2008 Republican Convention Thread

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yes, I do understand.

I want the choice should be personal, not mandatory. Just like it is for religious ministers.[/QUOTE]

So you are going to continue to make comparisons based only on your own personal plan (which would not even make it near the floor let alone pass) and not say what we have now and what has been proposed in recent memory?
 
[quote name='Msut77']So you are going to continue to make comparisons based only on your own personal plan (which would not even make it near the floor let alone pass) and not say what we have now and what has been proposed in recent memory?[/quote]

Post #160.

Bush's SS privatization plan? Like everything else he proposes, stupid.

Really privatizing SS by giving money back to the taxpayer? Libertarian porn.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Post #160.

Bush's SS privatization plan? Like everything else he proposes, stupid.

Really privatizing SS by giving money back to the taxpayer? Libertarian porn.[/QUOTE]

Bush's plan had no other goal but to destroy SS, suffice to say I am not impressed by the Libertarian "option" which is hardly more than wishful thinking and describes a chain of perfect decisions and abnormally good luck.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Post #160.

Bush's SS privatization plan? Like everything else he proposes, stupid.

Really privatizing SS by giving money back to the taxpayer? Libertarian porn.[/QUOTE]

The government will never allow us to opt out or determine where or how much money we invest in our federal retirement insurance plan. That money is captured and gone for a reason by your employers every quarter when they pay quarterly estimated taxes.

Don't worry Dems, even Republicans know they need that money to pay for current benefits of recipients. Putting it into a "lock box" doesn't allow them to shift money around at will. Social security will never be privatized. It's just another carrot to dangle in from of freedom loving dupes that vote Republican - just like the "smaller government" carrot.

What no one is daring to mention this election which is THE most important issue for the financial future of the United States? The impending outlays for Medicare, medicaid, SSA, and FICA will explode our current 10 trillion dollar deficit to such monstrous proportions, the current fuel crisis will feel like a bargain. The result of inflation is just now starting to rear it's fugly head with rising prices and lowering portions; just think of how much gas your dollar will buy when government borrowing has reached 40 trillion dollars.
 
If we can't have privatized social security, then force Congress's SS to be thrown into the pile with everyone else's.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Am I the only one watching this?[/QUOTE]
Actually, the GOP convention topped the dem convention's record setting numbers. Great conventions from both camps. And surprisingly, McCain's speech was as watched as Palin's awesome roast of Obama.

[quote name='mykevermin']One thing I have to say: the media narrative is extraordinarily powerful.

With the pick of Sarah Palin as the VP candidate, and with much of the media reporting last week, we're lead to believe that the Democratic party is fractured right down the middle, and suffering from a wound caused by the primaries that won't yet heal by the election.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS HAVING TWO CONVENTIONS AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME CITY.

Ron Paul is having his own convention, after reporting on CNN that he was allowed at the Republican convention, but only under limited and very controlled conditions.

So he's throwing his own party.

Additionally, the beleaguered Tom DeLay shows up at the convention and causes a shitstorm because the controversy and negativity surrounding his corruption make him a persona non grata. Who wants to be seen on the front page of the paper standing next to someone that corrupt, and expect to help the election?

The POTUS phoned in a 9 minute speech via satellite, unlike Clinton, who was in person, and spoke favorably and passionately about Obama's qualifications.

So the GOP are acting defensive, walking on eggshells, and just making shit up (e.g., "Sarah Palin was vetted/has experience").

Meanwhile, the media narrative isn't focusing on the "fractured" implications of a party having separate conventions, or the fact that some people merely showing up at the GOP convention and causing problems - yet the "party split" narrative centered around two people - Bill and Hillary Clinton - who spoke in high terms and offered unequivocal praise for the very person they're supposed to be opposed to.

What gives, man? Why is the "liberal msm" not acting very liberal? Or even-handed, for that matter?[/QUOTE]Did you listen to the Clinton speeches? They were awesome speeches for sure. But didn't you notice how they held back on the rhetoric just enough as to not seem to be fully throwing their support behind Obama? It was almost as if it was a bitter endorsement, hoping deep down for a defeat so Hillary could become President in 2012. That's how I felt when listening to the Clintons. And I think most people agree and that is why the dems are still being painted as "fractured". It's the mainstream members of the party who still have some lingering resentment.

Then you have the GOP. You have the base still wary of McCain, you have the moderate/liberal republicans behind McCain, and then you have the fringe, psycho, libertarians who vote republican backing Ron Paul. That's not good either. I'll give you that. But the second Palin was named as a running mate, the GOP congealed perfectly (aside from the Ron Paul wackos). I have never seen the party more together and more excited over what is going on, not even against Kerry/Edwards. And then you have Bush being marginalized to a non-prime time satellite speech that was so short he was done before he started and you have the GOP doing a disappearing trick on Cheney and you have Palin's awesome oratory and rhetoric 1) painting fear over Obama, 2) clearly separating McCain from Bush and 3) swinging the hard-core conservative values within the McCain platform and things couldn't look better for the GOP.

And now you have the liberals (both the crazy-left and the media) focusing on finding something on Palin so hard that they are resorting to making things up and you are left with a clean image being unfairly attacked, while McCain is getting off scott-free without any criticism on he himself. The former doesn't rest well with the average, middle lying undecided voter, while the latter doesn't help the dems convince them to stay away from McCain.

