Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Sounder At Heart for Seattle Sounders 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 thei