Re: What Kind Of Vetting Process Did McCain Use?
vivapa...@aol.com
> [Apparently] the only people excited about McCain's choice of Sarah
> Palin for the Vice Presidency are the Religious Rights and those paid to
> cheerlead anything Republicans do, like Sean Hannity.
>
> Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty feel used and abused.
>
> Conservatives like Kathryn Lopez and David Frum think it’s a mistake.
>
> Rove openly pushed Romney and discouraged McCain from considering
> Lieberman. James Dobson, in stark contrast, is dancing in the aisles.
>
> So was it the Religious Right (disgraced former head of the Moral
> Majority, Ralph Reed has reared up very prominently in the McCain
> campaign recently) that demanded the price of the VP pick to back John
> McCain?
>
> It’s the only thing that I can put together, given what appears to be a
> haphazard vetting process.
>
> On MSNBC this evening Andrea Mitchell reported on how minimal John
> McCain’s interactions with his choice for vice president, Sarah Palin,
> have been. According to Mitchell, McCain only met Palin once.
>
> WATCH:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DD_Ds_mWjQ
>
> The very day he announces his choice, Alaska State Senator Hollis French
> announces that Palin is likely to be deposed in the abuse of power
> investigation, dubbed “Troopergate” in the media. ABC is reporting that
> Palin wasn’t even in the running until this week and McCain sent lawyers
> to Alaska to vet out the Troopergate issue solely.
>
> Well, that probably wasn't so smart. Because Palin has a cozy
> relationship with indicted and disgraced Republican Senator Ted Stevens.
> Luckily, like her Wikipedia entry audio_mp3 Download | Play (h/t
> BillW), those pages on her state governor pages have been scrubbed. As
> have the ones where she praised Barack Obama’s energy policy. Maybe
> she's being so careful because she's had experience before in hacking in
> and looking for deleted files on someone else's computer.
>
> PAUL BEGALA nails the kind of Presidential decision making process that
> McCain has already proven himself ill-equipped for:
>
> For a man who is 72 years old and has had four bouts with cancer to
> have chosen someone so completely unqualified to become president is
> shockingly irresponsible. Suddenly, McCain’s age and health become
> central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment.
>
> In choosing this featherweight, McCain passed over Tom Ridge, a
> decorated combat hero, a Cabinet secretary and the former two-term
> governor of the large, complex state of Pennsylvania.
>
> He passed over Mitt Romney, who ran a big state, Massachusetts; a
> big company, Bain Capital; and a big event, the Olympics.
>
> He passed over Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator who is
> knowledgeable about the military, good on television, and — obviously —
> a woman.
>
> He passed over Joe Lieberman, his best friend in the Senate and
> fellow Iraq Kool-Aid drinker.
>
> He passed over former congressman, trade negotiator and budget
> director Rob Portman.
>
> And he also passed over Mike Huckabee, the governor of Arkansas.
>
> For months, the McCainiacs have said they will run on his judgment
> and experience. In his first presidential decision, John McCain has
> shown he is willing to endanger his country, potentially leaving it in
> the hands of someone who simply has no business being a heartbeat away
> from the most powerful, complicated, difficult job in human history.
>
> All links here:http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/30/what-kind-of-vetting-process...
I think McCain may have left something behind in those prison cages in
Vietnam.
If someone convinces Palin to abdicate early enough, there's still
time for McCain to save his chance for the presidency, even if the
term served is only two years and four months.
HHW
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:8ac4b6d3-67da-4705...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> I think McCain may have left something behind in those prison cages in
> Vietnam.
> If someone convinces Palin to abdicate early enough, there's still
> time for McCain to save his chance for the presidency, even if the
> term served is only two years and four months.
LOL
An informal poll from "GretaWire," Fox News site for Greta Van Susteren.
"What impact will Governor Palin have on the election?"
None or little: 2% (790 votes)
She will be huge draw for Democratic women votes: 93% (41088 votes)
She will hurt the Republican ticket: 5% (2197 votes)
You're living in la la land, bubba.
John McCain's decision will go down as one of the most brilliant moves in US
political history.
Ike
"john p"
<xeickleberrybo...@msn.com>
<snip>
> John McCain's decision will go down as one of the most brilliant moves in US
> political history.
>
> Ike
I'm not going to vote for her, but I believe you are right. I don't
know if he is going to win, but I do believe Palin is going to give
him the best chance. I underestimated McCain by thinking he would go
with big money Romney, which would have cost him the election for
sure, because no one wants a mormon in the white house.
A.G.O.G.
says...
Sure...Hillary supporters nearly crashed the FauxNews servers giving notice that
they were now itching to vote for McCain. At best, that poll measured Republican
wet dreams, at worst it was just another piece of FauxNews propaganda.
Randy ®
in article <g9d9bk$usp$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
But you're just measuring on a political scale. Even so, I've
also seen polls that indicate it will go down as a blunder,
and pandering to women: http://tinyurl.com/5hbk9x
http://tinyurl.com/58shx4
Lord willing, I'll be voting for McCain/Palin, simply because
they are pro-life, and Obama/Biden are pro-infanticide. But
I wish McCain had not picked Palin.
While I believe women are equal to men in intelligence, and as
creatures, children, and heirs of God, I believe God has
designed different roles for men and women, that goes back
even before the fall. While it will surely be unpopular, on a
political scale, I believe women should not exercise authority
over men:
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened
unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of
which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:
cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of
it all the days of thy life;
Gen 16:1 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she
had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
Gen 16:2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath
restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid;
it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram
hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
Gen 16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the
Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of
Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the
one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the
flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two
covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to
bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and
answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with
her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the
mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest
not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the
desolate hath many more children than she which hath an
husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of
promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh
persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is
now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the
bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not
be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the
bondwoman, but of the free.
Isa 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and
women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause
thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing,
if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with
sobriety.
Finding a few scattered exceptions to this rule, in the Bible,
then trying to forge it into God's endorsement of female
authority over men, is perverse rebellion. Fact is, you can
also find places in the Bible where God's appointed rulers
committed murder and adultery, which doesn't therefore mean
God is endorsing that as a way of life.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. �orinthians 10:5
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Lord willing, I'll be voting for McCain/Palin, simply because
>they are pro-life, and Obama/Biden are pro-infanticide. But
>I wish McCain had not picked Palin.
Nobody is "pro-infanticide", liar.
But then you know this and are being stupid for effect.
Are there any honest fundamentalists?
>
John Manning
WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT FOX NOISE IS WHOLLY UNRELIABLE? - IT'S NOTHING
MORE THAN A RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA OUTLET
How Palin looks in a *LEGITIMATE* poll, the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll:
*Palin Gets Lowest Vote of Confidence Since Dan Quayle*
By Susan Page
USA TODAY, August 30, 2008
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-30-palin-poll_N.htm
ST. PAUL — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin faces a getting-to-know-you process
as the Republican vice presidential candidate, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll
finds: Most Americans say they've never heard of her.
There is also wide uncertainty about whether she's qualified to be
president. In the poll, taken Friday, 39% say she is ready to serve as
president if needed, 33% say she isn't, and 29% have no opinion.
That's the lowest vote of confidence in a running mate since the elder
George Bush chose then-Indiana senator Dan Quayle to join his ticket in
1988. In comparison, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was seen as qualified by
57%-18% after Democrat Barack Obama chose him as a running mate last week.
Randy ®
in article <9e2lb41nrmdamdup7...@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:07:25 -0500, Randy ® <pulpi...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Lord willing, I'll be voting for McCain/Palin, simply because
>>they are pro-life, and Obama/Biden are pro-infanticide. But
>>I wish McCain had not picked Palin.
>
>Nobody is "pro-infanticide", liar.
No, you either believe life begins at conception, or you do
not. For those who do, abortion is infanticide.
>But then you know this and are being stupid for effect.
ibid.
>Are there any honest fundamentalists?
ibid.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
Randy ®
in article <nYidnc3t7KwROifV...@giganews.com>,
John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT FOX NOISE IS WHOLLY UNRELIABLE? - IT'S NOTHING
>MORE THAN A RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA OUTLET
What an hypocrite. Everyone, including the media, _admits_
most of the media is liberal biased. CNN should therefore
change it's name to DNN (Demoronic News Network).
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. �orinthians 10:5
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:15:37 -0300,
> in article <nYidnc3t7KwROifV...@giganews.com>,
> John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT FOX NOISE IS WHOLLY UNRELIABLE? - IT'S NOTHING
>>MORE THAN A RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA OUTLET
>
>
>What an hypocrite. Everyone, including the media, _admits_
>most of the media is liberal biased. CNN should therefore
>change it's name to DNN (Demoronic News Network).
A liar as well as an idiot.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:59408fb9-2a26-418a...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 30, 9:14 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@msn.com>
<snip>
> John McCain's decision will go down as one of the most brilliant moves in
> US
> political history.
>
> Ike
> I'm not going to vote for her, but I believe you are right. I don't
> know if he is going to win, but I do believe Palin is going to give
> him the best chance.
Bubba, it's a slam dunk.
74% of the US population is white, and 52% of the US population is female.
People vote for those with whom they can identify, and every family
household in the country--the vast MAJORITY of the electorate--just switched
to the Republican ticket.
And if folks don't believe it, they can go to cites like gretawire.com and
just read the comments--woman all across the country peed their panties in
ecstasy the moment they heard the news.
> I underestimated McCain by thinking he would go
> with big money Romney, which would have cost him the election for
> sure, because no one wants a mormon in the white house.
Agreed. In fact, I'm surprised that anyone even suggested it.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:g9de0...@drn.newsguy.com...
LOL
The wet dreams are all yours.
I've been hearing the same comments that came out of Greta's poll on TV, on
the internet, and in public since the announcement was made.
You have NO IDEA the impact this move has had on conservative
family-oriented women who were not thrilled with another Republican
presidency OR Eastern Establishment liberals undermining of their REAL
values.
Now they get what they want.
And that leaves the Dems out in the cold once again.
In fact, I expect that the GOP will not only win the presidency, but take
back at least the Senate, if not the House, and all from this one move (as
an awful lot of people vote straight ticket).
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:c90lb4h9h1a0t0kut...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:14:25 -0500,
> in article <g9d9bk$usp$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>><vivapa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:8ac4b6d3-67da-4705...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> I think McCain may have left something behind in those prison cages in
>>> Vietnam.
>>
>>> If someone convinces Palin to abdicate early enough, there's still
>>> time for McCain to save his chance for the presidency, even if the
>>> term served is only two years and four months.
>>
>>LOL
>>
>>An informal poll from "GretaWire," Fox News site for Greta Van Susteren.
>>
>>"What impact will Governor Palin have on the election?"
>>
>>None or little: 2% (790 votes)
>>
>>She will be huge draw for Democratic women votes: 93% (41088 votes)
>>
>>She will hurt the Republican ticket: 5% (2197 votes)
>>
>>You're living in la la land, bubba.
>>
>>John McCain's decision will go down as one of the most brilliant moves in
>>US
>>political history.
>>
>>Ike
>>
>>
>
>
> But you're just measuring on a political scale.
No, that's exactly BACKWARDS (which, coming from you, is not at all
unusual).
The poll I cited is measuring SOCIAL impact.
The poll YOU cited referred to POLITICAL SCALE.
It DIDN'T ASK the pertinent question, "WHO ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR?"