My point is, I don't think the media is being ironically unfair to the left and I think that any pretense of such is actually a backfire by the crazy-left's hateful attempts to destroy someone on the right who they hate and are afraid of.
[quote name='homeland']I wonder how Republicans at the Convention or watching on tv think about it being so white, do they even notice? Also Joe Gibbs speech came off as a religous nut.[/QUOTE]Actually, I'm not racist. So I view all Americans as Americans, no matter their skin color. I don't think about those things.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']What no one is daring to mention this election which is THE most important issue for the financial future of the United States? The impending outlays for Medicare, medicaid, SSA, and FICA will explode our current 10 trillion dollar deficit to such monstrous proportions, the current fuel crisis will feel like a bargain. The result of inflation is just now starting to rear it's fugly head with rising prices and lowering portions; just think of how much gas your dollar will buy when government borrowing has reached 40 trillion dollars.[/quote]

I'm genuinely not that worried about this. I'm sort of looking forward to it.

The Baby Boomer generation has saved very little and is used to the very best.

By the time they turn retirement age, they'll know FICA isn't going to pay the VISA.

You're going to see a lot of grumbling geezers, but not nearly as many octogenarians you'll see working to keep that car lease and Discover card from calling.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Do you understand my point?

dopa pulled out the much beloved talking point that states you can basically never lose money if you hold on to your stocks long enough.

I pointed out that is not very comforting to a person who needs the money in the here and now or will feel the icy hand of death before before the next boom.[/QUOTE]

You apparently don't understand the basics of saving for retirement. While you're young when you are 20-30+ years away from retirement, that's the time to put your money into stocks since over time, your money will grow on average 8-10% over the long-term. When you're approaching retirement, your money should be shifted out of the stock market and into bonds and short-term reserves. That's why there are target funds that do this for you for those who don't know how to manage their money.

It's scary how little people understand basic finance.
 
[quote name='dopa345']When you're approaching retirement, your money should be shifted out of the stock market and into bonds and short-term reserves. That's why there are target funds that do this for you for those who don't know how to manage their money.[/QUOTE]

So what happens if the optimal hand off time is during one of the bust cycles?

I will wait for you to do your usual several hour googling of the answer.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
Debt is sold very sexily whether it be a new car, a plasma screen TV, a speedboat, a bigger house, a second house on the lake or Hookerbot 5000.
People need to rise above those temptations or choose to work until the day they die.[/quote]
Related anecdote:

I overheard a neighbor talk about the "great deal" he got on his '08 Avenger. "Only $250 a month!" I wanted to ask what his loan term was (I didn't) but I'll bet it was 6+ years.
 
[quote name='Allnatural']Related anecdote:

I overheard a neighbor talk about the "great deal" he got on his '08 Avenger. "Only $250 a month!" I wanted to ask what his loan term was (I didn't) but I'll bet it was 6+ years.[/QUOTE]

If I had to guess, enormous balloon payment at the end.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So what happens if the optimal hand off time is during one of the bust cycles?

I will wait for you to do your usual several hour googling of the answer.[/QUOTE]

It's really not worth arguing with you about a topic when you clearly don't even understand the basics of how retirement savings work. Shifting your assets is a gradual, not a sudden process specifically to smooth out bust and boom periods. Best of luck to you when you head to retirement, you're going to need it.
 
[quote name='dopa345']It's really not worth arguing with you about a topic when you clearly don't even understand the basics of how retirement savings work.[/QUOTE]

I sincerely doubt you are capable of tying your own shoes, just admit you fail and spare me the extraneous blather.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What's, pray tell, been said about Palin that's untrue?

EDIT: The Daily Show does it again: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/06/daily-show-2008-mccain-2000-bush/[/QUOTE]

I could go on and on, but I guess the first thing that came to mind is that the reason the McCain campaign announced Bristol's pregnancy is because less than a day after the VP announcement was made, the Daily Kos, Media Matters and the crazy-left blogs started saying that baby Trig was actually Bristol's baby and Sarah Palin took the baby to cover up the unwed pregnancy. As soon as the McCain announcement hit the wires, the same people started saying that Bristol had had the baby and turned right around and got knocked up again.

Some of the most vicious and disgusting accusations in media/political history have been aimed at Sarah and they are lies. This is why Obama came out and condemned the comments. Such tactics are even below him. Sure, he doesn't want these things to backfire on his campaign. But I doubt such is the reason he did the right thing. Even I have to give the man credit for being a good enough person to recognize such vile behavior and distancing himself from it, regardless of the effect on his campaign.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']I could go on and on, but I guess the first thing that came to mind is that the reason the McCain campaign announced Bristol's pregnancy is because less than a day after the VP announcement was made, the Daily Kos, Media Matters and the crazy-left blogs started saying that baby Trig was actually Bristol's baby and Sarah Palin took the baby to cover up the unwed pregnancy. As soon as the McCain announcement hit the wires, the same people started saying that Bristol had had the baby and turned right around and got knocked up again.

Some of the most vicious and disgusting accusations in media/political history have been aimed at Sarah and they are lies. This is why Obama came out and condemned the comments. Such tactics are even below him. Sure, he doesn't want these things to backfire on his campaign. But I doubt such is the reason he did the right thing. Even I have to give the man credit for being a good enough person to recognize such vile behavior and distancing himself from it, regardless of the effect on his campaign.[/QUOTE]

Obama condemned something different - something true. His opposition was to dragging the now-truly-pregnant Bristol through the mud. The "Trig is Bristol's baby" thing came and went rather quickly.

Your initial quote that I questioned was this: "And now you have the liberals (both the crazy-left and the media) focusing on finding something on Palin so hard that they are resorting to making things up and you are left with a clean image being unfairly attacked."

So you point to something that was more or less a murmur on DailyKos. Just so you know, you kids often talk about "liberal blogs" doing this and that, and I certainly don't believe I've spent much time bitching about what politico, redstate, or other conservative blogs say. But I digress; yes, this was terrible. It certainly got much more media traction than "Obama is a secret muslim," or "Obama attended a muslim madrassa," or...well, you get the idea.

