ThinSkin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Libs whaling? I thought most libs wanted to save the whales. Lol. It obviously should be wailing. Proof that you can't always count on the spell-checker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 If Gore picks Gephart in 2000 he wins. ? Gore did win in 2000 by about half a million votes, didn't he? 48.38% to Bush's 47.87%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I know that people laugh that she graduated from University of Idaho- like its some po-dunk no name university. That is offensive to the many who go there, including their law students. (yes, they have a law school). I hate that people think you are stupid unless you went to an ivy league school. Actually, to be fair, the questions do not come up because she graduated from the University of Idaho. They come up because she went to five separate colleges (two community colleges) and took six years to get her degree in communications with the hope of being a sportscaster. That is very different than attacking her for having not gone to an Ivy League school. I think your "elitist radar" might be set a bit too high. Its surprising how many people think the things that Tina Fey said were actually things Sarah said. It is also surprising that many of Palin's followers don't realize that many of the things Tina Fey said were actually direct quotes from Palin. Not all, but many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I know at least 10+ people who planned on voting for McCain and ended up going for Barr or Obama solely because she had an outside chance at being POTUS if something happened to McCain. My mother in law is one of those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeysc23 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 My mother in law is one of those people. You can play that game all day long. My mother and I voted for McCain because of Palin. I think it more proved how weak both candidates were last election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 JMS, I agree that Palin was a swing for the fences from the GOP. They needed a shot in the arm and she gave it to them. However, I think you are overemphasizing her contribution to the plus column. You are attributing McCain's entire post-convention bounce to Palin and I'm not sure that's accurate. Also, while Palin started out strong, her luster wore off rather quickly once she started speaking without a script, and what was initially a boost for the McCain campaign became an anchor. In my opinion. Several polls have recently come out showing that a vast majority of Americans don't feel she is qualified to be President. Just my opinion but I doubt most of those opinions were formed AFTER the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 It is also surprising that many of Palin's followers don't realize that many of the things Tina Fey said were actually direct quotes from Palin. Not all, but many. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsU26FNC0sg Yikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 You can play that game all day long. My mother and I voted for McCain because of Palin. Otherwise, you were planning to vote for Obama? That surprises me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farbod21 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Reading this thread has made me extremely depressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinSkin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 November 18, 2009 Why the Left Fears Sarah By Bob Weir Have you ever seen so much hatred for, and vitriolic criticism of, someone who had only a brief stint on the national political stage? More than a year after the presidential election in which Sarah Palin, as the GOP nominee for Vice-President, campaigned for about three months, she is still being pilloried by the left-wing loons as though she had been elected and were actively engaged in dismantling the liberal establishment. Not a day goes by in which we don't hear or read vicious attacks on a woman who represents the wholesome conservative values of Middle America -- values that have been insidiously and incrementally eroded during the last few decades. There's an interesting contrast between Palin and Barack Obama. We keep hearing that she's not qualified to be president, but Obama is. Why? Some say it's because she didn't have enough experience in government. Yet as Governor of Alaska, Palin earned executive experience, while the current Oval Office resident had only a few years of legislative work. Others point to the interviews with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson during the campaign last year. Let's understand something: Couric and Gibson are liberal journalists who live for those gotcha moments when they can embarrass a conservative and get a round of high-fives at the next penthouse ****tail party on Central Park West. In contrast, Obama's interviewers seemed like they were more interested in dating him than they were in getting answers to questions. Obama's personal lapdog, MS-NBC's Chris Mathews, gets a thrill up his leg from the chosen one. It's obvious that Mathews has some sort of unresolved intimacy issues to deal with. In the liberal mind, Obama can do no wrong, mainly because he's black. If he fouls up with a misstatement or a faux pas, they'll cover for him as though they were protecting a child with a debilitating disease. It reminds me of what Bush 2 used to refer to as "the soft bigotry of low expectations." When one of these sycophants asks Obama a question, it's not only a softball, but it comes with heavy breathing and dangling tongues. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/why_the_left_fears_sarah.