| Author | Post |
|---|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 06:42 pm |
|
MacMom wrote: The point is not that they own homes. The point is that he didn't know how many.
At least he was honest. If he spouted off a figure and was wrong, well, we would be having roast McCain for Dinner, because someone would accuse him of Lying.
|
thinkfirst
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 06:39 pm |
|
| Yes- it WAS Clinton's term when the bar was lowered. And like every other thing that ever starts out well, human nature makes us suck the life out of it. From 1996 through 1998 I worked in human resources at a mortgage broker competing with Household Finance... the salesmen would come here to the Eastern Shore, to Baltimore, to PG County.. they targeted the lower income, often retired people, that owned their own home and had a lot of credit card debt. They wrote 125% mortgages (125% of the appraised value of their home) paid off the credit cards, but didn't CANCEL THEM. Now, we legislate stupidity all the time... you must wear a helmet on a motorcycle, you can't smoke in public, you can't drink and drive, you can't buy pseudophedrine off the shelf, you can't eat trans fat... so, a decent helpful idea was abused by the bloodsucking profiteers, and you can blame Clinton for trying, but 12 years of that crap has come to a head. Any minion with 1/2 a brain could have seen where that was going. So here we are. MY POINT WAS, the republicans are telling us TODAY that the bail out will mean higher taxes. McCain needs to face Republican facts. Any moron knows taxes will go up no matter WHAT he promises. And yes, he SHOULD know how many homes Cindy owns... guess she wasn't properly vetted either.
|
MacMom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1581 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 06:38 pm |
|
The point is not that they own homes. The point is that he didn't know how many.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 06:37 pm |
|
MacMom wrote: That is a silly argument. The houses are in his wife's name, so he doesn't have any idea how many she owns? How long has he been married? Does he pay attention at all?
The point is that there are many, many people in this country with ONE house who are having trouble making ends meet, being laid off, going through bankruptcy, losing their ONE house to foreclosure. How can a man who has to have his staff "check the numbers" so he can be accurate on the number of houses either he or his wife owns really understand the desperation that a lot of people are going through now?
Oh please, and how many homes do the Clintons or Kennedys Own??? Your silly argument just doesn't make good sense.
|
Gordy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 06:31 pm |
|
It is a second marriage and she owned some coming in and he had one then they bought one together. If the question was how many to THEY own it would have been answered on the spot. If it is hard to understand it is only because you don't want to.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 06:24 pm |
|
CRIMECRUNCHER wrote: It wasn't the GOP that pushed financial institutions to lower the bar to qualify for a mortgage.
No, It was the Clinton administration that did this! It just came to a head, during the bush years. I called it Mortgage Welfare.
|
MacMom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1581 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 06:21 pm |
|
That is a silly argument. The houses are in his wife's name, so he doesn't have any idea how many she owns? How long has he been married? Does he pay attention at all?
The point is that there are many, many people in this country with ONE house who are having trouble making ends meet, being laid off, going through bankruptcy, losing their ONE house to foreclosure. How can a man who has to have his staff "check the numbers" so he can be accurate on the number of houses either he or his wife owns really understand the desperation that a lot of people are going through now?
|
Gordy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 06:00 pm |
|
Thinkfirst it has been cleared up several times his hesitence on answering that question. His independantly wealthy wife owns some and he has one and they own some together. Some are in her name only and some in both. His hesitence was because he wanted to answer it CLEARLY. It is just typical for you guys to cling on to junk like that beacause it is all you got. All you do is repeat the same old dumb stuff.
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 03:44 pm |
|
| It wasn't the GOP that pushed financial institutions to lower the bar to qualify for a mortgage.
|
resisto
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:45 pm |
|
Anyway, with the bailout of fannie mae the Republicans are effectively raising our taxes...
Right, like the Republican-controlled Congress? Oh, wait...
|
thinkfirst
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 01:30 pm |
|
Gordy wrote: That's right ! Did the liberal media pick on what she wore? How many houses do they own??????
The media picked on McCain because he's clueless of how many homes he owns. Anyway, with the bailout of fannie mae the Republicans are effectively raising our taxes... no wonder McCain is clueless about the economy and never brings up how he'll fix it. We're THIS close to collapse and he'll put the nail in the coffin for sure.
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 06:27 am |
|
| probably not nearly a third of a million dollars. And no one was defending Kerry or his wife. We're talking about mccain and image vs. reality vs. rhetoric. I couldn't care less about John Kerry.
|
Gordy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 04:51 am |
|
That's right ! Did the liberal media pick on what she wore? How many houses do they own??????