Let me link you to what I've said about Palin already. In short, she's shown herself to be willing to lie to your face about accepting federal funds, pork, and earmarks, she's religious to the point that she wants to make decisions about what YOU get to do with YOUR life (and I don't just mean abortion, as she's also a willing and able censor, inquiring into banning books), she's shown herself to be an obfuscator who is more concerned with covering up and stalling the investigative process than being held accountable for her actions (or inactions if what she says is true).

So let's not take one lil' thing that lasted fewer than 24 hours and never even made it outside the left-wing blogs, and paint the "media" as saying untrue things about Palin. There's plenty of uncertainty about her experience, evidence of malfeasance, and obedience to faith over science to attack her on. All of which, mind you, is absolutely pertinent to how qualified she is for the vice presidency.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So what happens if the optimal hand off time is during one of the bust cycles?

I will wait for you to do your usual several hour googling of the answer.[/quote]

Remember retirement age is 67.

If one is smart and started saving for retirement at the age of 25, one'll have 13.5 times your annual income at the age of 55. Even if it is during the bottom of a bust cycle, one has 12 years to wait for the market to turn around. Considering the market has always turned around within 10 years, it doesn't matter.

If one is dumb and started saving for retirement at the age of 35, one'll have 13.5 times your annual income at the age of 65. In this scenario, one will have to listen to the news and pull out of the stock market when people are raving about how awesome the market is doing after the age of 55.

If one is as smart as an average American and started saving for retirement at the age of 45, one should invest in low risk mutual funds because one'll be damn near dead before there is enough for retirement.

If one is as smart as an average Baby Boomer and started saving for retirement at the age of 55, one should invest heavily in disability and long term care insurances, start kisses their kids' asses daily and/or develop a taste for dry cat food because it is too ... fucking ... late.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If one is as smart as an average Baby Boomer and started saving for retirement at the age of 55, one should invest heavily in disability and long term care insurances, start kisses their kids' asses daily and/or develop a taste for dry cat food because it is too ... ing ... late.ate.[/QUOTE]

Are you even going to pretend that yours or anyone elses alternative "plan" would be supported in a Democratic fashion?

Or is it shock troops and bombing for the lot?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Obama condemned something different - something true. His opposition was to dragging the now-truly-pregnant Bristol through the mud. The "Trig is Bristol's baby" thing came and went rather quickly.

Your initial quote that I questioned was this: "And now you have the liberals (both the crazy-left and the media) focusing on finding something on Palin so hard that they are resorting to making things up and you are left with a clean image being unfairly attacked."

So you point to something that was more or less a murmur on DailyKos. Just so you know, you kids often talk about "liberal blogs" doing this and that, and I certainly don't believe I've spent much time bitching about what politico, redstate, or other conservative blogs say. But I digress; yes, this was terrible. It certainly got much more media traction than "Obama is a secret muslim," or "Obama attended a muslim madrassa," or...well, you get the idea.

Let me link you to what I've said about Palin already. In short, she's shown herself to be willing to lie to your face about accepting federal funds, pork, and earmarks, she's religious to the point that she wants to make decisions about what YOU get to do with YOUR life (and I don't just mean abortion, as she's also a willing and able censor, inquiring into banning books), she's shown herself to be an obfuscator who is more concerned with covering up and stalling the investigative process than being held accountable for her actions (or inactions if what she says is true).

So let's not take one lil' thing that lasted fewer than 24 hours and never even made it outside the left-wing blogs, and paint the "media" as saying untrue things about Palin. There's plenty of uncertainty about her experience, evidence of malfeasance, and obedience to faith over science to attack her on. All of which, mind you, is absolutely pertinent to how qualified she is for the vice presidency.[/QUOTE]

Come on, myke, the "fake pregnancy" thing is STILL out there, although it's been taken down even at wacko central (DailyKos, etc). For heaven's sake, it was even picked up by what used to be a respectable publication, The Atlantic.

Yet that was only one of many slimy attacks with no basis in reality. Of course, the Internet is full of these sorts of things, but when you are called a "cheerleader" in the New York Times and a "Nazi sympathizer" by an Obama campaign guy, I would call those lies and bullshit.
 
To quote dafoomie "The party of the Patriot Act, of domestic warentless wiretapping, of national security letters, of eliminating habeas corpus, isn't the party of Big Brother?"

Big Brother you mean isn't that like big government something conservatives are against...
 
Sigh I think the GOP's plan is to try to get the women who would have voted for Hilary to try to vote for Palin (How dumb do they think the fairer sex is?)

Since most Conservatives are gung ho on family values what about Bristol's pregnancy shouldn't you educate your kids on the birds and the bees and how is she going to play mom when she's trying to be VP? In other words I'm afraid if something happened to McCain and she took over the Presidency...we'd be screwed...

So anyone else think he should have gone with Romney at least that guy knows economics...at least McCain avoided Huckabee...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Come on, myke, the "fake pregnancy" thing is STILL out there, although it's been taken down even at wacko central (DailyKos, etc). For heaven's sake, it was even picked up by what used to be a respectable publication, The Atlantic.[/quote]

Where's it at these days? Show me. I'm sure it is, but I'm curious how far you have to go, and how deep you have to dig, to say that "the media" is saying Trig is Bristol's kid.

Really, I'm not saying the media is being ignorant of Palin, or never make shit up about anybody - but what I will say is that Palin has PLENTY of real-world shit she's done that the media is covering. They don't need to make shit up because Palin's real actions are culpable enough.

