| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Conan The Westy 
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
 Posted - 09/02/2008 : 11:17:04
|
Here's a link to a site making direct comparisons between Palin & Obama.
WARNING: Some may detect a leaning to the right.
 |
 |
|
|
damalc 
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 09/02/2008 : 14:42:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
OK, so now it has been revealed that Palin's 17 year old daughter is doing a Jamie Lynn Spears.
I give up. We're fucked.
There is no hope for a Republican ticket that has as its nominee, someone who is dumb enough to have selected such an obvious hypocrite for his Veep. Sorry, Mr McCain, I am grateful for your service to the country, and I thought you were a hoot on SNL, but you figuratively shot yourself in the foot.
----
What is so hard about teaching teenage girls not to let themselves become pregnant? I don't understand.
this should not become an issue for political attacks from Democrats, but there's no unringing the bell on this one. McCain and Palin had to know this was going to get out. so if it's no big deal, why not put it out there when she was giving her family's bio at the announcement?
i just can't wait for the next episode of "Real Time." Bill Maher probably had an orgasm when he heard. |
|
|
|
rockfsh 
"Laugh, Love, Cheer"
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 09/02/2008 : 17:32:47
|
Ok - so a lot to respond to. There is still racism in America, but Hillary would have gotten the same amount of black votes as Obama will get (oh you mean white on black racism). Well the large pockets of anti-black racism will not affect electoral college voting. In the south where many people still rally for the confederate flag (though I live in the South and most people are not racist), they will vote for Republicans anyway. In big cities where racism is often the worst, they will vote for Obama - or at least most of the states that house the largest cities will vote for Obama. In swing states in the Midwest and West racism will not be near as much a factor as personality and politics.
Sarah Palin is young but only 3 years younger than Obama. Is anyone shocked that he spent only a year and a half on big stage politics before essentially taking leave of the Senate to run for President? Take issue with Palins views on Choice, environmental policies or how she has treated the Republican party in the past, but experience? Come on. Alaska is small - guess who recently was a governor of a small state that did very well as president - Clinton - he had no foreign policy experience either - I think thats why you get experts to help you out. She's too pretty, she's a woman - whatever - dislike her penchant to cut social programs to balance a budget, but given she is the same age as Obama (who by the way will have to be president on day 1), let's cut that argument. She shores up the religious conservative base and appeals to a lot of working families in swing states. Soccer moms were said to have won the re-election of W because they thought he made them safer and that he was a more regular person - Palin is more regular than Obama and Biden (not a good thing by the way - I like my leaders to be elite and better than the average joe).
Biden was a safe choice. Obama is running the prevent defense and we all know that it usually only prevents you from winning (at least in football). If you ask me who gave the best speech of the DNC (other than perhaps Barack and Bill) was Mark Warner - I want him to be president. I am guessing he didn't want to be VP so that he could run for Senate this time, but I like this guy's view of the future and knowing when you have to blance good ideas from both side of the spectrum. Biden gives Obama foreign policy experience but I am guessing he could have done that as Secretary of State even better.
As for who will win - and in full disclosure am I undecided and leaning towards Obama - I think it will be Obama. McCain circa 2000 would have been a devastatingly tough general election candidate, but he has so watered down his maverick street cred, that he is basically hoping to carry the same states that W did in 200/2004. The problem is that most of America has had enough of that. Obama can say he will only tax more the top 5% of America (of course he is forgetting the capital gains taxes that all people with investments and 401-Ks will have to pay, but I digress). He will continue to reassure people that he is a safe choice (Joe Biden anyone). He will continue to move to the middle (FISA, gun control, free trade, etc) now that he has the nomination. Elections are largely decided on personality and gut feelings and most people feel sick to their stomach about the last 8 years and McCain isn't different enough to offer him a chance at teh oval office. Obama is transformative in his ability to discuss race without being race baiting and not being the "black candidate" He will raise far more money than McCain - no Democratic nominee has done this before. He is charismatic beyond Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan and approaching JFK. He will be elected and have a Democratic majority in both houses and then he better deliver a lot of change and to do that he's going to have to reach across the aisle like Clinton did because the Republicans are very good at stalling and filiblustering (misspelling intended). His re-election is far less certain, because he is promising so much (energy independence in 10 years, out of Iraq in 18 months, lower taxes for almost everyone, balanced budgets, universal healthcare, lower gas prices, stronger dollar, etc.) But when it comes down to it most people in America will be proud to have this guy at the helm - it will not nearly be a blow-out, but he'll inch ahead in enough swing states to take it in November - unless he blows something big-time before then and he has shown he is not likely to do that so far. |
Edited by - turrell on 09/02/2008 17:37:30 |
|
|
|
MM0rkeleb
"Better than HBO."