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 04:41 am |
|
| The last Dim to run for POTUS is married to the woman who owns much of the Heinz Katsup fortune, are you telling me she is poor??? I believe her wealth far exceeds that of Cindy McCain. I wonder what some of her outfits cost?
|
pineknot
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 758 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 03:07 am |
|
4Godncountry wrote: scrapple wrote: 4Godncountry wrote: And Obama is Poor?? I guess this is why he is running for president, he needs the money?
You're manipulating the message here. Of course Obama's not poor. High politics is the domain of the wealthy. He is legions less rich than McCain (via Cindy), worth somewhere between $500K and $2M, mostly on book royalties.
Not enough to afford $300K outfits. But we're talking about image. My point was it was not smart when you're trying to appeal to people who don't belong to your base, to "average Americans" in a wardrobe most couldn't afford even with 20 years of savings.
And if she dressed "poor" you would be on the thread talking about how she was dressing "poor" to get votes..come on admit it, you know I am right, (pun intended)lol.
P.S. At least it's better than those manly pant suits that Hillary wears! they wouldn't win any votes!
Sorry, $300K outfits should not be seen on TV. Especially if your running as a future president wife. I would rather see pant suits than $300K dresses. That is disgusting.
How nouveau rich can you get and how many McMansions do people have to realize this is what McCain and Co is all about. More war will built more wealth.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:56 am |
|
scrapple wrote: 4Godncountry wrote:
"Until the Democrats change there stances, we must look to the candidate who best serves the biblical standards. While not in every way, the republican ticket is closest!"
IThis is why a lot of people who are devout to their chruch don't vote based on religion, because they recognize the fact politics and religion are usually a corrupt and cynical marriage.
My post said, "while not in every way"
No, because things have become so bad on both sides of the Isle, Many Christians unfortunately just don't vote at all. Of course this is just a vote for the other candidate that has the worse convictions.
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:51 am |
|
4Godncountry wrote:
"Until the Democrats change there stances, we must look to the candidate who best serves the biblical standards. While not in every way, the republican ticket is closest!"
I know this is how you feel. But I would suggest the Republican party has for years pandered to people like you for votes without really sharing your convictions. Bush's "religion" seemed very political.
Wouldn't a true Christian ticket, i.e., "Christ-like" be absolutely against war, against greed, against crass consumption?
This is why a lot of people who are devout to their chruch don't vote based on religion, because they recognize the fact politics and religion are usually a corrupt and cynical marriage.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:50 am |
|
scrapple wrote: 4Godncountry wrote: And Obama is Poor?? I guess this is why he is running for president, he needs the money?
You're manipulating the message here. Of course Obama's not poor. High politics is the domain of the wealthy. He is legions less rich than McCain (via Cindy), worth somewhere between $500K and $2M, mostly on book royalties.
Not enough to afford $300K outfits. But we're talking about image. My point was it was not smart when you're trying to appeal to people who don't belong to your base, to "average Americans" in a wardrobe most couldn't afford even with 20 years of savings.
And if she dressed "poor" you would be on the thread talking about how she was dressing "poor" to get votes..come on admit it, you know I am right, (pun intended)lol.
P.S. At least it's better than those manly pant suits that Hillary wears! they wouldn't win any votes!
|
pineknot
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 758 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:46 am |
|
scrapple wrote: pineknot wrote: Obama certainty does not have the wealth that Cindy McCain inherited. He has gotten money from donations.
I was talking personal worth. Both campaigns have received lots of donations.
Yes Scrapple I was agreeing with you.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:46 am |
|
scrapple wrote: 4Godncountry wrote: The best thing that we can do with abortion is to abolish it completely.
Instead of talking about "the sanctity of marriage," we ought to worry about an over 50-percent divorce rate that includes Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Christians, Jews, atheists and everyone else.
We do agree on the point of Divorce, It is totally out of control on all fronts, Vows are broken by all of the groups you listed. However, Traditional marriage is the issue, At least McCain stayed with the opposite sex! And many others who are divorced are also anti-gay marriage.
Again I am not minimizing divorce, it is a major Problem, mostly because of the Churches stance, or lack thereof through the years from many self-serving ministers. This is the same reason that the debate over liquor licensing is where it is. The Churches in General have caved to money and prestige, above the truth.