It asked "DO YOU THINK SHE IS QUALIFIED?"
OF COURSE no one thinks SHE'S QUALIFIED.
WHO CARES?
PEOPLE WILL VOTE WITH THOSE WITH WHOM THEY CAN IDENTIFY, and the BULK OF
AMERICANS (74% white, 52% women) IDENTIFY with MCCAIN AND PALIN.
[snip the rest of the off topic drivel]
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:nYidnc3t7KwROifV...@giganews.com...
LOL
You people are SO dumb.
THIS RACE HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT POLITICS, ISSUES, or AGENDAS.
IT'S BEEN ABOUT SOCIAL IMPACT, and John McCain just launched what amounts to
a cleverly calculated NUCLEAR STRIKE on the Democratic party.
Women DON'T GIVE A DAMN whether they THINK SHE IS QUALIFIED OR NOT--THEY'RE
GOING TO PUT THE WOMAN IN THE OFFICE JUST TO GET SOME REPRESENTATION FOR A
CHANGE.
And men ALREADY KNOW John McCain is more experienced and qualified than
Barak Obama EVERY WHICH WAY TO SUNDAY.
And the MAJORITY of Americans ARE CONSERVATIVES.
THE FORCES COUNTERBALANCE each other, and represent THE VAST MAJORITY of the
AMERICAN ELECTORATE.
Obama/Biden HAS NO BALANCE with the American public AT ALL--it was just a
fascinating freak show, and the show is now over.
You can ramble on all you want, BUT THIS ELECTION JUST ENDED.
All that's left to do is count the cards ('cause we won't even get into the
chads this time).
Ike
LC
Full of BS, <vivapa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8ac4b6d3-67da-4705...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
> If someone convinces Palin to abdicate early enough, there's still time
> for McCain to save his chance for the presidency, even if the term served
> is only two years and four months.
Still waiting for you to cowboy up, faux padre!:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion/msg/222811ebeba5cf34
John Manning
LOL
FACTUAL REALITY STEPS INTO WINGNUT WORLD
While many American's may call themselves conservative, the overwhelming
majority of Americans support progressive policies. Indeed, a majority
of Americans...
– Want universal health care.
– Want to expand environmental protections.
– Support increasing the minimum wage.
– Want abortion to remain safe and legal.
– Want federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
– Want to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for national priorities.
– Want same-sex couples to be legally recognized.
– Oppose the Iraq war. [links to each entry below]
Further, the Drum Major Institute found in their recent survey of the
American middle class that a majority of both Democrats and Republicans
favor similar policies. And after 8 years of conservative rule, a record
81 percent of Americans believe the country is on the "wrong track."
Links to each entry here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/26/limbaugh-conservative-majority/
John Manning
Only in your creepy fringe imagination.
Mike Painter
> ""john p"" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:59408fb9-2a26-418a...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 30, 9:14 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
> <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com>
> <snip>
>> John McCain's decision will go down as one of the most brilliant
>> moves in US
>> political history.
>>
>> Ike
>
>> I'm not going to vote for her, but I believe you are right. I don't
>> know if he is going to win, but I do believe Palin is going to give
>> him the best chance.
>
> Bubba, it's a slam dunk.
>
> 74% of the US population is white, and 52% of the US population is
> female.
> People vote for those with whom they can identify, and every family
> household in the country--the vast MAJORITY of the electorate--just
> switched to the Republican ticket.
Unlikely but if it happens they will get what they deserve.
At this level and even well below this level a person has to decide if they
want a family or a photo-op.
My father just ran a few grocery stores and it wasn't until I started
working in onethat I saw much of him.
John Baker
He says.....
>
>THIS RACE HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT POLITICS, ISSUES, or AGENDAS.
>
>IT'S BEEN ABOUT SOCIAL IMPACT, and John McCain just launched what amounts to
>a cleverly calculated NUCLEAR STRIKE on the Democratic party.
>
>Women DON'T GIVE A DAMN whether they THINK SHE IS QUALIFIED OR NOT--THEY'RE
>GOING TO PUT THE WOMAN IN THE OFFICE JUST TO GET SOME REPRESENTATION FOR A
>CHANGE.
>
>And men ALREADY KNOW John McCain is more experienced and qualified than
>Barak Obama EVERY WHICH WAY TO SUNDAY.
>
>And the MAJORITY of Americans ARE CONSERVATIVES.
>
>THE FORCES COUNTERBALANCE each other, and represent THE VAST MAJORITY of the
>AMERICAN ELECTORATE.
>
>Obama/Biden HAS NO BALANCE with the American public AT ALL--it was just a
>fascinating freak show, and the show is now over.
>
>You can ramble on all you want, BUT THIS ELECTION JUST ENDED.
>
>All that's left to do is count the cards ('cause we won't even get into the
>chads this time).
.... and then proceeds to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that *he*,
like 99% of his fellow "conservatives", is as dumb as a hod of
bricks.
(I use the quotes because whatever the fuck these morons are, they
sure as *hell* aren't conservatives)
>
>Ike
>
>
Randy ®
in article <qpclb4hjb1pfr27a2...@4ax.com>,
You're the liar. I just watched Lou Dobbs, and those on his
show, admit everyone knows the media is pretty much liberal.
_He's_ the one who called them on their ridiculously biased
coverage of Obama.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
Randy ®
> in article <qpclb4hjb1pfr27a2...@4ax.com>,
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:45:10 -0500, Randy ® <pulpi...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:15:37 -0300,
>>> in article <nYidnc3t7KwROifV...@giganews.com>,
>>> John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT FOX NOISE IS WHOLLY UNRELIABLE? - IT'S NOTHING
>>>>MORE THAN A RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA OUTLET
>>>
>>>
>>>What an hypocrite. Everyone, including the media, _admits_
>>>most of the media is liberal biased. CNN should therefore
>>>change it's name to DNN (Demoronic News Network).
>>
>>A liar as well as an idiot.
>
>
>You're the liar. I just watched Lou Dobbs, and those on his
>show, admit everyone knows the media is pretty much liberal.
>_He's_ the one who called them on their ridiculously biased
>coverage of Obama.
Oh, and by the way: http://tinyurl.com/6ao5uj
Kate
She's polling lower than Quayle.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-30-palin-poll_N.htm
That's pretty damn bad.
Her values don't match the majority of white women and from what I
hear, most of them are horrified that she was put up, so no, she's not
going to get voted on as 'one of our own'.
but keep pretending. It's what republicans do best.
John Manning
Here's a wake up call Mr fringe crackpot religionist:
Surprise? First Two National Polls Find Palin Gains LESS Support from Women
By Greg Mitchell
Editor & Publisher, August 30, 2008
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003844485
NEW YORK - The first national polls on John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin
yesterday came out today from Rasmussen and Gallup -- and contrary to
what the GOP probably hoped, she scored less well with women than men.
Here's a finding from Gallup: Among Democratic women -- including those
who may be disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic
nomination -- 9% say Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, 15%
less likely.
From Rasmussen: Some 38% of men said they were more likely to vote for
McCain now, but only 32% of women. By a narrow 41% to 35% margin, men
said she was not ready to be president -- but women soundly rejected
her, 48% to 25%.
Only 9% of Obama supporters said they might be more likely to vote for
McCain.
Overall, voters expressed a favorable impression of her by a 53/26
margin, but there was a severe gender gap on this: Men embraced her at
58% to 23%, while for women it was 48/30.
And by a 29/44 margin, men and women together, they do not believe that
she is ready to be President.
As for voters not affiliated with either major party, 37% are more
likely to vote for McCain and 28% less likely to do so.
Gallup is now out with its own initial poll. It also shows women with a
slightly less favorable view of Palin. An excerpt from USA Today:
There is wide uncertainty about whether she's qualified to be president.
In the poll, taken Friday, 39% say she is ready to serve as president if
needed, 33% say she isn't and 29% have no opinion.
That's the lowest vote of confidence in a running mate since the elder
George Bush chose then-Indiana senator Dan Quayle to join his ticket in
1988. In comparison, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was seen as qualified by
57%-18% after Democrat Barack Obama chose him as a running mate last
week.....
Among all those surveyed, 35% call Obama's speech at Invesco Field at
Mile High Stadium Thursday night excellent, 23% good, 15% "just OK," 3%
poor and 4% "terrible." Sixteen percent say they didn't see it and 14%
have no opinion. That's higher than the ratings for acceptance speeches
by President Bush and Democrat John Kerry in 2004, by Bush and Democrat
Al Gore in 2000 and by Republican Bob Dole in 1996.
Asked about the Democratic convention's impact, 43% say it makes them
more likely to vote for Obama, 29% less likely. Nineteen percent say it
won't make a difference.
HHW
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:06:04 -0500, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>
>
>
> >""john p"" <john.ph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:59408fb9-2a26-418a...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> >On Aug 30, 9:14 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
> ><xeickleberrybo...@msn.com>
> ><snip>
> >> John McCain's decision will go down as one of the most brilliant moves in
> >> US
> >> political history.
>
> >> Ike
>
> >> I'm not going to vote for her, but I believe you are right. I don't
> >> know if he is going to win, but I do believe Palin is going to give
> >> him the best chance.
>
> >Bubba, it's a slam dunk.
>
> >74% of the US population is white, and 52% of the US population is female.
>
> >People vote for those with whom they can identify, and every family
> >household in the country--the vast MAJORITY of the electorate--just switched
> >to the Republican ticket.
>
> >And if folks don't believe it, they can go to cites like gretawire.com and
> >just read the comments--woman all across the country peed their panties in
> >ecstasy the moment they heard the news.
>
> >> I underestimated McCain by thinking he would go
> >> with big money Romney, which would have cost him the election for
> >> sure, because no one wants a mormon in the white house.
>
> >Agreed. In fact, I'm surprised that anyone even suggested it.
>
> >Ike
>
>
> That's pretty damn bad.
>
> Her values don't match the majority of white women and from what I
> hear, most of them are horrified that she was put up, so no, she's not
> going to get voted on as 'one of our own'.
>
> but keep pretending. It's what republicans do best.
She also confllicts with McCain on Iraq:
Palin: Surge? What Surge?
31 Aug 2008 01:21 pm
Among the tiny number of occasions on which Sarah Palin has expressed
even an opinion on foreign policy, one of the most recent bears
putting out there one more time. It's from a critical moment in the
war in Iraq, December 2006, which John McCain has made the centerpiece
of his campaign. In fact, his support for a double-down strategy in
Iraq in the winter of 2006 and early 2007 is one central argument he
has made for his candidacy. He has now chosen as the person who would
replace him instantly if, at any time bgetween the ages of 72 and 76,
he might be incapacitated or die, a person whose view of the situation
was as follows:
Alaska Business Monthly: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members
to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into
battle, as President Bush is suggesting?
Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really
focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new
deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and
the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place;
I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops
safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the
troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms,
and the families here who are making so many sacrifices.
As far as I can tell, her response to this central issue of national
security was three-fold: I don't know enough to have an opinion apart
from what I hear on the news, I agree with the Democratic party's
focus on the welfare and safety of the troops, I'm a loyal Republican
and patriot, and
I want to know that we have an exit plan in place.
Wasn't the whole point of the surge to kill off any notions in Iraq
that we were going to withdraw and to ramp up counter-insurgency and
troop levels indefinitely until the place was secure, and democratic?