Yet that was only one of many slimy attacks with no basis in reality. Of course, the Internet is full of these sorts of things, but when you are called a "cheerleader" in the New York Times and a "Nazi sympathizer" by an Obama campaign guy, I would call those lies and bullshit.
Click to expand...

Do link me to those citations.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'm genuinely not that worried about this. I'm sort of looking forward to it.

The Baby Boomer generation has saved very little and is used to the very best.

By the time they turn retirement age, they'll know FICA isn't going to pay the VISA.

You're going to see a lot of grumbling geezers, but not nearly as many octogenarians you'll see working to keep that car lease and Discover card from calling.[/QUOTE]

that why i liked mitt a lot during the primaries. he was one of the only candidates (with a chance) that would open his mouth about entitlement programs. reforming these is a top 5 issue for me, and should be for every american under 40.

[quote name='Msut77']
Or is it shock troops and bombing for the lot?[/QUOTE]

Wait, were talking about retirement right?

[quote name='kube00']Sigh I think the GOP's plan is to try to get the women who would have voted for Hilary to try to vote for Palin

[/QUOTE]

welcome to the vs forum, last week.
 
[quote name='kube00']Sigh I think the GOP's plan is to try to get the women who would have voted for Hilary to try to vote for Palin (How dumb do they think the fairer sex is?)

Since most Conservatives are gung ho on family values what about Bristol's pregnancy shouldn't you educate your kids on the birds and the bees and how is she going to play mom when she's trying to be VP? In other words I'm afraid if something happened to McCain and she took over the Presidency...we'd be screwed...

So anyone else think he should have gone with Romney at least that guy knows economics...at least McCain avoided Huckabee...[/QUOTE]


I still think that the republicans don't believe they can win this election and that most of them know its a political suicide mission to run with McCain and so they had to give the VP spot to an unknown. If Romney, or Huckabee were to lose with McCain it's probably make them look unelectable in the future. No need to gamble your high cards for this round.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yeah, I lost Msut there, too. I'm sure he'll clarify this later.[/QUOTE]

What is there to clarify?

What I said was is anyone even going to pretend that an alternative to SS will be put in place in a Democratic way?

So far we have had the conservative method which was to lie to the American people and lie about their lies and then lie some more, and then we have the Glibertarian method which is something about slapping together a "plan" which near as I can tell would be supported among the tiniest of fringe groups.

Lying did not work and mocking the majority of Americans did not work, so what is left brute force?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']

Lying did not work and mocking the majority of Americans did not work, so what is left brute force?[/QUOTE]

Wait, we're talking about retirement, right?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Wait, we're talking about retirement, right?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I understand your confusion since I could be talking about any number of things cons spend time lying about.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Yes, I understand your confusion since I could be talking about any number of things cons spend time lying about.[/QUOTE]

Best I can tell you aren't talking about anything. Just an incoherent rant during, what was, a discussion about entitlement programs.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Seems like the problem is on your end.[/QUOTE]

Hopefully you keep your bubble clean since you spend all your time in it.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Hopefully you keep your bubble clean since you spend all your time in it.[/QUOTE]

And to think that I ever doubted your reading comprehension skills.
 
[quote name='Msut77']What is there to clarify?

What I said was is anyone even going to pretend that an alternative to SS will be put in place in a Democratic way?

Lying did not work and mocking the majority of Americans did not work, so what is left brute force?[/quote]

I genuinely doubt elected officials will create an alternative to SS by any method.

Rather than brute force, you're more likely going to see many Boomers working past the retirement age so that their lifestyle does not take a hit.

Once Boomers hit their late 70s, there will be some suffering as their bodies simply can't maintain a job, but their jobs aren't physically stressful enough to kill them outright.

Depending on their remaining numbers, there might be some attempt to drastically increase benefits through higher taxes or a higher retirement age. Their success will depend on how much Death has thinned out that portion of our herd.

If government can't provide for them, they're going to fall back on family, friends and their local communities to survive.
 
Am i the only one who rolls their eyes at the whole "I don't see color/race" statements?

It's just a stupid thing to say for one (even the colorblind can see color), but i've even heard people say it's offensive to them. I know what you're trying to say, but find a better way to say it.
 
myke, thanks for the link to one of your previous posts from before I joined the thread. You do make some valid points, but some of them really don't help your argument in here as you are working off of a completely different set of accepted assumptions than the typical conservative or even many moderates have.

You mentioned things like her wanting to take away women's rights. Okay that sounds bad. But I assume you mean she is against abortion. I think that is a good thing. So do most conservatives (and some liberals). You can't use that against a conservative as to why she is a bad choice. Also, you mention that she lets her faith help her make decisions. Again, a good thing for at least 50% of the country (if not more). We have different values and assumptions in these areas. You are doing nothing to convince anyone when you use these as examples why Sarah is bad. The Iraq war is a debatable issue and I'll have to look into book banning (if she didn't want Playboy in libraries, I say, "Go Sarah." If she was trying to get rid of Charlotte's Web and Harry Potter, I might need to have a talk with the lady), but the fact that she makes decisions based upon her faith (and therefore morals) is not a bad thing. If a Muslim were elected President, I would hope he wouldn't abandon his principles of faith when he had to make decisions.

As far as her brother-in-law goes, I read a report that said his own family thought he should be fired and the reason it was an issue was because he tasered his own 11 year old son. But it's an on-going investigation so we don't know what really happened there. So that shouldn't be an issue. The woman hasn't been convicted of anything, don't treat her as if she has.

