollywood become so full of political experts?) but the fact that Joe Biden doesnt know who was president when the stock market crashed or that TV’s didnt exist is irrelevant? that not some small historical misstake, man. I have a hard time believing you guys wouldnt be lambasting Palin had she said that. Apparently she took middle school history though.

by sam23 on Sep 25, 2008 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the fact that you havent seen that interview

but seem to be all over Palin for her remarks only reinforces my point that the media is ridiculously in the tank.

by sam23 on Sep 25, 2008 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Man, I really don't undestand you.

You said we have never had a govenor with foreign policy experience, and the most recent one is the worst president we’ve ever had. Also, Couric wasn’t going after Republicans, she was going after Palin, which is valid, because as Couric was able to reveal, Palin is a huge IDIOT. And everybody know Katey Couric is a tough interview. Its no wonder she doesn’t answer questions live.

I’m unbiased in a away. I dislike either party. I dont want to vote for Obama, because it’s risky. I’m really unsure of what will happen. Who is he really representing? The big question in my mind. McCain is dumb, thats that. A war hero doesn’t make you an intelligent person who should be running for President. I also lost all respect for McCain over the last few years. He is a completely different person.

Either the republicans are going to get an old man doing what he can to make a real name for himself in history and leave a legacy comporable to his father and grandfather. Or they will end up with another dumb govenor who lets the Cheney neo cons, although Bush is one, and Palin is trying to be, dictate a flawed and souless foreign policy.

Man, WAKE UP!!! Cheney, Ashcroft and I believe Rumsfeld, have been involved with republican administrations since Ford. Clinton, who is the most recent democrat, was a tool as well. But Obama is not Clinton. Its obvious that Clinton likes McCain and more, and if the party thing wasn’t an issue he would probably would support him. I know democrats “If Bill feels that way, so should I” but if you’re a real liberal and you really love people who are about the people, you should say “Forget Bill” As I demonstrated in previous posts, the Clintons are all for business and the continuation of corporate power. Not only is Bill for the $700B baillout, he was smart enough to avoid war. Although the Bosinan Genocide and Rwanda were more justifiable than Iraq, or Afghanistan. Thus resulting in the BUDGET surplus. Thats even with NAFTA and the Neo Con foreign policy that Clinton continued, taking jobs away from America. Especially in high tech and auto manufacturing jobs.

McCain is clearly about war and his foreign policy doesn’t differ much from the current, maybe he’ll use the troops more than HBR and Blackwater, but the war is still a ridiculous and uneeded expence. The fact that you say some one like Sarah Palin, the govenor of Alaska, which has less people than Chicago, and came ouyt of nowhere, is somehow more qualififed than Obama who was being mentioned for president long before the primaries. Why do you think the way you do?

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 25, 2008 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"Less people than Chicago"

Er, yeah: you could multiply the population of Alaska by ten and it still wouldn’t have as many people as Chicago.

On the bright side, from parts of it you can see Russia and Canada…

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 26, 2008 3:05 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

from parts of it you can see Russia and Canada…

 Yeah, I’ve even heard that one can see Putin rear his head up from the russian side? Wonder if the royal canadian kilted yaksmen ever scare her on the east side?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 26, 2008 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

by that logic

Obama hates America and thinks we deserved 9-11. Its an argument you dont hear me making, so dont make that equally ridiculous one. She was around some crazy guy from Africa for one day, Obama sat in Wright’s church for 20 years.

by sam23 on Sep 26, 2008 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs


Another lame, insincere, inappropriate analogy involving Obama that has nothing to do with the point being made? Zzzz.

The Republican nominee for President is a sickly, half-senile Drama Queen whose main claim to fame is getting caught and tortured in a stupid, unnecessary war of aggression.

The Republican nominee for VP is an imbecile who may or may not believe in evolution, but sure as hell has trouble forming a coherent sentence.

Now let’s see you rebut these claims without using the word “Obama.”

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 26, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

sleepy

I was simply pointing out the ridiculousness of the witchcraft video argument the dems are trying to make into a big deal after they threw a hissy fit and tried to downplay their own candidates relationship with that psychopath Wright. I dont think Wright should be a major factor in this election either, but that 20 year relationship is much much much more concerning to your average american than Palin spending a few minutes someone who visited her church from Africa. Are you really willing to forgive a man who condemns America as Wright does and has for most of his life over a man from Africa who lacks the education and resources available to us and thus believes in witchcraft?

You say McCain’s main claim to fame is his time as a POW? The argument about it being a “stupid, unnecessary war of aggression” is certainly debatable but totally and completely irrelevant. McCain chose to serve and protect the country and did his duty admirably when called upon. Attempting to tarnish that with the validity of the war in which he fought is despicable. And nevermind his amazing record in 20 years in the Senate where he has shown an incredible willingness to work with democrats and republicans alike. Just since 2005 when Obama entered the Senate McCain has actually gotten more Democratic co-sponsors (55) than Republican on bills he has been the chief sponsor of. The other guy running for president (I’m not supposed to say his name) has only had a 13 rate of co-sponsors from across the aisle. Compromise…its key to democracy. Then theres the whole issue of McCain’s tax plan actually matching up with his social agenda AND not wanting to raise taxes. Foreign affairs-wise I trust McCain more to keep us safe. We CANT keep everyone from hating us no matter how many “world tours” the president takes and McCain unwillingness to give in and negotiate with foreign threats without some pre-conditions is important. He’s not going to surrender a war we can still win, and he has, from the beginning, supported the strategy that would have won this war long ago and is the reason we are winning it now. Admitting defeat would have demoralized our troops, ruined re-enlistment rates, and made us appear weak to our enemies. Negotiate from strength and keep the military strong. Economically speaking I’d say McCain had quite a bit of foresight for someone who is “sickly” and “half-senile” with his sharp criticisms and call for reform, restrictions and oversight on Fannie and Freddie years ago while they were dumping money on “the guy whose name I’m not supposed to say.” Seriously how do you defend those ties to Fannie and Freddie? And now ACORN too. and you try to blame McCain for this economic crisis? lame.

by sam23 on Sep 26, 2008 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, sam, your characterization of the “hissy fit” seems a bit off the mark. What I saw and heard was legitimate concern that his association with Wright was damaging, that it could cost him the nomination. “The dems” were certainly not a unified voice at the time. There was a heated and at times rather vile preliminary race and quite a few of “the dems” saw it as a good reason to reject Obama. It was something that he had to address, and he did, in one of the more frank, responsible discussions on race I’ve heard.

I’m concerned with Palin being ‘protected from witchcraft’ and not believing in evolution and thinking that a war is God’s mission for the US because it characterizes her as out of touch with reality. Everything I’ve seen out of her church makes me think she’s a fundamentalist nutcase who is not only stupid but has antipathy for reality and science. That’s dangerous. It’s about her truly being delusional.

by jae on Sep 26, 2008 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

so

youre concerned about Palin being out of touch based on unfounded rumors and a one-time meeting, but youre not worried about Obama being out of touch when his primary spiritual advisor for ALL of his adult life is complete psychopath who amits to harboring hateful anti-american sentiments and refuses still will not apologize for his hateful comments?

by sam23 on Sep 26, 2008 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, not because of unfound rumors, but based on her public statement supporting teaching creationism, which I regard as fantasy, based on her participation in ceremonies to protect her from witchcraft, based on other tapes of her participating (actually standing up and speaking) in fundamentalist sermons, and her public statements saying she doubted human causes in global warming.

I’ve heard what Obama had to say about Wright. He addressed it. I don’t consider Wright to be a “psychopath”, though I don’t agree with much of what he said either, though it appears that your mind is made up.