Pastors and church leaders alike will have a lot to answer for in the end. the church is not a democracy, where people can decide what is right and wrong. We must be founded on the truth of God's Word only, and let the chips fall where they may.
Until the Democrats change there stances, we must look to the candidate who best serves the biblical standards. While not in every way, the republican ticket is closest!
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:45 am |
|
pineknot wrote: Obama certainty does not have the wealth that Cindy McCain inherited. He has gotten money from donations.
I was talking personal worth. Both campaigns have received lots of donations.
|
pineknot
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 758 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:43 am |
|
4Godncountry wrote: pineknot wrote: Gordy wrote: Calm down dude.
About the dress : Mrs. McCain is independently wealthy so I don't care what she wears and what does it matter?
It matters that a women who wears a $300 thousands dress and her husband says he's not sure how many houses they own. How can he relate to the $15,000 to $100,000 dollars a year income alot of American make? Many don't even come close to the $100,000. It's alot less.
And Obama is Poor?? I guess this is why he is running for president, he needs the money? Obama certainty does not have the wealth that Cindy McCain inherited. He has gotten money from donations.
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:37 am |
|
4Godncountry wrote: And Obama is Poor?? I guess this is why he is running for president, he needs the money?
You're manipulating the message here. Of course Obama's not poor. High politics is the domain of the wealthy. He is legions less rich than McCain (via Cindy), worth somewhere between $500K and $2M, mostly on book royalties.
Not enough to afford $300K outfits. But we're talking about image. My point was it was not smart when you're trying to appeal to people who don't belong to your base, to "average Americans" in a wardrobe most couldn't afford even with 20 years of savings.
Last edited on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:37 am by scrapple
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:31 am |
|
4Godncountry wrote: The best thing that we can do with abortion is to abolish it completely.
Never going to happen. Even Palin's announcement said: ""We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby."
But as far as "family values," what is it you mean, exactly other than the fear of gay marriage (which no church is required to honor, btw)?
Family values like teenage pregnancy? Divorce? Adultery? (McCain's on wife No. 2, started seeing her when he was still married. I know pleeeenty of older Republicans I grew up with who had affairs). I don't care about these issues pertaining to them individually, but they're two "family values" often talked about by the right.
Instead of talking about "the sanctity of marriage," we ought to worry about an over 50-percent divorce rate that includes Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Christians, Jews, atheists and everyone else.
So, recognizing that Republicans have no edge on "sanctity of marriage" over anyone else, nor preventing teenage pregnancies, etc., your two issues are thus abortion, which is not likely to ever be outlawed totally, and homosexuality?
(BTW, what makes Obama, a constitutional law scholar and professor, not a 'defender of the Constitution'?)
Last edited on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:42 am by scrapple
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:27 am |
|
pineknot wrote: Gordy wrote: Calm down dude.
About the dress : Mrs. McCain is independently wealthy so I don't care what she wears and what does it matter?
It matters that a women who wears a $300 thousands dress and her husband says he's not sure how many houses they own. How can he relate to the $15,000 to $100,000 dollars a year income alot of American make? Many don't even come close to the $100,000. It's alot less.
And Obama is Poor?? I guess this is why he is running for president, he needs the money?
|
pineknot
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 758 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:25 am |
|
Gordy wrote: Calm down dude.
About the dress : Mrs. McCain is independently wealthy so I don't care what she wears and what does it matter?
It matters that a women who wears a $300 thousands dress and her husband says he's not sure how many houses they own. How can he relate to the $15,000 to $100,000 dollars a year income alot of American make? Many don't even come close to the $100,000. It's alot less.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:22 am |
|
scrapple wrote:
Hah. You must think I sound like Joe Biden with these long posts.
What I get frustrated with is perpetual party obedience, especially when it comes to issues that are used in campaigning but will likely never change. Abortion, for one: people love to advertise their stance on it, but it rarely comes up once elections are over. Bush + both houses of Congress never overturned Roe v. Wade. Both parties know it's a non-issue, a talking point only.
Best you can do with abortion is influence your own family.
First, I wouldn't know what Biden sounds like, I don't listen to his Liberal anti-Christian garbage.
Secondly, If the Democratic Party put a person on the ballot who was pro-life, Pro-traditional Family values, and a defender of the constitution, I would vote for them. (Who is the last one they presented?)