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 At the time she was chosen I was beginning to consider voting for McCain - because I had always liked him and thought his experience might be a reason to vote for him if nothing else. However, once she made her mark on the campaign I was squarely back in Obama's corner much more so than before. That's funny, I had the same reaction to her once she became more familiar. To me she sort of represents the lesser aspects of the GOP and the more strident elements of conservatism, while John McCain really strikes me as representing the better side of the party and conservatism as a political philosophy. I have expressed this impression with several friends who are of a very conservative frame of mind and they see it as almost opposite. That McCain is some closet liberal and Palin the true thing. These people are all young, or young to me being under 40 years old. The older Republicans I know were all big on McCain, but sort leery of Palin and her attitudes. I think "simplistic" was the term I heard the most, and one with which I tend to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 There's an interesting contrast between Palin and Barack Obama. We keep hearing that she's not qualified to be president, but Obama is. Why? Some say it's because she didn't have enough experience in government. Yet as Governor of Alaska, Palin earned executive experience, while the current Oval Office resident had only a few years of legislative work. A few years? Obama was a state and/or national representative for slightly over 10 years. Moreover, his constituency was roughly 6x the size of the entire state of Alaska. That said - experience is overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsU26FNC0sgYikes. I keep quoting this. No one ever seems to have anything to say about it. Couric: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess? Palin: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 In the liberal mind, Obama can do no wrong, mainly because he's black. Oh brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Oh brother. Don't you mean, oh brotha'? :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 In the liberal mind, Obama can do no wrong, mainly because he's black. If he fouls up with a misstatement or a faux pas, they'll cover for him as though they were protecting a child with a debilitating disease. This is pathetic. Why did you post this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 This is pathetic. Why did you post this? Take your pick a)he believes it b)he doesn't realize how stupid it is c)he didn't read it d)both a and b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinSkin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 This is pathetic. Why did you post this? OK OK. The writer might have gone a little over the top on that one, but can you find real fault with some of the other things he said concerning Palin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Maybe not to that extreme, but the left wing press certainly does do more to "explain" Obama mistakes while they were all quick to pounce on any of GWBs. I certainly think the press is extremely easy on Obama and his administration. When they do have criticisms, they get directed at "Democrats in Congress" etc. The whole "Buck stops here" cry we endured for 8 years has fallen completely silent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 OK OK. The writer might have gone a little over the top on that one, but can you find real fault with some of the other things he said concerning Palin? Yes. In contrast, Obama's interviewers seemed like they were more interested in dating him than they were in getting answers to questions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS-zjbI2q_Q&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Maybe not to that extreme, but the left wing press certainly does do more to "explain" Obama mistakes while they were all quick to pounce on any of GWBs.I certainly think the press is extremely easy on Obama and his administration. When they do have criticisms, they get directed at "Democrats in Congress" etc. The whole "Buck stops here" cry we endured for 8 years has fallen completely silent. The opposite is true - and really it's not all that surprising. However, I'll agree that is pretty unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 One thing that blows my mind is that Palin - and some of her conservative supporters - characterize the Katie Couric interview as "gotcha" journalism. (The Charles Gibson interview, too, though I only saw parts of that one.) That is mind boggling to me. Sure there were tough questions, but "gotcha" journalism? Please. People describe Palin as a tough politician, but she'll need tougher skin if she thinks Couric's interview was being put through the wringer. Palin has mastered the art of being the victim. Her outrage at the Newsweek cover is the latest example. What she does is villainize the "mainstream media," and her supporters eat it up. There have been examples of unfair treatment on occasion, moreso in partisan venues than mainstram press. That scrutiny comes with being a national figure. I can't recall anyone railing against it quite like Palin has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Palin would be the ultimate Manchurian Candidate, we wouldn't be electing her instead we would be electing her handlers and that's scary. Hehe, dude...what do you think Obama is? He's just a puppet. Maybe even more so than Bush. If the elite bankers want Palin to be president, she'll be president. If they don't, she won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeysc23 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Otherwise, you were planning to vote for Obama? That surprises me. I was planning on not voting based on the candidates. I saw McCain as a a pretty liberal conservative much like Bush II and I saw Obama as woefully inexperienced and all rhetoric no substance. What made me more optimistic (essentially I was voting for the lesser of two evils) was with McCain you get experience (needed at that point in time given the economy and jobs) and you get the youthful idealism that would allow Palin that I think is a great speaker and has good ideals (I don't always know how practical) to get her necessary experience for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I was planning on not voting based on the candidates. I saw McCain as a a pretty liberal conservative much like Bush II and I saw Obama as woefully inexperienced and all rhetoric no substance. They were two pretty bad choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.