If Palin addressed any of this in a way that Obama did, I might not think so little of her. But she hasn’t. She’s only shown me that she’s a moron and one who believes in a fantasy land. I like my politicians to live in the real world. I guess this makes me quaint that way.

by jae on Sep 26, 2008 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

how would you describe Wright?

seriously have you read some of his sermons? The man is a hateful psychopath, I cant think of a better way to describe him. If McCain’s primary spiritual advisor was similarly hateful he wouldnt be in this race. I dont think we should be concentrating on this issue, but if you guys insist on making Palin’s private religious beliefs such a large issue then Obama’s primary advisor, Wright, is certainly in play. Palin has never, ever, sought to have creationism taught in schools. You can attack her for her stance on abortion at a policy level, but the rest of the speculation and unfounded upheava is simply a political ploy.

by sam23 on Sep 26, 2008 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

All the better reason to be able to ask her what her real beliefs are. She made a public statement that she thought creationism should be taught. That’s not a rumor. I’m glad she hasn’t acted on it, but I find saying that you think creationism should be taught is an indication of either true stupidity or such poor education as to disqualify someone in my mind. And yes, it does matter.

Frankly, everything I’ve heard from her makes me think that it doesn’t matter, that she’s just too damn stupid for the job (on top of being so poorly informed that were she to miraculously grow that second neuron to form a synapse, she’d still be clueless).

by jae on Sep 26, 2008 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wright?

 Jeez, as a basketball fan you should know this. The geto is not a pleasant place to live. Wright has seen things that make him what he is. This is what happens when you spend money on everything but your own poorest folks. It means we got a lot to do to finish LBJ’s war on poverty. It means we need to make it impossible for children to grow up in conditions that make them feel like Wright . He’s not the disease he’s the symptom. The cure is stand up and face the problem , not be histrionically outraged at the messenger.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 26, 2008 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

seriously?

poor little Rev Wright we forced him into hatred and delusion through poverty. Rev. Wright owns 3 Mercedes, dont give me the poverty argument with him. Should we pity KKK klansmen because they probably grew up in poor white areas?

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rev. Wright owns 3 Mercedes

Should we pity KKK klansmen because they probably grew up in poor white areas?

  The cars don’t heal the childhood experience, they would be another sign that he is not happy. Actually it is quite similar to the poor white trash experience, the power brokers exploit them both.
 The ones we should pity are the shallow minded, those given real opportunity who can’t see the obvious.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 27, 2008 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

pity

I see what youre saying but I have a hard time having pity for guys Wright or klansmen, plenty of people grow up in those same situations without hatred in their hearts.

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Post-debate

I feel I was a little harsh in my most recent statements about McCain. I was pretty pissed about his recent drama queen antics. He actually came off as clear-headed, fair, and lucid on a lot his answers.

I also admit that disrespecting his military service is partially about getting under your skin. I don’t think getting shot down and tortured makes him a “hero” (whatever the hell that is) but I do think he deserves respect and empathy for it.

All that said, Sam, if after watching Obama’s eloquent and thoughtful performance, on a huge range of topics, on the biggest stage, you still insist on comparing him to Sarah Palin, I will begin to have doubts about how lucid and clear-headed you are.

(On a side note, paragraphs might help you better organize your ideas).

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 26, 2008 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha

never been one for paragraphs

Obama did a decent job tonight, but I think his inexperience and naivete on issues like Iran negotiations were revealed further, but nothing much new there, I dont think it changed a lot of minds either way. I was disappointed both ducked out of the questins about their stance on the proposed solution to the economic crisis….to me the only real new thing that came up was the idea of a spending freeze which McCain moved away from almost immediately after bringing it up…again disappointing. This debate was lively but I dont think we can really declare a winner. I’ll wait til we see Palin in the debates before passing judgement on her.

by sam23 on Sep 26, 2008 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

hero

getting shot down doesnt make you a hero, but the staying at the POW camp longer than he had to as a matter of integrity and giving up as little information as he did despite severe torture to protect other sailors, soldiers and marines was heroic.

by sam23 on Sep 26, 2008 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

getting shot down doesnt make you a hero,

 also doesn’t say much about his ability to see what he was getting into. Even Bush and Cheney had the good sense to sit that one out. I seriously question MCCain’s intelligence? at least the intelligence of his interpretation of any intelligence he might have had :>) ??
  Rush off halfcocked to Vietnam, Iraq, Georgia next? Oh yeah, I keep forgetting, there’s money to be made over there, over there.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 26, 2008 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

great response

makes total sense

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

“the whole issue of McCain’s tax plan actually matching up with his social agenda AND not wanting to raise taxes,
McCain unwillingness to give in and negotiate with foreign threats without some pre-conditions is important.,
He’s not going to surrender a war we can still win, and he has, from the beginning, supported the strategy that would have won this war long ago”

   Well, McCains social agenda is pretty much non existent for the average person in need, so it’s pretty easy to match it up with revenues, just assign whatever comes in to the military contractors. Less taxes is code word for let the poor suffer.
  and how can you negotiate with pre-conditions? That’s the most arrogant position possible. An open minded person sees possibilities everywhere. Negotiation isn’t weakness it’s a strength.
  Lastly , there are no winners in this war. Iraq is in shambles and we are footing the bill. They lose hundreds of thousands of their citizens and we lose thousands of our young and are stuck paying the bill. Maybe Bush’s backers reaped a lot from the war but I can’t really call them winners cause their gain comes with loss of any claim to human status. All this could have been avoided if we’d had a president with the balls to go talk with Saddam instead give in to the pressure from his bankrollers and the wacko christians who want the end of the world to come now.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 26, 2008 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

his social agenda

is to not over tax you so you can spend your money for yourself instead of having the government use it for you. And to not tax businesses so you can keep your job. Go talk to Saddam? you do realize we tried talking to him for 10+ years and he repeatedly refused to comply with UN restrictions and wouldnt allow inspectors into the country all while slaughtering thousands of people. But I’m sure we coulda just talked it out with a big hug.

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"Wouldn't allow inspectors."

Dude. Do you care about reality at all?

Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, The president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in November 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of alleged chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction.

Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.

Everyone with half a brain, Republican or Democrat, understands that Iraq was not remotely a threat to us, and — just as importantly — that we knew they weren’t remotely a threat to us.

Five years and three trillion dollars later, it’s still not a question. Yes, $3,000,000,000,000. That’s our money — money that could have been spent on wiping out hunger, addressing global warming, investing in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and creating green jobs, supporting our woefully underfunded troops, and even, you know, going after Al Qaeda.

Seriously, man: if you spent a little more time reading and pondering and less time trying to reply to every post in this thread, your ideas would come off as a lot more persuasive.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 27, 2008 6:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don’t try to confuse sammy with facts, Sleepy.

by jae on Sep 27, 2008 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

so

you completely disregard George Sada, Saddam’s former right hand man as a liar? I do plenty of reading Sleepy I just dont gobble up everything the liberal media says. I’ll take the first hand accound of Sada over the word of analysts on CNN. Secifically this is what Hans Blix had to say right before the invasion.

“It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance."

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Again

Your quotation belies you. It does nothing to refute the notion that Iraq was no threat to us. Not cooperating with a few “areas of relevance” is not remotely tantamount to threatening us.

Will you quit with your BS “liberal media” straw man? You sometimes display the same weird pathology in your hoops analysis (which I tend to agree with) and I call you out on it there, too. Try to stay lucid, focussed and on topic. Iraq was not an imminent threat to us. There’s absolutely zero question about it, to any serious person, be they a secular humanist bleeding heart like me or a hardcore career military type like Brent Scowcroft or Jim Webb. You lose whatever remaining credibility you might have by belaboring the point.

I don’t have the energy to hunt through this thread, but didn’t you, in a lucid moment, already admit that invading Iraq was a huge mistake?

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 27, 2008 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the decision to invade was strange

and ill-timed. I dont meant to sound as though I’m defending th invasion. However, I do feel we are better off now without Saddam Hussein in power, I think he was TRYING to become a threat, and while I think we could have taken some other measures rather than an all out invasion, we are better off without him. He was not cooperating with the UN completely. Theres no denying that. And when it comes to matters involving nukes or WMD’s we must ensure that known threats Hussein comply 100%. I seriously doubt we can talk it out with guys like Hussein, Jong Il, or Ahmadinejad (no idea how to spell that!). They simply want to destroy everything we stand for and negotiations without pre-conditions solve nothing. Sleepy, I do encourage you to read George Sada’s book however, its interesting that the information he reveals gets NO play in the media. Do you really think all the networks not named FOX arent ridiculously left leaning?