The bridge thing is so stupid too. It's not like she voted for a war and then voted against armor for the troops. The federal government was going to do a big project in her state. Cool. Free project. Who wouldn't want that? Then she realized it was a stupid thing to do (whatever her motivations were, I'm not her, I don't know) and she killed the deal. So people can't change their minds? It's not like she made any unchangeable decisions about the thing before she said, "No thanks." I used to be strictly and staunchly in favor of the death penalty. My views have changed over the years. I still believe it is occasionally appropriate, but that we should more often be extra careful in dealing out such decisions. So am I a bad person for changing my mind now that I feel I am more informed than I was when I was younger? I don't think so. And that is the death penalty. Sarah changed her mind about a stupid bridge. Big whoop-edee-doo! I really don't think she did anything wrong in either of these issues (at least it hasn't been proven yet) and I think people are making a much bigger mountain out of a mole hill than need be.

People in office need to make decisions that will be controversial no matter which way they decide. Buying extra furniture and other things for the Governor's Mansion (with state funds) and then cleaning the place out when you leave is an ethics question that should prevent someone from seeking further office. But someone being initially in favor of a not so hot idea and then realizing how utterly stupid it is and abandoning the movement is not in my eyes a bad thing. Would you rather her have taken the federal money?
[quote name='mykevermin']Where's it at these days? Show me. I'm sure it is, but I'm curious how far you have to go, and how deep you have to dig, to say that "the media" is saying Trig is Bristol's kid.

Really, I'm not saying the media is being ignorant of Palin, or never make shit up about anybody - but what I will say is that Palin has PLENTY of real-world shit she's done that the media is covering. They don't need to make shit up because Palin's real actions are culpable enough.[/QUOTE]The story popped up late Friday night and I read reports and updates on it up until at least Wednesday (on supposedly "reputable" "news" sites). This weekend even the DailyKos finally took down (at least their main) story of it. But it's not because of any valiant effort on their part. The jig is up and promoting the lie any more only hurts their guy. And it's not just fringe sites reporting this junk like you mentioned. Last Saturday, I saw CNN (TV), MSNBC and multiple online "news" sources regurgitating the DailyKos smears on Palin.

[quote name='mykevermin']Do link me to those citations.[/QUOTE]Here goes:
Palin = Nazi Sympathizer
...
I was going to make a rundown of lies that different parts of the media have created and subsequently run with. Some have had more exposure, some less. After linking that first story I found this little article that did it all for me. And it has sources linked in the article after each lie.

EDIT:
[quote name='JolietJake']Am i the only one who rolls their eyes at the whole "I don't see color/race" statements?

It's just a stupid thing to say for one (even the colorblind can see color), but i've even heard people say it's offensive to them. I know what you're trying to say, but find a better way to say it.[/QUOTE]I really hope you weren't talking to/about me. I didn't say anything of the sort, but I have a feeling you are talking about me. Here, let me quote to you what I said:

[quote name='MorPhiend']Actually, I'm not racist. So I view all Americans as Americans, no matter their skin color. I don't think about those things.[/QUOTE]Where in there did I say that I don't see color/race? That's right. I didn't. I said I see an American as an American, regardless of skin color. That's right, I specifically stated that I do see skin color.

Too many people are too quick to take offense at every little thing. That's what makes me roll my eyes...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Where's it at these days? Show me. I'm sure it is, but I'm curious how far you have to go, and how deep you have to dig, to say that "the media" is saying Trig is Bristol's kid.

Really, I'm not saying the media is being ignorant of Palin, or never make shit up about anybody - but what I will say is that Palin has PLENTY of real-world shit she's done that the media is covering. They don't need to make shit up because Palin's real actions are culpable enough.



Do link me to those citations.[/QUOTE]

You're right, the big boys have taken down the "Trig is Bristol's kid" lie at this point; it's mostly idiot far-left bloggers and the like who are trying to keep it alive. You can find it easily enough, but not in anything with any reputation whatsoever like it was before.

And MorPhiend has given you one list, albeit a very short one (and one from Fox News, which I know you are not going to like). Here's a more comprehensive list. It's definitely written from a conservative viewpoint, but it has a wealth of information.

http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/
 
[quote name='elprincipe'](and one from Fox News, which I know you are not going to like)[/QUOTE]I almost said that myself, but the fact is that they cite different stories for the information they give. Besides, it was just one of the first things that popped up on google when I searched for the first story. Thanks for the better list though.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']
Also, you mention that she lets her faith help her make decisions. Again, a good thing for at least 50% of the country (if not more). We have different values and assumptions in these areas. You are doing nothing to convince anyone when you use these as examples why Sarah is bad. The Iraq war is a debatable issue and I'll have to look into book banning (if she didn't want Playboy in libraries, I say, "Go Sarah." If she was trying to get rid of Charlotte's Web and Harry Potter, I might need to have a talk with the lady), but the fact that she makes decisions based upon her faith (and therefore morals) is not a bad thing. If a Muslim were elected President, I would hope he wouldn't abandon his principles of faith when he had to make decisions.
[/QUOTE]

I think there's a more important issue here. Obama has made the point about one's faith informing one's politics. He then pointed out while this is perfectly reasonable, that faith alone cannot cut it in a secular country. Laws need secular reasoning. This is a point that the religious right seems incapable of understanding. From what I've seen and read Palin seems to fall pretty close to the far right in this regard. This is where her faith is a legitimate issue.
 
[quote name='StealthNinjaScyther']I think there's a more important issue here. Obama has made the point about one's faith informing one's politics. He then pointed out while this is perfectly reasonable, that faith alone cannot cut it in a secular country. Laws need secular reasoning. This is a point that the religious right seems incapable of understanding. From what I've seen and read Palin seems to fall pretty close to the far right in this regard. This is where her faith is a legitimate issue.[/QUOTE]

This country was founded on faith. It's documents still show that and will always show that. The godless have tried to take faith out of the public arena completely time and time again. While once in a while they have a momentary victory (before the public lashes out and takes their rights back), they have not been altogether successful. Until a majority of America agrees with you, you are wrong-o.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']This country was founded on faith.[/quote]

You know, it's late. I should have been doing homework, but I just spent the last three hours watching American Gangster. That means I have to get all my French done up then head to class in a few hours. As such, I don't have much time to post here. So even though there's something here that I really want to respond to... I can't. My brain needs sleep.