|
Posted - 09/02/2008 : 17:50:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I want to make it very clear that I have no fights with pro-life people. If they believe that women shouldn't have abortions, they are free to do so and do what they want to convince pregnant woman not to abort, as there is nothing illegal about that whatsoever, nor should it be. I think therefore that they should allow pro-choicers the same courtesy not make it illegal for a pregnant woman to have an abortion, if she choses to do so, for whatever reason.
Well, I don't want to get this bogged down in an abortion debate, but that argument doesn't work, because those people who are pro-choice are that way because they believe abortion is murder. So that argument is like saying we shouldn't make it illegal for someone to commit murder if they choose to do so, for whatever reason.
I do realize not every agrees with the abortion=murder statement. I'm just saying, that's why pro-lifers can't let it go.
(Actually, I guess this only applies to those pro-lifers anti-abortion persons whose positions I understand - that is, the ones who support the primacy of all human life. As for those whose stances depend on some unholy mix of illogic and misogyny, no argument will work on them.) |
Edited by - MM0rkeleb on 09/03/2008 02:37:18 |
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 09/02/2008 : 19:59:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by chazbo
I personally prefer this from a Google group's page: Sarah Palin is paradoxically pro-life and anti-life (supports guns, NRA, war).
that's one of the things that's always rubbed me wrong with the so-called "pro-life" side. pro-lifers usually support the death penalty as well as the other issues chazbo mentioned.
both self-applied labels are incorrect. EVERYBODY is for life, and everyboy is for choice.
in the media we're taught to use anti-abortion and abortion rights.
not looking for an abortion discussion, just pointing out the language.
|
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 09/02/2008 : 20:42:33
|
Sarah's story is being made into a film. It's about an underage girl who gets pregnant by her athletic high-school boyfriend. She decides not to have an abortion and is supported by her slightly unconventional parents.
It's called Juneau.
Soon to be on a double bill with Mystery, Alaska
Sorry, I had to get this thread back to film. |
Edited by - RockGolf on 09/02/2008 22:02:24 |
|
|
|
Mr Savoir Faire 
"^ Click my name. "
|
Posted - 09/03/2008 : 02:59:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
The biggest paradox, of course, is a State Governor who is willing to put their own natural wildlife in danger in favour of big business (i.e., oil drilling). How the hell did the people who voted for her miss that one?
(Reminds me of that old line from the VN war days: "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity".)
They didn't miss it. Both the republican and Democratic candidate (Tony Knowles) were for Alaska Governor were for oil drilling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Knowles_(politician)
Oil drilling is too economical to refuse. As long as "nobody owns the land" of natural parks, people will always want to drill there. It's a great way to earn political points with the locals. If ANWAR was more populated by people that would profit off its drilling, it would have been a huge majority that passed it.
|
|
|
|
Mr Savoir Faire
"^ Click my name. "
|
Posted - 09/03/2008 : 03:45:13
|
As for the candidates, they are almost the same. It doesn't matter who gets elected, they're both going to sell out and be centrists to win votes.
For instance, did you know these interesting facts:
Mccain is not pro-gun.
Obama nor Mccain have ruled out invading Iran.
Both plan to stay in Iraq.
Obama wants a "more aggresive" response to darfur.
Mccain is one of the most pro-enviro republicans.
Obama is not for equal gay rights.
And then there are ideas that are completely crazy:
Obama is for giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses (so they can drive around on tax-paid roads without insurance!)
Obama does not have a Social Security stance yet, but has said there is a problem. ( He has said he'll fix it by taxing the rich more, but this is not feasible. this is a useless prgram created just to win elderly votes. Not economically feasible due to the 30%+ brokerage fees.)
