Question For the Regulars
Deborah
political morons from other groups or is it only since Letterman got
irrate with McCain?
Just wondering. Lately it hasn't seemed like quite the same group...
Deborah
Brady
There was more crossposting last week than usual.
Events like the McCain thing sometimes tend to spur it.
Brady
Tom W
When Dave does something on the show that gets into general news, that tends to
bring the cross-posters out. Something similar happened when the media did the
buildup to the Oprah visit.
Rules of thumb:
Be suspicious about threads with provocative subject lines. If it's a long
thread, look at the list of posters and see if you recognize any names.
If you decide you want to respond to a cross-posted message, when your reply
window comes up, delete all newsgroups in the "to:" field that aren't AFL. Maybe
there's a conversation to be had, but it doesn't need to be shared with the
Howard Stern fans or rec.arts.tv or whomever.
Tom W
James Langdell
There's been some degree of political (or outright crank) cross
postings that regularly include the AFL for over a decade. But there
are a higher number lately, especially of the political bent.
Perhaps we should ask the people in charge of the internets to reduce
the unwanted traffic in the main AFL by branching off with
alt.fan.letterman.politics.douchebags, along with
alt.fan.letterman.shoes.
--James
Default User
Not a problem for me. Long ago I set up filters for most of the common
cross-post newsgroups. Additionally I set up filters for most of the
common keywords related to political discussion.
I also filtered most of the spam.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Deborah
Heh. Add alt.fan.letterman.swiss-watches to the list : )
Deborah
Deborah
<anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>In article <0qt0e4hchd46mghbd...@4ax.com>
>Deborah
>Of course it has nothing to do with the attacks on Sarah Palin
>or John McCain. You liberal assholes started it and now you
>don't like it when all the shit gets pushed back in your faces.
>
>Tough.
>
>You're going to like it even less when Obama gets his cheap
>stunt butt kicked to the curb on election day.
I'm not even a resident of the USA, so you are wasting your breath on
me. But I imagine that most of the members of this ng are just here
to discuss the LS. Letterman's political leanings are unknown. He's
had Obama on the show during the campaign, and he wants McCain on the
show also. That, imo, was the point of what Letterman said when he
said, of McCain, "He doesn't get it - if we don't see him on the Late
Show, we might not see him on Inauguration Day". He's going to skewer
the guy until he makes an appearance. And I am fairly sure McCain
will make an appearance, if only to shut Letterman up.
Letterman has his own unique way of getting what he wants : )
Deborah
Maybe
<deb...@thislittleliberallightomineImgonnaletitshine.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:07:10 +0200 (CEST), Dave U. Random
><anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>>Of course it has nothing to do with the attacks on Sarah Palin
>>or John McCain. You liberal assholes started it and now you
>>don't like it when all the shit gets pushed back in your faces.
>>
>>Tough.
>>
>>You're going to like it even less when Obama gets his cheap
>>stunt butt kicked to the curb on election day.
>
>I'm not even a resident of the USA, so you are wasting your breath on
>me. But I imagine that most of the members of this ng are just here
>to discuss the LS.
See, crap like this -- ignore it and hopefully it will go away. Like
your mama said, don't feed the trolls or talk to strangers.
Maybe...or waste your own breath
Bill Kawalec
"Deborah" <deb...@thislittleliberallightomineImgonnaletitshine.com> wrote
in message news:0792e4hojusdoib0o...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:07:10 +0200 (CEST), Dave U. Random
> <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <0qt0e4hchd46mghbd...@4ax.com>
>>Deborah
>><deb...@thislittleliberallightomineImgonnaletitshine.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Have you always had this cross-posting problem with all these
>>> political morons from other groups or is it only since Letterman got
>>> irrate with McCain?
>>>
>>> Just wondering. Lately it hasn't seemed like quite the same group...
>>>
>>> Deborah
>>
>>Of course it has nothing to do with the attacks on Sarah Palin
>>or John McCain. You liberal assholes started it and now you
>>don't like it when all the shit gets pushed back in your faces.
>>
>>Tough.
>>
>>You're going to like it even less when Obama gets his cheap
>>stunt butt kicked to the curb on election day.
>
> I'm not even a resident of the USA, so you are wasting your breath on
> me. But I imagine that most of the members of this ng are just here
> to discuss the LS. Letterman's political leanings are unknown.
What?!?!?
chatnoir
inter.net> wrote:
> In article <0qt0e4hchd46mghbdadtm8gq0u6j0hp...@4ax.com>
> Deborah
> or John McCain. You liberal assholes started it and now you
> don't like it when all the shit gets pushed back in your faces.
>
> Tough.
>
> You're going to like it even less when Obama gets his cheap
> stunt butt kicked to the curb onelectionday.
Or:
TheTubbyHubby
> or John McCain. �You liberal assholes started it and now you
> don't like it when all the shit gets pushed back in your faces.
>
> Tough.
>
> You're going to like it even less when Obama gets his cheap
> stunt butt kicked to the curb on election day.
You think so, Bunkie? Well....good luck in that debate Thursday
evening. My bet is Sarah the Clueless will be auditioning for "Are You
Smarter than a 5th Grader" by next week will little chance of winning
that either.!
Anthony
dsi...@yahoo.com
I beg to differ. I expect that Palin, if only because expectations are
beyond low, will surprise and be coherent on Thursday. I don't think
she'll "win," but the fact that she comes across as reasonably
informed will help her.
--Dave Sikula
Brad Hill
Agreed. As a much diminished underdog, Palin enters the debate with a
huge advantage. All she has to do is improve on her Couric performance
to enjoy a post-debate bounce.
Brad
WQ
--- All she has to do is "improve" on her Couric performance? That's
kind of a gross understatement, don't you think? The only way she can
possibly improve is if she stops listening to all her handlers to
allow her the freedom to say what she wants to say how she wants to
say it and let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise, she only
comes across as always looking shifty and uncomfortable with anything
she has to say, being nothing but disjointed soundbites fed to her by
her handlers, which can only result in all that tripping on her own
words and incoherent sentence structures and just an abysmal reaction
to her afterwards and also some great Saturday Night Live spoofing.