But that's alright by me. Why?

I've seen some of Stealth's posts. He seems smart. He seems like he knows his shit. He seems like he knows how to string together a decent argument. And I don't think he's going to let a statement like the one quoted above sit unchallenged. For those reasons, I can say this and go to bed/homework:

StealthNinjaScyther. Do your motherfucking thing.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']You mentioned things like her wanting to take away women's rights. Okay that sounds bad. But I assume you mean she is against abortion. I think that is a good thing. So do most conservatives (and some liberals). You can't use that against a conservative as to why she is a bad choice. Also, you mention that she lets her faith help her make decisions. Again, a good thing for at least 50% of the country (if not more). We have different values and assumptions in these areas. You are doing nothing to convince anyone when you use these as examples why Sarah is bad. The Iraq war is a debatable issue and I'll have to look into book banning (if she didn't want Playboy in libraries, I say, "Go Sarah." If she was trying to get rid of Charlotte's Web and Harry Potter, I might need to have a talk with the lady), but the fact that she makes decisions based upon her faith (and therefore morals) is not a bad thing. If a Muslim were elected President, I would hope he wouldn't abandon his principles of faith when he had to make decisions.[/quote]

Sure about abortion.

That said, the rationale for her choice seems to have been "HEY! A WOMAN!" Really. So in choosing one, they managed to select one whose viewpoints are diametrically opposed to Clinton, which really seems to insult women voters by thinking they'll vote for whatever-it-is as long as it's a woman.

As for banning books, you flippantly dive into this false dichotomy of "Playboy" or "Charlotte's Web." The very fact that she wanted (wants?) to ban library books should give you pause, precisely because YOU KNOW FOR A FACT that it isn't Playboy.

As far as her brother-in-law goes, I read a report that said his own family thought he should be fired and the reason it was an issue was because he tasered his own 11 year old son. But it's an on-going investigation so we don't know what really happened there. So that shouldn't be an issue. The woman hasn't been convicted of anything, don't treat her as if she has.
Click to expand...

Reread what I said. I don't know what's the case in this scandal. I do know that she and her attorney are getting ***in the way*** of this investigation being completed. They aren't helping, they aren't being interviewed, they're forcing investigators to issue subpoenas. My point wasn't that she was abusing power to enforce cronyism (though that's implicitly there); my point was that, as a "Washington Outsider," she certainly behaves in ways that resemble George W. Bush's efforts to make his administration "accountable" for the things they screwed up. She tactfully dances around being held responsible in this case, and shows that she's no outsider; she's another failed Republican abusing power.

The bridge thing is so stupid too. It's not like she voted for a war and then voted against armor for the troops. The federal government was going to do a big project in her state. Cool. Free project. Who wouldn't want that? Then she realized it was a stupid thing to do (whatever her motivations were, I'm not her, I don't know) and she killed the deal. So people can't change their minds? It's not like she made any unchangeable decisions about the thing before she said, "No thanks." I used to be strictly and staunchly in favor of the death penalty. My views have changed over the years. I still believe it is occasionally appropriate, but that we should more often be extra careful in dealing out such decisions. So am I a bad person for changing my mind now that I feel I am more informed than I was when I was younger? I don't think so. And that is the death penalty. Sarah changed her mind about a stupid bridge. Big whoop-edee-doo! I really don't think she did anything wrong in either of these issues (at least it hasn't been proven yet) and I think people are making a much bigger mountain out of a mole hill than need be.
Click to expand...

Again, "Washington outsider" and pork-barrel spending. Were she a "maverick," she would have returned the money, no? Also, calling a federally funded project "FREE" shows some naivete on your part. You know better than that. The bridge to nowhere has become THE symbol of Washington spending gone way too wrong - so what does it say when someone supported it (until they couldn't get the remaining $200 million or so they asked for for it, mind you), and then decided they wouldn't give the money back?

Frankly, I wish it had been funded - the reasons she's "against it" is because the feds never funded it, so she never got it started. Do you get the point now? She's against something because she couldn't get the money for it, not because she's principled.

People in office need to make decisions that will be controversial no matter which way they decide. Buying extra furniture and other things for the Governor's Mansion (with state funds) and then cleaning the place out when you leave is an ethics question that should prevent someone from seeking further office. But someone being initially in favor of a not so hot idea and then realizing how utterly stupid it is and abandoning the movement is not in my eyes a bad thing. Would you rather her have taken the federal money?
Click to expand...

Again, she took (and did not return) half of it, and ceased pursuing the project once she couldn't get the other $200 miliion. How'sat for ethics, reform, being against pork, and standing up to Washington?

The story popped up late Friday night and I read reports and updates on it up until at least Wednesday (on supposedly "reputable" "news" sites). This weekend even the DailyKos finally took down (at least their main) story of it. But it's not because of any valiant effort on their part. The jig is up and promoting the lie any more only hurts their guy. And it's not just fringe sites reporting this junk like you mentioned. Last Saturday, I saw CNN (TV), MSNBC and multiple online "news" sources regurgitating the DailyKos smears on Palin.

Here goes:
Palin = Nazi Sympathizer
...
I was going to make a rundown of lies that different parts of the media have created and subsequently run with. Some have had more exposure, some less. After linking that first story I found this little article that did it all for me. And it has sources linked in the article after each lie.
Click to expand...