Third, The President appoints Judges to the supreme court, the last few appointments are putting the Roe V Wade issue in jeopardy, when it comes around again, and could be for the first time in many years close to being overturned. It is a MAJOR CHRISTIAN issue. So are traditional family values. The best thing that we can do with abortion is to abolish it completely. Another conservative Judge appointment and this could be reality. Pres. Bush overturned some abortion regulations that Clinton signed as executive Order...more than talk. On this issue and Family values, Pres. Bush was on the money.
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:17 am |
|
I'm just saying, it's symbolism and I was surprised, when conventions are such orchestrated T.V. events, that they didn't advise her not to do so. For one, it's easy to research how expensive something is; and two: they were supposedly making an appeal to "average people."
No one was suggesting her outfit was paid for by anyone else, but it's hard to believe their attacks on "elites" when they visibly represent just that. You know as well as I do these elections are a lot about sales pitches, appearance and multi-million-dollar P.R. campaigns. This was not a good image.
|
Gordy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:09 am |
|
Calm down dude.
About the dress : Mrs. McCain is independently wealthy so I don't care what she wears and what does it matter?
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 01:24 am |
|
Not true, Gordy. I loathed Kerry in '04 (though I loathed Bush more); I supported McCain in 2000. I don't live my life obedient to a party, but I am embarrassed by the latest evolution of the Republican Party (cynically orchestrated by Karl Rove) and its vicious cultural divisions. Plus its hilarious rallying against "elitism." When Mitt Romney railed against the "Eastern elites" I almost spat out a drink in laughter. The former governor of Massachussets is ... an Eastern elite.
And Cindy McCain appealing to "regular folk" in a $300,000 (yes, those are the right number of zeroes) outfit. That's priceless.
So is the story of Biden riding home on Amtrak every night. What "regular dad" could afford that?
I think what people are having a problem with is that this latest McCain campaign spin about "change" in Washington (every politician almost every cycle talks about "changing Washington") ignores the fact that the Republicans have had the presidency for eight years, control of both houses of congress for a majority of those years, appointed most recent Supreme Court justices and totally turned the lobbyist crowd into a Republican feeding trough. (Anyone remember "The Hammer" DeLay?)
Change rings especially hollow when it will be purportedly brought by the same party in power. If McCain wanted to signal change, he wouldn't have had his convention orchestrated by Rove tactics. He may have once been the "maverick" people on both sides loved, but now he's sold out to the base, and it's sad to see.
It doesn't matter what you think or I think (this board has how many active posters ... 10? 12?) The bet is that a majority of Americans aren't willing to reward eight years of Bush (whatever you think, his approval ratings are what they are) with another Republican administration.
And hey, four years out of office may do your party some good, allow it to refocus and distance itself from the neoconservative infiltration that defined the Bush era. In effect, the Democrats have a lot more to lose this election than Republicans, because history says the Republicans should lose this one.
Hah. You must think I sound like Joe Biden with these long posts.
What I get frustrated with is perpetual party obedience, especially when it comes to issues that are used in campaigning but will likely never change. Abortion, for one: people love to advertise their stance on it, but it rarely comes up once elections are over. Bush + both houses of Congress never overturned Roe v. Wade. Both parties know it's a non-issue, a talking point only.
Best you can do with abortion is influence your own family.
Last edited on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 01:33 am by scrapple
|
Gordy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 01:09 am |
|
That's the pot calling the kettle black. Too funny.
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 01:06 am |
|
I'm pretty certain any candidate the Democratic Party runs from here to eternity, you will find a way to discredit. And any candidate the Republican Party runs from here to eternity you will find a way to defend. Because in your mind, one is good and the other is evil.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 12:45 am |
|
| Obama reminds me of the Wizard of Oz. The Great and powerful Oz, was exposed for what he was, the little man behind the curtain, pushing buttons and turning knobs. Given time, This will be exposed of Obama as well, I am just waiting for the curtain to open!
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 12:33 am |
|
Obama should've picked Chuck Hagel. He might anger "RINO"-haters, but that's not who they're going for anyway. And he probably would've accepted. Biden might be OK if they let him loose on Palin.
Last edited on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 12:39 am by scrapple
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 11:03 pm |
|
| . Attachment: JoeBiden08.jpg (Downloaded 184 times)
|
MacMom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1581 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
Oh, snap!
Actually, since we're talking therapy, the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. McCain's speech the other night was basically that: Republicans have screwed things up royally, so we need a Republican to come in and fix it!