But before any of that, one can only hope she's gone through a crash
course of mastering political history, foreign relations and economics
over the last few weeks in order to just remain standing at the end of
the debate, because if not, then she's dead moose meat. All signs so
far, though, as to how much knowledge she's mastered already point to
her being dead moose meat on Thursday.
Donz5
CBS News plans to air more from last week's interview in the coming
days. From what's been reported, it'll be a doozy -- has to do with
her command of Supreme Court cases.
Donz5
On Thursday, viewers will see Tina Fey, not Sarah Palin. I almost feel
sorry for how her handlers have helped turn her into a parody of
herself.
Alan Page
"Donz5" wrote...
> CBS News plans to air more from last week's interview in the coming
> days. From what's been reported, it'll be a doozy -- has to do with
> her command of Supreme Court cases.
At least she knows that Diana Ross won them, right?
--
Alan
~WWWWW~
What a Wonderful Web We Weave
Tom W
In 2000 that might have been true. With two wars, a collapsing banking system,
and a sense of things getting worse daily, coherent won't be enough to give the
GOP a bounce.
Tom W
Rob Jensen
I'm going to add here that in her interview with Couric, Palin came
off as nothing more than the beauty pageant gal from a year or two ago
who gave a completely incoherent response to the question asked to her
at the pageant. (If, as in, to say, with respect to . . .)
It takes years and years of experience to be able to string together
coherent sentences that say absolutely nothing, like most senators do.
Unfortunately, that takes experience in the legal profession that
Palin will never have, much less be able to cram for in three days.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
Rob Jensen
"Turned her into a parody of herself" implies that she wasn't already
a parody of herself. That premise is entirely incorrect -- however,
it's understandable because Palin has never known that she's a parody
of herself, which is why she'll never be able to come off as anything
but the idiot that she is.
Maybe
> On Sep 29, 10:55�pm, "dsik...@yahoo.com" <dsik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I beg to differ. I expect that Palin, if only because expectations are
> > beyond low, will surprise and be coherent on Thursday. I don't think
> > she'll "win," but the fact that she comes across as reasonably
> > informed will help her.
>
> Agreed. As a much diminished underdog, Palin enters the debate with a
> huge advantage. All she has to do is improve on her Couric performance
> to enjoy a post-debate bounce.
I agree that she is going to do well because she will be so rehearsed
and Biden won't be able to ask her questions. But I don't think it
matters how she does because I think McCain is toast. With his
suspending his campaign, running to Washington to save the economy,
meeting with Bush and the Republican leaders and having a hand in
creating the bail out and then have it voted down will be a major blow
to his campaign.
I don't think the voters will look favorably on that at all. And it
is not even the Dave thing, it was his declaring that he is going to
save the economy and having a hand in crafting the bill that was voted
down. If he can't get his own party to vote for a bill that he helped
craft, how will he get the voters to vote for him in November.
Maybe...but Palin won't look too bad at the debate.
WQ
--- Actually, if you watch the SNL parody first and then the Palin-
Kouric interview, the Palin interview comes across as being more
hysterical than Tina Fey's take on her, as funny as that is in
itself. Try it out, you'll see:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/
jayembee
> WQ <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Brad Hill <bradh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Agreed. As a much diminished underdog, Palin enters the debate
>>> with a huge advantage. All she has to do is improve on her
>>> Couric performance to enjoy a post-debate bounce.
>>
>> --- All she has to do is "improve" on her Couric performance?
If she manages to not completely screw the moose, that would be
an improvement on her Couric performance.
> I'm going to add here that in her interview with Couric, Palin
> came off as nothing more than the beauty pageant gal from a year
> or two ago who gave a completely incoherent response to the
> question asked to her at the pageant. (If, as in, to say, with
> respect to . . .)
The scary part was in how much Tina Fey's SNL parody of her
Couric performance wasn't really that much of a parody.
I'm sure that Young Republicans would be thrilled to be able to
hang a poster of her on their dorm room walls that they can jerk
off to, but I find it hard to imagine that even the most diehard
Republican can listen to her for more than five minutes and come
away thinking that she's capable of being tour guide at Universal
Studios, let alone Vice President of the United States. She makes
even the Chimp sound like he knows what he's talking about.
-- jayembee
Bill Kawalec
"TheTubbyHubby" <Thetub...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:27f7e125-80be-4d3f...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 2:07?pm, Dave U. Random <anonym...@anonymitaet-im-
inter.net> wrote:
> In article <0qt0e4hchd46mghbdadtm8gq0u6j0hp...@4ax.com>
> Deborah
>
> > Have you always had this cross-posting problem with all these
> > political morons from other groups or is it only since Letterman got
> > irrate with McCain?
>
> > Deborah
>
> Of course it has nothing to do with the attacks on Sarah Palin
> don't like it when all the shit gets pushed back in your faces.
>
> Tough.
>
> You're going to like it even less when Obama gets his cheap
> stunt butt kicked to the curb on election day.
You think so, Bunkie? Well....good luck in that debate Thursday
evening. My bet is Sarah the Clueless will be auditioning for "Are You
Smarter than a 5th Grader" by next week will little chance of winning
that either.!
**********************************************
That may be, otoh, you may find out why she has an 80%+ approval rating as
governor. That, btw, is higher than the president and congress, combined.
Bill Kawalec
"Brad Hill" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52b85862-1ad3-40bf...@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
********************************************
...and Gwen Ifill ain't no Katie Couric.
Bill Kawalec
"Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b5be4ce4-94c2-4c62...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
************************************************
I think you're wrong. I think being in front of a REAL journalist could make
a huge difference. I could also be full-o-crap (only in ths one instance, of
course), but, I have felt for some time now that they need to turn her lose
and see if she can convey whatever it is that gets her that high approval
rating.
Bill Kawalec
"Tom W" <ble...@myway.com> wrote in message news:gbsd46$lh6$1...@aioe.org...
I'll vote for the first person who tells us The Truth about the financial
crisis...
Bill Kawalec
"Maybe" <Maybe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:63aed332-0daa-442c...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 7:47?pm, Brad Hill <bradh...@gmail.com> wrote:
************************************************
odd logic. the minority party is to blame???
FACT is (try to keep up), the plan was voted down because email, calls,
letters from constituents was running in the area of 500 to 1 against it.