The fuck kind of paper is that? Looks like what you get on Wednesday's that's hidden between the "Dairy Queen" coupons. I thought you were saying that the Dreaded Mainstream Media was running with the "Trig is Bristol's Baby" story, but y'all haven't shown me one iota of evidence no that side yet.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sure about abortion.

That said, the rationale for her choice seems to have been "HEY! A WOMAN!" Really. So in choosing one, they managed to select one whose viewpoints are diametrically opposed to Clinton, which really seems to insult women voters by thinking they'll vote for whatever-it-is as long as it's a woman.

As for banning books, you flippantly dive into this false dichotomy of "Playboy" or "Charlotte's Web." The very fact that she wanted (wants?) to ban library books should give you pause, precisely because YOU KNOW FOR A FACT that it isn't Playboy.



Reread what I said. I don't know what's the case in this scandal. I do know that she and her attorney are getting ***in the way*** of this investigation being completed. They aren't helping, they aren't being interviewed, they're forcing investigators to issue subpoenas. My point wasn't that she was abusing power to enforce cronyism (though that's implicitly there); my point was that, as a "Washington Outsider," she certainly behaves in ways that resemble George W. Bush's efforts to make his administration "accountable" for the things they screwed up. She tactfully dances around being held responsible in this case, and shows that she's no outsider; she's another failed Republican abusing power.



Again, "Washington outsider" and pork-barrel spending. Were she a "maverick," she would have returned the money, no? Also, calling a federally funded project "FREE" shows some naivete on your part. You know better than that. The bridge to nowhere has become THE symbol of Washington spending gone way too wrong - so what does it say when someone supported it (until they couldn't get the remaining $200 million or so they asked for for it, mind you), and then decided they wouldn't give the money back?

Frankly, I wish it had been funded - the reasons she's "against it" is because the feds never funded it, so she never got it started. Do you get the point now? She's against something because she couldn't get the money for it, not because she's principled.



Again, she took (and did not return) half of it, and ceased pursuing the project once she couldn't get the other $200 miliion. How'sat for ethics, reform, being against pork, and standing up to Washington?



The fuck kind of paper is that? Looks like what you get on Wednesday's that's hidden between the "Dairy Queen" coupons. I thought you were saying that the Dreaded Mainstream Media was running with the "Trig is Bristol's Baby" story, but y'all haven't shown me one iota of evidence no that side yet.[/QUOTE]You do realize it is impossible for us to agree, as I said earlier. We are not speaking issues. We are speaking trust. I hate nearly everything Obama stands for (as far as a platform), but I think he's probably a decent guy who wants to get the same things done I want. He just has a different way going about it that I don't think will work. I think McCain is generally a good guy too. I think he is a hero and I think he has picked a heroic woman as his running mate. The problem is, you don't trust either of them and you aren't willing to. Every argument you make stems not from issues, but from trust. And either you are going to trust someone, or you're not. I can't convince you. And no corruption has been proven for either candidate on either side, so I am going to trust that all four people are generally good people.

They all have small issues that I can't stand, but you have got to pick someone, right? I read that link you have quoted in your sig. That makes me sick about McCain. I can't imagine any reason for a husband ever treating his wife like that. But he made a mistake and it doesn't appear that he treats her like that often and it seems like she really loves him. I can get over that. I can get over some of Obama's past relationships and don't think he is a terrorist or unpatriotic because of them.

Now for some of the things you said: I know for a fact that it isn't Playboy? (And in capital letters)? Oh really? Just about every city I have lived in over the past ten years has had a big uproar about Playboy issues being readily available on the magazine racks of the public library. And in the end the crazies win with some bull freedom of press/speech crap. Same with porn access on publicly viewable screens at libraries. Don't tell me I know that isn't the issue. The ACLU was all over the decent folks who wanted to protect their children, and rightfully so. And yes, I was being playfully asinine with Charlotte's Web, but not Harry Potter. Some people have got serious issues with that series.

I see what you mean with the trooper now. And that is a good point. I don't really know what she has and hasn't done and why avoid procedure if you are in the right. But again, nothing has been proven as far as I am aware. If there has been bad behavior, that is not good. But how is obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence and persuading many, many people to perjure themselves, and then perjuring yourself any better? I think all of that is worse than just trying to avoid a situation where you can't lie or else you're hosed. And even today, when all of the above is a fact, you are still hard pressed to find a democrat condemn Bill Clinton. I'm not trying to give any alleged wrongdoing on Palin's part a pass. I am just saying, where is the fairness?

I know you don't agree with me on things. But do you really think I am completely stupid? I meant that she would be turning down free money, not that the complete project would lack any involvement from the state government whatsoever. Instead of "Cool. Free project." as a simple expression of an idea I'm sure you fully grasped, in the future maybe I should say, "Cool. A project might get underway in my state in which our state taxpayer responsibility is severely reduced due to possible federal government subsidies and in the end it will save my state mucho dinero." Get real...

But I haven't heard about her taking some of the money in the end. Is that fact? I'd like to see more about that.

Sorry, I can't help you with stories that were up as late as Wednesday and as early as Saturday morning (around 2am) after the VP announcement. Like I said, they have been taken down or the stories have been altered so I can't point you to a url. But the fact is that they were up for longer than "less than 24 hours". If you have a way for me to prove it, let me in on it. My word and the word of others is all I can really think of there. But don't insult just because I don't know any magical tricks.