The whole point was that there was no exit plan for 2007 or beyond,
and McCain opposed such an exit plan. The point, according to McCain,
was "victory." So McCain has picked a woman who, in so far as she had
any views at all, actually echoed Democratic party talking points, not
McCain's.
Do you think he even asked her about foreign policy? Me neither. This
pick has told us very little about Sarah Palin, except that she seems
like a promising young governor focused almost entirely - and
understandably - on the demands of her idiosyncratic state. But it has
told us a huge amount about McCain.
As in: way too risky for the White House right now.
Christopher A. Lee
John Baker
wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:05:44 -0400,
> in article <qpclb4hjb1pfr27a2...@4ax.com>,
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:45:10 -0500, Randy ® <pulpi...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:15:37 -0300,
>>> in article <nYidnc3t7KwROifV...@giganews.com>,
>>> John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT FOX NOISE IS WHOLLY UNRELIABLE? - IT'S NOTHING
>>>>MORE THAN A RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA OUTLET
>>>
>>>
>>>What an hypocrite. Everyone, including the media, _admits_
>>>most of the media is liberal biased. CNN should therefore
>>>change it's name to DNN (Demoronic News Network).
>>
>>A liar as well as an idiot.
>
>
>You're the liar. I just watched Lou Dobbs, and those on his
>show, admit everyone knows the media is pretty much liberal.
Now *that's* an unimpeachable source. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
Free clue, Skippy. You can just about bet that anything "everyone
knows" is probably wrong.
>_He's_ the one who called them on their ridiculously biased
>coverage of Obama.
Well, he got the idiot part right.
"john p"
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
The election is one big popularity contest, and Palin is "Miss
Congeniality."
We should remember the wise words of Homer Simpson, "Never
underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
Randy ®
in article
<250acb8d-380a-4eab...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
"\"john p\"" <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
>We should remember the wise words of Homer Simpson, "Never
>underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
How could we...that's the only way Demoron's ever win
elections.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. �orinthians 10:5
John Manning
If the American people are stupid enough to elect McCain after the
catastrophic Bush years, I don't think I'll ever return to the USA. It's
already in the early stages of a surveillance and police state - and the
dollar is heading in the direction of being worthless.
As it is, even with a Democratic win in November, it will likely take
decades to reverse the comprehensive, all-encompassing disaster that
Bush and his Republican and neocon pals have wrought upon the nation.
Another four years of more of the same bullshit will put the country in
in third world status.
"john p"
Bush was elected /twice/. Anyone who has any confidence in the
American people is deluding themselves. Our schools are broken, and
we are paying the price.
> As it is, even with a Democratic win in November, it will likely take
> decades to reverse the comprehensive, all-encompassing disaster that
> Bush and his Republican and neocon pals have wrought upon the nation.
I'm not so optimistic.
> Another four years of more of the same bullshit will put the country in
> in third world status.
We're getting there.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:fNzuk.8924$cn7....@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>> ""john p"" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:59408fb9-2a26-418a...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 30, 9:14 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>> <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com>
>> <snip>
>>> John McCain's decision will go down as one of the most brilliant
>>> moves in US
>>> political history.
>>>
>>> Ike
>>
>>> I'm not going to vote for her, but I believe you are right. I don't
>>> know if he is going to win, but I do believe Palin is going to give
>>> him the best chance.
>>
>> Bubba, it's a slam dunk.
>>
>> 74% of the US population is white, and 52% of the US population is
>> female.
>> People vote for those with whom they can identify, and every family
>> household in the country--the vast MAJORITY of the electorate--just
>> switched to the Republican ticket.
>
Gallop daily tracking (which doesn't track independents) just shifted from
49% Obama/41% McCain to 47%/47% IN TWO DAYS, completely eliminating the
typical "convention bounce" that swings each way after the previous party's
convention.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in the Rasmussen polls, which DO
track independents.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:48f0d7e8....@news-west.newscene.com...
Where did you learn to read?
The "poll" was MIXED, and the question WAS NOT ABOUT whether or not she
would be elected. The QUESTION was if she was qualified, and the REACTION
was mixed, i.e. NO ONE KNOWS HER YET.
Guess the old adage is true--in the right hands, ANY STATISTIC can be made
to lie.
Meanwhile, as I noted elsewhere, Gallup daily tracking shifted from 47%/41%
to 47%/47% IN TWO DAYS.
Republican pundits anticipated a convention bounce of 10% toward Obama, as
is typical after the first party holds its convention. THE MCCAIN MOVE
COMPLETELY WIPED IT OUT.
Go figure.
Ike
Jake Horn
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:g9i8mh$afo$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
I recall hearing that just after the their Democratic conventions, both
Carter and Dukakis were up 15 and 18% and then ended up losing the race.
- Jake
John Manning
CBS News Poll - Sept. 1, 2008: Obama 48%, McCain 40%.
"Sixty-three percent of registered voters say Obama understands their
needs and problems, while just 41 percent say that about McCain."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/01/opinion/polls/main4405106.shtml
John Manning
Kenny McCormack
John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
...
>CBS News Poll - Sept. 1, 2008: Obama 48%, McCain 40%.
>
>"Sixty-three percent of registered voters say Obama understands their
>needs and problems, while just 41 percent say that about McCain."
>
>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/01/opinion/polls/main4405106.shtml
This just in (I'm posting this to save Ike the trouble of making more shit up).
Faux Nooze poll shows:
1) McSame 80% Obama 20%
2) 93% of registered voters think McCain is just like them and that GWB
is a just a poor Texas dirt farmer.
Don Martin
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:10:08 -0400,
> in article <9e2lb41nrmdamdup7rpctqke1k0prac...@4ax.com>,> >On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:07:25 -0500, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Lord willing, I'll be voting for McCain/Palin, simply because
> >>they are pro-life, and Obama/Biden are pro-infanticide. But
> >>I wish McCain had not picked Palin.
>
> >Nobody is "pro-infanticide", liar.
>
> No, you either believe life begins at conception, or you do
> not. For those who do, abortion is infanticide.
Sure _life_ begins at conception, but personhood begins with the first
breath. Every cell in your body exhibits life, but none of them will
become voters in 18 years.
Why is it that God's method of creating a person by blowjob doesn't
work for you fundies? Did He not do it right?
Christopher A. Lee
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Aug 31, 10:44 am, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:10:08 -0400,
>> in article <9e2lb41nrmdamdup7rpctqke1k0prac...@4ax.com>,
>> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:07:25 -0500, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>Lord willing, I'll be voting for McCain/Palin, simply because
>> >>they are pro-life, and Obama/Biden are pro-infanticide. But
>> >>I wish McCain had not picked Palin.
>>
>> >Nobody is "pro-infanticide", liar.
>>
>> No, you either believe life begins at conception, or you do
>> not. For those who do, abortion is infanticide.
Why don't you have your birthday on the anniversary of conception?
Only when they lie to themselves.
Calling people "pro-infanticide" when they aren't, is an
inflammatorily nasty lie.
Which is why you do it.
>Sure _life_ begins at conception, but personhood begins with the first
>breath. Every cell in your body exhibits life, but none of them will
>become voters in 18 years.
They dishonestly equivocate between the two and expect everybody else
to fall for it.
They can't understand the concept of a point somewhere along a
continuum at one end of which is conception and the other end birth.
Which is why it is a matter of conscience for the woman concerned.
And whether they like it or not the biggest transition is birth.
The really sad things are that they won't let anybody else treat it as
a matter of conscience or choice, and that they are hardly going to
change minds by lying about murder, infanticide etc.
>Why is it that God's method of creating a person by blowjob doesn't
>work for you fundies? Did He not do it right?
Mouth birthers?
John Manning
Careful, Ike will quote this as fact. ;-)
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Sep-2008, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> CBS News Poll - Sept. 1, 2008: Obama 48%, McCain 40%.
>
> "Sixty-three percent of registered voters say Obama understands their
> needs and problems, while just 41 percent say that about McCain."
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/01/opinion/polls/main4405106.shtml
& then there's the interesting little fact that Palin named one
of her children "Track" because he was born during that season
(Google it - I am not making this up!!).
Good thing there's no "Synchronized Swimming" season in Alaska1
Good grief....
Susan
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Bullshit.
Hillary Clinton tried that avenue, and only got stone cold silence in
return.
American's DO NOT want "universal healthcare." They want HEATH CARE REFORM,
not GOVERNMENT-INTRUSIVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.-
> – Want to expand environmental protections.
BUT NOT AT INFLATED EXPENSE and A COLLAPSING ECONOMY.
> – Support increasing the minimum wage.
Already done, TO NO AVAIL.
> – Want abortion to remain safe and legal.
More bullshit: HALF THE POPULATION WANTS NONE AT ALL, as there is 50/50
split in opinions.
> – Want federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
MORE bullshit: People don't mind the research AS LONG AS IT ISN'T A
PRECURSOR TO "EMBRYO HARVESTING."
> – Want to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for national priorities.
MORE bullshit.
See, somewhere along the lines the Dems forgot to learn MATH. PEOPLE WANT A
FAIR AND BALANCED TAX SYSTEM WITHOUT ALL THE WASTE. FAIR AND BALANCED IS A
STRAIGHT LINE PERCENTAGE, yet people keep bringing up a FLAT-TAX SYSTEM, and
the politicians KEEP IGNORING THEM.
> – Want same-sex couples to be legally recognized.
Now this is REAL HORSESHIT.
Californians OVERWHELMINGLY voted AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, but the
ACTIVIST COURTS OVER-RULED THEM. Now Californians are going to pass a
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to get the job done.
> – Oppose the Iraq war. [links to each entry below]
THEY ALSO OPPOSE ANOTHER WALK-AWAY LOSS, dumbass.
THEY DON'T WANT AMERICA TO QUIT. THEY WANT AMERICA TO WIN AND GET THE HELL
OUT.
[snip the rest of the fake-majority bullshit]
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>> "Randy Ž" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Yo.
Moron.
HOW DID W GET ELECTED TWICE, DESPITE THE OBVIOUS DISSATISFACTION?
Because EVEN IN THE WORST OF SITUATIONS, THEY'LL STILL TAKE A CONSERVATIVE
OVER A RADICAL EASTERN ESTABLISHMENT LIBERAL EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK AND TWICE
ON SUNDAY.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Among DEMOCRATIC women, dumbass, NOT AMONG CONSERVATIVES AND INDEPENDENTS
WHO MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IN AN ELECTION.
(One ALSO has to CONSIDER THE SOURCE, i.e. a writer for The New York Times
and The Washington Post, who are weaseling every which way they can to try
to fend off the effects of McCain's profound choice, just as the media has
been trying to do all weekend.)
Oh, and the GALLUP DAILY TRACKING POLL shifted TO A COMPLETE TIE, with the
GOP CONVENTION BOUNCE yet to come.
> From Rasmussen: Some 38% of men said they were more likely to vote for
> McCain now, but only 32% of women. By a narrow 41% to 35% margin, men said
> she was not ready to be president -- but women soundly rejected her, 48%
> to 25%.
RASMUSSEN hasn't DONE ANY NEW POLLS YET, and the data is FROM THE END OF
LAST WEEK, BEFORE MCCAIN EVEN MADE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS.
And it STILL WORKED.
From your own article...
"Overall, voters expressed a favorable impression of her by a 53/26 margin,
but there was a severe gender gap on this: Men embraced her at 58% to 23%,
while for women it was 48/30."
53 to 26 and 48 to 30 IS STILL A WIN, goofball.
> Only 9% of Obama supporters said they might be more likely to vote for
> McCain.
Idiot: 9% PUTS OBAMA IN CLEARLY IN THE LOSER'S COLUMN.
After the convention (but BEFORE McCain's announcement) Gallup (which
doesn't track independents) declared that it was 49% Obama and 45% McCain
WITH THE CONVENTION BOUNCE (where the pundits were expecting a 10% lead AND
DIDN'T GET IT).
IT'S NOW 47%/47%, and the GOP HASN'T HAD ITS CONVENTION YET, and people ARE
JUST NOW HEARING ABOUT PALIN.
With the next shift, THE GOP BREAKS INTO A CLEAR LEAD (and all they HAVE to
do is TIE--the electoral college gives a tie or even a slight shortfall TO
THE GOP).
MAN, you people are dumb.
[snip the rest of the dawdle]
Ike
John Manning
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
[snip]
> The election is one big popularity contest, and Palin is "Miss
> Congeniality."
Not "popularity contest."
SOCIAL IDENTITY contest--and it STARTED when Hilly and Barak sought
nomination.
Only no one identified with both of them AT THE SAME TIME, because they were
COMPLETELY OPPOSING ENTITIES, with DIFFERENT IDENTIFICATION GROUPS. It's was
always EITHER/OR.
Now the "either/or" has shifted to McCain's advantage: Either a "chip-on-his
shoulder" black activist, or a GOP ticket THAT REFLECTS 74% OF AMERICAN
HOUSEHOLDS.
Ike
John Manning
LOL The creepy fringe fundamentalist Christian Right fraudulent freak
just can't face *documented* factual reality.
Read it again:
The truth is, however, that the so-called “conservative majority” does
not exist. While many American’s may call themselves conservative, the
overwhelming majority of Americans support progressive policies. Indeed,
a majority of Americans…
– Want universal health care.
– Want to expand environmental protections.
– Support increasing the minimum wage.
– Want abortion to remain safe and legal.
– Want federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
– Want to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for national priorities.
– Want same-sex couples to be legally recognized.
– Oppose the Iraq war.
*Each item is documented* with its own link here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/26/limbaugh-conservative-majority/
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
[snip]
> If the American people are stupid enough to elect McCain after the
> catastrophic Bush years, I don't think I'll ever return to the USA.
That's worth 2 million votes right there.
[snip]
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:bvednefAm51JVyHV...@comcast.com...
Which demonstrates how the "convention bounces" work.
In order to win, Obama had to have a "bounce" of AT LEAST as much as 15-18%.
The GOP expected 10%.
He didn't even get that, which means BO is actually in SERIOUS trouble.
Ike
Usenet Handle
<xeickleberrybo...@msn.com> wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
hahahahahahahha.
B.H. Cramer
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:g9jh8e$2je$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> "John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:5audnWZB76arIyfV...@giganews.com...
>> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
He didn't. The Judiciary appointed him first time around.
John Manning
The creepy fringe Christian Right wacko is lying. Greg Mitchell is the
editor of Editor & Publisher magazine who has written for dozens of
publications, not just the WAPO and NYT.
But aside from this, the fact that you, like other extremist Fox News
loving loud creepy right wing fundy freaks, discard all material from
the NYT and the WAPO, only reveals your complete disconnection with
normal and regular America. You apparently actually believe that most
Americans are sick fucks like you.
who are weaseling every which way they can to try
> to fend off the effects of McCain's profound choice, just as the media has
> been trying to do all weekend.)
>
> Oh, and the GALLUP DAILY TRACKING POLL shifted TO A COMPLETE TIE, with the
> GOP CONVENTION BOUNCE yet to come.
>
>> From Rasmussen: Some 38% of men said they were more likely to vote for
>> McCain now, but only 32% of women. By a narrow 41% to 35% margin, men said
>> she was not ready to be president -- but women soundly rejected her, 48%
>> to 25%.
>
> RASMUSSEN hasn't DONE ANY NEW POLLS YET,
The creepy Christian Right wacko is lying AGAIN:
"The first national polls on John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin yesterday
came out *TODAY* [August 30, 2008] from *Rasmussen and Gallup* -- and
contrary to what the GOP probably hoped, she scored less well with women
than men."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003844485
and the data is FROM THE END OF
> LAST WEEK, BEFORE MCCAIN EVEN MADE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS.
>
> And it STILL WORKED.
>
> From your own article...
>
> "Overall, voters expressed a favorable impression of her by a 53/26 margin,
> but there was a severe gender gap on this: Men embraced her at 58% to 23%,
> while for women it was 48/30."
>
> 53 to 26 and 48 to 30 IS STILL A WIN, goofball.
Only among men, asshole, NOT women - as the headline states.
*First Two National Polls Find Palin Gains LESS Support from Women*
>
>> Only 9% of Obama supporters said they might be more likely to vote for
>> McCain.
>
> Idiot: 9% PUTS OBAMA IN CLEARLY IN THE LOSER'S COLUMN.
My God man. Read that again: "Only 9% of Obama supporters said they
might be more likely to vote for McCain."
>
> After the convention (but BEFORE McCain's announcement) Gallup (which
> doesn't track independents) declared that it was 49% Obama and 45% McCain
> WITH THE CONVENTION BOUNCE (where the pundits were expecting a 10% lead AND
> DIDN'T GET IT).
>
> IT'S NOW 47%/47%, and the GOP HASN'T HAD ITS CONVENTION YET, and people ARE
> JUST NOW HEARING ABOUT PALIN.
>
> With the next shift, THE GOP BREAKS INTO A CLEAR LEAD (and all they HAVE to
> do is TIE--the electoral college gives a tie or even a slight shortfall TO
> THE GOP).
>
> MAN, you people are dumb.
Really? Then why did you ignore this:
"And by a 29/44 margin, men and women together...do not believe that she
[Palin] is ready to be President."
Creepy right wing Christianist freaks like you are loud and obnoxious
but you are in a fast dwindling minority.
Most Americans can see you wackos for what you are, transparent
caricatures and distorted comic book pseudo-intellectual figures who
falsely and embarrassingly assume that their immature demagogic and
narcissistic emotionalism contributes real meaningful sober and
dignified rational discourse.
Simply put, you're sociopathic extremist wackos.
Just Wondering
> On Aug 31, 10:44 am, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:10:08 -0400,
>> in article <9e2lb41nrmdamdup7rpctqke1k0prac...@4ax.com>,
>> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:07:25 -0500, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Lord willing, I'll be voting for McCain/Palin, simply because
>>>> they are pro-life, and Obama/Biden are pro-infanticide. But
>>>> I wish McCain had not picked Palin.
>>> Nobody is "pro-infanticide", liar.
>> No, you either believe life begins at conception, or you do
>> not. For those who do, abortion is infanticide.
>
> Sure _life_ begins at conception, but personhood begins with the first
> breath. Every cell in your body exhibits life, but none of them will
> become voters in 18 years.
>
Just my opinion. Personhood ends with the cessation of brain activity.
At a minimum, personhood should also begin with brain activity, which
occurs in about the 8th week of pregnancy.
John Manning
The sociopathic fringe right wing Christianist has just proven that his
lives in an imaginary world.
The GOP ticket no way "REFLECTS 74% OF AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS."
John Manning
GOP Focus Group Sees Palin As "A Gimmick"
Another week, another Frank Luntz/AARP focus group of undecided
voters--this one in Minneapolis and with some bad news for John McCain:
they don't like the choice of Sarah Palin for vice president.
Only one person said Palin made him more likely to vote for McCain;
about half the 25-member group raised their hands when asked if Palin
made them less likely to vote for McCain.
They had a negative impression of Palin by a 2-1 margin...a fact that
was reinforced when they were given hand-dials and asked to react to
Palin's speech at her first appearance with McCain on Friday---the dials
remained totally neutral as Palin went through her heart-warming(?)
biography, and only blipped upwards when she said she opposed the Bridge
to Nowhere--which wasn't quite the truth, as we now know...
They really saw this pick as a gimmick--and one that reflected badly on
John McCain's judgment.
Read the whole story here:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/08/focusedthe_sequel.html
John Manning
Report in the New York Times on Half-baked Palin Pick
McCain became the GOP presumptive nominee back in early March. It
wasn't as if he didn't have plenty of time to make a well thought out
choice for VP. The following NYT report shows an example of what we
could expect from a knee-jerk, indecisive yet trigger-happy 'senior
moment' McCain presidency:
For starters:
CLAIM:
"The Washington Post quoted advisers to Mr. McCain on Sunday as saying
Ms. Palin had been subjected to an F.B.I. background check...
FACT:
...an F.B.I. official said Monday the bureau did not vet potential
candidates and had not known of her selection until it was made public."
````
"Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now
to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin's background.
A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet
Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before
Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice.
The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday
night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected
candidacy of Ms. Palin."
==========
Disclosures on Palin Raise Questions on Vetting Process
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
New York Times, September 2, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/5mmfn7
ST. PAUL — A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator
John McCain's choice as running mate, called into question on Monday
how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting
her on the Republican presidential ticket.
On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement
saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five
months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.
Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned
that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics
investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in
dismissing the state's public safety commissioner; that she was a
member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party,
which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede;
and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.
Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now
to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin's background. A Republican with
ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska
had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned
the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign
was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking
them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin.
Although the McCain campaign said that Mr. McCain had known about
Bristol Palin's pregnancy before he asked her mother to join him on
the ticket and that he did not consider it disqualifying, top aides
were vague on Monday about how and when he had learned of the
pregnancy, and from whom.
While there was no sign that her formal nomination this week was in
jeopardy, the questions swirling around Ms. Palin on the first day of
the Republican National Convention, already disrupted by Hurricane
Gustav, brought anxiety to Republicans who worried that Democrats
would use the selection of Ms. Palin to question Mr. McCain's judgment
and his ability to make crucial decisions.
At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was
increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain's
running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described.
Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain
introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was
still holding out the hope that he could choose a good friend, Senator
Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to
the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another
favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.
But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian
conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As
word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the
campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who
predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed
rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates.
Perhaps more important, several Republicans said, Mr. McCain was
getting advice that if he did not do something to shake up the race,
his campaign would be stuck on a potentially losing trajectory.
With time running out — and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices,
Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of
Massachusetts, as too predictable — he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his
first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the
job moments later. Advisers to Mr. Pawlenty and another of the
finalists on Mr. McCain's list described an intensive vetting process
for those candidates that lasted one to two months.
"They didn't seriously consider her until four or five days from the
time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or
Friday before," said a Republican close to the campaign. "This was
really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn't get what he
wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge."
In the final stages, two Republicans familiar with the process said,
Mr. McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, emerged as a key advocate
for Ms. Palin.
Mr. McCain's advisers said repeatedly on Monday that Ms. Palin was
"thoroughly vetted," a process that would have included a review of
all financial and legal records as well as a criminal background
check. A McCain aide said the campaign was well aware of the ethics
investigation and had looked into it.
"It was obviously something that anybody Googling Sarah Palin knew was
in the news and there was a very thorough vetting done on that and
also on the daughter," the aide said.
People familiar with the process said Ms. Palin had responded to a
standard form with more than 70 questions. Although The Washington
Post quoted advisers to Mr. McCain on Sunday as saying Ms. Palin had
been subjected to an F.B.I. background check, an F.B.I. official said
Monday the bureau did not vet potential candidates and had not known
of her selection until it was made public.
Mark Salter, Mr. McCain's closest adviser, said in an e-mail message
that Ms. Palin had been interviewed by Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., a
veteran Washington lawyer in charge of the vice-presidential vetting
process for Mr. McCain, as well as by other lawyers who worked for Mr.
Culvahouse. Mr. Salter did not respond to an e-mail message asking if
Ms. Palin had told Mr. Culvahouse and his lawyers that her daughter
was pregnant.
In Alaska, several state leaders and local officials said they knew of
no efforts by the McCain campaign to find out more information about
Ms. Palin before the announcement of her selection, Although campaigns
are typically discreet when they make inquiries into potential running
mates, officials in Alaska said Monday they thought it was peculiar
that no one in the state had the slightest hint that Ms. Palin might
be under consideration.
"They didn't speak to anyone in the Legislature, they didn't speak to
anyone in the business community," said Lyda Green, the State Senate
president, who lives in Wasilla, where Ms. Palin served as mayor.
Representative Gail Phillips, a Republican and former speaker of the
State House, said the widespread surprise in Alaska when Ms. Palin was
named to the ticket made her wonder how intensively the McCain
campaign had vetted her.
"I started calling around and asking, and I have not been able to find
one person that was called," Ms. Phillips said. "I called 30 to 40
people, political leaders, business leaders, community leaders. Not
one of them had heard. Alaska is a very small community, we know
people all over, but I haven't found anybody who was asked anything."
The current mayor of Wasilla, Dianne M. Keller, said she had not heard
of any efforts to look into Ms. Palin's background. And Randy
Ruedrich, the state Republican Party chairman, said he knew nothing of
any vetting that had been conducted.
State Senator Hollis French, a Democrat who is directing the ethics
investigation, said that no one asked him about the allegations. "I
heard not a word, not a single contact," he said.
A number of Republicans said the McCain campaign had to some degree
tied its hands in its effort to keep the selection process so secret.
"If you really want it to be a surprise, the circle of people that
you're going to allow to know about it is going to be small, and
that's just the nature of it," said Dan Bartlett, a former counselor
to President Bush.
Former McCain strategists disagreed on whether it would have been
useful for Ms. Palin's name to have been more publicly floated before
her selection so that issues like the trooper investigation and her
daughter's pregnancy might have already been aired and not seemed so
new at the time of her announcement.
"It's a risk," said Dan Schnur, a former McCain aide who now directs
the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern
California. "No matter how great the candidate, it's a significant
risk to put someone on the ticket" who hasn't been publicly scrutinized.
"They obviously felt it was worth the risk to rev up the base and
potentially reach out to Clinton supporters," Mr. Schnur said.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>
>
> Report in the New York Times on Half-baked Palin Pick
LOL
Let's see.
Hurricane Gustav blew in.
The US turned over the Anbar province to the Iraqis.
Protestors at the RNC violently attacked Republicans.
But the NYT deemed that Bristol Palin should get THREE FRONT PAGE STORIES,
with no mention of two of the above stories, and scant mention of the
hurricane.
Now THAT'S a reputable source of timely and pertinent information...
...not.
Gee, you think they might be scared shitless of what Palin does to the race?
Naaaah.
Nevermind that their STILL scratching their head trying to figure out how W
BEAT THEM TWICE when ALL THEIR SOURCES indicated THEY were going to win.
Go figure.
[snip]
Ike
The Master
> Another week, another Frank Luntz/AARP focus group of undecided voters--this
> one in Minneapolis and with some bad news for John McCain: they don't like
> the choice of Sarah Palin for vice president.
You know why though, don't you John? Palin is more of a Libertarian then
your average Republican. As such, she thinks people should rely on
themself and not government handouts. Senior focus groups, many of whom
depend on Social Security because they didn't save up enough money when
they worked, want liberal social programs to continue as is.
McCain calls himself a moderate. Liberals call themself liberal, while
conservatives call themself conservative. Liberals who want to hide the
fact that they are liberal call themself a moderate. As such, seniors
wanted McCain as the Republican choice to ensure their handouts. Now the
choice is a socialist, or a liberal pretending to be a moderate. Either
way, the handouts continue.
Sarah Palin is an unknown, since she actually believes in the historic
party line, the platform that not many Republicans follow any more.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
LOL
And now for the rest of the story...
"This poll was conducted among a random sample of 875 adults nationwide,
including 781 registered voters, interviewed by telephone August 29-31,
2008. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines
and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire
sample could be plus or minus three percentage points; for registered voters
the sampling error could be plus or minus four percentage points. The error
for subgroups is higher."
1) Small, exclusive sample size.
2) Taken practically on the EVENING of the Palin announcement.
3) The error line "could be" (shah) 3%, 4% for REGISTERED VOTERS, and even
HIGHER for INDEPENDENTS.
Like I said, it will be interesting to see what comes out of the Rasmussen
polls, which ALSO tracks independent voters (but STILL got the call wrong
last time around).
As stated earlier, if Obama doesn't show a 15-18% lead in the polls, HE'S
LOSING.
Oh, and I was just checking the electoral college numbers today, and the
state-by-state comparisons SHOW A STATISTICAL DEAD HEAT, whereas it was
previously showing an Obama win (which is really weird, since, for some
strange reason, the Rasmussen number left out Indiana, which will DEFINITELY
go McCain's way, just as it went Hilly's way, and PUT McCain OVER THE TOP).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/scoreboards/presidential_status_bars
Oh, yeah, these are SATURDAY'S figures, and the Palin announcement had just
come out.
Ike
John Manning
The fringe right wing Christianist just can't face factual reality. He
has to hide those facts and ignore them and try to change the subject.
That says a lot about his feeble and weak position.
Well, let's have another look at those facts that the creepy wingnut
felt he had to hide from:
--McCain became the GOP presumptive nominee back in early March. It
wasn't as if he didn't have plenty of time to make a well thought out
choice for VP. The following NYT report shows an example of what we
could expect from a knee-jerk, indecisive yet trigger-happy 'senior
moment' McCain presidency:
For starters:
CLAIM [lie]:
Doc Smartass
> "John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:pdqdnbAlcOev-CDV...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> Report in the New York Times on Half-baked Palin Pick
>
> LOL
>
> Let's see.
<snip>
> Protestors at the RNC violently attacked Republicans.
Care to back this up with actual proof?
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
Don't Blame the telescope if you don't like the view. (Panama Floyd)
John Manning
GUFFAW! - Well bright boy, show everyone where John McCain is showing "a
15-18% lead in the polls" and winning. What a fucking dumbass!
> Oh, and I was just checking the electoral college numbers today, and the
> state-by-state comparisons SHOW A STATISTICAL DEAD HEAT, whereas it was
> previously showing an Obama win (which is really weird, since, for some
> strange reason, the Rasmussen number left out Indiana, which will DEFINITELY
> go McCain's way, just as it went Hilly's way, and PUT McCain OVER THE TOP).
>
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/scoreboards/presidential_status_bars
>
> Oh, yeah, these are SATURDAY'S figures, and the Palin announcement had just
> come out.
Here's Rasmussen for today, fuckwit. - Your loser McCain is *STILL*
losing. HA HA HA HA HA
Rasmussen Reports - Tuesday, September 02, 2008
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows
Barack Obama attracting 48% of the vote while John McCain earns 43%.
When "leaners" are included, it's Obama 51%, McCain 45%. This is the
highest level of support enjoyed by Obama at any point in Election 2008
The Master
>> Protestors at the RNC violently attacked Republicans.
>
> Care to back this up with actual proof?
You mean like
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_protests
news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080902/pl_politico/13067
elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/01/
anti-war-protest-at-gop-convention-turns-violent/
John Manning
> "A.G.O.G." <A.G.O.G...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:g9de0...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <g9d9bk$usp$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>> says...
>>> <vivapa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8ac4b6d3-67da-4705...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> I think McCain may have left something behind in those prison cages in
>>>> Vietnam.
>>>> If someone convinces Palin to abdicate early enough, there's still
>>>> time for McCain to save his chance for the presidency, even if the
>>>> term served is only two years and four months.
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> An informal poll from "GretaWire," Fox News site for Greta Van Susteren.
>>>
>>> "What impact will Governor Palin have on the election?"
>>>
>>> None or little: 2% (790 votes)
>>>
>>> She will be huge draw for Democratic women votes: 93% (41088 votes)
>>>
>>> She will hurt the Republican ticket: 5% (2197 votes)
>>>
>>> You're living in la la land, bubba.
>>>
>>> US
>>> political history.
>>>
>>> Ike
>>>
>>
>> notice that
>> they were now itching to vote for McCain. At best, that poll measured
>> Republican
>> wet dreams, at worst it was just another piece of FauxNews propaganda.
>
> LOL
>
> The wet dreams are all yours.
>
> I've been hearing the same comments that came out of Greta's poll on TV, on
> the internet, and in public since the announcement was made.
>
> You have NO IDEA the impact this move has had on conservative
> family-oriented women who were not thrilled with another Republican
> presidency OR Eastern Establishment liberals undermining of their REAL
> values.
>
> Now they get what they want.
>
> And that leaves the Dems out in the cold once again.
>
> In fact, I expect that the GOP will not only win the presidency, but take
> back at least the Senate, if not the House, and all from this one move (as
> an awful lot of people vote straight ticket).
>
> Ike
Factual reality for the wacko right winger fundy:
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Aug. 29-31, 2008. N=927
registered voters nationwide. MoE ą 3 (for all registered voters).
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm
"Suppose you could cast two separate votes in November -- one just
for president and another vote just for vice president. Who would you be
more likely to vote for if you could vote separately for vice president:
Joe Biden, the Democrat, or Sarah Palin, the Republican?"
Biden (D) 54
Palin (R) 41
Well, surely the populace is convinced McCain, that straight-talking
express train that he is, made the decision for the right reasons?
Eh...
"Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?"
"John McCain chose Sarah Palin because he felt the time had come to
nominate a woman."
Agree 43
Disagree 56
"John McCain chose Sarah Palin because he thought having a woman on
the ticket would help him get elected."
Agree 75
Disagree 25
John Baker
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned
>that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics
>investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in
>dismissing the state's public safety commissioner; that she was a
>member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party,
>which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede;
>and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.
Now that's going a bit too far. There are plenty of legitimate reasons
to question Palin's qualifications, but something her husband did 22
years ago is not one of them.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>> "John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>> news:pdqdnbAlcOev-CDV...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> Report in the New York Times on Half-baked Palin Pick
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Let's see.
>>
>> Hurricane Gustav blew in.
>> The US turned over the Anbar province to the Iraqis.
>> Protestors at the RNC violently attacked Republicans.
>>
>> But the NYT deemed that Bristol Palin should get THREE FRONT PAGE
>> STORIES, with no mention of two of the above stories, and scant mention
>> of the hurricane.
>>
>> Now THAT'S a reputable source of timely and pertinent information...
>>
>> ...not.
>>
>> Gee, you think they might be scared shitless of what Palin does to the
>> race?
>>
>> Naaaah.
>>
>> Nevermind that their STILL scratching their head trying to figure out how
>> W BEAT THEM TWICE when ALL THEIR SOURCES indicated THEY were going to
>> win.
>>
>> Go figure.
>>
>> [snip]
>
>
> The fringe right wing Christianist just can't face factual reality.
???
I'm a Lutheran.
That's about as middle-of-the-road as you can get.
> He has to hide those facts and ignore them and try to change the subject.
> That says a lot about his feeble and weak position.
???
Change the facts?
The FACT is the NYT put THREE ARTICLES about Palin's DAUGHTER on the front
page, with one blurb about the hurricane, and NOTHING about the US handing
over territory to the Iraqi Military or the Anarchist attacks at the RNC.
> Well, let's have another look at those facts that the creepy wingnut felt
> he had to hide from:
???
YOU posted the article from the NYT, and I POINTED OUT WHAT THEY DID.
How is that "hiding" from ANYTHING?
YOU are hiding from the fact that the NYT HAS DECIDED TO HYPOCRITICALLY
ATTACK Palin VIA HER DAUGHTER, IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO ITS OWN FEMINIST
AGENDA.
WHAT KIND OF COWARDS HAVE TO GO AFTER HER DAUGHTER IN THREE SEPARATE
FRONT-PAGE ARTICLES?
ANSWER: ONES THAT ARE SCARED TO DEATH ABOUT THE CANDIDATE'S IMPACT ON THE
RACE.
[snip the rest of the pre-emptive manufactured attacks]
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:Xns9B0D80042157...@216.77.188.18...
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in
> news:g9jrbq$94f$1...@registered.motzarella.org:
>
>> "John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>> news:pdqdnbAlcOev-CDV...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Report in the New York Times on Half-baked Palin Pick
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Let's see.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Protestors at the RNC violently attacked Republicans.
>
> Care to back this up with actual proof?
???
You don't have a television set?
Nevertheless...
Police, anarchists clash outside RNC
Email|Link|Comments (21) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political
editor September 1, 2008 02:46 PM
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff
ST. PAUL -- Police clashed today with a handful of self-described anarchists
protesting near the Republican National Convention.
Officers in riot gear were stationed along the march route for the anarchist
group, known as the RNC Welcoming Committee, who are protesting separately
from peaceful antiwar groups.
A vinegary smell was in the air, as officers chased the protestors.
The anarchist group was targeted in police searches over the weekend that
resulted in six arrests, but the group had declared that it was "moving
forward with a national call to crash the convention."
Anarchists damage property, block traffic, attack delegates with bleach
[excerpt]
Pioneer Press
Article Last Updated: 09/02/2008 02:40:15 AM CDT
DELEGATES HASSLED
Some delegates were confronted on their way to the Xcel Energy Center.
A rock was thrown through the windshield of the Alabama delegates' bus,
showering the driver and retired Alabama Supreme Court judge Terry Butts
with glass.
Masked protesters confronted the Connecticut delegation, and several
delegates were spat upon, roughed up and doused with a mixture of water and
bleach.
Heath Fahle, director of the Connecticut Republicans, said the incident
happened on Kellogg Boulevard about 2 p.m. "It was frightening," he said.
He said the delegation of more than 100 got off their chartered buses near
the X. As they walked on the sidewalk, masked protesters chanting anti-war
slogans appeared in front of them.
They linked arms, trying to create a human barricade. As police on horseback
arrived, Fahle and other delegates tried to push through. Most of them
escaped unscathed, but the protesters splattered the last group of delegates
with the liquid.
Former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons was hit in the face with the liquid. He was
outraged.
"We were attacked by a mob," he said. "We were subjected to violent and
anarchist behavior by a bunch of thugs."
The area was supposed to be secured, he said, "but this was a breach in
security, obviously."
Let me guess: You're one of those people who don't believe the holocaust was
real, either. Or maybe NASA faked the moon landing? etc., etc., etc.
Ike
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Sep-2008, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:pdqdnbAlcOev-CDV...@giganews.com...
> >
> >
> > Report in the New York Times on Half-baked Palin Pick
>
> LOL
>
> Let's see.
>
> Hurricane Gustav blew in.
> The US turned over the Anbar province to the Iraqis.
> Protestors at the RNC violently attacked Republicans.
>
> But the NYT deemed that Bristol Palin should get THREE FRONT PAGE STORIES,
>
> with no mention of two of the above stories, and scant mention of the
> hurricane.
>
> Now THAT'S a reputable source of timely and pertinent information...
>
> ...not.
>
> Gee, you think they might be scared shitless of what Palin does to the
> race?
>
> Naaaah.
>
That's right, they're not. They're astonished that a man
could want to run this country & lead the free world &
pick such an incompetant loser to be his running mate.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Sep-2008, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
> The FACT is the NYT put THREE ARTICLES about Palin's DAUGHTER on the front
>
> page, with one blurb about the hurricane, and NOTHING about the US handing
>
> over territory to the Iraqi Military or the Anarchist attacks at the RNC.
a) the hurricane has already been covered
b) Palin is presented by McCain as suitabe to take his place as President
c) There were no "anarchist attacks" at the RNC.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Sep-2008, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Just my opinion. Personhood ends with the cessation of brain activity.
> At a minimum, personhood should also begin with brain activity, which
> occurs in about the 8th week of pregnancy.
Except, of course, that "person" couldn't survive on its
own, unlike the person whose cessation is being measured.
Susan
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
[snip]
> LOL The creepy fringe fundamentalist Christian Right fraudulent freak
> just can't face *documented* factual reality.
LOL
THEN HOW COME THEY KEEP WINNING?
Whose doing the voting?
Oh, wait, I've got it.
"I see dead people."
> Read it again:
>
> The truth is,
Oh, here we go again...
> however, that the so-called “conservative majority” does not exist.
Riiiiight.
Those voting machine levers just keep pulling themselves.
> While many American’s may call themselves conservative, the overwhelming
> majority of Americans support progressive policies. Indeed, a majority of
> Americans…
Not even close...
> – Want universal health care.
A lie.
> – Want to expand environmental protections.
A lie.
> – Support increasing the minimum wage.
Already done. Didn't help. (Don't know what planet you've been on.)
> – Want abortion to remain safe and legal.
50/50 call.
> – Want federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
A lie.
> – Want to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for national priorities.
A HUGE lie, born of economic IGNORANCE.
> – Want same-sex couples to be legally recognized.
A DEFINITE lie. The PEOPLE keep saying NO, and the COURTS keep OVERRULING
THEM, which is forcing CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
> – Oppose the Iraq war.
Another lie. Most people WANT TO GET IT DONE AND GET OUT OF THERE. They
DON'T want ANOTHER VIETNAM-LIKE DEFEAT.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>>> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>>>> "Randy ®" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:c90lb4h9h1a0t0kut...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:14:25 -0500,
>>>>> in article <g9d9bk$usp$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>>>>> news:8ac4b6d3-67da-4705...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think McCain may have left something behind in those prison cages
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> Vietnam.
>>>>>>> If someone convinces Palin to abdicate early enough, there's still
>>>>>>> time for McCain to save his chance for the presidency, even if the
>>>>>>> term served is only two years and four months.
>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An informal poll from "GretaWire," Fox News site for Greta Van
>>>>>> Susteren.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "What impact will Governor Palin have on the election?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None or little: 2% (790 votes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She will be huge draw for Democratic women votes: 93% (41088 votes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She will hurt the Republican ticket: 5% (2197 votes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're living in la la land, bubba.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John McCain's decision will go down as one of the most brilliant
>>>>>> moves in US
>>>>>> political history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> No, that's exactly BACKWARDS (which, coming from you, is not at all
>>>> unusual).
>>>>
>>>> The poll I cited is measuring SOCIAL impact.
>>>>
>>>> The poll YOU cited referred to POLITICAL SCALE.
>>>>
>>>> It DIDN'T ASK the pertinent question, "WHO ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR?"
>>>>
>>>> It asked "DO YOU THINK SHE IS QUALIFIED?"
>>>>
>>>> OF COURSE no one thinks SHE'S QUALIFIED.
>>>>
>>>> WHO CARES?
>>>>
>>>> PEOPLE WILL VOTE WITH THOSE WITH WHOM THEY CAN IDENTIFY, and the BULK
>>>> OF AMERICANS (74% white, 52% women) IDENTIFY with MCCAIN AND PALIN.
>>>
>>> Only in your creepy fringe imagination.
>>
>> Yo.
>>
>> Moron.
>>
>>
>> Because EVEN IN THE WORST OF SITUATIONS, THEY'LL STILL TAKE A
>> CONSERVATIVE OVER A RADICAL EASTERN ESTABLISHMENT LIBERAL EVERY DAY OF
>> THE WEEK AND TWICE ON SUNDAY.
>>
>> Ike
>
>
> CBS News Poll - Sept. 1, 2008: Obama 48%, McCain 40%.
>
> "Sixty-three percent of registered voters say Obama understands their
> needs and problems, while just 41 percent say that about McCain."
Which, given the history of these polls, MEANS JM IS WINNING.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:8eSdnU2g0rdDziDV...@giganews.com...
LOL
No they didn't.
They just stopped an illegal process, which was what Nixon SHOULD have done
to the Chicago Democratic Machine ("vote early, vote often"), but didn't, so
we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
[snip]
>> RASMUSSEN hasn't DONE ANY NEW POLLS YET,
>
>
> The creepy Christian Right wacko is lying AGAIN:
>
> "The first national polls on John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin yesterday
> came out *TODAY* [August 30, 2008] from *Rasmussen and Gallup* -- and
> contrary to what the GOP probably hoped, she scored less well with women
> than men."
>
> http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003844485
That's a SURVEY, moron, NOT A POLL--THEY DIDN'T ASK "who are you going to
vote for?" and they WON'T UNTIL LATE THIS WEEK. Then they COMPILE THE
RESULTS STATE-BY-STATE on SATURDAY.
SO LAST WEEKENDS RASMUSSEN POLL RESULTS DON'T REFLECT THE MCCAIN MOVE.
MAN, you people are dumb.
> and the data is FROM THE END OF
>> LAST WEEK, BEFORE MCCAIN EVEN MADE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS.
>>
>> And it STILL WORKED.
>>
>> From your own article...
>>
>> "Overall, voters expressed a favorable impression of her by a 53/26
>> margin, but there was a severe gender gap on this: Men embraced her at
>> 58% to 23%, while for women it was 48/30."
>>
>> 53 to 26 and 48 to 30 IS STILL A WIN, goofball.
>
>
> Only among men, asshole, NOT women - as the headline states.
Y0.
MORON.
48/30 IS A MAJORITY.
> *First Two National Polls Find Palin Gains LESS Support from Women*
LESS THAN THE MEN, moron.
AND THIS IS ONLY A SPOT-POLL, WITH LITTLE VALIDITY.
THIS WEEK WILL TELL THE STORY.
>>> Only 9% of Obama supporters said they might be more likely to vote for
>>> McCain.
>>
>> Idiot: 9% PUTS OBAMA IN CLEARLY IN THE LOSER'S COLUMN.
>
>
> My God man. Read that again: "Only 9% of Obama supporters said they might
> be more likely to vote for McCain."
AND I REPEAT, 9% PUTS OBAMA CLEARLY IN THE LOSER'S COLUMN.
>> After the convention (but BEFORE McCain's announcement) Gallup (which
>> doesn't track independents) declared that it was 49% Obama and 45% McCain
>> WITH THE CONVENTION BOUNCE (where the pundits were expecting a 10% lead
>> AND DIDN'T GET IT).
>>
>> IT'S NOW 47%/47%, and the GOP HASN'T HAD ITS CONVENTION YET, and people
>> ARE JUST NOW HEARING ABOUT PALIN.
>>
>> With the next shift, THE GOP BREAKS INTO A CLEAR LEAD (and all they HAVE
>> to do is TIE--the electoral college gives a tie or even a slight
>> shortfall TO THE GOP).
>>
>> MAN, you people are dumb.
>
>
> Really? Then why did you ignore this:
>
> "And by a 29/44 margin, men and women together...do not believe that she
> [Palin] is ready to be President."
BECAUSE THE POLL DATA IS MIXED, moron, and the difference polls came out
approximately 1/3 accept, 1/3 don't accept, 1/3 don't know (which is to be
expected with a brand new candidate).
> Creepy right wing Christianist freaks like you are loud and obnoxious but
> you are in a fast dwindling minority.
>
> Most Americans can see you wackos for what you are, transparent
> caricatures and distorted comic book pseudo-intellectual figures who
> falsely and embarrassingly assume that their immature demagogic and
> narcissistic emotionalism contributes real meaningful sober and dignified
> rational discourse.
So's yer' mother.
What? That wasn't meaningful and sober?
> Simply put, you're sociopathic extremist wackos.
You're seriously self-projecting.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
???
74% of Americans identify themselves as "white."
52% of Americans are women.
The McCain ticket reflects the American norm.
The Obama ticket doesn't.
What? You never studied statistics?
I'm not referring to "politics," moron. I'm referring to IDENTITY.
(Then again, they reflect the POLITICAL MAJORITY, too: MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD.)
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
I SAID if OBAMA DOESN'T SHOW A 15-18% LEAD, HE'S LOSING.
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES THAT DON'T SHOW A 15-18% LEAD IN THE POLLS FOLLOWING
THEIR OWN CONVENTION LOSE.
>> Oh, and I was just checking the electoral college numbers today, and the
>> state-by-state comparisons SHOW A STATISTICAL DEAD HEAT, whereas it was
>> previously showing an Obama win (which is really weird, since, for some
>> strange reason, the Rasmussen number left out Indiana, which will
>> DEFINITELY go McCain's way, just as it went Hilly's way, and PUT McCain
>> OVER THE TOP).
>>
>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/scoreboards/presidential_status_bars
>>
>> Oh, yeah, these are SATURDAY'S figures, and the Palin announcement had
>> just come out.
>
>
>
> Here's Rasmussen for today, fuckwit. - Your loser McCain is *STILL*
> losing. HA HA HA HA HA
>
>
> Rasmussen Reports - Tuesday, September 02, 2008
>
> The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows
> Barack Obama attracting 48% of the vote while John McCain earns 43%. When
> "leaners" are included, it's Obama 51%, McCain 45%. This is the highest
> level of support enjoyed by Obama at any point in Election 2008
RASMUSSEN compiles it's STATE-BY-STATE ELECTORAL COLLEGE MAP (the poll I
REFERRED TO, moron) during the week AND COMPILES IT ON SATURDAY (until a few
weeks before the election), moron.
THAT'S THE "POLL" THAT COUNTS--THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, NOT THE STATIC GENERAL
ELECTORATE NUMBERS.
AND RASMUSSEN CALLED IT WRONG LAST ELECTION.
GO DO THE MATH.
IF THEY SAY IT'S A STATISTICAL DEAD HEAT, IT'S AN OBAMA LOSS.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
"WHY" DOESN'T MATTER, moron.
THAT WOMEN HAVE A CHANCE TO ELECT A CONSERVATIVE WOMAN FOR A CHANGE DOES
(which is why Palin is SCARING THE CRAP out of the Eastern Establishment
Elitists).
Man, you people are dumb.
Ike
John Manning
I certainly don't consider your uneducated arrogance in claiming to
interpret the esoteric and ineffable Book of Revelation
"middle-of-the-road". You join the ranks of the fundy nutbags like John
Hagee and the wacko Christian Right weirdos in doing that.
For readers:
The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation
by H.E. Eickleberry Jr.
Summary:
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation"
is an examination of the opening statements that begin the final book of
the Bible. In it, we will meet the hierarchy of persons that Revelation
went through to get from God to us, which is the first character map in
Revelation. We will also meet the players within the book of Revelation.
Who are the children of the "earth" and "sea"? What does Revelation tell
us about the people who started the world? What does it tell us about
the people who will end it? More important, what does it tell us about
ourselves, right here and now? This is the second character map in
Revelation. Most important, this book defines the very nature of God
Himself, which is the ultimate character map in Revelation. It dictates
the very form of Revelation. Moreover, it is the yardstick by which God
measures us. As such, "The Character Map: An Introduction to the
Introductions in Revelation" is an invaluable tool for understanding our
times, our world, and even ourselves, which was God's original purpose
for giving us the book of Revelation.
http://tinyurl.com/59gufj
===============================================
>> He has to hide those facts and ignore them and try to change the subject.
>> That says a lot about his feeble and weak position.
>
> ???
>
> Change the facts?
I didn't say "Change the facts." Read it again:
"He has to *hide those facts* and ignore them and try to *change the
subject* That says a lot about his feeble and weak position.
> The FACT is the NYT put THREE ARTICLES about Palin's DAUGHTER on the front
> page, with one blurb about the hurricane, and NOTHING about the US handing
> over territory to the Iraqi Military or the Anarchist attacks at the RNC.
Irrelevant. Do you really think readers here are so stupid that they buy
your deceptive attempts to change the subject?
>> Well, let's have another look at those facts that the creepy wingnut felt
>> he had to hide from:
>
> ???
>
> YOU posted the article from the NYT, and I POINTED OUT WHAT THEY DID.
Any other articles out of the dozens published every day by the NYT have
nothing at all to do with the information in the current article I posted.
That's just another of your deceitful attempts to continue avoiding
honestly addressing the facts in the article.
Do you really think that readers of this thread buy your bullshit
attempt to evade the information you snipped and ignored?
Who do you think you're fooling? ...Yourself? ...God?
> How is that "hiding" from ANYTHING?
>
> YOU are hiding from the fact that the NYT HAS DECIDED TO HYPOCRITICALLY
> ATTACK Palin VIA HER DAUGHTER, IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO ITS OWN FEMINIST
> AGENDA.
>
> WHAT KIND OF COWARDS HAVE TO GO AFTER HER DAUGHTER IN THREE SEPARATE
> FRONT-PAGE ARTICLES?
Just like I said to begin with: He has to hide those facts [in the
currently posted article] and ignore them and try to change the subject.
That says a lot about his feeble and weak position.
Changing the subject doesn't change the facts you snipped and are
ignoring. Your ignoring of those facts is what's cowardly.
> ANSWER: ONES THAT ARE SCARED TO DEATH ABOUT THE CANDIDATE'S IMPACT ON THE
> RACE.
Total Bullshit - Here's news for you, dumbass: Since Palin was picked,
Obama has gone *UP* in the polls:
More And More Polls Show Obama's Lead Expanding . . .
- It's starting to look like John McCain's historic selection of Sarah
Palin hasn't done him any favors in the polls.
September 2, 2008 - Here's this morning's Rasmussen tracking poll: Obama
51%, McCain 45%, outside of the ±2% margin of error. Obama was up
49%-46% yesterday, suggesting that Palin's scandals may have helped him
to double his lead in just one day of sampling.
And the new Hotline/Diageo poll has Obama up 48%-39%, compared to a
44%-40% lead from just one week ago.
Late Update: Three more polls all show Obama leading by a substantial
margin. The daily Gallup tracking poll has Obama up 50%-42% -- the first
time ever that he's reached the 50% threshold in their poll. The USA
Today/Gallup poll has Obama up 50%-43%, and ARG has Obama up 49%-43%.
There is also yesterday's CBS poll, which gave Obama a 48%-40% lead.
Links to polls are embedded in webpage here:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/two_more_polls_show_obamas_lea.php
====
You're just another dishonest loser and hypocritical right wing asshole
who uses deception to avoid honestly facing facts - and shamefully calls
himself a Christian.
You're too cowardly to address the facts. Here they are again:
Report in the New York Times on Half-baked Palin Pick
--McCain became the GOP presumptive nominee back in early March. It
John Manning
So you're a racist bigot besides being a religious crackpot. I see.
Perhaps you don't recognize that the US Constitution is for ALL
Americans, not just racist assholes like you.
This Youtube clip reflects you and your right wing mentality to a T:
YES WE KLAN - RNC Theme Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raEex1yAW7w
> The Obama ticket doesn't.
The Obama ticket is *INCLUSIVE* of all Americans, you sick racist fuckwit.
>
> What? You never studied statistics?
>
> I'm not referring to "politics," moron. I'm referring to IDENTITY.
The *identity* of America includes *ALL Americans* not just racist fucks
like you who hypocritically call themselves Christian.
John Manning
You live in an imaginary world, fella. You aren't dealing with a full deck.
FACTUAL REALITY:
More And More Polls Show Obama's Lead Expanding . . .
It's starting to look like John McCain's historic selection of Sarah
Palin hasn't done him any favors in the polls.
Here's this morning's Rasmussen tracking poll: Obama 51%, McCain 45%,
outside of the ą2% margin of error. Obama was up 49%-46% yesterday,
John Manning
Apparently even *documented* facts don't penetrate your fantasy world.
You're not dealing with a full deck, fella. In other words, you're
fucking nuts.
Each item listed below is *documented*
The truth is, however, that the so-called “conservative majority” does
not exist. While many American’s may call themselves conservative, the
overwhelming majority of Americans support progressive policies. Indeed,
a majority of Americans…
– Want universal health care.
– Want to expand environmental protections.
– Support increasing the minimum wage.
– Want abortion to remain safe and legal.
– Want federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
– Want to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for national priorities.
– Want same-sex couples to be legally recognized.
– Oppose the Iraq war.
*Each item is documented* with its own link here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/26/limbaugh-conservative-majority/
John Manning
Readers can clearly see your transparent loser tap dance.
More And More Polls Show Obama's Lead Expanding . . .
Here's this morning's Rasmussen tracking poll: Obama 51%, McCain 45%,
John Manning
Here's this morning's Rasmussen tracking poll: Obama 51%, McCain 45%,
outside of the ±2% margin of error. Obama was up 49%-46% yesterday,
John Manning
Obama's number have INCREASED since McCain picked a pathetically
underqualified VP running mate.
It's starting to look like John McCain's historic selection of Sarah
Palin hasn't done him any favors in the polls.
Here's this morning's Rasmussen tracking poll: Obama 51%, McCain 45%,
outside of the ą2% margin of error. Obama was up 49%-46% yesterday,
suggesting that Palin's scandals may have helped him to double his lead
in just one day of sampling.
And the new Hotline/Diageo poll has Obama up 48%-39%, compared to a
44%-40% lead from just one week ago.
Late Update: Three more polls all show Obama leading by a substantial
margin. The daily Gallup tracking poll has Obama up 50%-42% -- the first
time ever that he's reached the 50% threshold in their poll. The USA
Today/Gallup poll has Obama up 50%-43%, and ARG has Obama up 49%-43%.
There is also yesterday's CBS poll, which gave Obama a 48%-40% lead.
Links to polls are embedded in webpage here:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/two_more_polls_show_obamas_lea.php
>
That isn't what they're saying. *This* is what they're saying:
It's starting to look like John McCain's historic selection of Sarah
Palin hasn't done him any favors in the polls.
Here's this morning's Rasmussen tracking poll: Obama 51%, McCain 45%,
outside of the ą2% margin of error. Obama was up 49%-46% yesterday,
towelie
>>
>>
>> Report in the New York Times on Half-baked Palin Pick
>
> LOL
>
> Let's see.
>
> Hurricane Gustav blew in.
> The US turned over the Anbar province to the Iraqis.
> Protestors at the RNC violently attacked Republicans.
>
> But the NYT deemed that Bristol Palin should get THREE FRONT PAGE
> STORIES, with no mention of two of the above stories, and scant
> mention of the hurricane.
>
> Now THAT'S a reputable source of timely and pertinent information...
>
> ...not.
>
> Gee, you think they might be scared shitless of what Palin does to
> the race?
No, we're scared shitless of what a President Paladin might do to the
country. In other words, destroy it far worse than Premier Bush could ever
imagine.
John Manning
Getting Real About Palin
By Josh Marshall
Talking Points Memo, 08.31.08 -- 11:00AM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/211769.php
I've noticed some people who should know better claiming that bringing
up Gov. Palin's troopergate scandal is tantamount to making a victim of
or defending her slimeball ex-brother-in-law who allegedly once used a
taser on his stepson.
That's awfully foolish. So I thought I'd put together a post explaining why.
The person in question is state trooper Mike Wooten -- Palin's
ex-brother-in-law who's embroiled in a bitter custody and divorce battle
with Palin's sister.
Back in the second week of August, well before Palin became a national
political figure, TPMMuckraker was reporting on this story. And as part
of the reporting we tried to get a handle on just how bad a guy Wooten was.
Most people who are familiar with the ugliness that often spills out of
custody and divorce cases know to take accusations arising out of the
course of them with a grain of salt unless you know a lot about the
people involved. And if you look closely at the case there are numerous
reasons to question the picture drawn by the Palin family.
Regardless, we proceeded on the assumption that Wooten really was a
rotten guy because the truth is that it wasn't relevant to the
investigation of Palin.
Let's review what happened.
The Palin family had a feud with Wooten prior to her becoming governor.
They put together a list of 14 accusations which they took to the state
police to investigate -- a list that ranged from the quite serious to
the truly absurd. The state police did an investigation, decided that 5
of the charges had some merit and suspended Wooten for ten days -- a
suspension later reduced to five days. The Palin's weren't satisfied but
there wasn't much they could do.
When Palin became governor they went for another bite at the apple.
Palin, her husband and several members of her staff began pressuring
Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan -- a respected former Chief of
the Anchorage police department -- to can Wooten. Monegan resisted,
arguing that the official process regarding Wooten was closed. And there
was nothing more that could be done.
In fact, during one of the conversations in which Palin's husband Todd
was putting on the squeeze, Monegan told Todd Palin, "You can't head
hunt like this. What you need to do is back off, because if the trooper
does make a mistake, and it is a terminable offense, it can look like
political interference."
Eventually, Palin got fed up and fired Monegan from his job. (Palin
claims, not credibly, that she fired Monegan over general differences in
law enforcement priorities.) This is an important point. Wooten never
got fired. To the best of my knowledge, he's is still on the job. The
central bad act was firing the state's top police official because he
refused to bend to political pressure from the governor and her family
to fire a public employee against whom the governor was pursuing a
vendetta -- whether the vendetta was justified or not.
Soon after this, questions were raised in the state about Monegan's
firing and he eventually came forward and said he believed he'd been
fired for not giving in to pressure to fire Wooten.
After Monegan made his accusations, Palin insisted there was no truth
whatsoever to his claims. Nonetheless, a bipartisan committee of the
state legislature approved an investigation.
In response, Palin asked the Attorney General to start his own
investigation which many in the state interpreted as an effort to either
keep tabs on or tamper with the legislature's investigation. Again, very
questionable judgment in someone who aspires to be first in line to the
presidency.
The Attorney General's investigation quickly turned up evidence that
Palin's initial denials were false. Multiple members of her staff had
raised Wooten's employment with Monegan. Indeed, the state police had a
recording of one of her deputies pushing Monegan to fire Wooten. That
evidence forced Palin to change her story. Palin said that this was the
first she'd heard of it and insisted the deputy wasn't acting at her
behest, even though the transcript of the recorded call clearly
suggested that he was.
Hear the audio here: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/audio/FrankBaileyCDaudio.mp3
Just yesterday, Monegan gave an interview to the Washington Post in
which he said that not only Palin's aides, but Palin's husband and Palin
herself had repeatedly raised the Wooten issue with him and pressured
him to fire him. And now he says he has emails that Palin sent him about
the matter. (In an interesting sidelight, that may end up telling us a
lot, Monegan says no one from the McCain campaign ever contacted him in
the vetting process.)
The investigator appointed by the state legislature began trying to
arrange a time to depose Gov. Palin last week -- in other words, in the
final days before her selection.
So let's put this all together.
We rely on elected officials not to use the power of their office to
pursue personal agendas or vendettas. It's called an abuse of power.
There is ample evidence that Palin used her power as governor to get her
ex-brother-in-law fired. When his boss refused to fire him, she fired
his boss. She first denied Monegan's claims of pressure to fire Wooten
and then had to amend her story when evidence proved otherwise. The
available evidence now suggests that she
1) tried to have an ex-relative fired from his job for personal reasons,
something that was clearly inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, though
possibly understandable in human terms,
2) fired a state official for not himself acting inappropriately by
firing the relative,
3) lied to the public about what happened and
4) continues to lie about what happened.
These are, to put it mildly, not the traits or temperament you want in
someone who could hold the executive power of the federal government.
Davej
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Christopher A. Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Randy ® <p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Lord willing, I'll be voting for McCain/Palin, simply because
> >>they are pro-life, and Obama/Biden are pro-infanticide. But
> >>I wish McCain had not picked Palin.
>
> >Nobody is "pro-infanticide", liar.
>
> No, you either believe life begins at conception, or you do
> not. For those who do, abortion is infanticide.
>
You're an idiot. An egg is not an infant. But I do have some doubts
about late term abortions. That might approach infanticide if it was
late enough.
Bert Hyman
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> It's the only thing that I can put together, given what appears to be
> a haphazard vetting process.
To some, like this guy, a bad vetting process just means it resulted in
the selection of someone they don't like.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
What the Liars For God don't understand is that these are extremely
rare, and done for medical reasons.
Elective abortions happen months earlier.
But they pretend all abortions are this particular late term
procedure.
Davej
>
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/211769.php
>
> [...] It's called an abuse of power. There is ample evidence
> that Palin used her power as governor to get her ex-brother-
> in-law fired. When his boss refused to fire him, she fired
I'm sure God told her to do it. She sounds like a typical member of
the Bush administration.
Leo Sgouros
news:Xns9B0DB911177...@216.250.184.7...
Vetting isnt a proces that results in the selection of anyone, likeable or
not.
Firelock
> >news:7JmdnR5Mh8rVxyDV...@giganews.com...
> >> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
> >>>news:250acb8d-380a-4eab...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>>> The election is one big popularity contest, and Palin is "Miss
> >>>> Congeniality."
> >>> Not "popularity contest."
>
> >>> SOCIAL IDENTITY contest--and it STARTED when Hilly and Barak sought
> >>> nomination.
>
> >>> Only no one identified with both of them AT THE SAME TIME, because they
> >>> were COMPLETELY OPPOSING ENTITIES, with DIFFERENT IDENTIFICATION GROUPS.
> >>> It's was always EITHER/OR.
>
> >>> Now the "either/or" has shifted to McCain's advantage: Either a
> >>> "chip-on-his shoulder" black activist, or a GOP ticket THAT REFLECTS 74%
> >>> OF AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS.
>
> >> The sociopathic fringe right wing Christianist has just proven that his
> >> lives in an imaginary world.
>
> >> The GOP ticket no way "REFLECTS 74% OF AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS."
>
> > ???
>
> > 74% of Americans identify themselves as "white."
>
> > 52% of Americans are women.
>
> > The McCain ticket reflects the American norm.
>
> So you're a racist bigot besides being a religious crackpot. I see.
>
> Perhaps you don't recognize that the US Constitution is for ALL
> Americans, not just racist assholes like you.
I've seen studies trumpeting Obama's expected
capture of 92% of the african-american vote.
Sauce for the goose, as the saying goes.
--
Walt
Ron Ford
> 1) tried to have an ex-relative fired from his job for personal reasons,
> something that was clearly inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, though
> possibly understandable in human terms,
>
> 2) fired a state official for not himself acting inappropriately by
> firing the relative,
>
> 3) lied to the public about what happened and
>
> 4) continues to lie about what happened.
Being bad at governing and lying habitually are virtues for Repugs.
--
War will never cease until babies begin to come into the world with larger
cerebrums and smaller adrenal glands. 2
H. L. Mencken
The Master
> Being bad at governing and lying habitually are virtues for Repugs.
I didn't know Bill Clinton was a Republican...
Just Wondering
Why is that relevant? Viability outside the womb is an arbitrary line.
Any number of living people for any number of reasons become unable to
survive on their own without direct and constant artificial life support
and medical intervention. That doesn't end their "personhood."
Al Smith
If you do a bad vetting, you end up with distemper, every time.
-Al-
•R. L. Measures
<tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:
** He's not but Wild Bill would not pass up a nubile Republican under any
circumstances.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Don Martin
>Don Martin wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 10:44 am, Randy Ž <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:10:08 -0400,
>>> in article <9e2lb41nrmdamdup7rpctqke1k0prac...@4ax.com>,
>>> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:07:25 -0500, Randy Ž <pulpitf...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Lord willing, I'll be voting for McCain/Palin, simply because
>>>>> they are pro-life, and Obama/Biden are pro-infanticide. But
>>>>> I wish McCain had not picked Palin.
>>>> Nobody is "pro-infanticide", liar.
>>> No, you either believe life begins at conception, or you do
>>> not. For those who do, abortion is infanticide.
>>
>> Sure _life_ begins at conception, but personhood begins with the first
>> breath. Every cell in your body exhibits life, but none of them will
>> become voters in 18 years.
>>
>
>Just my opinion. Personhood ends with the cessation of brain activity.
> At a minimum, personhood should also begin with brain activity, which
>occurs in about the 8th week of pregnancy.
"personhood" is a definition that has legal standing. See whether you can
convince lawyers of your opinion.
-
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Sep-2008, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 2-Sep-2008, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Just my opinion. Personhood ends with the cessation of brain activity.
> >> At a minimum, personhood should also begin with brain activity, which
> >> occurs in about the 8th week of pregnancy.
> >
> > Except, of course, that "person" couldn't survive on its
> > own, unlike the person whose cessation is being measured.
> >
> > Susan
>
> Why is that relevant?
Something about the amendment on slavery....
>Viability outside the womb is an arbitrary line.
Except, of course, for the womb being part of an actual person.
> Any number of living people for any number of reasons become unable to
> survive on their own without direct and constant artificial life support
> and medical intervention. That doesn't end their "personhood."
No, because they aren't draining another person to get it.
Susan