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

But I’m sure we coulda just talked it out with a big hug

  Sammy boy, you give me a big bag of money and the power of the US military behind me and I’m sure I could made him an offer he can’t refuse. Just explain the future to him and give him an easy out and he’ll be packing his family and heading for retirement.
   The key is WANTING a peaceful solution. Bush didn’t want a peaceful solution, his backers wouldn’t settle for that. They want the profits that come from the war. It was their demand, Bush was not strong enough to deny them even if he wanted to, his soul was sold.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 27, 2008 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

hmm...

the argument that we didnt wait long enough might be valid. The argument that you can negotiate with anyone when you have money and our military behind you is simply not true.

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Who says it's not true.

I mean, other than you.

I have to say, of all the tired catchphrases McCain trotted out during the debate, the least convincing to me was the BS about “legitimizing the enemy” by meeting with them. As Obama said (paraphrasing), why not confront nutjobs like Ahmeninajad and call them out on their BS?

To me, direct verbal confrontation is a sign of strength, whereas the childish Bus McCain tactic of identifying “bad guys” and refusing to speak to them, is not only a good recipe for another World War, but also a sign of stunted emotional growth and bed-wetting juvenility.

It’s the 21st Century. Grow the f*ck up.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 27, 2008 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

fundamental difference

I honestly believe talking to these guys without pre-conditions (and Obama did try to play some lame wording game saying he wouldnt meet with them without planning or some other lame cop out half backtrack) is naive and accomplishes nothing, and DOES legitimize them. Its the same premise as not negotiating with terrorists, just on a larger scale.

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Define "legitimize."

For that matter, define “terrorist.”

And be sure your definitions are sufficiently precise to exclude Bush/Cheney’s actions.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 27, 2008 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

legitimize

negotiations without any pre-conditions automatically puts us in a weaker position. Why WOULD we talk to them? Nearly everyone, Republican and Democrat agree that we CANNOT afford to let Iran obtain nuclear weapons. Whats there to talk about? They know where we stand, we’ve told them plenty of times. If the dont adhere to the UN they will be met with force. Theres much more to be lost than gained by sitting down. Sitting down with them affirms to their country and other rougue nations and leaders that we “need” to negotiate with them. Telling them they must meet ALL of the standards laid out by us and the UN before we can begin to negotiate sends a much stronger signal. And international politics are all about the signals you send. While we obviously must have more open negotiations with our allies, theres no point in attempting to negotiate with our known enemies. We simply arent going to convince Iran or South Korea they like us. I think its naive to think we can.
-Think of it as a Iran as a kid reaching into the nuclear cookie jar. Do you ask the kid to sit down and negotiate about whether he can keep the cookies in his hand? No it legitimizes his effort to steal the cookies to some degree and even if you put all the cookies back, sends the message that later efforts to steal cookies by him or by other “kids” might be more fruitful. Or would you tell them to immediately put the cookies back or he faces a timeout/spanking …and then afterwards sit down and tell him why he cant have a cookie and under what conditions he might be able to?

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

(I thought South Korea did like us?)

Thinking of another nation as a kid is part of the problem, sam. It appears to be the tactic that McCain wants to take. It’s the one Bush has taken. It hasn’t worked.

I don’t trust what the current administration tells us about Iran. They haven’t been shown to be trustworthy.

by jae on Sep 27, 2008 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

LOL

“Known enemies” … “like Iran and South Korea.”

I guess you can throw both them in the “evil” pile with Spain and France. You’re either with us or against us, right?

Sorry, I know I should be generous and assume you meant North Korea, but your views on the matter are so juvenile and narrow-minded that “LOL” is the only response I can muster.

Do you ever not see the world through the narrow prism of chest-thumping American exceptionalism? You should try it some time.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 27, 2008 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha

my bad on the korea mix up. but yea I tried seeing things in different light the first time I went to college. Didnt work so well for me. maybe you should try it.

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Look at it from their perspective...

If you’re saying “we’re not going to meet with you until you do X,Y, and Z, which you don’t want to do.” You’re treating them the same way you treat a petulant child (We’re not going to the zoo until you brush your teeth, take a bath, and be nice to your sister). It’s just plain disrespectful. If you look them in the eye and explain why you want them to behave the way you do (brushing teeth prevents cavities, taking baths prevent you from being stinky, and shutting down nuclear programs encourages peace in the world), then you’ve given them the respect they deserve and they will see that and return it.

If you simply say “You’re an axis of evil, and we’re not going to negotiate with you” (or “You’re a terrible child, we’re not going to the zoo”), they’re going to hate you and they’re not going to like doing what you want them to do. If you say “We’ll negotiate with you if you get rid of your nuclear program, etc.” (“We’ll go to the zoo if you be nice to your sister”), they might do it, but they’re not going to keep doing it after you give them what they want.
Iran is run by adults, not children. Those adults stopped being treated like children a long time ago. Heck, they’re the rulers of a nation. If you think, for one second, that treating them like children is not going to emasculate them in front of their constituents, you’re living in a dreamworld.
And to believe that the way you were raised, or that common American methods of raising children are best is just plain arrogance. These people grew up in Iran with a completely different set of customs. And remember, they’re adults now, adults who command a lot of respect from their entire country. Do you seriously think they are still going to respond well to being treated like children? Honestly?

I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!

by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 29, 2008 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

maybe he’ll use the troops more than HBR and Blackwater,

 Just another layer of pigs at the trough. We pay no matter who stocks the war.
  You’d think the great number of minority troops would feel good about the possibility of a black president from modest roots? Might be a source of reinforcement for their commitment? Might clarify that they are not just fighting for the Halliburtons?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 26, 2008 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha

interesting speculation….but no. Plenty of my buddies are “minority troops” and not one will be voting Obama.

by sam23 on Sep 26, 2008 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And

McCain has been quite outspoken on his criticism of the Rumsfeld/Cheney privitization of the war from the start. You cant really argue that McCain favors the Blackwaters and Halliburtons of the world.

by sam23 on Sep 26, 2008 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You cant really argue that McCain favors the Blackwaters and Halliburtons of the world.

  I can argue that he enjoys war and all that that implies. The money for peace is hard to find but the money for war is easy. Talk is cheap but actions are quite clear.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 26, 2008 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"I can argue that he enjoys war"

ok argue it. try it with facts not speculation.

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

argue it. try it with facts not speculation.

  Who joined the military?who was a pilot that put themselves into a war? Who wanted the surge? Who wasn’t willing to rescind this war and bring the boys home yesterday? It’s either enjoyment or
masochism?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 27, 2008 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

so

everyone who joins the military loves war? He wanted the surge, because it was the only way to WIN the war. He doesnt want to surrender now that we’re winning? he must love war…. great argument again.

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

drinking heavily before posting?

 I’m posting heavily before drinking.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 26, 2008 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My 2 cents on the debate and this McCain/Obama mess

Man that was the worst debate.I’m pretty sure Hannity and Olberman could’ve had that debate and come up with the same answers except with more passion and fire. I was hoping that Obabma might be able to grab my vote. But he did the opposite. That was a sad display, man, I could’ve made McCain cry with those softball questions. Thats even granting that the majority of the questions were perfect for McCain. McCain proved to be an idiot. War mongoring president playing the fear card “keep America safe” fool’s trying to keep America broke.

Man the way they talked about Ahmadenijad was ridiculous, obviously they don’t know anything about the fool, and they certainly weren’t watching his interview with that bitch Larry King from earlier this weak.