Frankly, I need somebody to explain to me why **we** have to put up $700
billion to bail out bad loans.
Maybe
> "Turned her into a parody of herself" implies that she wasn't already
> a parody of herself. �That premise is entirely incorrect -- however,
> it's understandable because Palin has never known that she's a parody
> of herself, which is why she'll never be able to come off as anything
> but the idiot that she is.
Now see Deborah, this is what happens. Some joker comes to AFL,
replies to a message and then adds the newsgroup "rec.arts.tv" and
then we get all the rec.arts.tv people responding.
So I am taking out "rec.arts.tv" because it is really off topic for
them considering the subject is "Question for the regulars" meaning
regulars in AFL.
Maybe...that's how it gets started
Maybe
> odd logic. the minority party is to blame???
> �FACT is (try to keep up), the plan was voted down because email, calls,
> letters from constituents was running in the area of 500 to 1 against it.
> Frankly, I need somebody to explain to me why **we** have to put up $700
> billion to bail out bad loans.
I didn't say the minority party was to blame. Keep up bunkie. I said
he dropped everything and ran to Washington to help save the economy
and couldn't even get his own party to vote for the plan.
Maybe...I'm saying McCain screwed up
jayembee
> odd logic. the minority party is to blame???
> FACT is (try to keep up), the plan was voted down because email,
> calls, letters from constituents was running in the area of 500
> to 1 against it. Frankly, I need somebody to explain to me why
> **we** have to put up $700 billion to bail out bad loans.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080930/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_dead_end;
_ylt=AgFufYkOilDbcj4m6Apg0Eas0NUE
McCain at dead end as House rejects bailout plan
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
[snippage ensues]
"Both [McCain] and Obama had insisted the plan originally
proposed by the Bush administration be strengthened with
greater oversight and regulation.
"Within hours, however, the measure died in the House mainly
at the hands of McCain's own Republicans.
"Initially, McCain went silent, choosing instead to send his
chief economic adviser out with a statement that blamed Obama,
claiming that the first-term Illinois senator had put his
political ambitions ahead of the good of the country.
"'This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put
politics ahead of country,' McCain senior policy adviser Doug
Holtz-Eakin said.
"It wasn't long, however, before McCain told reporters in Iowa:
'Now is not the time to fix the blame, it's time to fix the
problem.'
"All in all, McCain might have been better served by staying
out of the mess and above the fray."
[more snippage]
"The measure went down 228-205, with more than two-thirds of
McCain's own Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed."
Now, it's not clear *why* each one that voted it down did so,
but at least some of the Republicans who did said that it was
because of Pelosi's partisan remarks before the vote was
taken, not because they didn't approve of the bill.
-- jayembee
Maybe
article that said in part:
> McCain at dead end as House rejects bailout plan
>
> By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
>
> [snippage ensues]
>
> "Within hours, however, the measure died in the House mainly
> at the hands of McCain's own Republicans.
>
> "Initially, McCain went silent, choosing instead to send his
> chief economic adviser out with a statement that blamed Obama,
> claiming that the first-term Illinois senator had put his
> political ambitions ahead of the good of the country.
>
> "All in all, McCain might have been better served by staying
> out of the mess and above the fray."
>
> [more snippage]
>
> "The measure went down 228-205, with more than two-thirds of
> McCain's own Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed."
>
There you go, exactly what I said. McCain is dead in the water and it
doesn't matter how Sarah Palin does in the debate.
Maybe...McCain screwed up!
DTSmith
> There you go, exactly what I said. McCain is dead in the water and it
> doesn't matter how Sarah Palin does in the debate.
>
As an outsider (gladly Canadian), I'm looking forward to this for two
reasons: 1. it's been a long time since the VP debate with the "Out of
Ammo" General and 2. this should provide SNL with a lot of good
material.
Donz5
> "TheTubbyHubby" <Thetubbyhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
She _had_ an 82% approval rating as governor. As of last week, it had
fallen to 68%. Still a great number, but it's no longer 82%.
Pete B
Shut...@aol.com says...
> It takes years and years of experience to be able to string together
> coherent sentences that say absolutely nothing, like most senators do.
> Unfortunately, that takes experience in the legal profession that
> Palin will never have, much less be able to cram for in three days.
>
You could run for office *g*
Pete B
billk...@yahoo.com says...
intellectual types.
Bill Kawalec
"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.234c9b921...@nntp.usenetserver.com...
...as opposed to those libs, who ""know"" they're smarter than everyone
else.
R H Draney
>> huge advantage. All she has to do is improve on her Couric performance
>> to enjoy a post-debate bounce.
>>
>The vast majority probably likes her - they think she isn't one of them
>intellectual types.
Aha!...that explains Lindsay Lohan's popularity!...r
--
Little-known fact: About 2% of the famous
quotations credited to "Anonymous" were actually
originated by Jasper D Anonymous, a 14th-century
maker of carriage wheels.
WQ
> "Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.234c9b921...@nntp.usenetserver.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > billkawa...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >> "Brad Hill" <bradh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
--- Well, if anyone who's got better than a 7th grade education is
considered an "intellectual type" by some supposed "vast majority,"
then no wonder the country is in such a pitiful state. Maybe that's
why Palin appeals to them, she's one of the grade school flunkees.
> ...as opposed to those libs, who ""know"" they're smarter than everyone
> else.
--- Hey, I got news for you. As difficult as it is to believe, there
are Republicans now who are just beginning to get wise to how dumbed-
down Palin really is and are beginning to worry about it. If she
falls apart in the debate, expect a hue and cry for her dismissal, and
not from the left either.
Pete B
billk...@yahoo.com says...
> I don't think the voters will look favorably on that at all.
>
I think they will. "He left all the political nonsense behind to go back
and try to help out. What a guy"
Bill Kawalec
"WQ" <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:113716f4-d79c-4370...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
********************************
that's a rather disconnected response.
WQ
--- Ok, I'll bite. In what way was it disconnected?
R H Draney
>
>On Sep 30, 4:48=A0pm, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "WQ" <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> are Republicans now who are just beginning to get wise to how dumbed-
>> falls apart in the debate, expect a hue and cry for her dismissal, and
>> not from the left either.
>>
>> ********************************
>> that's a rather disconnected response.