Classic. And pathetic.
|
Jlivin
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 526 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 09:54 pm |
|
| MM: It might be good if you bring it up at therapy this week. Although, as crazed about this subject as you are- they are probably sick of hearing you too.
|
dd2001
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 09:16 pm |
|
I agree whoever is chosen to lead us can not be any worst than bush he is the worst thing that we haver had. 
|
MacMom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1581 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 08:52 pm |
|
Jlivin:
I repeat: blind, stubborn, willful ignorance.
And apparently you hang with people that are as easily fooled as you. Your limited, pathetic little focus group doesn't mean much. Birds of a feather and all that... Last edited on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 09:32 pm by MacMom
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 08:51 pm |
|
| A vote for Ron Paul or any other third party candidate is a vote for Osama.
|
Jlivin
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 526 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 08:21 pm |
|
MacMom wrote: The main thing I’ve taken away from this week is awe at the sheer mental effort it takes to be a loyal supporter of the Republican party line these days. All that cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance must be exhausting" -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nice cut & Paste!!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I have had two dear friends who were die hard Democrats - one so much so that we had to agree never to talk about politics, have told me that they are voting for McCain - they are very taken in by Governor Palin and under impressed by the flowery speeches from Obama. I have talked to Democrats that are not going to vote at all. I hear it everywhere I go. I interact with lots of people every day- Most folks that I have talked to feel the same way. I must just be living right!
With the exception of a few here on this Blog or if I go and look for a leftist website, I just don't hear it.
The hysterical almost shrieking untrue and unfair attacks on the Governor from Alaska, who by all accounts seems likable, competent and decent seems way over the top.
Correct me if I'm wrong but McMom- I believe it was you that reported on here that Palin's son was really her daughters and that she was lying to cover it up~ Watching a little too much Jerry Springer these days?
|
Cee Cee
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 08:14 pm |
|
| Both tickets suck. There is no real difference between the demacorps or rebulicorps. Obama is a big lib/marxist guy and McCain wants endless war, both will further bankrupt this country. Technically, the US gubment is already insolvent. The only real change agent candidate was Ron Paul. Limited government, personal liberty and a sensible foreign policy of no entangling alliances. I bet everybody loves that fact that Bush is sending $1 billion dollars of taxpayer money to Georgia and that taxpayers will left holding the bag (hundreds of billions of $$$) on bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both perfects examples of government failure and intrusion in the capital markets.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 08:03 pm |
|
CRIMECRUNCHER wrote: Why bother, Oprah, The View and Ellen Degenerate shows are mindless pap for thsee who want to be spoonfed liberalism?
This is true, I did kind of expect more from Oprah, for some reason.
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 08:01 pm |
|
| Why bother, Oprah, The View and Ellen Degenerate shows are mindless pap for thsee who want to be spoonfed liberalism?
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 07:55 pm |
|
According to reports, Oprah is refusing to have Gov. Palin on her Show. I lost respect for her, when she endorsed Obama. How she feels, is her business, but to be a talk show host about Issues, one would think that she would like to bring forth ALL the issues, and not just those that she wants to see furthered. It is not a religious show, or a news show, but across the board secular show, that should appeal to all people and all issues. Shame on Her!
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 06:44 pm |
|
Come on now, you don't really want to see Joe Biden's face morphed into Barack's, do you?
|
Just wondering
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1030 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 06:41 pm |
|
Oh my God!!! If the rep ublicans win, this is what will be running the country!
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 06:40 pm |
|
This is a neat fact-check interactive graphic. I know it's from the (gasp!) great satanic toilet paper roll feared by the right, but it's got checks on all sides.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/05/us/politics/20080905-CAMPAIGN-SPEECH-ANALYSIS.html?hp#
|
Just wondering
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1030 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 06:19 pm |
|
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 06:04 pm |
|
4Godncountry wrote: Hillary is the real puppet...reduced to stumping speeches and doing Obamas dirty work, to pay off her debt.
And that makes Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson, Romney et al ... ? What? "Loyal soldiers?" I agree with MacMom. The mental gymnastics required to see up as down as long as it pertains to your side is impressive. The obedience is really commendable.
BTW, because you don't seem to acknowledge it, Obama writes his own speeches. I know it's hard for you to imagine a Democratic, fancy Harvard educated elitist being intelligent enough to do that. Not saying he's some superior, wonderful man for doing that, but you insinuate he "speaks good" when he "reads."
Last edited on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 06:17 pm by scrapple
|
|
|