And why are you so willing to rip on me or someone else who disagrees with you, but when they show evidence of something you disbelieved, you completely ignore that statement and never address it again. Obama's campaigner drew a line between Palin and Nazi sympathizer. Fact. I'm not blaming Obama himself, but you have got to do more than ignore it once it's been shown, especially when you called someone out on it. Another thing you glazed over is my Harry Potter book comment. I'm not sure, but I assume it's because you know that is a highly reasonable comment (she is a conservative christian afterall) and you probably realize that I feel she needs her head examined if that was one of her problem titles. But then you cite my other examples and call me crazy/stupid/whatever for naming those. I don't know, I just feel that sometimes you take the bits of someone's comment that can be construed to sound crazy alone and leave the rest out when replying to them. I don't think it's very fair and I think it takes credit away from your statements. Maybe it's just me though... *shrug*


EDIT:
I think I'm mostly done replying here. But I will look out for new, founded information you or others post here. And if something legitimate comes up, I might reply again...
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']This country was founded on faith. It's documents still show that and will always show that. The godless have tried to take faith out of the public arena completely time and time again. While once in a while they have a momentary victory (before the public lashes out and takes their rights back), they have not been altogether successful. Until a majority of America agrees with you, you are wrong-o.[/QUOTE]

"The major principles found in the constitution - separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, separation of church and state, etc - are found nowhere in the bible, or in Christian theology for that matter." -Ed Brayton

Here's the source for that:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2003/12/was_american_founded_on_christ.php

While this country is most certainly a Christian nation in the sense that the majority of Americans are Christian, it doesn't really extend past that. If you want to make the claim that America was founded upon the Christian faith, go ahead, show us the documents. Here's a hint: they don't exist.

Yeah, I got your back Crotch. I might not be the best with words, but I know where to find the facts.
 
I think some get confused with the fact that the country was founded not ON faith but by those WITH faith.

But, imo, each side of the whole "separation of church and state" argument are too extreme and miss the original intent.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think some get confused with the fact that the country was founded not ON faith but by those WITH faith.[/QUOTE]

Does Deism count as a faith?
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']myke, thanks for the link to one of your previous posts from before I joined the thread. You do make some valid points, but some of them really don't help your argument in here as you are working off of a completely different set of accepted assumptions than the typical conservative or even many moderates have.

You mentioned things like her wanting to take away women's rights. Okay that sounds bad. But I assume you mean she is against abortion. I think that is a good thing. So do most conservatives (and some liberals). You can't use that against a conservative as to why she is a bad choice. Also, you mention that she lets her faith help her make decisions. Again, a good thing for at least 50% of the country (if not more). We have different values and assumptions in these areas. You are doing nothing to convince anyone when you use these as examples why Sarah is bad. The Iraq war is a debatable issue and I'll have to look into book banning (if she didn't want Playboy in libraries, I say, "Go Sarah." If she was trying to get rid of Charlotte's Web and Harry Potter, I might need to have a talk with the lady), but the fact that she makes decisions based upon her faith (and therefore morals) is not a bad thing. If a Muslim were elected President, I would hope he wouldn't abandon his principles of faith when he had to make decisions.

As far as her brother-in-law goes, I read a report that said his own family thought he should be fired and the reason it was an issue was because he tasered his own 11 year old son. But it's an on-going investigation so we don't know what really happened there. So that shouldn't be an issue. The woman hasn't been convicted of anything, don't treat her as if she has.

The bridge thing is so stupid too. It's not like she voted for a war and then voted against armor for the troops. The federal government was going to do a big project in her state. Cool. Free project. Who wouldn't want that? Then she realized it was a stupid thing to do (whatever her motivations were, I'm not her, I don't know) and she killed the deal. So people can't change their minds? It's not like she made any unchangeable decisions about the thing before she said, "No thanks." I used to be strictly and staunchly in favor of the death penalty. My views have changed over the years. I still believe it is occasionally appropriate, but that we should more often be extra careful in dealing out such decisions. So am I a bad person for changing my mind now that I feel I am more informed than I was when I was younger? I don't think so. And that is the death penalty. Sarah changed her mind about a stupid bridge. Big whoop-edee-doo! I really don't think she did anything wrong in either of these issues (at least it hasn't been proven yet) and I think people are making a much bigger mountain out of a mole hill than need be.

People in office need to make decisions that will be controversial no matter which way they decide. Buying extra furniture and other things for the Governor's Mansion (with state funds) and then cleaning the place out when you leave is an ethics question that should prevent someone from seeking further office. But someone being initially in favor of a not so hot idea and then realizing how utterly stupid it is and abandoning the movement is not in my eyes a bad thing. Would you rather her have taken the federal money?
The story popped up late Friday night and I read reports and updates on it up until at least Wednesday (on supposedly "reputable" "news" sites). This weekend even the DailyKos finally took down (at least their main) story of it. But it's not because of any valiant effort on their part. The jig is up and promoting the lie any more only hurts their guy. And it's not just fringe sites reporting this junk like you mentioned. Last Saturday, I saw CNN (TV), MSNBC and multiple online "news" sources regurgitating the DailyKos smears on Palin.

Here goes:
Palin = Nazi Sympathizer
...
I was going to make a rundown of lies that different parts of the media have created and subsequently run with. Some have had more exposure, some less. After linking that first story I found this little article that did it all for me. And it has sources linked in the article after each lie.

EDIT:
I really hope you weren't talking to/about me. I didn't say anything of the sort, but I have a feeling you are talking about me. Here, let me quote to you what I said:

Where in there did I say that I don't see color/race? That's right. I didn't. I said I see an American as an American, regardless of skin color. That's right, I specifically stated that I do see skin color.

Too many people are too quick to take offense at every little thing. That's what makes me roll my eyes...[/quote]
You inspired it, but it wasn't just about you. It's a general statement i've heard a lot of people make. Granted yours seems almost as corny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top