These fools want to keep America unsafe by meddling in others politics whether it’s through diplomacy(resulting in getting what American and foreign business wants) or war(resulting in what American business wants). These bastards are more interested in doing what business wants and not staying home and fixing the problems here. Shit, if any of you fools watched Ahmadenijad on Larry King he said that he would love to see America reduce its sphere of influence and energy to its own borders and focus on America’s real problems. Which he cited as a decreasing education system, an unfair health care system, and poor public transportation. He cares more about America than Bush does. If we did this, it would result in more allies world wide and obvious benefits for Americans.

And for those of you who are DUMB enough to belive Ahmadenijad is DUMB enough to make some crazy mid-eastern Russian alliance that will create WWIII , we would have the best military in the world and tons of Allies world wide to prevent this.

What people in this country, especially conservatives, have to realize is this. Many people who have been around the world can testify to this. The people who “hate America” don’t hate Americans. People around the world watch our TV shows, our movies, even our basketball. People world wide like Americans, they just hate our current government, and so should you!

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 27, 2008 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Larry King interview

I thought it was a complete joke. You think the debate was full of softball questions? How bout Larry’s questions? It was like he was trying to make friends.

 I’ve been around the world quite a bit, but its been my impression that there are quite a few people who DO hate us despite the fact that they love our TV shows, movies schools and basketball. A lot of it has to do with Bush and the perception of the Iraq war, but a lot of it is simple jealousy that we simply cant fix. I agree we need to concentrate a whole lot more on our own problems, but that comes after keeping us safe. The good news is I honestly think both candidates think they know how to do that and both have different methods than this administration. I just dont think Obama’s way of going about it is correct.

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

but its been my impression that there are quite a few people who DO hate us

 Maybe you are just not likable enough? :>)

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 28, 2008 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha good point!

never thought of it that way, this changes EVERYTHING!

by sam23 on Sep 28, 2008 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Man once again being illogical.

No one hates us because they’re jealous. They hate us because of our freedom my ass, they hate their own governments becasue of our freedom, but even more because of Europe’s freedom. Like Saudi Arabia for instatnce. It is well known that people there hate our guts, and that is because they are jealous of our freedom. They hate their own government and that’s why they hate us, we keep their government in power, if we really wanted to go after a brutal dictatorship that has no freedom, shoulda busted caps in the royal families asses. But no way they are one of the elites few Arab allies, so who cares. The elites other Arab ally? Egypt, another brutal dictatorship where people dont even vote anymore because the elections have been and are rigged and they have been run by the same leader for over 30 years.

The other places in the world where people hate the US are in Africa, where they also hate Europe because we prop up dictators there, even in Ethiopia a Christian country. Probably in Colombia where we are active in their cocaine trade and we are active in their political scene.

Any country that hates Americans is due to our governments meddling in their politics for the last 50+ years. Which is why i hate the government as well.

People in Iran actually quite like the US. I have a friend who is Iranian and whenever he goes there they are curios asking all kinds of questions, they like us and admire our culture. Iran is really westernized. Sam you need to stop eating up facist, hateful, neo con propaganda.

REAL PATRIOTS have the courage to stand up against the country they love when it is in the wrong.

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 28, 2008 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Its cool dude, you dont have to put the whole name, Knowledge is cool

And to pee on Billary Clinton fans a little more. The Deregulation of wall street started during the Clinton administration. Also he helped push the NAFTA agreements through. He also handled Rwanda and the yugoslav genocide poorly. He also was huge on bad free trade agreements, including NAFTA, and for all you illegal immigrant haters, read what NAFTA is all about, and also what it could become. With the weak dollar, I sense the birth of the Amero. And also when the EU wanted to help out members of the Carribean, especially Jamaica, by buying their exports at twice the market rate, Clinton got the World Bank and IMF to shut it down on behalf of Dole and Chaquita Banana. The EU labeled the failed agreement as quote “reperations for slavery”. Clinton is an ass. He is also down for the 700 billion dollar bailout, and he is buddy buddy with GHWB. Screw the Clintons, and Hillary was on the board of Wal Mart as their head attorny for eight years, which she omitted from her biography.

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 24, 2008 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks...

So, even with all of that seriously detrimental behavior, the Republicans didn’t care until he started getting BJs? Were they jealous or something?

And I’ve been to Little Rock… I didn’t go into the Clinton Museum, but I drove up to it. Man, is that scary. A huge museum in a metropolitan area dedicated to a LIVING person. So weird.

I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!

by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 25, 2008 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

if you recall

we didnt love Bill before all that, but while it all makes him a subpar pres, those arent impeachable offenses, to be fair gsw-knowledge Clinton also did some good things. Every pres has had their ups and downs. Bill’s tenure may have had more ups in the eyes of dems and downs in the eyes of reps (or independents in your case) but disgracing the office and cheating on your wife at work….that usually gets you fired regardless of performance.

by sam23 on Sep 25, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Clinton was no saint. The major banking deregulations were a result of bills coming from a Republican majority congress, though Clinton did not veto them. There’s a whole lot of blame to go around. However, Clinton didn’t run up the national debt, didn’t keep pushing through budgets that got the country deeper and deeper in the hole. He wasn’t totally incompetent. I didn’t really like him at the time, but in hindsight, it could (and has) gotten much, much worse.

Once upon a time being a conservative meant something more than being beholden to more fundamentalist religious extremes. What we’ve got in the Whitehouse now is a straight whacko moron who tossed money around like a drunken sailor while doing what he can to diminish revenue. Incompetent is too kind a word for Bush.

by jae on Sep 25, 2008 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Carter vs Reagan?

Carter absolutely nailed the energy crisis and predicted absolutely accurately what would happen 30 years down the road if we didn’t deal with it in the 70’s – and now we’re living with the consequences; he earned the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing a peaceful resolution to a Middle East conflict involving Israel – which no prez since has come close to since

Reagan absolutely nailed the emotional nerve of the country that wanted a tall strong cowboy following the hostage crisis and completely sent the country into our spiraling deficits with his hyper defense spending not to mention his sending missiles to Iran, yup same country that fvcking kidnapped our guys (some sources say his guys delayed the release of hostages until his inauguration day), then spent the $ on an illegal Vietnamesque war in Central America which Congress explicitly voted against

hmm, let me think – which president should be considered a president of the people? don’t even gotta think on that one very long

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

by playthegametherightway on Sep 22, 2008 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

carter also

had an inflation plus unemployment index of 22. I only have a rough understanding of what that means, but its almost triple what it is today….and not in a good way. Reagan certainly turned that right around. He brought a peaceful reolutino to the Middle East conflict involving Israel? Wow, sure did a great job. Israel lives in total peace and harmony now. Dont most “presidents of the people” at least get re-elected? maybe you SHOULD think a bit longer.

by sam23 on Sep 26, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know this is complicated stuff, so try your best to follow along Sarah, er Sam. Inflation in that period was heavily influenced by the embargoes in the world markets by OPEC against countries that supported Israel (that would include US) particularly during the Yom Kippur War. Carter was the only prez to both identify the problems we have with reliance on foreign oil AND put forth plans to actually address it through both foreign policy and domestic energy agenda. Kinda sounds responsible doesn’t it?

Only 30 years later our current prez has said the same thing – golly, we are dependent on foreign oil and it’s affecting our national security! Meanwhile your hero didn’t do a god-damned thing other than send the country into the worst deficit the world has ever seen. Carter earned a Nobel Peace Prize for Camp David – what has any prez since done to bring the Middle East closer to peace? Perhaps if the next prez had build upon that rather than cater to the military-industrial-complex by hyper spending on military toys and Star Wars there would have been more progress made.

Instead Your hero sold weapons to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, watched his troops get blown up in Beruit and immediately invaded the dangerous island of Grenada to show the world how big and bad the US was. (do you know where that is sammy?)