Obama wants to expand 'faith based' programs with government funds. (While the phrase "seperation of church and state" is not technically in the constitution, Congress can not pass laws supporting religions which this clearly does)
Obama has said the he wants to strike al Qaeda targets in Pakistan with or WITHOUT their consent. Since they have nukes, and are considered neutral if not favorable to the US, this is a bad idea.
Obama is frighteningly anti-gun. He wants a ban on ALL semi-automatic weapons.
Mccain is against roe vs wade and believes it should be overturned. (while this law was "written from the bench", it shouldn't be overturned. congress should not have been so inept and passed a law like this into a constitutional amendment.)
Mccain sees the reason for losing the Vietnam War to be the media's attitude, not because it didn't have a real objective.
I am a staunch supporter of Ron Paul, the real candidate of "Change". This election is just two whackos who want to shuffle taxes around, but not too much change other than several threats to invade more countries (have we learned nothing?). I say no change because each one will still be using Social security, welfare, medicare, war for little reasons, et cetara.
The only real changes in policy being propositioned are universal healthcare (obama), privatized social security(mccain), and school vouchers(mccain). however, these will not happen because the president is only an enforcer of laws. Just like clinton promised universal healthcare in 1996, so does Obama. Just as Bush proposed privatized social security and school vouchers, so does McCain. And, these plans, much like their identical predecessors, will fall flat on their face
This is the end of the longest fwfr political rant ever;
and you thought Baftababe was cynical.  
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/03/2008 : 05:56:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Savoir Faire
This is the end of the longest fwfr political rant ever
I think you mean your longest fwfr political rant. I've done longer political rants than this.  |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 09/03/2008 : 07:01:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Savoir Faire
This is the end of the longest fwfr political rant ever
I think you mean your longest fwfr political rant. I've done longer political rants than this.
Let us also give credit to MguyX for his, which in addition to often being lengthy, have become fwfr cult classics. ;)
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 09/03/2008 : 11:01:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by MM0rkeleb
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I want to make it very clear that I have no fights with pro-life people. If they believe that women shouldn't have abortions, they are free to do so and do what they want to convince pregnant woman not to abort, as there is nothing illegal about that whatsoever, nor should it be. I think therefore that they should allow pro-choicers the same courtesy not make it illegal for a pregnant woman to have an abortion, if she choses to do so, for whatever reason.
Well, I don't want to get this bogged down in an abortion debate, but that argument doesn't work, because those people who are pro-choice are that way because they believe abortion is murder. So that argument is like saying we shouldn't make it illegal for someone to commit murder if they choose to do so, for whatever reason.
I do realize not every agrees with the abortion=murder statement. I'm just saying, that's why pro-lifers can't let it go.
(Actually, I guess this only applies to those pro-lifers anti-abortion persons whose positions I understand - that is, the ones who support the primacy of all human life. As for those whose stances depend on some unholy mix of illogic and misogyny, no argument will work on them.)
All joking aside (and I was partially joking here), the biggest problem with making abortion illegal is the fact that there will always be a demand for abortions - legal or illegal. And legal abortions - while never 100% safe - are light years safer than any illegal alternatives. It was John Irving in his book "Cider House Rules" that said something to the effect of "a government that illegalizes abortion, is essentially legalizing murder". And a government that would take away the ability of a woman to make a choice of what to do with her body, essentially removes her right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". |
|
|
|
rockfsh
"Laugh, Love, Cheer"
|
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 15:55:31
|
What we learned from the Palin speech:
She IS "a bulldog with lipstick".
The VP debate will move to an octagon in Vegas and be sold as a pay-per-view.
She and Bush want to retain the "nucular option".
She will authorize the aerial hunting of reporters and community organizers.
McCain will join Dole in touting viagra after Nov 4th.
Cindy went "uh oh".
Levi Johnson passed out during the address...
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 16:14:01
|
Do we have a release date yet for "1 Night In Bristol?"
And any truth to the rumour that it's being subtitled: "From VP to VD"?
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 16:24:23
|
ABC News looks into the Levi Johnston phenomenon
And includes the odd-phrased information:
Teen fathers are often unequipped to deal with the responsibility thrust upon them, according to most social workers and therapists.
The same could be said of teenage mothers too... 
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton.
