Wednesday August 24, 2016
Jump to content
Tom, I started your lengthy post, but quit when you started preaching, yet again. You really need to understand that I do not need for you to explain things to me. Got it?
You have your opinion, to which you are entitled. As to the lipstick on a pig comment, if you would take the time to actually find the actual text of Obama's comment, you would see that he was specifically referring to McCain's economic policy. So, Tom take it from me: It was not, in any way, a slur against Palin, except in the imagination of some.
Now, I think I really will end making any attempt to contribute to a discussion on this board. Tom has appointed himself teacher, preacher, wise one. Ron likes to spend his time going through a post to see if there are any errors or contradictions.
This is a forum, for pete's sake. It is no more than a conglomeration of individual opinions.
I, for one, am getting back to my real life - which is a whole lot more fun and far more insightful, not to mention fulfilling and worthwhile.
Pat and Dean, I've enjoyed our frequent "conversations."
Chief, you're right. I did write those words. At the time, I fully intended not to enter into any further discussion. Then McCain chose Palin. I changed my mind.
"...the battle cry of the Left is "You can't ask that question! You must be racist!' " Oh, puleez. Wouldn't some love it, were it actually the case?
Bernice, the "lipstick on the pig" comment never had anything at all to do with Palin. The comment was, as is often the way in politics, taken out of context. Once taken out of context, and used by McCain to attack Obama, it really did turn right around and bite McCain. The phrase has been used by McCain countless times. When he uses it, he thinks it's clever, even if used specifically to attack Hillary Clnton and her health care plan in '93. It's a non-issue, which is exactly what McCain wants. The longer he can avoid the issues, the longer he'll have a certain segment of the voting public bamboozled.
Speaking of issues, while I didn't watch any of the repub. convention, I did find, through reading texts of speeches offered there, that issues were the farthest thing from the minds of the republicans. The didn't discuss the economy, or health care, or the mortgage crisis, or care of veterans. I don't believe they discussed education, or energy, or global warming. What they did do was attempt, yet again, to instill fear into the minds of the public by invoking 9/11. Perhaps it's that they realize that if they discuss the real issues they might ... gasp ... lose!
Chief, I know that "they hate Bush" has become the GOP battle cry. It's so yesterday.
What's happening now, the questions about, and vetting of Palin by journalists (since it clearly wasn't done by McCain or his party), is not hate. If Palin is to have respect, she must earn it. Until last week, only those in Alaska knew of her. Well, obviously someone in the GOP knew of her, but just how much was known remains a mystery. It's left to others to learn about her. You call that hate. I call it responsible, and necessary.
Dean, the TV media loves this stuff. Real journalists, meanwhile, are finding much out about Palin. Much of what has been found to date, is enough to take the shine off the GOP's girl wonder. Im not saying that there is dirt about her, but there is plenty to put into question just how capable she is - or isn't.
She's untested, unproven, unknown. Right now she's working on her talking points, in hopes that she can plow through the eventual veep debate. She should not be allowed, by the moderator, to get away with mere talking points.
Real journalists, not news readers or talking heads on cable news channels, are digging into palin's time in public office, limited though it is. Keep reading.
Pat, I don't know that he only saw her once, but I did read that. Why'd he pick her? Beats the heck out of me, really.
Shovelhead, if Obama had chosen who the party wanted (for his veep), I really think that it might well have been Hillary. Did the party approve of Obama's choice of Biden? Sure. Did the party make the final decision? I seriously doubt it.
Actually, Mike, I first heard of him in 2004, when I heard him speak at the democratic convention. What he had to say then sparked a very real interest in him and his plans for our country.
That you may not have heard of him doesn't surprise me. It probably won't surprise you to hear...
Pat, I certainly had never heard of her before the news that she was McCain's choice for VP. Since then, I've heard McCain supporters sing her praises, as the truth about who she is begins to come out. Oh, and I'm really not sure how familiar even old Johnny was with her. It appears that he may have only met with her once, before naming her his veep choice. Yeah. That should make everyone feel very comfortable with the choice. Kinda like Bush looking in Putin's eyes and seeing his soul (heart?). We know what an erroneous judgement he made there.
Dean, yep. This particular inane attack by McCain and his campaign, and jumped on by the media to make it a headline, (McCain has used the term at least 5 different times in '07 & '08 - all on news video tape) looks to be backfiring on old John.
This, the naming of Palin as the veep candidate, the whining about Obama not doing town meetings with McCain - all are part of the campaign of distraction. As long as such can make the news, McCain doesn't have to talk about the real issues.
Yup. Rove is most certainly behind many facets of McCain's campaign.
As Obama said just to day, Enough is Enough!!
I happen to agree that the media must take some of the blame for the division in this country, especially the talking heads. Some blame must be given to people who rely solely on what they hear presented by the media on TV or radio, and never doing any investigation of important issues/subjects on their own. Read? Think? Why, when they can get some republican or democratic strategist to do it for them?
With only weeks to go until the election, how I'll vote has long since been determined. So, I very rarely "watch" news. I get my news from cnn.com, msnbc.com, and various newspapers online. I follow things quite sufficiently that way, and don't have to "listen" to things that will most certainly anger me, or at the very least, annoy me.
McCain's rise in the poll has much to do with his selection of Palin as his running mate. There are those, myself included, who think that the hastily made choice was made, in part, to detract from McCain's age. Then there's the religious right vote.
In any case, she was chosen without full vetting, which is now being done by the press.
Oh, and speaking of the press: the campaign has said that Palin the media should treat Palin with deference. Really? Why? Hillary certainly could, and did, take the heat. Clearly, the campaign is concerned that Palin cannot.
Spare me the accolades about Palin. I think she's a joke.
On another thread, Tom and Bernice posted about where they go for information. Try truthout.org. Try a website that isn't afraid to challenge McCain. His time as a POW is to be respected and admired. He's played it for long enough, though. Look, instead, at how he's voted. Look at what is, based on his voting record, important to him. It's NOT you. Or me.
If anyone wants tickets to the debates, go to the following page:
And, by the way, Obama has said countless times that he is more than ready and willing to debate McCain on the issues.
I think you may be confused with the town meetings that McCain wanted. My opinion? I think that while McCain does well in a town meeting, with a partisan crowd, I doubt that he'd do as well in a crowd represented by both sides. Just my opinion.
Last login: Monday, September 12, 2005