The 12 years of Reagan-Bush did nothing to improve us in the Middle East, and before you start giving them credit for ending the Cold War, look at the reality of the USSR in the 1970s-80’s – it was going bankrupt which is why Gorby was willing to negotiate in the first place. That’s related to how RR “turned around” the economy – the govt spent its way out of unemployment and gave biz’s the biggest corporate welfare gift imaginable. Wasn’t that party supposed to be the small govt, small spending, small tax side? We didn’t “win” the Cold War, we had a better credit line to outspend the other guy but in the long run may have doomed ourselves – not just with the blowback from all the animosity we’ve sown internationally but also from our own hubris.

As far as Carter’s non-re-election, Nightline’s daily tally and half hour “special” of the Hostage Crisis for over a year doomed any chance he had. If the horribly leftist media was doing anything similarly with the Iraq war where thousands of Americans have been killed and tens of thousands of civilians have died not to mention the untold amounts of your money has been transferred to the Haliburtons and Blackwaters despite the fact that no WMDs have ever been found, well I seriously doubt we’d’ve had to worry about W’s second term. Instead there’s a prohibition on showing coffins much less body bags and the real cost of the war is kept largely hidden. When was the last time you SAW a picture of the supremely successful surge? If it was really all that great shouldn’t we be seeing it? wouldn’t the admin be handing out footage to the outlets to air?

What really blows is that I rather liked coming here and discussing the Warriors, but now we’ve descended to – to pissing matches over politics. This used to be a retreat from all that crap.

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

by playthegametherightway on Sep 27, 2008 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What really blows is that I rather liked coming here and discussing the Warriors, but now we’ve descended to – to pissing matches over politics. This used to be a retreat from all that crap.

  Whoa, I’m glad you got pissed. Great read. I’m not worthy, I am not worthy!

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 27, 2008 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What really blows is that I rather liked coming here and discussing the Warriors, but now we’ve descended to – to pissing matches over politics. This used to be a retreat from all that crap.

I warned you guys before this began that this would happen.
1. When did I say Ronald Reagan is my hero? He’s not. I’d say he was an average to above average President….I probably see him in about the same light your average liberal sees Clinton. He had his flaws and big mistakes. Beirut was a huge gaffe, and his spending was out of control almost at a Bush level. However, he completely rebuilt a military which had been a dominant force only by reputation and smokescreen since the Vietnam.
2. When you have a hostage situation you had better believe the press is gonna be all over it no matter what. A small military mission like that should be planned and coordinated so that NOTHING can go wrong. Its not like a war where things go wrong inherantly.
3. The money going to Blackwater and Haliburton is ridiculous, I wont defend that in any way.
4. “tens of thousands of civilians have died” depends a lot on your definition of “civilian.” If youre like Olbermann or John Murtha and believe that college aged males riding in a taxi at 4 am with AK47s in the car, or people who bury IEDs in their front yards or women and children who shoot at patrols are all civilians, then, yes, tens of thousands of civilians have died.
5. When was the lastime I SAW a picture of the supremely successful surge? yesterday. Some friends deployed now send me pictures of the same area where we were deployed together a couple years ago on a regular basis. The developments are shocking. Youre right it is weird we dont see many pictures of it now. But since Bush has little control over what media decides to go there or what they report it makes me think maybe the lefty media DOESNT WANT to show that the war is going well. Or maybe images of relative peace and prosperity dont sell here. I know its a crazy idea right? More likely its a huge government conspiracy, right? c’mon, dude. A prohibition on showing coffins and body bags? Yea, and there should be. Its disrespectful. I cant express how angry I would be if the coffins of my fallen friends were exploited by the likes of Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews for political purposes they certainly would not have endorsed. If its body bags and blood and guts you want to see there are plenty of vets who have posted their own pictures on the internet. Have a field day. War isnt like other news stories, we dont need shocking images on the news, we send trained volunteers to war because they can handle things like that. The majority of the public cant. This isnt some new thing either, youve seen more pictures of coffins in this war than anyone ever saw in WWII.

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

sam, I apologize for descending into the morass and being sarcastic & commend you for not replying in kind

I will reply then I’m leaving this thread for good – you get the “last word”

from studying history, I learned one of the reasons the US public woke up and challenged the V-war was because the images returning forced us to ask “why is our government pursuing this?” and “what is my responsibility in this?” Those are absolutely essential questions for every generation.

I agree with those who state the V-war was the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place. I would say the same about Iran-Contra. We got into the V- war on the lies over what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, we’ve gotten into several wars illegally because of Executive hubris – Chile, El Salvador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama, are but a few examples. I am not one to condemn all wars, but feel betrayed by this admin’s false promises that they knew where the WMDs were in Iraq, followed by the ever-changing rationalizations for why we “must” stay and win.

The admin controlled what the media knew, despite the “inbedded” reporters, every post was censored. We won’t “win” this war, because what we’re fighting for keeps changing while those who profit from it remain the same. Last point about Vietnam: we got out, let them rebuild their society, and have good relations now. Is there any reason to think had we stayed a better outcome would have resulted? For those that argue Iran will gain undue influence in Iraq, I’ll remind that the PRC did not gain any more undue influence in Vietnam. In fact, after the war they were less allied. If we leave Iraq there’s at LEAST an even chance that Iraq & Iran’s historic animosities will prevent Iran from overtaking the country even if Iran were to gain nuclear weapons.

The Media has had limited access to information before the war, limited access to what was happening on the ground and in the air during the war, and we have seen very little from Iraq over the past year. I don’t relish body bags, no desire to see blood. My classmate was killed in Iraq - I wouldn’t want to see that picture.

But if we weren’t so sanitized to the realities of war perhaps we wouldn’t be so quick to wage it. Supporting the war is not the same as supporting the troops – we support our troops, my classmate, by not wasting their lives in deceitful forays into military expansion. Is this war about WMDs? Terrorism? Oil? or war profiteering? or is it about democracy? What did my classmate die for? What do I say to his mom? This admin lost it’s moral authority over this war. The WMDs question has been answered, Bush admitted there is no evidence Iraq had anything to do with 911 … we’ve created a hornet’s nest now thanks to Bush’s war – if you believe the hyperbole about Al Q’s in Iraq you have to admit we’re responsible for that … We’re making it worse, not better. We’ve been building permanent bases in Iraq, complete with concrete foundations for battalion-sized facilities. We’re not planning on leaving any time soon. Which of my classmates is next, and what is he dying for? The Neo-Cons had been planning for these opportunities even before 911, these aren’t accidental.

Was this war about ridding the world of dictators? spreading Democracy? We’ve done business with dictators all throughout the Cold War, and we don’t do anything about the Burmas, Sudans, etc. now. And, the only people who can democratize Iraq are Iraqi, just like our democracy evolved over time theirs will have to too.

I maintain that if the admin has good news to share about the surge wouldn’t they be making that more readily seen? Where we followed the Powell Doctrine and had large numbers of troops, we’ve controlled the ground. That’s not rocket science, it’s logic. The Rumsfeld plan was idiotic, and the surge is simply succeeding in controlling areas we have huge numbers of troops concentrated. We don’t control Iraq, we’re stuck there.

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

by playthegametherightway on Sep 27, 2008 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1.

Very well said.

One sobering thing I would add is that the thing that doesn’t seem to count for sh*t in our overseas adventures — be they “just” wars like WWII or outright crimes like Vietnam and Iraq — is the number of innocent civilians senselessly murdered. We act like 9-11 was some historically horrible event. Hardy har. For Japanese and German civilians in 1945, a day like 9-11-2001 would have been a happy day. In 1944-5 we inflicted 9-11s on Japanese civilians, women and children ten-twenty-thirty times a day. Firebombing, nuking, buringa and melting entire families, neighborhoods, temples, cities … stuff that makes 9-11 look like a walk in the park.

I’m not making an argument pro or con our involvement in WWII, just trying to give a little perspective. Same in Iraq: the “surge is working” people act like we no longer have to count the hundreds of thousands already killed as a direct result of the chaos we unleashed there (granted, we weren’t targeting them directly, as we did in Tokyo, Hiroshima, Dresden, etc, but we’re still partly culpable). It’s like, “whoops, that’s past, doesn’t count.” I just don’t see it that way. If we reserve the right to constantly whine and moan like pvssies about 9-11, why don’t other countries have the same right, for exponentially worse crimes?