>
>--- Ok, I'll bite. In what way was it disconnected?
He means "hung up"...Bill has problems with little things like idioms, and
proper quoting....r
Rob Jensen
Yah, I saw Olbermann do the side-by-side comparison on Monday night's
Countdown. I have to say that Tina Fey is still funnier, but that's
because Palin really is clueless about how much of a panic she's in
whereas Fey captures how much of a moron Palin is. I think Palin is
going to get even more ridiculous the more and more she gets her panic
under control.
Rob Jensen
Dude, she was already speaking extemporaneously with Katie Couric, who
was, for, like, the first time in her life, asking actual journalistic
questions and Palin still botched it.
For me, the only question is if Joe Biden will be able to shut himself
up long enough for Palin to hang herself with her own words. If we
see Biden on quaaludes (relatively and metaphorically speaking) on
Thursday, then Palin's screwed. If we see Biden on too much caffeine,
then Palin still has only a 40% chance or so of winning, and that's
only if Biden goes into filibuster mode, which is by no means a sure
thing even when he's caffeinated.
Rob Jensen
wrote:
I could. Even being bipolar, I'm in much better health than McShame.
Brady
>>> I beg to differ. I expect that Palin, if only because expectations are
>>> beyond low, will surprise and be coherent on Thursday. I don't think
>>> she'll "win," but the fact that she comes across as reasonably
>>> informed will help her.
>>> --Dave Sikula
>> Agreed. As a much diminished underdog, Palin enters the debate with a
>> huge advantage. All she has to do is improve on her Couric performance
>> to enjoy a post-debate bounce.
>>
>> Brad
>
> CBS News plans to air more from last week's interview in the coming
> days. From what's been reported, it'll be a doozy -- has to do with
> her command of Supreme Court cases.
What newspapers does she read? 'All of them!'
--------
Palin, A Journalism Major, Can't Name A News Source She Reads
September 30, 2008 08:15 PM
Sarah Palin said she does not support the morning after pill as a form
of contraception, strongly implied that homosexuality was a choice, and
could not name a single source of news that she turns to for
information, in yet another installment of her interview series with
Katie Couric.
Appearing on CBS Evening News, the Alaska Governor seemed calmer than
she had been in previous sit downs. But while she only occasionally
provided the type of befuddled responses that had even conservatives
scratching their heads, her interview was nevertheless shaky.
Asked what newspapers and magazines she reads, Palin - a journalism
major in college - could not name one publication.
"I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press,
for the media," she said at first. Couric responded, "What, specifically?"
"Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these
years."
"Can you name a few?"
"I have a vast variety of source where we get our news," Palin said.
"Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, 'wow, how
could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be
thinking when you live up there in Alaska?' Believe me, Alaska is like a
microcosm of America."
<snip>
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/palin-a-journalism-major_n_130707.html]
--------
Brady
Bill Kawalec
"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:gbucn...@drn.newsguy.com...
> WQ filted:
>>
>>On Sep 30, 4:48=A0pm, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "WQ" <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> --- Hey, I got news for you. =A0As difficult as it is to believe, there
>>> are Republicans now who are just beginning to get wise to how dumbed-
>>> down Palin really is and are beginning to worry about it. =A0If she
>>> falls apart in the debate, expect a hue and cry for her dismissal, and
>>> not from the left either.
>>>
>>> ********************************
>>> that's a rather disconnected response.
>>
>>--- Ok, I'll bite. In what way was it disconnected?
>
> He means "hung up"...Bill has problems with little things like idioms, and
> proper quoting....r
YOU have no clue what I meant, cretin.
Bill Kawalec
"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c4m5e4hvd26v7t9os...@4ax.com...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! He said "journalistic" and "Couric" in the same
sentence! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Bill Kawalec
"Brady" <water...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:G-SdneJiBPR4mX7V...@earthlink.com...
I'm sorry, but that's a DUMBASS question. C'mon! Name ONE other candidte who
was asked that question!! Couric is just f-ing LAME.
Bill Kawalec
"Bill Kawalec" <billk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IaCdnV6-s7tIkX7V...@comcast.com...
Ya see, if she was a JOURNALIST, she'd know how to get her point across
without the obvious "gotcha!"
>
>
>
>
R H Draney
>> proper quoting....r
>
>
>
>YOU have no clue what I meant, cretin.
http://members.cox.net/radishman/justforyou.gif
....r
Brady
>>> CBS News plans to air more from last week's interview in the coming
>>> days. From what's been reported, it'll be a doozy -- has to do with
>>> her command of Supreme Court cases.
>> What newspapers does she read? 'All of them!'
>>
>> --------
>> Palin, A Journalism Major, Can't Name A News Source She Reads
>> September 30, 2008 08:15 PM
>>
>> Sarah Palin said she does not support the morning after pill as a form of
>> contraception, strongly implied that homosexuality was a choice, and could
>> not name a single source of news that she turns to for information, in yet
>> another installment of her interview series with Katie Couric.
>>
>> Appearing on CBS Evening News, the Alaska Governor seemed calmer than she
>> had been in previous sit downs. But while she only occasionally provided
>> the type of befuddled responses that had even conservatives scratching
>> their heads, her interview was nevertheless shaky.
>>
>> Asked what newspapers and magazines she reads, Palin - a journalism major
>> in college - could not name one publication.
>>
> I'm sorry, but that's a DUMBASS question. C'mon! Name ONE other candidte who
> was asked that question!! Couric is just f-ing LAME.
But let me ask you a question. Are you at all troubled by the answer? I
suppose it's possible she had some sort of 'brain freeze.' But
wouldn't/couldn't she *at least* remember, say, the name of her *local
newspaper*?
And how could she not name at least one Supreme Court case? (Assuming
the published reports are accurate. Has the excerpt -- that particular
reported excerpt in question -- been aired yet?) She could have at least
thrown out, as an example, the Supreme Court's upholding of
'McCain-Feingold.' I'd be willing to bet that you, Bill K., could name
at least several Supreme Court cases.
I mean, at some point you've got to wonder whether these are all 'brain
freezes,' or whether she really doesn't know the answers.
I just remembered: I had a dream about Katie Couric last night.
Brady
Bill Kawalec
By name? No. I can google though.
WHEN is someone going to do the same to obama about the radical assholes he
associates with!?!
dsi...@yahoo.com
> "Brady" <watercl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Maybe about the same time they ask McCain about all the lobbyists and
bankers he hangs with or religious fanatics that Palin associates with
-- or even Biden about the credit card execs he probably knows.
Here's three questions for you, Bill.
1) You mentioned in the past about your concern over Obama not
repudiating Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America." Do you think Palin
should repudiate her own pastor's (with whom she is far closer than
Obama was with Wright) anti-semetic remarks? (I'll leave the stuff
about witchcraft out.)
2) Other than the tenuous contact between Obama and Bill Ayers, can
you also name some of the other "radical assholes" with whom Obama
"associates?" I'd like to research them.
3) Are you honestly saying you can't name any Supreme Court cases off
the top of your head? I find that hard to believe that a person as
well-informed as you seem to be would have trouble in that regard.
--Dave Sikula
Bill Kawalec
<dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b4cbadc4-eddd-4aa8...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
********************************************
no, really. by name, I can only think of Roe v. Wade...
I often pay attention to the content, but don't remember names.
Brady
> Here's three questions for you, Bill.
>
> 1) You mentioned in the past about your concern over Obama not
> repudiating Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America." Do you think Palin
> should repudiate her own pastor's (with whom she is far closer than
> Obama was with Wright) anti-semetic remarks? (I'll leave the stuff
> about witchcraft out.)
>
> 2) Other than the tenuous contact between Obama and Bill Ayers, can
> you also name some of the other "radical assholes" with whom Obama
> "associates?" I'd like to research them.
>
> 3) Are you honestly saying you can't name any Supreme Court cases off
> the top of your head? I find that hard to believe that a person as
> well-informed as you seem to be would have trouble in that regard.
Has Palin specifically distanced herself from her church's support for
Focus on the Family's 'Love Won Out' conference -- AKA 'Pray Away the
Gay?' Has she repudiated it?
But as she told Katie: one of her best friends is gay!
Brady
Brady
FYI: 'Pray Away the Gay' is not the organization's own slogan; it's a
catchphrase that has been applied by others to their conferences. In
fact, on their Web site, they distance themselves from it.
I think it's apt, though, and I stand by my use of it.
Brady
Bill Kawalec
See, this is one of them things that's an issue because people think they
"know better." This is America, folks. People are entitled to believe
whatever they want to believe. NOW, if they are attempting to do harm or
violence to someone, that becomes a problem. Even if you want to insist that
gay is *never* a choice, then what about the "bisexual"? There isn't a black
and white answer to everything, and not everyone is going to see things your
way.
As for the previous question, first of all, I think Obama was closer to
Wright than some like to admit, or than he would admit *now*, BUT, if
Palin's pastor did, indeed make anti-semetic remarks (I haven't heard this,
but, sometimes that can be as loosely interpreted as "racist" or
"homophobic") then yes, she should have something to say about this.
The Ayers thing really irks me, because Obama sure acts like he has
something to hide, threatening legal action against those who are trying to
track down the truth (as I've said before, if Bush did that, folks would be
on the ceiling).
What irks me more than anything is how the media is so blatantly trying to
manipulate the election. Of course, I've seen Couric, and I have zero
respect for her as a "journalist." A real journalist could make a point
without the "gotcha" moments.
And again, I feel compelled to point out (I wish I had kept track of how
many times it has been) that I'm not here to defend, or be an apologist ofr
McCain/Palin. It just bugs me that people aren;t willing to look at "our
guy" objectively. Clinton sold us out to China. Obama, who told us a couple
months ago to inflate out tires, specifically said, at the debate, that he
favors offshore drilling. If you want **change**, the only way you're going
to get it is to vote Libertarian. Of course, too many people fear that would
be a wasted vote, so it's not going to be effective. But seriously, if you
want change, start voting in third party candidates as mayors and state
representatives. Then, someday, perhaps there will be a Libertarina
governor. Then we will finally be on the way to some real change.
I still want to know what we're gettng for the $700 billion, that Obama now
favors handing over. I want to see a serious investigation into how we got
to where we are. Of course, "serious investigation" and "Washington" don't
go together.
Bill Kawalec
aha! so, again, you know **all**!
>
> http://www.lovewonout.com/
>
> Brady
dsi...@yahoo.com
> And again, I feel compelled to point out (I wish I had kept track of how
> many times it has been) that I'm not here to defend, or be an apologist ofr
> McCain/Palin. It just bugs me that people aren;t willing to look at "our
> guy" objectively. Clinton sold us out to China. Obama, who told us a couple
> months ago to inflate out tires, specifically said, at the debate, that he
> favors offshore drilling. If you want **change**, the only way you're going
> to get it is to vote Libertarian. Of course, too many people fear that would
> be a wasted vote, so it's not going to be effective. But seriously, if you
> want change, start voting in third party candidates as mayors and state
> representatives. Then, someday, perhaps there will be a Libertarina
> governor. Then we will finally be on the way to some real change.
Personally, I don't think you're really in the tank for either side.
My impression of your statements is that you have serious reservations
about both of them. That said, you come across as being anti-Obama in
that your adamant calls for the media to investigate him more
thoroughly can be strident. (Note I'm not saying they're not valid,
but it's their tone more than anything; though if you feel you have to
shout to be heard, well, it is what it is.) I've got no problem with
that, as I've said more than once you seem to enjoy provoking us as
much as anything else.
I'll disagree about the Libertarian voting, though, in that I do think
there's plenty of room for a governmental role in regulating, say, the
economy and the environment -- not to mention food and drugs. I do
think your promotion of third parties is valid, even if the Greens act
like ass bitches most of the time and (as I say) I have no use for the
Libertarians.
> I still want to know what we're gettng for the $700 billion, that Obama now
> favors handing over. I want to see a serious investigation into how we got
> to where we are. Of course, "serious investigation" and "Washington" don't
> go together.
Well, we agree here, but the odds are slim at best.
--Dave Sikula
Bill Kawalec
<dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0bda5d13-b757-4fba...@u28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
**************************************************
I don't tink "provoking" is the righ characterization. I would like to see
people actually **think** about what they're doing (not saying that you
don't, but it's clear the majority doesn't).
Personally, Obama is way to socialist for me to be comfortable with. I've
said before, I think the system needs some regulation, but, I do believe
that the capitalist system ahs proven to be productive, whereas socialism
has never worked. Just for example, as far as regulating, we always hear
candidates ranting about high interest rates, but, how long has this been
going on with no one doing a damn thing about it? And health care? It's
clearly wrong that someone who is uninsured is charged more (far more, in
many cases) for a procedure than what an insurance company will pay, but, I
DO NOT want a government run HMO.
As for the current situation, all we're going to get for our $700 billion is
bad debts. But, after the market roller coaster this week, it looks like
people are ready to swallow anything.
CliffB
> On Sep 28, 11:38 pm, Deborah
>
> <debo...@thislittleliberallightomineImgonnaletitshine.com> wrote:
> > Have you always had this cross-posting problem with all these
> > political morons from other groups or is it only since Letterman got
> > irrate with McCain?
>
> > Just wondering. Lately it hasn't seemed like quite the same group...
>
> postings that regularly include the AFL for over a decade. But there
> are a higher number lately, especially of the political bent.
>
When dave detours away from his area of expertise - such as telling
actresses how beautiful they are and how great they smell, or his ever
increasingly brilliant and original "will it float" queries - into
rank, politically motivated sqealing, then, yes, it's going to cause
an irruption into the Letterman group from political groups. He has in
fact made himself and the group political fodder by going ballistic on
McCain because he perceived a snub and he could not abide it so well.
That his irate response in the end made him look small, spiteful, and
above all ugly.....well, tht's all on him; the rest is commentary and
repercussion.
I actually have enjoyed plenty of Letterman over the years (less and
less so as time has gone on. Almost everybody, if they be honest,
would prefer the NBC era Dave when it comes to joy in comedy). It only
gets in the way when the Lettermn ugly face comes on and turns aging,
crotchety, bitterly sarcastic Dave into a much less likeable figure.
That's not terribly enjoyable (although it is watchable, as he
squanders what remains of his residual allure from days of yore; quite
the sorry spectacle as he chokes on his own bile. It's like watching a
breakdown on the late night stage)
> Perhaps we should ask the people in charge of the internets to reduce
> the unwanted traffic in the main AFL by branching off with
> alt.fan.letterman.politics.douchebags, along with
> alt.fan.letterman.shoes.
>
> --James
Brady
> When dave detours away from his area of expertise - such as telling
> actresses how beautiful they are and how great they smell, or his ever
> increasingly brilliant and original "will it float" queries - into
> rank, politically motivated sqealing, then, yes, it's going to cause
> an irruption into the Letterman group from political groups. He has in
> fact made himself and the group political fodder by going ballistic on
> McCain because he perceived a snub and he could not abide it so well.
> That his irate response in the end made him look small, spiteful, and
> above all ugly.....well, tht's all on him; the rest is commentary and
> repercussion.
Why not ...
Can you give an example of something Dave said last week that you
consider 'ugly' or beyond the pale? You don't give any examples, so I'm
just curious as to specifically what you're referring.
> I actually have enjoyed plenty of Letterman over the years (less and
> less so as time has gone on. Almost everybody, if they be honest,
> would prefer the NBC era Dave when it comes to joy in comedy). It only
> gets in the way when the Lettermn ugly face comes on and turns aging,
> crotchety, bitterly sarcastic Dave into a much less likeable figure.
> That's not terribly enjoyable (although it is watchable, as he
> squanders what remains of his residual allure from days of yore; quite
> the sorry spectacle as he chokes on his own bile. It's like watching a
> breakdown on the late night stage)
I'm going to use my amazing intuitive powers and say that ... you don't
very well countenance hearing things that you perceive as 'anti' [your
candidate of choice].
Brady
Brady
> "Brady" <water...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:39WdncUJi4UljH7V...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> And how could she not name at least one Supreme Court case? (Assuming the
>> published reports are accurate. Has the excerpt -- that particular
>> reported excerpt in question -- been aired yet?) She could have at least
>> thrown out, as an example, the Supreme Court's upholding of
>> 'McCain-Feingold.' I'd be willing to bet that you, Bill K., could name at
>> least several Supreme Court cases.
>
>
> By name? No. I can google though.
> WHEN is someone going to do the same to obama about the radical assholes he
> associates with!?!
By the way, the question regarding Supreme Court decisions has now been
aired. Couric asks Palin if there are any Supreme Court decisions,
besides Roe vs. Wade, with which she disagrees.
The video and transcript are available at the following.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/01/palin-scotus/
Brady
Donz5
> Bill Kawalec wrote:
> > "Brady" <watercl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
There's another moment in this Q&A:
Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the
Constitution?
Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.
This right to privacy, as Couric reminds Palin, is "the cornerstone of
Roe v. Wade."
As Josh Marshall explains:
"Now, narrowly speaking, you can believe in a constitutional right to
privacy and also oppose Roe. But the right to privacy, as Couric says
in the interview, is one of the cornerstones of Roe. And in the public
debate yes or no on the right to privacy is something pretty close to
a proxy for your position on abortion rights.
"The bottom line is that among conservatives opposition to a
constitutional 'right to privacy' is a straight-up litmus test issue.
Palin not only didn't have the right answer on the right to privacy.
It was pretty clear she'd never even heard of it before."
kat...@earthlink.net
>Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the
>Constitution?
>
>Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.
>
>This right to privacy, as Couric reminds Palin, is "the cornerstone of
>Roe v. Wade."
David Letterman continues his onslaught on the McCain-Palin ticket on
Wednesday night's show. The Politics Blog has obtained Dave's jokes
for the evening, including the top ten "Things Overheard at Sarah
Palin Debate Camp:"
10. "Let's practice your bewildered silence."
9. "Can you try saying 'yes' instead of 'you betcha'?"
8. "Hey, I can see Mexico from here!"
7. "Maybe we'll get lucky and there won't be any questions about Iraq,
taxes, or health care."
6. "We're screwed!"
5. "Can I just use that lipstick-pit bull thing again?"
4. "We have to wrap it up for the day -- McCain eats dinner at 4:30."
3. "Can we get Congress to bail us out of this debate?"
2. "John Edwards wants to know if you'd like some private tutoring in
his van."
1. "Any way we can just get Tina Fey to do it?"
CliffB
Nah, he just looked peevish, small, especially unattractive when he
went into irate hissy fit mode over McCain and that's not appealing;
all the true colors came out with a vengeance and now he's merely
settling into his proxy-by-joke war against McCain and in vitual
service of Obama. The agitated spazz he had that was so very ugly has
for the most part subsided. He'll harbor this grudge forever though -
or at least for a few weeks after election day. One good thing: if
McCain wins you will probably see Letterman boil over and lose it on
TV in a spectacular fashion. That would be good ratings.
Deborah
wrote:
Oh geddoffit Cliff. Over in alt.gossip.celebrities you've done
nothing but knock Obama. Brady has your number.
Deborah
Brady
So I take it the answer is no -- you can't (or won't) give an example of
something Dave said last week that you consider 'ugly' or beyond the pale.
I mean, I'm not asking for a transcript. It's just that of the remarks
Dave made, I'm curious as to which ones you felt were particularly
unfair, and why.
Brady
Marilyn
> I mean, I'm not asking for a transcript. It's just that of the remarks
> Dave made, I'm curious as to which ones you felt were particularly unfair,
> and why.
You'll have to excuse Brady. He has been over-handled. We all need to let
Brady be Brady.
Question of the day: Can a maverick be over-handled?
Question of the night: Will the debate on CBS just be an extra long episode
of Survivor?
R H Draney
Question of the afternoon: Is there such a thing as underhanded
over-handling?...r
Maybe
Talking about Survivor, the Parents Television Council has complained
to CBS about the penis flash on last week's survivor.
<PTC Complains About Survivor Episode
Parents Television Council: Episode of CBS' Survivor: Gabon featured
brief glimpse of a contestant's penis.>
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6600813.html?industryid=47170
Maybe...who looked and looked and played it in slo mo instant replay
and STILL has not seen the penis
By
R H Draney
>
>Talking about Survivor, the Parents Television Council has complained
>to CBS about the penis flash on last week's survivor.
>
><PTC Complains About Survivor Episode
>Parents Television Council: Episode of CBS' Survivor: Gabon featured
>brief glimpse of a contestant's penis.>
>
>
>Maybe...who looked and looked and played it in slo mo instant replay
>and STILL has not seen the penis
I hope you've been doing this offline...wouldn't want Tivo to start making
inferences about your viewing preferences....
(If Dave Barry were still writing his column, he'd undoubtedly point out here
that "Penis Flash" would be a great name for a rock band)....r
Greg Evans
> Maybe...who looked and looked and played it in slo mo instant replay
> and STILL has not seen the penis
SLDSH
My apologies,
Greg
Brady
After watching tonight's debate, I've decided that I'm going to start
winking more.
Brady
Brady
> Marilyn filted:
>> Brady wrote:
>>> I mean, I'm not asking for a transcript. It's just that of the remarks
>>> Dave made, I'm curious as to which ones you felt were particularly unfair,
>>> and why.
>> You'll have to excuse Brady. He has been over-handled. We all need to let
>> Brady be Brady.
>>
>> Question of the day: Can a maverick be over-handled?
>> Question of the night: Will the debate on CBS just be an extra long episode
>> of Survivor?
>
> Question of the afternoon: Is there such a thing as underhanded
> over-handling?...r
I think the main thing is: making sure you've got hand, period.
Brady
Crash 'Strawman' Bandicoot
I've decided I'm moving to Canada.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Bill's posts are like a Jackson Pollock painting;
as if a child threw paint haphazardly at the canvas,
then expected everyone else to do all the work
of finding the 'genius within the mess.'"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alan Page
"CB" wrote...
> I've decided I'm moving to Canada.
Watch out jbb!
--
Alan
~WWWWW~
What a Wonderful Web We Weave
R H Draney
>
>Brady wrote:
>>
>> After watching tonight's debate, I've decided that I'm going to start
>> winking more.
>>
>> Brady
>
>
>I've decided I'm moving to Canada.
Enjoy the early harvest!...r
Marilyn
> After watching tonight's debate, I've decided that I'm going to start
> winking more.
Brady is nothing if not folksy.
Keith Rose
>
>After watching tonight's debate, I've decided that I'm going to start
>winking more.
I used to wink. I think that my winking days are now over. But it's
a hard habit to break.
Brady
You betcha I am.
Is there a fine line between folksy winking and goofy-annoying-creepy
winking?
Brady
Alan Page
"Brady" wrote in message...
> Is there a fine line between folksy winking and goofy-annoying-creepy
> winking?
Not anymore.
Brady
> On Oct 1, 8:54 pm, Brady <watercl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Bill Kawalec wrote:
>>> "Brady" <watercl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:39WdncUJi4UljH7V...@earthlink.com...
>>>> And how could she not name at least one Supreme Court case? (Assuming the
>>>> published reports are accurate. Has the excerpt -- that particular
>>>> reported excerpt in question -- been aired yet?) She could have at least
>>>> thrown out, as an example, the Supreme Court's upholding of
>>>> 'McCain-Feingold.' I'd be willing to bet that you, Bill K., could name at
>>>> least several Supreme Court cases.
>>> By name? No. I can google though.
>>> WHEN is someone going to do the same to obama about the radical assholes he
>>> associates with!?!
>> By the way, the question regarding Supreme Court decisions has now been
>> aired. Couric asks Palin if there are any Supreme Court decisions,
>> besides Roe vs. Wade, with which she disagrees.
>>
>> The video and transcript are available at the following.
>>
>> http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/01/palin-scotus/
>>
>> Brady
>
> There's another moment in this Q&A:
>
> Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the
> Constitution?
<snip>
Hmm ...
--------
Palin On Fox News: Couric Annoyed Me
Appearing on a friendlier news outlet, Gov. Sarah Palin said she was
"annoyed" with the way Katie Couric handled their interview and
complained that the CBS Evening News host failed to give her the
opportunity to take a proverbial axe to Barack Obama.
In a portion of her sit-down with Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron,
Palin claimed that Couric's questions -- which produced a series of
staggeringly embarrassing responses -- put her in a lose-lose position.
"The Sarah Palin in those interviews was a little bit annoyed," she
said. "It's like, man, no matter what you say, you are going to get
clobbered. If you choose to answer a question, you are going to get
clobbered on the answer. If you choose to try to pivot and go to another
subject that you believe that Americans want to hear about, you get
clobbered for that too."
<snip>
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/palin-on-fox-news-couric_n_131655.html]
--------
Brady
katycren
I think the line is between goofy-annoying and creepy winking. Put
folksy winking in the annoying winking category. Weird guys in the
grocery store who wink at women are in the creepy category.
Doggone it but Sarah Palin's folksy winking was dumb looking! I'm not
saying *she's* dumb, mind ya, but it looked pretty stupid to see a 44-
year-old woman winking in a national debate.
Kate
Brady
> "Brady" wrote in message...
>> Is there a fine line between folksy winking and goofy-annoying-creepy
>> winking?
>
> Not anymore.
I could be wrong, but I think Sarah Palin is the first vice presidential
candidate since Walter Mondale to give a 'shout out' from the debate stage.
Brady
Brady
Yeah, I think you might be correct about that fine line.
I don't think I'm going to start winking after all.
Brady
Alan Page
"katycren" wrote...
> I'm not
> saying *she's* dumb, mind ya, but it looked pretty stupid to see a 44-
> year-old woman winking in a national debate.
It's not dumb...she was winking at Brady.
*Our* Brady!
Rob Jensen
<billk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dude, she was already speaking extemporaneously with Katie Couric, who
>> was, for, like, the first time in her life, asking actual journalistic
>> questions and Palin still botched it.
>>
>
>
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! He said "journalistic" and "Couric" in the same
>sentence! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Yeah, I thought I was funny, too. 8^P
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
katycren
> "katycren" wrote...
> > I'm not
> > saying *she's* dumb, mind ya, but it looked pretty stupid to see a 44-
> > year-old woman winking in a national debate.
>
> It's not dumb...she was winking at Brady.
> *Our* Brady!
>
Well, bless his heart!
If a 44-year-old woman winks at Brady, it means she's a cougar. So I
guess our Brady is cougar bait.
Kate
Brady
> "katycren" wrote...
>> I'm not
>> saying *she's* dumb, mind ya, but it looked pretty stupid to see a 44-
>> year-old woman winking in a national debate.
>
> It's not dumb...she was winking at Brady.
> *Our* Brady!
Here's a question for you all. What if the wink is accentuated with a
simultaneous pointing of the index finger, accompanied by a single
'clicking' sound out of the corner of the mouth?
Brady
R H Draney
Howard Dean *would* have done it....r
Marilyn
> Yeah, I think you might be correct about that fine line. I don't think I'm
> going to start winking after all.
Interestingly enough, winking *causes* fine lines.
Alan Page
"Brady" wrote...
> Here's a question for you all. What if the wink is accentuated with a
> simultaneous pointing of the index finger, accompanied by a single
> 'clicking' sound out of the corner of the mouth?
Then you're in trouble.
;-)
Marilyn
> Here's a question for you all. What if the wink is accentuated with a
> simultaneous pointing of the index finger, accompanied by a single
> 'clicking' sound out of the corner of the mouth?
Then you go from a folksy fellow to a blowhard. It's a bad transition.
Brady
> "Brady" <water...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:fsadnZczIcDauX7V...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> Has Palin specifically distanced herself from her church's support for
>> Focus on the Family's 'Love Won Out' conference -- AKA 'Pray Away the
>> Gay?' Has she repudiated it?
>>
> See, this is one of them things that's an issue because people think they
> "know better." This is America, folks. People are entitled to believe
> whatever they want to believe. NOW, if they are attempting to do harm or
> violence to someone, that becomes a problem. Even if you want to insist that
> gay is *never* a choice, then what about the "bisexual"? There isn't a black
> and white answer to everything, and not everyone is going to see things your
> way.
>
> As for the previous question, first of all, I think Obama was closer to
> Wright than some like to admit, or than he would admit *now*, BUT, if
> Palin's pastor did, indeed make anti-semetic remarks (I haven't heard this,
> but, sometimes that can be as loosely interpreted as "racist" or
> "homophobic") then yes, she should have something to say about this.
>
> [...]
>
> I still want to know what we're gettng for the $700 billion, that Obama now
> favors handing over. I want to see a serious investigation into how we got
> to where we are. Of course, "serious investigation" and "Washington" don't
> go together.
Now see, this was quite a thoughtful answer, Bill K. I appreciate that.
Regarding my comments about Governor Palin & the 'Love Won Out'
conference: I was being sort of tongue-in-cheek -- i.e., I don't think
that she should necessarily be expected to answer for a conference just
because it was sponsored by her church. Just like Senator Obama
shouldn't have been expected to answer for everything that his pastor
said from the pulpit. I don't even know whether Palin has attended that
church since she became governor.
As far as the conference itself: of *course* they're entitled to believe
what they want. It's just that in this country and all over the world,
there are gay, lesbian & bisexual young people struggling with their
sexuality. And some of them are being brought up in conservative
religious homes. It can be difficult enough on them, but to have people
from their supposed family of faith tell them that they're 'abnormal' or
'aberrant' or 'sinful' by their very nature is just wrong. It's
difficult enough for teenagers, period, but for young people (or even
young adults and older people) in conservative religious homes dealing
with self-acceptance issues, having figures from their church tell them
they need to 'change' in order to be 'fully accepted' by their God just
strikes me as so harmful & awful.
Plus, Focus on the Family -- especially through it's offshoot Family
Research Council -- advocates various public policy positions.
Therefore, it's not merely a matter of 'letting them believe what they
want to believe.' Of *course* they're entitled to their beliefs. But
when they inject themselves into the political process, it's only to be
expected that they will be engaged, questioned and challenged, as the
case may be.
Also: if Governor Palin really has a 'good friend' who is gay, then I
assume she knows that sexual orientation is not a 'choice,' as she has
implied.
Sorry if anyone didn't want to read this stuff, but this had already
become an off-topic thread.
Brady
Brad Hill
I'll try to find some examples and bring 'em to ya.
Brad
Coggy13
I wink a lot.
But it's just due to flying pulp.