Fortunately, I believe in looking to the future not the past; and I don’t believe in violence, or vengeance, or cosmic justice or karma. If I did, I’d absolutely share that whacky Rev Wright’s theory that we deserved 9-11 (to the extent that he ever actually said that).

Also (going on a bit of tangent, because I’m kinda drunk): a whole lot of the stuff Wright said that the rightwing got their undies in a bunch about was almost verbatim the type of thing the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was saying in the months before he was gunned down. When I have a bit more time I’ll provide examples. Or you can just check wikipedia ;-) …

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 27, 2008 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

sleepy

One major issue I have with your argument is that all those horrific events other than 911 were during wars. No war was declared and the bulk of the attacks did not attempt to target military personell or facilities. While we still lament Pearl Harbor as a tragic act of aggression, its a bit easier to swallow knowing that innocent civilians were not the primary target and was based on military strategy. As a side note, I’m not big on the practice of bombing campaigns in general because I feel it only reinforces the resolve of the enemy and is relatively ineffective for the amount of destruction it cause. On the Iraq war note, I have a huge problem with “counting” the “civilian” deaths in wars like Vietnam or Iraq. Certainly we need to be aware of and keep a keen eye out for war crimes, but also be aware that because we dont fight other uniforms and rarely fight other countries, “civilian” doesnt mean what it used to. I’m sure that its an argument you’ve heard before and its pretty basic so I wont go on and on, but I assure you it is a very valid argument. We need to be just as wary of political witchhunts like those carried out against the Haditha Marines and hold those responsible, like Keith Olbermann and Jack Murtha, (who both blatantly lied to serve their own political good) as accountable as we would war crime perpetrators. The job of regulating war crimes should never fall to the media. Now, especially, we have to put great trust in the actions of our servicemen. All the more reason to dedicate more resources to training them to withstand great amounts of pressure (not a call for more funding, just better spent funding) and to resume its status in our society as an honored position so as to recruit some of the idividuals with integrity and honor.

If Rev MLK Jr. was using the same type of hateful rhetoric as Rev. Wright it doesnt make it any better. They’d both be wrong if that is the case. Thats like saying the rest of the world shouldnt get their undies in a bunch over the KKK because George Washington had slaves!

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Civilian casualties...

I truly feel for the troops in Iraq. They have had a mission that has been at the least a difficult one, and at times unclear and perhaps unrealistic. I have seen soldiers who have come back from Iraq talk about the need to carry “drop weapons” with them because the accidental killing of civilians is so common. I can understand that mistakes happen especially when the enemy doesn’t wear a uniform and there is no “battlefield” but you can’t really take away the inhumanity of the killing of innocent civilians in an occupied country. It’s the nature of the mission though. We have put 130,000 of our bravest young men and women into a country of 29,000,000 people and we expect them to keep the peace while our leadership changes strategy and shifts alliances. Not exactly a stable work environment.

While the strategy has improved (IMO, mostly due to the fact that we have reached fragile agreements with Sunni militias which once opposed us) it is still not clear exactly at what point we could claim to “win” this war. Did we win when we ousted Saddam? Did we win when we destroyed the non-existent WMD’s? Will we win when we rid the region of Al-Qaeda, even though their presence there is largely due to the fact that we invaded in the first place? The more I learn about the situation there the less clear our objectives are.

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

by olympicmike on Sep 27, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the win comes

when Iraq has a stable fledgling democracy that they are able to govern for themselves. And we have another ally in the region. I’m not saying these were the reasons we went in, but thats how we leave with a victory. We’ve already achieved one victory in ousting Saddam, and another with their first free elections, but it means nothing if we pull out to leave them to civil war and another tyrant as dangerous as Saddam.

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fledgling Democracy...

That sounds fine and dandy but how do you suppose the western Sunni militias are going to feel about this new fledgling democracy under a constitution that they opposed and fought against until recently. Let’s be honest about why violence is down: a) We are paying the Sunni militias to cooperate and b) we have removed most of our troops from their territories. How does this tension between the militarily powerful yet demographically weak Sunnis and the American backed Shia government/military who will have a significant majority in this democracy. Let’s not forget that we ousted a Primarily Sunni government (the minority) to make way for a Shia one (the majority), only to find that suppressing the Sunni opened the door for Al-Qaeda (a Sunni extremist organization) and putting the Shia in power opened the door for Iranian influence (another majority Shia country) in the new government. If it wasn’t for the history between the two nations this would be even worse.

I don’t see how the Sunni militias ever accept the new government. They are used to being in power and many hate Iran. The Shia are much more sympathetic to Iran and likely will prove so as soon as we leave (if they are still in power). I don’t see a way that we can turn this into a stable situation without completely tearing down the Sunni militias (a job we are ill equipped to do) which would only lead to a pro-Iran Iraq (which is obviously something we don’t want). The only way you can stabilize Iraq and keep them from turning pro-Iran is by promoting the minority Sunni back into power which they would have to hold by military force instead of through fair elections. You know, the way it was when Saddam was in power.

The only other thing that makes sense is to break the country into three regions, retreat to the new borders and allow the situation to stabilize over time. This brings in a whole new set of complications, like who gets the oil revenue etc…

I’m glad that some are more optimistic than I am about the Iraqis being hungry for democracy, but it just doesn’t add up to me. I don’t see how the Sunnis back down without a fight. When the government eventually invites the militias from the Anbar province into the national military everything I’ve read is that they only plan to include 20-30% of the existing forces (these forces are also growing by the day). What happens to the other 70-80% of these armed angry under represented (in their eyes) Sunnis? Seriously what do you think will happen?

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

by olympicmike on Sep 28, 2008 3:29 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haha

See what happens when I can’t sleep. That time-stamp is just embarrassing…

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

by olympicmike on Sep 28, 2008 3:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The job of regulating war crimes should never fall to the media. Now, especially, we have to put great trust in the actions of our servicemen.

 You gotta be kidding. you expect the military to be truthful about it’s own war crimes. Do you believe in the easter bunny too? The media is the thing that separates a free country from a totalitarian state.
    How can you so freely put trust in someone who will go over there and do George Bush’s dirty work for him? If these guy turned around and marched on washington and layed their rifles down at the whitehouse instead of gunning down poor iraqis trying to get home thru their own streets I’d have more respect for them. You keep forgetting that it’s their country and we are there uninvited so it is up to us to exercise caution in the presence of their population. Turning wacko “contractors” loose with no checks on their killing is our decision, our personnel deserve to suffer the consequences for that dis respect for human life. War doesn’t make it right, only makes it more wrong.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 27, 2008 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Zing!

Skeptic, man, your work in this thread is so awesome I may have to reconsider my position on the JRich trade… :-O

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 27, 2008 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haha

You had to bring up the J-Rich trade! Here come another 500 posts…

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

by olympicmike on Sep 27, 2008 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I just got my sample ballot. Jrich wasn’t on it.

by jae on Sep 27, 2008 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I may have to reconsider my position on the JRich trade

  All I can say is he’s got two good ankles and is ready to play at the beginning of the season.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 27, 2008 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm stickin with

the J-Rich trade as a good thing. Though Monta’s moped, Baron’s departure and overpaying for Maggette, and Wright not proving much yet, are making it look fairly bad right now.

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the reform

is needed at the administration level in government and the military. Yea, I do expect the military to be truthful about its own war crimes. Why not? It worked fine in WW2 Its sad that we’ve come to think that is impossible and I think its due in large part to the way the media and military see each other almost as adversaries. I know I’m not alone when I say that the first half of every mission or patrol was “ditch the reporter.” Ridiculous, but you cant expect to achieve military success when soldiers are second guessing whether they have the right to pull the trigger because of the way it will be portrayed by the media, especially when fighting an enemy who can so easily be portrayed as “civilian.” Their training and the leadership in place ought to be enough, and there should be some sort of oversight for when its not. However, the media should not assume the role of that oversight. I am in no way saying the media should not question the government when it chooses to go to war, but something has to change. Honestly how do excuse Keith Olbermann calling Marines murderers when he had 5th hand information at best? He said “the commander should be hung” (interesting perspective from a death penalty hating lefty) when in reality the leadership both on the ground and at the company level took all appropriate measures and no innocent civilians had actually been killed. The whole situation was simply the political ploy of Pelosi’s mentor John Murtha in an attempt to draw political support and take advantage of growing anti war sentiment. All the Marines involved have been aquitted, but all their careers are ruined and at least a company of good young Marines have had their image of an America that is proud of them and will do right by them smashed. This is NOT an isolated incident, it just happens to be the one I know the most about.

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

wacko contractors

I’m with you there, they have no place in war. But all soldiers marines airmen sailors etc are sworn to serve and protect and the President is their commander in chief. We werent exactly invited into Germany or the Islands in the South Pacific either…..

by sam23 on Sep 27, 2008 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I will reply then I’m leaving this thread for good

“My classmate was killed in Iraq”
    
    Then you owe it to him to speak out. You are obviously very intelligent with a good understanding of the world. If you don’t contribute to the discussion then you are letting ignorance prevail by default. If you don’t speak are you comfortable with the viewpoint of those who will? We are all in this together, even though the subject can get depressing and frustrating hiding won’t fix it.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 27, 2008 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you don’t contribute

… dare say I’ve contributed enough here, and am working in multiple “forums” for my classmates’ sakes

please vote people

by hardcore on Sep 28, 2008 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

doh! that’s what happens when you share a computer

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

by playthegametherightway on Sep 28, 2008 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

that’s what happens

   Tho old multiple personality thing huh?
     I just wanted to encourage you(both) to keep posting. I enjoy your writing.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 28, 2008 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

holy shit

this thread is EPIC

by Foulacy on Sep 22, 2008 1:32 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

this thread is EPIC

  Haha, Yeah Starbury is gonna think he’s hot shit to get over 200 replies to a topic about him.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2008 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I still say

Marbury sucks. No flip-flopping here.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Another classic republican invention...

I firmly believe that most Americans are stupid. I’ve lived internationally as well, and it’s not just Americans that are stupid. All people are stupid, except for me of course. Politics now is just get your message out in as many ways as possible as loudly and dumbed down as possible. Ever watched the O’Rielly Factor? You’ve got Bill in the top left speaking at you, you’ve got the words he’s saying in text on the top right, and on the bottom you’ve got a ticker scrolling by with another repetition. 3x baby. 3x. The Dems are just too stupid to realize that this is how you get across the ideas. They try to talk about the issues in depth or something and “lose the message”, or as I like to call it, take longer than the American’s attention span to get the point across.

Whatever… the Republican machine is evil, the Democrat machine is slightly less evil, and the Dems are worse at politics right now for one reason or another. The world is still going to hell in a handbasket, and America is not what it used to be because there are more players at the table.

I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!

by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 24, 2008 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the term flip-flop

is certainly a republican convention used to describe the common practice of trying to pander to an unpredictable public opinion simply to get elected. The way the term is tossed around these days to describe a politician changing their mind (admittedly a tactic used more but not only by republicans, IS borderline evil) Of course a politician should have the ability to change their mind on an issue as more information is made available to them and the fear of the dreaded flip-flopper tag has made politicians like Obama and to a lesser degree McCain incredibly wary of actually HAVING an opinion. Its a little bit disgusting, but so is the practice of ACTUAL flip-flopping which is an evil invention of the democrats.

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Er ... what?

Dude, droppin gsw_knowledge is right. You’ve totally stopped making sense.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 25, 2008 3:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No!

You’re a politician! You’re supposed to be perfect and right every time! That’s why we elected you, doofus. You’re not allowed to change your opinion, you’re not allowed to not know anything.

One thing I will always remember is from my American Government teacher at Berkeley High. He said that it would be a great day if a politician could go up to a podium, field a question from a reporter and respond “I don’t know, but I’ll look into it.”
Great ideal, but it’ll never happen.

Oh, the “Idiocracy” of it all… crappy movie by the way. Scary and crappy.

I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!

by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 25, 2008 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

-1

idiocracy was funny.
i’m goin’ to Starbucks for a “gentleman’s latte”
(this comment was brought to you by Carl’s Jr.)

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Sep 25, 2008 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It had its moments...

But overall it was pretty dull and a little scary.

I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!

by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 26, 2008 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

BRAWNDO'S GOT WHAT W'S NEED

it’s got electrolytes…

ok, the acting wasn’t all that, but when has owen wilson’s brother ever been known for his thespian skill?

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Sep 26, 2008 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

How did this topic get over 200 posts?

We shouldn’t sign Marbury. There post #216.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Sep 22, 2008 1:38 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I said picking up Marbury would be like voting McCain. Honestly, that’s all it took for some batshit right winger to post 100 times about shit no one cares about.

by Amoc on Sep 22, 2008 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

actually

I didnt respond to that. It was skeptic’s glasses comment.

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He wouldn’t have made that comment if I didn’t make the one prior, turd.

by Amoc on Sep 25, 2008 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Starbury Movement!

Start it GSOM!

The Time Is Now! Win Warriors Win!

by ballin on Sep 22, 2008 5:58 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Er ... isn't everyone?

I think you’ll get close to 100% GSoM agreement on that, possibly even including sam23…

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 22, 2008 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ok...

that’s pretty funny. lol.

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

by olympicmike on Sep 22, 2008 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha, yea

thats pretty much and inevitability. I’m no pot head, but I really dont see much of an argument against it. If nothing else it oughta be a state government’s decision, right?

by sam23 on Sep 22, 2008 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

+10000000000000000

Here’s to more state rights and less for the feds!

by Psion on Sep 23, 2008 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So can we assume

You would have supported the Confederate States in the Civil War? Just checking…

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 25, 2008 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It may look worthless?

     Will nothing else but pot grow on that land? If they legalize weed it will sell for about the same price as corn so this dude might as well start planting now, he’s not gonna get rich off legalized grass :>)
    Guess he’s smoked a bit too much already ?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2008 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Get a card and become a grower now, is a better plan.

unless this isnt in CA. But if it is and you have a card you can grow something like 90 plants and you can grow for others with cards

by droppin gsw _knowledge south bay style on Sep 23, 2008 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's official

Knicks set to waive Starbury this week.

Stephon Marbury may be in shape physically to join the Knicks on the court, but the Knicks might finally be ready mentally to part ways with their chaotic point guard.

The Knicks are preparing to put Marbury on waivers by the end of the week, several sources with knowledge of the situation told Newsday. The team must await the go-ahead from Madison Square Garden chairman James Dolan, however, because it would involve eating another large chunk of money in a buyout, Newsday reported.

Marbury is entering the final year of his contract, worth $21.9 million.

Once Marbury clears waivers and a buyout is agreed upon, he would be free to sign with any team. Reports in Newsday and the South Florida media have mentioned the Miami Heat, which is in need of a point guard, as having interest.

Needless to say, I’m not intrigued. The Heat, or anyone else, can have him.

(Er, that is what we’re discussing in this thread, correct?)

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 23, 2008 7:48 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Knicks set to waive Starbury?

     Watcha doin putting a Starbury comment in our political thread?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 23, 2008 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I am voting Marbury/McCain, at least I know what I am getting

I am personally tired of people crying for change and no REAL plan for change, Here at GSOM we have ideas for change, they may or may not be Great Ideas, but nevertheless we have ideas and post them, how would GSOM respond to a post, we need change in the Warriors without some specific ideas in how to accomplish this. Besides I don’t need my taxes any higher…

by warriorbum on Sep 23, 2008 9:17 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I don’t need my taxes any higher…

   Remember War costs a lot more than peace then.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 23, 2008 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ROFL. Hands down the dumbest thing said in this thread.

by Amoc on Sep 23, 2008 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yep

damn, those stupid conservatives and their stupid long-term approach. Quick fixes are the way to go!

by sam23 on Sep 23, 2008 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m done with you. You’re an idiot. I believe this was established earlier, when you retracted your retard statements to the applause of a couple of nice people. If I didn’t win our petty argument before, I certainly did when you apologized for being a dipturd.

God, I’m a winner. Have some.

by Amoc on Sep 23, 2008 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i already told you,

you can be the “winner” if it makes you feel better and keeps you quiet. I realize it may be the first time in your life anyone but you has told you you arent a loser, but dont make me say it again. The apology wasnt even to you, it was to gsw_knowledge. I’m not apologizing to you for shit .

by sam23 on Sep 23, 2008 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Zzzzzz...

You two again? Can’t we just call it a tie (with the tie going to the liberal?)

Props to Warriorbum for starting the mother of all threads, but there’s not much question that his comment is one of the stupidest, or at least most vile comments in it. If you can’t agree that peace is less costly than war — in terms of $$$, blood, and spiritual well-being — there’s not a lot of common ground for reasoned debate.

But oh yeah, we gotta fight this super-hyper-ultra-important war now, so we never again have to fight one in the future. That logic’s worked out really well for the past 5,000 years. Oh, but this time it’s f’rrreals, right?

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 23, 2008 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Only if you kiss me like you mean it.

by Amoc on Sep 23, 2008 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My comment was dollar based, I do not agree with the war but will not condemn All Republicans for it

We are already in a war, I am not advocating starting a new one merely finishing in a timely manner and getting the hell out… I don not believe that simply pulling everyone out is the answer…And I definitely do not think putting Obama in the White House is an answer to anything, just my opinion… McCain is only a marginally better candidate than Obama but I feel he is better and at least has ideas of how to turn things around.

by warriorbum on Sep 23, 2008 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I am not advocating starting a new one merely finishing in a timely manner and getting the hell out

   A timely manner? Does that apply to a rape in progress too? You realize don’t you that McCain’s foreign policy advisor is paid handsomely by the country of Georgia to try and start a war with Russia? I’m sure the war profiteers are ready to jump on that bandwagon if Mccain gets elected.
    Since he has a military background I’d be a lot more willing to bet that McCain will start a war somewhere than I would be that Obama will feel the same need. And since his wife is so rich I’d be willing to bet that he tries to increase the already obscene income disparity of our country. Are his proposed tax cuts targeted only to the lowest earners or are the across the board?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 23, 2008 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

are you against ALL war Sleepy? or just modern war? preemptive war? warriorbum’s comment makes sense unless you skew it to make it sound like he said something he didnt say to paint the other side as evil or uncaring. Just like the media and Obama campaign did with McCain’s comment about being willing to have troops in Iraq for 100 years if needed.

by sam23 on Sep 23, 2008 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You should apologize to this community for your 100 posts of bullcrap in this thread alone. And then apologize to me for being a crummy lay.

by Amoc on Sep 23, 2008 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

whatever you want

i’m sorry. i’m sorry. i’m sorry. go away, you contribute nothing but insults.

by sam23 on Sep 23, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

YOINK.

You know me so well. Either that or you caught on very fast. Well done, sir.

by Amoc on Sep 23, 2008 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

careful, man

look and see what you’re getting yourself into, here!

by sam23 on Sep 23, 2008 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

as long as you dont pay money for them to come out with a new photoshop with 4 more features bi-annually, woohooo

by Amoc on Sep 23, 2008 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yeah, you see the price?

save your pennies…

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Sep 23, 2008 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OT

i’d rather not starbury either. williams is going to do fine for us. 3 years under one of the best in Kidd, he’s in shape, focused and playing in an offensive system he’s more comfortable in. star has just never thrived anywhere. you can use jax or dizzle as an example, but jax was good in indy, he just wore out his welcome, same with boom in char/no, both jax and boom helped their teams make the PO’s… i’m trying to recall the last time star sniffed the PO’s…

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Sep 23, 2008 1:31 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

On-topic....and off again.

looks like Marbury has decided to show up to Knicks camp after all. Bullet dodged. Now if we can just convince that Barack character to decide to give that whole senate thing a try for a while…..

Interesting side note-I heard from somebody today that if each candidate wins the states they are currently leading it would result in an electoral college tie. In such scenario the current House would pick the Pres and the current Senate the VP. Obviously the House will choose Obama, but the Senate is 50-48 Dems, with two independents. Hard to imagine Lieberman who has been shunned for his bipartisanship voting with the Dems so a tie there is likely and Cheney would then have the deciding vote and essentially choose his successor. I know this scenario is incredibly unlikely and I dont even know if thats really what would happen, but imagine the inexperience and unrest of an Obama/Palin White House not to mention the incredible pressure that would fall on the Secret Service. Yikes, can we work out an advance agreement to choose McCain/Biden instead? shoot, I’ll settle for Biden/McCain in such scenario if necessary.

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 12:11 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

It's a tie!!

Yeah, that would be weird. I did want to toss out that on http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ they show in their statistical “scenario analysis” that there is about a 1.29% chance of that happening at this point. That’s actually higher than I thought it would be. That would make for an “interesting” election night… you know, lots of yelling at the TV and reviewing my copy of the constitution and stuff.

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

by olympicmike on Sep 24, 2008 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

there is about a 1.29% chance of that happening at this point

  Dang, about the same chance as the warriors getting tto the playoffs this year?

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 24, 2008 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There's a 1.38% chance of an electoral college tie

According to Nate Silver at 538.com, the most thorough projection site out there. (He cuts his teeth doing baseball projections, so you know he’s more about crunching the numbers than advancing some agenda).

Not impossible, but not really worth spending a whole paragraph discussing…

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 24, 2008 2:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Whoa.

Sorry Mike, I hit reply before scrolling down a centimeter to see your post. Eerie…

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 24, 2008 2:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haha

You know what they say about great minds…

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

by olympicmike on Sep 24, 2008 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha

it wont happen, but its interesting. Its rather “mind-bottling.” You know, like when your thoughts get all trapped like in a bottle?

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Now if we can just convince that Barack character to decide to give that whole senate thing a try for a while

    What specifically don’t you like about Obama’s proposals? You do know don’t you that a lot of politics is promises that usually are modified in some way in the end?
   I can’t see anything dreadfully wrong with his vision for the next few years, he seems to be interested in helping the average citizen, working with the other countries of the world, keeping the courts out of our bedrooms, and putting religion back in it’s proper place. His tax increases targeted to the highest incomes is the acid test for me, he’s not afraid of his high roller backers and doesn’t mind telling them that they need to up their contribution to society that they benefit from the most. I know they already pay a lot, yada,yada, etc. but it’s a symbolic gesture that would show they care about the whole country and not just their selves, and Hey, they can afford it.

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

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 24, 2008 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I just dont believe him

his proposed “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” doesnt match up with his agenda. His tax plan would cover roughly 20% of the amount of money needed to do all the things he says he’s gonna do. According to the taxpayer’s union, McCain has proposed a 68.5 billion dollar increase in spending. Obama? 343.6 billion. Dont worry thats “only” six times as much. SIX TIMES AS MUCH! You can get all worked up about the government in your bedroom, but I dont think I’m gonna notice them there nearly as much as we’ll feel them in our wallets. And almost all economic experts will tell you increasing taxes on anyone, even the mega-rich, during an economic crisis is simply stupid bordering on insane. Obama doesnt mind telling his high roller backers he doesnt need their contributions? Maybe because two of his biggest contributors, Fannie and Freddie, arent much use to him anymore .

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha, I suck at math

I guess its “only” about 5 times as much. I need to stick to the social sciences.

by sam23 on Sep 24, 2008 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs