OT "We're going to lose this thing"
queenie
"Stop saying that!" my wife says to me. But this is not a high school
football game and I'm not a cheerleader with a bad attitude. This is
an election and as things stand now, we're gonna frickin' lose this
thing. Obama and McCain at best are even in the polls nationally and
in a recent Gallup poll McCain is ahead by four points.
Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP
candidate. We're coming off the worst eight years in our country's
history. Six of those eight years the Congress, White House and even
the Supreme Court were controlled by the Republicans and the last two
years the R's have filibustered like tantrum throwing 4-year-olds, yet
we're going to elect a Republican who voted with that leadership 90%
of the time and a former sportscaster who wants to teach Adam and Eve
as science? That's not odd as a difference of opinion, that's
logically and mathematically queer.
It reminds me of playing blackjack (a losers game). You make all the
right moves, play the right hands but basically the House always wins.
I know what you're going to say " But I won twelve hundred dollars
last year in Atlantic City!" Of course there are victories. The odds
aren't tilted crazy, but there is a 51%-49% advantage. And in the long
run, the house has to win. The house will win.
So what is this house advantage the Republicans have? It's the press.
There is no more fourth estate. Wait, hold on...I'm not going down
some esoteric path with theories on the deregulation of the media and
corporate bias and CNN versus Fox...I mean it: there is no more
functioning press in this country. And without a real press the
corporate and religious Republicans can lie all they want and get away
with it. And that's the 51% advantage.
Think this is some opinion being wryly posited to titillate other
bloggers and inspire dialogue with Tucker Carlson or Gore Vidal? Fuck
that. Four corporations own all the TV channels. All of them. If they
don't get ratings they get canceled or fired. All news is about sex,
blame and anger, and fear. Exposing lies about amounts of money taken
from lobbyists and votes cast for the agenda of the last eight years
does not rate. The end.
So one side can lie and get away with it. Now let's throw in one more
advantage. Voter caging and other corruption on the local level with
voting. Check out the article here on HuffPost about Ohio messing with
600K voters. If only five thousand of those voters don't or can't vote
that's a huge advantage in a contest that could be decided by
literally dozens of votes. That takes us to about a 52 to 48%
advantage.
So one side can lie and get away with it. Now let's throw in one more
advantage. Voter caging and other corruption on the local level with
voting. Check out the article here on HuffPost about Ohio messing with
600K voters. If only five thousand of those voters don't or can't vote
that's a huge advantage in a contest that could be decided by
literally dozens of votes. That takes us to about a 52 to 48%
advantage.
I'm not even getting into the fact that the religious right teaches
closed mindedness so it's almost impossible to gain new voters from
their pool because people who disagree with them are agents of the
devil. I just want to look at two inarguable realities: A) we have no
more press and B) the Repubs are screwing with the voters on the local
level.
I'm telling you, we're going to lose this thing. And afterwords we'll
blame ourselves the same way we did with Gore and Kerry (two
candidates a thousand times more qualified to lead than W Bush.) Just
watch.. McCain wins by a point or two and we all walk around saying
things like "Obama was too well spoken." "Biden wasn't lovable
enough." "I shouldn't have split those eights." "Why did I hit on 16?
Why?!"
So what do we do?
1) We give definitive clear speeches like Biden and Obama gave the
other day about how no one talked about any issues at the Republican
Convention and how they outright lied. But we do them over and over
again. 2) We use the one place where it's still a 50-50 game -- the
internet -- as much as we can. 3) But most importantly we should bring
up re-regulating the media and who owns it and what that conflict of
interest is a lot more. By pretending there's no conflict of interest
we're failing to alert the public that they're being lied to or given
a looking at a coin at the bottom of a pool slanted truth. Every time
a pundit or elected official is on any TV news program it should be a
polite formality to mention that GE has made such and such billions
off the war in Iraq by selling arms or that Murdoch is a right-wing
activist with a clear stake in who wins and who taxes his profits the
least. Disney, GE, Viacom, and Murdoch -- all want profits and the
candidate and agenda that will get in their way the least.
Obama and Biden should also create a "master sound bite sentence" and
repeat it hundreds of times. It should be so true that even the
corporations can't screw with it when it makes the airwaves. Here's my
attempt: "Katrina, four dollar gas, a trillion dollar war, rising
unemployment, deregulated housing market, global warming...no more."
This race should be about whether the Republican Party is going to be
dismantled or not after the borderline treason of the past eight
years. But instead it is about making the word "community organizer" a
dirty word and a beauty queen who shoots foxes from a plane. Someone
is not in any way doing their job and it's the press. Or more
specifically, that job no longer exists.
Probably the worst offenders are the pundits who take the position
that it's all just a game and say phrases like "getting a
post-convention bump" or "playing to the soccer Moms." This isn't a
game of Monopoly or Survivor. There are real truths that exist outside
of the spin they are given and have an effect on lives. 250,000 Iraqi
civilians are dead because we let our reality be distorted by the most
effective propaganda machine in fifty years, the corporate American
press. Money and jobs are flying out of this country as our currency
becomes worthless and we're talking about the fact that McCain is a
veteran. If someone busted into your house and robbed you would you
then forgive them if you found out they were a veteran? Of course not.
So why are we forgiving McCain for selling out his country by
supporting the Bush agenda?
This is it folks. If McCain takes power we fade and become Australia
in the seventies: a backwoods country with occasional flashes of
relevance. Except we've got a way bigger military and we're angrier.
People will get hurt and we'll pay the bill for the bullets. I'm
telling you, unless we wake up, we're gonna lose this frickin' thing.
chicagofan
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_124772.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Stop saying that!" my wife says to me. But this is not a high school
> football game and I'm not a cheerleader with a bad attitude. This is an
> election and as things stand now, we're gonna frickin' lose this thing.
> Obama and McCain at best are even in the polls nationally and in a recent
> Gallup poll McCain is ahead by four points.
>
> Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP
> candidate. We're coming off the worst eight years in our country's history.
> Six of those eight years the Congress, White House and even the Supreme
> Court were controlled by the Republicans and the last two years the R's
> have filibustered like tantrum throwing 4-year-olds, yet we're going to
> elect a Republican who voted with that leadership 90% of the time and a
> former sportscaster who wants to teach Adam and Eve as science? That's not
> odd as a difference of opinion, that's logically and mathematically queer.
>
>
>
>
> Republicans can lie all they want and get away with it. And that's the 51%
> advantage.
>
>
> advantage. Voter caging and other corruption on the local level with
> voting. Check out the article here on HuffPost about Ohio messing with 600K
> voters. If only five thousand of those voters don't or can't vote that's a
> huge advantage in a contest that could be decided by literally dozens of
> votes. That takes us to about a 52 to 48% advantage.
>
> and B) the Repubs are screwing with the voters on the local level.
>
> dismantled or not after the borderline treason of the past eight years. But
> instead it is about making the word "community organizer" a dirty word and
> a beauty queen who shoots foxes from a plane. Someone is not in any way
> doing their job and it's the press. Or more specifically, that job no
> longer exists.
>
> worthless and we're talking about the fact that McCain is a veteran. If
> someone busted into your house and robbed you would you then forgive them
> if you found out they were a veteran? Of course not. So why are we
> forgiving McCain for selling out his country by supporting the Bush agenda?
>
> This is it folks. If McCain takes power we fade and become Australia in the
> seventies: a backwoods country with occasional flashes of relevance.
> Except we've got a way bigger military and we're angrier. People will get
> hurt and we'll pay the bill for the bullets. I'm telling you, unless we
> wake up, we're gonna lose this frickin' thing.
A friend sent this to me, and I totally agree with Mackay about the press, and
what an uphill battle this is. The fourth estate helped defeat John Kerry, and
lead us into that illegal and unwarranted invasion of Iraq, by parroting each
other, rather than investigating news sources and facts. It really is
frightening to think about them brainwashing the public again... with Sarah
Palin, and the fake "changed" McCain.
bj
phyllis_k
"chicagofan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:XYFxk.122$lr4...@newsfe01.iad...
I'm so afraid we will lose and McCain will have us in a war with Iran . When
they were talking about the surge working in Iraq.
We should have never been there in the first place .
Iraq never attacked us so we are the invaders .
Phyllis
madx
"phyllis_k" <phyl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Z4WdnY5qudczSVrV...@comcast.com...
of bringing them home? It'll never end there will be one reason after
another and we get to pay for it don't we. McCain is a military man and
military men want to do what they are trained for. That and BP wanting the
oil off our shores to sell to the highest bidder. Of course we'll get tax
cuts but they'll bankrupt social security and we'll all end up working till
we go to the grave. 1 out of 50 households makes more then $250,000. How
many of these people can make their own investment choices inorder to fund
their retirement on their own. Do you trust private industry to not steal
it from you?
queenie
<phyl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>I'm so afraid we will lose and McCain will have us in a war with Iran . When
>they were talking about the surge working in Iraq.
> We should have never been there in the first place .
> Iraq never attacked us so we are the invaders .
McCain dwells on the surge in hopes that it will make you forget over
4000 deaths and over 30,000 injured in this unnecessary war with the
wrong country.
Cory
que...@nospam.com says...
It suddenly occurred to me last night that one of the possible reasons
McCain chose Palin is because she's got so much frickin' baggage that it
will take the country's focus off of him, and move the country's time
and attention towards Palin's own life of lunacy and hypocrisy. As a
result, he won't have to answer any hard questions (such as what he
plans to do in Iraq and possibly in Iran and other countries, not to
mention THE ECONOMY) during the campaign.
IF that's the reason why, PLEASE don't let McCain get away with that.
Make HIM accountable for what HE will do if HE is elected POTUS. Don't
spend so much time focusing your energy on a friggin' featherweight of a
politician like Sarah Palin.
--- Cory
--
Dave Zweifel's Plain Talk: Hillary backers who vote for McCain either
spiteful or stupid (THE CAPITAL TIMES, Madison, Wisconsin)
queenie
wrote:
>It suddenly occurred to me last night that one of the possible reasons
>McCain chose Palin is because she's got so much frickin' baggage that it
>will take the country's focus off of him, and move the country's time
>and attention towards Palin's own life of lunacy and hypocrisy. As a
>result, he won't have to answer any hard questions (such as what he
>plans to do in Iraq and possibly in Iran and other countries, not to
>mention THE ECONOMY) during the campaign.
No shit, Cory. Where the hell you been? :-)
>
>IF that's the reason why, PLEASE don't let McCain get away with that.
>Make HIM accountable for what HE will do if HE is elected POTUS. Don't
>spend so much time focusing your energy on a friggin' featherweight of a
>politician like Sarah Palin.
Lets not have a "featherweight" for VP and an old fool for President.
Cory
que...@nospam.com says...
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:53:29 -0500, Cory <my_whe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >It suddenly occurred to me last night that one of the possible reasons
> >McCain chose Palin is because she's got so much frickin' baggage that it
> >will take the country's focus off of him, and move the country's time
> >and attention towards Palin's own life of lunacy and hypocrisy. As a
> >result, he won't have to answer any hard questions (such as what he
> >plans to do in Iraq and possibly in Iran and other countries, not to
> >mention THE ECONOMY) during the campaign.
>
> No shit, Cory. Where the hell you been? :-)
;-P
So I'm slow on the uptake at times...
--- Cory
Cheri
queenie wrote in message
>Lets not have a "featherweight" for VP and an old fool for President.
I don't want him for President, but he is far from an old fool. Just
sayin.
Cheri
queenie
wrote:
I said that because he chose Sarah Palin for VP.
Cory
que...@nospam.com says...
That doesn't make him a fool, either, though.
It may have taken me a LOT longer to figure out why than most other
people, but McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate has become
utterly crystal clear to me as of tonight (or, actually, late late
late last night). McCain's choice of running mate was in NO way,
shape or form a decision made by an "old fool". In fact, it is
probably just short of frickin' brilliant.
queenie
wrote:
>It may have taken me a LOT longer to figure out why than most other
>people, but McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate has become
>utterly crystal clear to me as of tonight (or, actually, late late
>late last night). McCain's choice of running mate was in NO way,
>shape or form a decision made by an "old fool". In fact, it is
>probably just short of frickin' brilliant.
You're right. The he and the Republicans think Americans are fools.
Cheri
queenie wrote in message ...
*All* politicians think Americans are fools, why wouldn't they? Just
look at the corruption on both sides, thievery and lies, and still
leading the good life while the taxpayers pay for it. I'm disgusted
with all of them, but I cannot vote for John McCain, so we'll see. :-)
Cheri
madx
"Cheri" <phi...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gacao...@news2.newsguy.com...
Its definitely not a perfect system but I have to vote for one or the other
or the lesser of two evils based on the best research I can reasonably do.
Who can inspire and lead us to do what needs to be done? Who can gain the
ear of World leaders to enlist their cooperation? Who will benefit my
pocket book and restore jobs and get people working so we have more tax
revenue?
Cheri
madx wrote in message ...
>Its definitely not a perfect system but I have to vote for one or the
other
>or the lesser of two evils based on the best research I can
reasonably do.
>Who can inspire and lead us to do what needs to be done? Who can
gain the
>ear of World leaders to enlist their cooperation? Who will benefit
my
>pocket book and restore jobs and get people working so we have more
tax
>revenue?
There ya go! I'm with you. :-)
Cheri
D.M. Stillwood
> other or the lesser of two evils based on the best research I can
> reasonably do. Who can inspire and lead us to do what needs to be done?
> Who can gain the ear of World leaders to enlist their cooperation? Who
> will benefit my pocket book and restore jobs and get people working so we
> have more tax revenue?
>
Who will give me (and so many others) a glimmer of hope of getting some
health coverage?
I think we know.
D.
queenie
<madi...@nospamastound.net> wrote:
>Its definitely not a perfect system but I have to vote for one or the other
>or the lesser of two evils based on the best research I can reasonably do.
This is the first time in a long time that I do not feel I have to
choose between the lesser of two evils. I feel really good about
voting for Obama and Biden.
The Real DM
> A friend sent this to me, and I totally agree with Mackay about the press, and
> what an uphill battle this is. The fourth estate helped defeat John Kerry, and
> lead us into that illegal and unwarranted invasion of Iraq, by parroting each
> other, rather than investigating news sources and facts. It really is
> frightening to think about them brainwashing the public again... with Sarah
> Palin, and the fake "changed" McCain.
The Democrats can blame themselves right now for the turning of the
polls. For one, they cheated Hillary out of the nomination. Secondly,
their candidate Obama's first important decision is a disaster. He
chose Joe Biden - a former Presidential candidate himself who had
about 1% of the supporters - instead of Hillary, who is more than
qualified for the job and would have brought with her 18 million
supporters which works out to be about 50% of the party. Yes, most of
them will vote for Obiden, but it looks now like he is going to need
every last drop of voters he can get in order to defeat the Repugs.
Frankly, he blew it and was upstaged by a Tina Fey look-alike who has
become the darling of the media, both the liberal and conservative
media.
Most everyone I know is going to vote for Obiden, but like me they are
doing so with huge reservations. We all agree that we are voting for
the Democratic Party and against the Repuglicans, more than we are for
the candidates that have been thrust upon us.
The Real D.M.
Shirl
> Most everyone I know is going to vote for Obiden, but like me they are
> doing so with huge reservations. We all agree that we are voting for
> the Democratic Party and against the Repuglicans, more than we are for
> the candidates that have been thrust upon us.
Same here. There's some cringe factor, but some hope, which was how I
felt about McCain...until he picked Palin; now there isn't even cringe
factor there, there's just no way.
Shirl
madx
"queenie" <que...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:odgjc4pf9tr3f6tpm...@4ax.com...
Oh I have no doubt about Obama (I did vote Hillary in the primary) but he's
definitely a great choice and Bidens the icing on the cake.
The Real DM
Hi Shirley. I've got a feeling there are a lot of Dems like me and you
who fell the same way.
Hope you're well. Y&R hasn't been the same since we were on it!!! :)
The Real D.M.
The Real DM
> On Sep 11, 6:40 pm, Shirl <Xmnusha...@aol.communicate> wrote:
>
> > The Real DM <FloydFan1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Most everyone I know is going to vote for Obiden, but like me they are
> > > doing so with huge reservations. We all agree that we are voting for
> > > the Democratic Party and against the Repuglicans, more than we are for
> > > the candidates that have been thrust upon us.
>
> > Same here. There's some cringe factor, but some hope, which was how I
> > felt about McCain...until he picked Palin; now there isn't even cringe
> > factor there, there's just no way.
>
> > Shirl
>
> Hi Shirley. I've got a feeling there are a lot of Dems like me and you
> who fell the same way.
Uh..."feel"...the same way.
(I'm right handed and the letter "l" is easier to type than the letter
"e"...yeah, that's it.)
The Rell D.M.
Cheri
queenie wrote in message ...
>This is the first time in a long time that I do not feel I have to
>choose between the lesser of two evils. I feel really good about
>voting for Obama and Biden.
I don't, not at all, but I'm going to. I am definitely in the lesser
of two evils mode, and to me he's it. I'm not counting JB in this at
all, with the hope that when I vote, it will never be an issue,
because I don't care for him and never have. I believe Obama should
have picked Hillary, and then I would feel much better about it. :-)
Cheri
MsLiz
I am up to hear (eyebrows) with lamentations about Hillary Clinton.
Hillary was not cheated out of the nomination. She did not own it.
She acted like it was hers for the picking, which annoyed some
Democrats. Obama won by the rules, he knew how caucuses worked and
prepared for them. Hillary's manager, what's his name with the hair
in his eyes, thought until December that California was winner take
all, and made plans accordingly. Her campaign staff was disorganized
and bickered among themselves. Obama's organization seems to be the
very model of cohesiveness.
Hillary claimed to be cheated in Florida and Michigan, when one of her
team was on the committee that decided to exclude those states
results. Excluding them was okay with HRC until suddenly she needed
those votes. Her claims to those votes sowed discord in the party
which hurts Democrats to this day.
How come when Hillary and Sarah talk about the glass ceiling they
never mention the African Americans who built the tall ladder? AA's
opened the door with their EEO legislation and white women walked
right on in.
As for Biden's percentage of the votes, my memory is that he dropped
out after the Iowa caucus. It may have been after NH, but it was well
before Super Tuesday Feb. 5.
I saw Charlie Gibson tonight with Sarah Palin, and felt a little sorry
for her. They should have set up her interview with Brit Hume or Sean
Hannity, so she could get some leading questions calling for yes or no
answers. The comments by Republicans at ABC News universally blamed
Charlie Gibson for being a sexist Democrat who arrogantly talked down
to her and tried to trick her by asking her opinion on the Bush
Doctrine.
After seeing that interview, I am not nearly as worried about Obama's
chances.
Terry Pulliam Burd
<FloydF...@hotmail.com> fired up random neurons and synapses to
opine:
>The Democrats can blame themselves right now for the turning of the
>polls. For one, they cheated Hillary out of the nomination. Secondly,
>their candidate Obama's first important decision is a disaster. He
>chose Joe Biden - a former Presidential candidate himself who had
>about 1% of the supporters - instead of Hillary, who is more than
>qualified for the job and would have brought with her 18 million
>supporters which works out to be about 50% of the party.
<snip>
I agree with much of the above, but I don't agree that Hillary should
have been the choice for VP candidate. It's enough for Middle America
to handle a biracial presidential candidate, but tossing in a biracial
candidate *and* a woman as #2 is a recipe for disaster, IMHO. Mind
you, I think those two on a ballot (in either order) would be
wonderful for this country, but I don't think Joe Sixpack could
tolerate it, more's the pity.
Terry Pulliam Burd
--
I never thought I would miss Nixon.
To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"
The Real DM
Your ears are located in a very odd place.
>with lamentations about Hillary Clinton.
Lamentations? Something tells me you have a Mint Julep in your right
hand and a fan in the other as you fan yourself all in a tither.
> Hillary was not cheated out of the nomination.
Some believe there was a conspiracy within the party that actually
laid the groundwork for that.
>She did not own it.
> She acted like it was hers for the picking, which annoyed some
> Democrats.
Your spin aside, the "some" is actually 18 million or 50% of
Democratic voters. Speaking for myself, I never thought it was hers
for the picking. But it sure is looking like it should have been.
>Obama won by the rules
Politicians follow rules? Stop the presses! We have breaking news.
>he knew how caucuses worked and
> prepared for them.
And Hillary didn't?
>Hillary's manager, what's his name with the hair
> in his eyes,
Nice to see you can criticize someone from an intellectual standpoint
and not stoop to commenting on their physical appearance. Good job!
>thought until December that California was winner take
> all, and made plans accordingly. Her campaign staff was disorganized
> and bickered among themselves. Obama's organization seems to be the
> very model of cohesiveness.
Your objectivity is awesome.
> Hillary claimed to be cheated in Florida and Michigan, when one of her
> team was on the committee that decided to exclude those states
> results. Excluding them was okay with HRC until suddenly she needed
> those votes.
Hey, I thought you Obamaites were all about "change." So, she changed
her opinion. Nothing wrong with that.
>Her claims to those votes sowed discord in the party
> which hurts Democrats to this day.
You are prattling on more about the alleged cheating than those
lamentators you accuse of lamentating.
> How come when Hillary and Sarah talk about the glass ceiling they
> never mention the African Americans who built the tall ladder?
How did Sarah get into this? Please leave her out of the discussion,
she's getting enough press. As far as Hillary goes, I beleive that she
speaks for ALL women when she refers to the glass ceiling. It's not
about race, it's about gender.
>AA's
> opened the door with their EEO legislation and white women walked
> right on in.
Yeah, those lucky white women. They've just had everything so damn
easy. They should just shut up about their plight.
> As for Biden's percentage of the votes, my memory is that he dropped
> out after the Iowa caucus.
For good reason, he didn't have a snowman's chance in a tanning salon.
>It may have been after NH, but it was well
> before Super Tuesday Feb. 5.
I had a pretty "super" Thursday today.
> I saw Charlie Gibson tonight with Sarah Palin
Call CNN...she's cheating on her husband!!!
>and felt a little sorry
> for her. They should have set up her interview with Brit Hume or Sean
> Hannity, so she could get some leading questions calling for yes or no
> answers.
You felt sorry for her and then wished that on her? I wouldn't wish an
interview with Frankenstein Hume and Dracula Hannity on anyone.
>The comments by Republicans at ABC News universally blamed
> Charlie Gibson for being a sexist Democrat who arrogantly talked down
> to her and tried to trick her by asking her opinion on the Bush
> Doctrine.
Most of the news I'm seeing tonight is giving her high marks. CNN
actually said that Biden will have a tough time debating her and
should do his homework before that happens.
> After seeing that interview, I am not nearly as worried about Obama's
> chances.
It's good to be optimistic, but I think there is a good chance the
Republicans might steal this election, too. Having Hillary as a VP
would have done much to shore up the party. Now we will have to wait
and see if the polls are right about "Beware the Ides of November."
Now if you will excuse me, I have to go do some heavy lamenting with
all my white women friends.
D.M.
"Buy my new glass wristbands that say: WWWWD (What Would White Women
Do)" - now on sale for the low low price of $5 a piece!
Shirl
> and you who fell the same way.
Hi back to you!
I think many feel the same way. Still, it surprises me when I hear
someone say, "You're the first WOMAN I've met with that opinion," as if
ALL women have signed on with McCain since he chose Palin.
> Hope you're well. Y&R hasn't been the same since we were
> on it!!! :)
Those were the days, huh?
I still have those 4 months of episodes on tape. We should put them on
DVD and market them with your WWWD watches!
;-)
Shirl
madx
Yes I wanted him to pick Hillary but what I REALLY wanted was Clinton/Obama
ticket and then he would be the next President.
queenie
I wanted that ticket too but I wasn't really feeling too good about it
because the Clinton's have so much baggage and the media would have
been relentless.
madx
I was tired of the subject line so I amended it. We had such a great
economy during the Clinton years only thing that I remember was the over
exuberance of the internet stocks led to a bit of a burst. I think if the
media continued to go "there" it may have turned off the independents to the
tactics of smear and destroy.
I'm thinking why would so many Americans (Gore had the popular vote) vote
Democratic if their taxes would go up? I mean I don't want to pay more why
would I vote that way? But I do notice that almost every where I go now I
have to pay USER fees.
Why would any private company (banks, mortgage companies) worry about their
practices when we end up bailing them out if they get in trouble? Isn't it
corporate wellfare? I just don't get it.
49 out of 50 households make less then $250,000 who will receive a tax break
under Obamas plan - What else is there that matters?
chicagofan
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:21:55 -0700, "madx" wrote:
>> Its definitely not a perfect system but I have to vote for one or the
>> other or the lesser of two evils based on the best research I can
>> reasonably do.
>
> This is the first time in a long time that I do not feel I have to choose
> between the lesser of two evils. I feel really good about voting for Obama
> and Biden.
So do I, Queenie! I just wish I had more confidence in the pundits and the
media to separate the LIES of the McCain [Rove] campaign and the truth, for the
remaining weeks of the campaign. So far, they just repeat the lies endlessly, and
say Obama has a problem, which is wrong. The *public* has a problem, because
the media refuses to do their job.
bj
queenie
<madi...@nospamastound.net> wrote:
>49 out of 50 households make less then $250,000 who will receive a tax break
>under Obamas plan - What else is there that matters?
Hellooo?
techte...@gmail.com
> "phyllis_k" <phylli...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Z4WdnY5qudczSVrV...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > "chicagofan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >news:XYFxk.122$lr4...@newsfe01.iad...
> >> queenie wrote:
> >>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_...
>
> >>> "Stop saying that!" my wife says to me. But this is not a high school
> >>> football game and I'm not a cheerleader with a bad attitude. This is an
> >>> election and as things stand now, we're gonna frickin'losethis thing.
> >>> Obama and McCain at best are even in the polls nationally and in a
> >>> recent Gallup poll McCain is ahead by four points.
>
> >>> Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP
> >>> candidate. We're coming off the worst eight years in our country's
> >>> history.
> >>> Six of those eight years the Congress, White House and even the Supreme
> >>> Court were controlled by the Republicans and the last two years the R's
> >>> have filibustered like tantrum throwing 4-year-olds, yet we'regoingto
> >>> elect a Republican who voted with that leadership 90% of the time and a
> >>> former sportscaster who wants to teach Adam and Eve as science? That's
> >>> not odd as a difference of opinion, that's logically and mathematically
> >>> queer.
>
> >>> So what is this house advantage the Republicans have? It's the press.
> >>> There
> >>> is no more fourth estate. I mean it: there is no more functioning
> >>> press in this country. And without a real press the corporate and
> >>> religious Republicans can lie all they want and get away with it. And
> >>> that's the 51% advantage.
>
> >>> All news is about sex, blame and anger, and fear.
>
> >>> So one side can lie and get away with it. Now let's throw in one more
> >>> advantage. Voter caging and other corruption on the local level with
> >>> voting. Check out the article here on HuffPost about Ohio messing with
> >>> 600K
> >>> voters. If only five thousand of those voters don't or can't vote
> >>> that's a
> >>> huge advantage in a contest that could be decided by literally dozens
> >>> of votes. That takes us to about a 52 to 48% advantage.
>
> >>> I just want to look at two inarguable realities: A) we have no more
> >>> press and B) the Repubs are screwing with the voters on the local level.
>
> >>> This race should be about whether the Republican Party isgoingto be
> >>> dismantled or not after the borderline treason of the past eight years.
> >>> But
> >>> instead it is about making the word "community organizer" a dirty word
> >>> and
> >>> a beauty queen who shoots foxes from a plane. Someone is not in any way
> >>> doing their job and it's the press. Or more specifically, that job no
> >>> longer exists.
>
> >>> Money and jobs are flying out of this country as our currency becomes
> >>> worthless and we're talking about the fact that McCain is a veteran. If
> >>> someone busted into your house and robbed you would you then forgive
> >>> them if you found out they were a veteran? Of course not. So why are we
> >>> forgiving McCain for selling out his country by supporting the Bush
> >>> agenda?
>
> >>> This is it folks. If McCain takes power we fade and become Australia in
> >>> the
> >>> seventies: a backwoods country with occasional flashes of relevance.
> >>> Except we've got a way bigger military and we're angrier. People will
> >>> get hurt and we'll pay the bill for the bullets. I'm telling you, unless
> >>> we wake up, we're gonnalosethis frickin' thing.
>
> >> A friend sent this to me, and I totally agree with Mackay about the
> >> press, and
> >> what an uphill battle this is. The fourth estate helped defeat John
> >> Kerry, and
> >> lead us into that illegal and unwarranted invasion of Iraq, by parroting
> >> each
> >> other, rather than investigating news sources and facts. It really is
> >> frightening to think about them brainwashing the public again... with
> >> Sarah
> >> Palin, and the fake "changed" McCain.
>
> > I'm so afraid we willloseand McCain will have us in a war with Iran .
> > When they were talking about the surge working in Iraq.
> > We should have never been there in the first place .
> > Iraq never attacked us so we are the invaders .
> > Phyllis
>
> Well as long as all of our troops are already right there what's the point
> of bringing them home? It'll never end there will be one reason after
> another and we get to pay for it don't we. McCain is a military man and
> military men want to do what they are trained for. That and BP wanting the
> oil off our shores to sell to the highest bidder. Of course we'll get tax
> cuts but they'll bankrupt social security and we'll all end up working till
> we go to the grave. 1 out of 50 households makes more then $250,000. How
> many of these people can make their own investment choices inorder to fund
> their retirement on their own. Do you trust private industry to not steal
> it from you?
Do you want the tax cut or do you justwant McCain to make the current
tax cuts for the wealthy permanent?
techte...@gmail.com
> In article <haggc4pb665b77553ot10tjl3au2dbj...@4ax.com>,
> quee...@nospam.com says...
>
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:07:19 -0500, "phyllis_k"
> > <phylli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >I'm so afraid we willloseand McCain will have us in a war with Iran . When
> > >they were talking about the surge working in Iraq.
> > > We should have never been there in the first place .
> > > Iraq never attacked us so we are the invaders .
>
> > 4000 deaths and over 30,000 injured in this unnecessary war with the
> > wrong country.
>
> It suddenly occurred to me last night that one of the possible reasons
> McCain chose Palin is because she's got so much frickin' baggage that it
> will take the country's focus off of him, and move the country's time
> and attention towards Palin's own life of lunacy and hypocrisy. As a
> result, he won't have to answer any hard questions (such as what he
> plans to do in Iraq and possibly in Iran and other countries, not to
> mention THE ECONOMY) during the campaign.
>
> IF that's the reason why, PLEASE don't let McCain get away with that.
> Make HIM accountable for what HE will do if HE is elected POTUS. Don't
> spend so much time focusing your energy on a friggin' featherweight of a
> politician like Sarah Palin.
>
> --- Cory
>
> --
> Dave Zweifel's Plain Talk: Hillary backers who vote for McCain either
> spiteful or stupid (THE CAPITAL TIMES, Madison, Wisconsin)
>
> http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/top/302581
Well, no one is mentioning that Palin said they will look at cutting
the military benefits and look at medicare and medicaid on the Charlie
Gibson interview. That was part of her response to cutting the budget.
techte...@gmail.com
> queenie wrote in message ...
> >This is the first time in a long time that I do not feel I have to
> >choose between the lesser of two evils. I feel really good about
> >voting for Obama and Biden.
>
> of two evils mode, and to me he's it. I'm not counting JB in this at
> all, with the hope that when I vote, it will never be an issue,
> because I don't care for him and never have. I believe Obama should
> have picked Hillary, and then I would feel much better about it. :-)
>
> Cheri
Cheri,
I wondered how he would fair without Hillary too. I think he made the
right decision on that because she will still be in his cabinet. Bill
will also be in his cabinet. Obama is not stupid. Where ever he puts
her, she will be prepared or the next election.
techte...@gmail.com
> On Sep 11, 8:27 pm, The Real DM <FloydFan1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, chicagofan <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > A friend sent this to me, and I totally agree with Mackay about the press, and
> > > what an uphill battle this is. The fourth estate helped defeat John Kerry, and
> > > lead us into that illegal and unwarranted invasion of Iraq, by parroting each
> > > other, rather than investigating news sources and facts. It really is
> > > frightening to think about them brainwashing the public again... with Sarah
> > > Palin, and the fake "changed" McCain.
>
> > The Democrats can blame themselves right now for the turning of the
> > polls. For one, they cheated Hillary out of the nomination. Secondly,
> > their candidate Obama's first important decision is a disaster. He
> > chose Joe Biden - a former Presidential candidate himself who had
> > about 1% of the supporters - instead of Hillary, who is more than
> > qualified for the job and would have brought with her 18 million
> > supporters which works out to be about 50% of the party. Yes, most of
> > every last drop of voters he can get in order to defeat the Repugs.
> > Frankly, he blew it and was upstaged by a Tina Fey look-alike who has
> > become the darling of the media, both the liberal and conservative
> > media.
>
Charlie Gibson is a hard core Republican but he is still a journalist.
He prob feels she hasn't paid any dues.
Dana Carpender
I had doubts about her from the beginning. Other than George Bush,
there is no more divisive figure in American politics today, and it
didn't seem to me that that was what we needed. Nor was I happy about
the idea of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton; too much like developing
dynasties for my taste. I objected to her characterizing her years as
First Lady as some massive experience toward actually doing the job of
President. And I was utterly furious at her line about how she brought
experience, McCain brought experience, and Obama brought a speech he'd
made in '04 -- that was when she lost any hope of my vote. She'd
demonstrated that she'd throw her party and her country under the bus
for her own political gain.
And yeah, she acted like she was entitled, somehow, and so did her most
fervent followers. It was not attractive.
Dana
madx
"Dana Carpender" <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote in message
news:_9Odnf1emeFnplHV...@comcast.com...
Some dynasties are better then others. Bill said that Hillary should have
been the one all along more so then him. Yeah that was unfortunate but
there were many other thhings she said no to her campaign advisors. But all
in all its a clear choice to me how to vote. Minor differences IMO.
Hope everything is ok and glad to see you back.
queenie
<dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
> She'd demonstrated that she'd throw her party and her country under the bus
>for her own political gain.
That's the way I feel about McCain since he picked Palin as VP.
The Real DM
Putting Hillary in the same category as George Bush? Are you insane?
What a moronic statement. Truly.
>and it
> didn't seem to me that that was what we needed. Nor was I happy about
> the idea of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton; too much like developing
> dynasties for my taste.
I think most people would love to have the 8 year dynasty of the
Clinton White House years again. Can you say "surplus"? Change for
change sake is not always a good thing.
>I objected to her characterizing her years as
> First Lady as some massive experience toward actually doing the job of
> President.
I object to your simplification of what she talked about regarding the
8 years she was First Lady. Hers was not a "choose the table
decorations for the dignitary luncheon" role, but rather a partner in
the process. Although she was not the President, she certainly was
very involved in the Presidency and understands the complexities of
the job. To dismiss the importance of that is also, in a word,
moronic.
>And I was utterly furious
Divisive...objected...furious...you seem overly emotional about this
and no doubt because you are bereft of actual facts and coming from a
place of bitterness.
>at her line about how she brought
> experience, McCain brought experience, and Obama brought a speech he'd
> made in '04 -- that was when she lost any hope of my vote.
I think she lost your vote long before that. There is a lot of truth
in the comment she made and words do fly in a campaign. All
politicians take shots at their opponent, including Obama.
>She'd
> demonstrated that she'd throw her party and her country under the bus
> for her own political gain.
You sound like a Republican sound byte and your post hasn't a shred of
anything grounded in reality. You're just parroting the right wing
Clinton haters.
> And yeah, she acted like she was entitled, somehow, and so did her most
> fervent followers. It was not attractive.
This could be said of just about any Presidential candidate and their
supporters, including Obama and Obamaites like yourself.
D.M.
Cory
que...@nospam.com says...
Not to mention that Hillary would NOT have played second fiddle to Obama
AT ALL. If you (the general 'you') believe otherwise, then you're just
plain stupid or ignorant. Hillary tried to take over health care reform
when Bill was first sworn in as POTUS, and it fell flat on its ass (not
without help from the stupid-ass Repugnantcans in Congress, though, and
I DO acknowledge/realize/understand that). She would have wanted more
of an active role in the White House than I think Obama would have been
comfortable with, and frankly, I don't blame him to an extent.
Furthermore, Bill wouldn't have sat quietly on the sidelines, either.
Remember when Obama's campaign was trying to 'vet' Hillary for VPOTUS,
and Bill had a snit and wouldn't release his financials?? Duh, it's SOP
if you're chosen to aspire to the second-highest office in the land to
release your financial statements, Bill!!! He should know that from
when HE ran for POTUS, not to mention that he most likely had asked AL
GORE for HIS financial records when he was vetting HIM to be HIS VPOTUS.
*Deep Breath*
Sorry... I get riled when talking about Clinton's refusal to release
his/her financials for the vetting process. It was an utterly clueless,
stupid, boneheaded move on their (or his) part, and I don't understand
why he dug in his heels on that issue at all. I truly believe that had
they released their financials, Hillary would have been a serious
contender for VPOTUS (FTR, I do not believe she would have been chosen
by Obama in the end anyway), but I truly believe that that "event" was
the last straw for the Obama camp, and rightfully so.
Terry Pulliam Burd
up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>rOn Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:18:36 -0400, Dana Carpender
+1, queenie. There's a good editorial in the NY Tyimes regarding her
(lack of) experience:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/13sat1.html?th&emc=th
Terry Pulliam Burd
--
"If you're going to be wrong, be wrong at the top of your lungs."
Lucy, "Peanuts"
Cory
e1f007...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, techte...@gmail.com
says...
Bill Clinton isn't going to be in anyone's cabinet... especially
Obama's. A cabinet spot is far too beneath a former POTUS. I COULD
see, OTOH, Clinton accepting a Supreme Court appointment (FWIW, I could
see EITHER Clinton accepting such an appointment), since it's a lifetime
appointment. He'll have a hand in shaping legal/constitutional policy
for years to come, and I think that he'd find that massively appealing.
Cory
4205f9...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, techte...@gmail.com
says...
Charles Gibson is a Republican?? Really?? This is the first I've ever
heard that.
Interesting...
--- Cory
Cory
ntpu...@meatloaf.net says...
I tend to agree with Terry, here, to an extent. To be perfectly frank
and honest, I am STUNNED that Obama was nominated as the Democratic
party's choice to run for POTUS. I figured Joe Sixpack would be FAR
more ready for a woman to run the country than an African-American.
There has been talk about me being mysoginistic or sexist or whatever
because I don't think Hillary on the ticket as Obama's running mate was
a good idea (I still don't, FTR). My feelings about Hillary as VPOTUS
have NOTHING to do with her gender. I think, although she would have
brought her own set of baggage to the Oval Office (namely her husband,
who would not keep his nose out of things AT ALL), that Hillary would
have made a FANTASTIC nominee for POTUS. Even though I voted for Obama
in the primaries, I would have voted for Hillary in the general election
without ANY hesitation, no matter who her running mate was. If Hillary
were the one nominated for the Dem ticket as POTUS instead of Obama,
would I have liked to have seen Obama on the ticket with Hillary as her
running mate??
Yes and no.
I have a MAJOR problem with the visual of an African-American being
subordinate to a white person, male or female. There are just too many
overtones of slavery, IMVHO, for me to be comfortable with it. Frankly,
I have problems with a woman being subordinate to a man in today's
society, regardless of race. I think women have come too far in the
workplace to settle for playing second fiddle to a man, ESPECIALLY in
such a high-profile position as VPOTUS.
I also DO believe, with every fiber of my being, that Hillary would not
be able to be a "traditional" VPOTUS, posing with winning teams for
photo ops and all the other ceremonial trappings that come with being
VPOTUS. OTOH, maybe that would end up being a good thing (NO Martha
Stewart-ism intended AT ALL!!!), because maybe by working together, she
and Obama would be able to effect REAL, POSITIVE change for the people
of THIS country, and we need that right now.
Also, WRT Biden vs. Hillary, I'm not entirely convinced that Hillary
would be as effective an "attack animal" as Joe Biden will be as VPOTUS.
The man is like a frickin' pit bull on steroids. Yet, he's still more
in control of his temper, IMNSHO, than John McCain is.
I WANT Hillary to be part of Obama's administration, should he and Biden
win the general election in November. I still think she'd be an asset
to the Obama/Biden administration somewhere (I don't know if she'd be
the best fit for Secy. of State, though), and I honestly *could* see
Bill Clinton being, as I said, a Supreme Court nominee/appointee, or
even an ambassador somewhere.
JM2CW...
Cheri
Cory wrote in message ...
>I have a MAJOR problem with the visual of an African-American being
>subordinate to a white person, male or female. There are just too
many
>overtones of slavery, IMVHO, for me to be comfortable with it.
Frankly,
>I have problems with a woman being subordinate to a man in today's
>society, regardless of race.
I don't really understand what you mean here Cory. Do you have a
problem with an African-American being subordinate to a white boss in
the workplace? Lots of people have bosses that aren't the same race
as them. As to women, there are many female bosses, and there are many
male bosses. Fact of the matter is, you're going to work for one or
the other in the work place. However, I don't really consider the
VPOUS being subordinate to anyone. :-)
Cheri
queenie
wrote:
>Bill Clinton isn't going to be in anyone's cabinet... especially
>Obama's. A cabinet spot is far too beneath a former POTUS. I COULD
>see, OTOH, Clinton accepting a Supreme Court appointment (FWIW, I could
>see EITHER Clinton accepting such an appointment), since it's a lifetime
>appointment. He'll have a hand in shaping legal/constitutional policy
>for years to come, and I think that he'd find that massively appealing.
So would I.
Cory
<gserviceatinreachdotcom> says...
>
> Cory wrote in message ...
>
> >I have a MAJOR problem with the visual of an African-American being
> >subordinate to a white person, male or female. There are just too
> >many overtones of slavery, IMVHO, for me to be comfortable with it.
> >Frankly, I have problems with a woman being subordinate to a man in
> >today's society, regardless of race.
>
> I don't really understand what you mean here Cory. Do you have a
> problem with an African-American being subordinate to a white boss in
> the workplace?
No. That said, the presidency and vice-presidency are MUCH more visible
roles than that of your average Joe Sixpack in any given corporation.
How many VPs who work for Ford/Sears/Dell/Hewlett Packard/et al., do you
hear about on a daily or weekly basis?? I don't hear about ANY VPs of
corporations (but to be fair, I'm not in any way, shape or form, a
follower of corporate America, either).
It COULD be spun by whoever that a female or african-american VPOTUS is
nothing more than an errand boy (or girl), and while that's kindasorta
true (I was originally going to say 'mouthpiece'), I think the image
would spin a LOT worse if the VPOTUS were an african-american or a
woman.
In the series THE WEST WING (can ya tell I'm a HUGE fan??? ;-) ), there
is a scene where the deputy chief of staff (Josh) has a problem with
hiring the President's personal assistant, Charlie, because he's
concerned about how it would look if a young black guy was carrying the
POTUS' overnight bag. Josh spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Admiral Fitzwallace, about his concerns re: hiring Charlie, and
Fitzwallance, who is African-American, told Josh to stop worrying about
the cosmetic battles, and that there were bigger battles to worry about.
Theoretically, the point was right... there ARE bigger battles to worry
about, but I don't think the concern over a young black guy carrying the
white POTUS' overnight bags was without merit. I, personally, had a
HUGE problem with Fitzwallace's seemingly blase' dismissal of Josh's
concerns. To me, the public seeing Charlie carrying the POTUS'
overnight bag, even though or if he WAS the president's personal
assistant (or whatever the title was), and was so by his own choice,
sends a HORRIBLE message that the only place in the world for an
african-american is as a white person's servant, and I think that, IN
THIS DAY AND AGE, is ABSOLUTELY a subliminal message that is a crock of
shit.
When I was in sixth grade, my chorus class put on OLIVER TWIST. I was
cast as an extra... to be exact, as a drunk who drank at the Inn of the
Three Cripples. My mom had a HUGE blowout with my choral teacher over
her putting me in scenes at the Inn of the Three Cripples (because of my
disability, Spina Bifida). I understood at the time that that was the
name of the inn in the Dickens' novel. I still understand that. My
mother's point, and my own point as well, is that there are a LOT of
better places to place an extra who happens to have a visible disability
than at an establishment called The Inn of the Three Cripples. It just
sent the wrong message, in both my and my mother's opinions.
> Lots of people have bosses that aren't the same race
> as them. As to women, there are many female bosses, and there are many
> male bosses. Fact of the matter is, you're going to work for one or
> the other in the work place. However, I don't really consider the
> VPOUS being subordinate to anyone. :-)
>
> Cheri
And that's where you and I respectfully disagree. The VPOTUS IS
subordinate to the POTUS. There's no other way to spin that.
Just my five bucks worth... ;-)
--- Cory
--
Dave Zweifel's Plain Talk: Hillary backers who vote for McCain either
spiteful or stupid (THE CAPITAL TIMES, Madison, Wisconsin)
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/top/302581
MY NAME SHOULD NOT BE PART OF MY E-MAIL ADDRESS... REMOVE IT TO REPLY
Dana Carpender
>
> You sound like a Republican sound byte and your post hasn't a shred of
> anything grounded in reality. You're just parroting the right wing
> Clinton haters.
Bite me. I've been a registered Dem since I voted for Jimmy Carter a
few weeks after my 18th birthday, and I've never missed a general
election. My husband and I have donated generous sums to democratic
candidates, both local and national. I've had Congressman Baron Hill in
my backyard, for a fundraising barbecue. I wrote letters for Howard
Dean. I voted for Bill Clinton twice. I would have voted for Hillary
had she been the candidate. I did not, however, feel she was the best
candidate, and I have stated my reasons. That makes me a Republican?
It's pretty clear you don't come here often. All the regulars know I'm
about as far from a 'Pub as you can get.
Dana
Dana Carpender
job with good pay and benefits, for which he is well-qualified, and that
might very well lead to better things? Because that seems the worse
option to me.
Dana
Cory
dcar...@kivanospam.net says...
Point taken. Everyone has to start somewhere, and Charlie's acceptance
of the offer to be Bartlet's personal assistant or whatever, most likely
DID propel him to bigger things, simply he had on his resume' that he
worked for/with the POTUS (which is a HUGE thing). Still, the
president's personal assistant gets a fair share of face time on
television, seeing as how he's traveling and always by the POTUS' side,
and like it or not, I think you HAVE TO consider how things look on TV.
OTOH, if you hire solely based on how someone looks on TV, you are
leaving a LOT of qualified minorities out in the cold, and THAT'S not
right, either.
NOW... THAT said, I do NOT believe that that negates my arguments re:
Michael Zaslow portraying Roger Thorpe with ALS whatsoever. I think
Zas' being on OLTL as David Renaldi educated the viewing public A LOT
about how a person living with ALS is still a PERSON with a heart and
soul.
MsLiz
> On Sep 11, 10:44 pm, MsLiz <lizgra...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 8:27 pm, The Real DM <FloydFan1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, chicagofan <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > > A friend sent this to me, and I totally agree with Mackay about the press, and
> > > > what an uphill battle this is. The fourth estate helped defeat John Kerry, and
> > > > lead us into that illegal and unwarranted invasion of Iraq, by parroting each
> > > > other, rather than investigating news sources and facts. It really is
> > > > frightening to think about them brainwashing the public again... with Sarah
> > > > Palin, and the fake "changed" McCain.
>
> > > The Democrats can blame themselves right now for the turning of the
> > > polls. For one, they cheated Hillary out of the nomination. Secondly,
> > > their candidate Obama's first important decision is a disaster. He
> > > chose Joe Biden - a former Presidential candidate himself who had
> > > about 1% of the supporters - instead of Hillary, who is more than
> > > qualified for the job and would have brought with her 18 million
> > > supporters which works out to be about 50% of the party. Yes, most of
> > > them will vote for Obiden, but it looks now like he is going to need
> > > every last drop of voters he can get in order to defeat the Repugs.
> > > Frankly, he blew it and was upstaged by a Tina Fey look-alike who has
> > > become the darling of the media, both the liberal and conservative
> > > media.
>
> > > Most everyone I know is going to vote for Obiden, but like me they are
> > > doing so with huge reservations. We all agree that we are voting for
> > > the Democratic Party and against the Repuglicans, more than we are for
> > > the candidates that have been thrust upon us.
>
> > > The Real D.M.
>
> > I am up to hear (eyebrows)
>
> Your ears are located in a very odd place.
>
> >with lamentations about Hillary Clinton.
>
> Lamentations? Something tells me you have a Mint Julep in your right
> hand and a fan in the other as you fan yourself all in a tither.
>
> > Hillary was not cheated out of the nomination.
>
> Some believe there was a conspiracy within the party that actually
> laid the groundwork for that.
>
> >She did not own it.
> > She acted like it was hers for the picking, which annoyed some
> > Democrats.
>
> Your spin aside, the "some" is actually 18 million or 50% of
> Democratic voters. Speaking for myself, I never thought it was hers
> for the picking. But it sure is looking like it should have been.
>
> >Obama won by the rules
>
> Politicians follow rules? Stop the presses! We have breaking news.
>
> >he knew how caucuses worked and
> > prepared for them.
>
> And Hillary didn't?
>
> >Hillary's manager, what's his name with the hair
> > in his eyes,
>
> Nice to see you can criticize someone from an intellectual standpoint
> and not stoop to commenting on their physical appearance. Good job!
>
> >thought until December that California was winner take
> > all, and made plans accordingly. Her campaign staff was disorganized
> > and bickered among themselves. Obama's organization seems to be the
> > very model of cohesiveness.
>
> Your objectivity is awesome.
>
> > Hillary claimed to be cheated in Florida and Michigan, when one of her
> > team was on the committee that decided to exclude those states
> > results. Excluding them was okay with HRC until suddenly she needed
> > those votes.
>
> Hey, I thought you Obamaites were all about "change." So, she changed
> her opinion. Nothing wrong with that.
>
> >Her claims to those votes sowed discord in the party
> > which hurts Democrats to this day.
>
> You are prattling on more about the alleged cheating than those
> lamentators you accuse of lamentating.
>
> > How come when Hillary and Sarah talk about the glass ceiling they
> > never mention the African Americans who built the tall ladder?
>
> How did Sarah get into this? Please leave her out of the discussion,
> she's getting enough press. As far as Hillary goes, I beleive that she
> speaks for ALL women when she refers to the glass ceiling. It's not
> about race, it's about gender.
>
> >AA's
> > opened the door with their EEO legislation and white women walked
> > right on in.
>
> Yeah, those lucky white women. They've just had everything so damn
> easy. They should just shut up about their plight.
>
> > As for Biden's percentage of the votes, my memory is that he dropped
> > out after the Iowa caucus.
>
> For good reason, he didn't have a snowman's chance in a tanning salon.
>
> >It may have been after NH, but it was well
> > before Super Tuesday Feb. 5.
>
> I had a pretty "super" Thursday today.
>
> > I saw Charlie Gibson tonight with Sarah Palin
>
> Call CNN...she's cheating on her husband!!!
>
> >and felt a little sorry
> > for her. They should have set up her interview with Brit Hume or Sean
> > Hannity, so she could get some leading questions calling for yes or no
> > answers.
>
> You felt sorry for her and then wished that on her? I wouldn't wish an
> interview with Frankenstein Hume and Dracula Hannity on anyone.
>
> >The comments by Republicans at ABC News universally blamed
> > Charlie Gibson for being a sexist Democrat who arrogantly talked down
> > to her and tried to trick her by asking her opinion on the Bush
> > Doctrine.
>
> Most of the news I'm seeing tonight is giving her high marks. CNN
> actually said that Biden will have a tough time debating her and
> should do his homework before that happens.
>
> > After seeing that interview, I am not nearly as worried about Obama's
> > chances.
>
> It's good to be optimistic, but I think there is a good chance the
> Republicans might steal this election, too. Having Hillary as a VP
> would have done much to shore up the party. Now we will have to wait
> and see if the polls are right about "Beware the Ides of November."
>
> Now if you will excuse me, I have to go do some heavy lamenting with
> all my white women friends.
>
> D.M.
> "Buy my new glass wristbands that say: WWWWD (What Would White Women
> Do)" - now on sale for the low low price of $5 a piece!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bless your heart.
MsLiz
MsLiz
> In article <2ae8ccb7-b1aa-49a7-9717-
> e1f0071f5...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, techtechx...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't want anyone who lies under oath on the Supreme Court. That
includes some of the men on their now.
If it was up to me, I'd appoint Anita Hill to the Supreme Court.
Okay, that was mostly for laughs. I'd like to see a Con Law professor
on the highest court. Many practicing lawyers and judges hate having
professors as appellate judges, but I think it is good to have someone
who analyzes cases from the point of view of a teacher.
MsLiz
> In article <gaht5n02...@news2.newsguy.com>, "Cheri"
Remember Andrew Young? He was a handsome black man who was Carter's
Ambassador to the UN. One day he was outside of Carter's house in
Plains, Georgia, and some white man drove up, got out of his car, and
handed Young his car key. He mistook him for a parking valet.
There is also a story about Thurgood Marshall being mistaken for an
elevator operator in the SCt building.
Both told the stories with a sense of humor.
I think you have a good point about the subliminal messages. Younger
folks may not have the same reaction as someone of my age, because
they haven't been exposed to the stereotypes.
> When I was in sixth grade, my chorus class put on OLIVER TWIST. I was
> cast as an extra... to be exact, as a drunk who drank at the Inn of the
> Three Cripples. My mom had a HUGE blowout with my choral teacher over
> her putting me in scenes at the Inn of the Three Cripples (because of my
> disability, Spina Bifida). I understood at the time that that was the
> name of the inn in the Dickens' novel. I still understand that. My
> mother's point, and my own point as well, is that there are a LOT of
> better places to place an extra who happens to have a visible disability
> than at an establishment called The Inn of the Three Cripples. It just
> sent the wrong message, in both my and my mother's opinions.
Good for your mother! She was your advocate. I don't know if I can
express this without being offensive, so know that I am trying to put
it right. I think you were treated like a problem, not a person.
This was grossly insensitive. Not just the name of the Inn of the
Three Cripples, but the role of a drunk.
> > Lots of people have bosses that aren't the same race
> > as them. As to women, there are many female bosses, and there are many
> > male bosses. Fact of the matter is, you're going to work for one or
> > the other in the work place. However, I don't really consider the
> > VPOUS being subordinate to anyone. :-)
Cheney agrees with you!
> > Cheri
>
> And that's where you and I respectfully disagree. The VPOTUS IS
> subordinate to the POTUS. There's no other way to spin that.
>
> Just my five bucks worth... ;-)
Hey, that's a gallon of gasoline!
MsLiz
Dana Carpender
> NOW... THAT said, I do NOT believe that that negates my arguments re:
> Michael Zaslow portraying Roger Thorpe with ALS whatsoever. I think
> Zas' being on OLTL as David Renaldi educated the viewing public A LOT
> about how a person living with ALS is still a PERSON with a heart and
> soul.
It was a stupid move dramatically speaking, plain and simple. The story
of Roger Thorpe, the world's ultimate schemer and user, slowly losing
his faculties and becoming more and more dependent on those he had, for
years, treated badly, would have been pure dramatic gold, especially
played by Zaslow.
Dana
news.verizon.net
"Cory" <my_whe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.233230114...@news.motzarella.org...
> In article <aqqgc45tlp5oknqq9...@4ax.com>,
> que...@nospam.com says...
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:40:23 -0700, "Cheri" <gser...@inreach.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >queenie wrote in message
>> >
>> >
>> >I don't want him for President, but he is far from an old fool. Just
>> >sayin.
>>
>> I said that because he chose Sarah Palin for VP.
>
> That doesn't make him a fool, either, though.
>
> It may have taken me a LOT longer to figure out why than most other
> people, but McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate has become
> utterly crystal clear to me as of tonight (or, actually, late late
> late last night). McCain's choice of running mate was in NO way,
> shape or form a decision made by an "old fool". In fact, it is
> probably just short of frickin' brilliant.
>
> --- Cory
>
> --
> Dave Zweifel's Plain Talk: Hillary backers who vote for McCain either
> spiteful or stupid (THE CAPITAL TIMES, Madison, Wisconsin)
>
> http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/top/302581
don't lose heart cory, i was pretty worried at first, but if this newsgroup
is anything like the rest of the country, we might come out of this ok, or
at least better
please go to his web site to check them out!!!
please vote what you think is best in november.
thank you
beck
madx
"news.verizon.net" <be...@davenation.com> wrote in message
news:Yo9Ak.200$nl3.95@trnddc05...
You are only seeing one sided discussions. For the most part the McCain
supporters won't bother discussing their reasons because they know how
flimsy they are. They cling to their party because to do otherwise would
be to admit they were wrong 8 years ago. So they pretend that maybe this
time it will work out right.
The people behind the last 8 years will be the same for the next 4 or 8
years. This is what they believe
queenie
The real Republicans, the ones who will be affected by Obama's tax
policy; those who earn over $250,000, hide behind the above--the bible
thumpers. The real Republicans only care about big business and the
wealthy. They know most Americans do not fall into that
category--their "base"-- so they enlist the bible thumpers who are so
focused on the social issues, that they don't care about the economy,
health care, job loss, education, energy etc. That is why, besides
not giving a damn about the country, McCain picked Sarah Palin as his
running mate.
Terry Pulliam Burd
up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>The real Republicans, the ones who will be affected by Obama's tax
>policy; those who earn over $250,000, hide behind the above--the bible
>thumpers. The real Republicans only care about big business and the
>wealthy. They know most Americans do not fall into that
>category--their "base"-- so they enlist the bible thumpers who are so
>focused on the social issues, that they don't care about the economy,
>health care, job loss, education, energy etc. That is why, besides
>not giving a damn about the country, McCain picked Sarah Palin as his
>running mate.
The Bushies have run what can only be described as a "plutocracy." I
see nothing in McCain's vaguely defined platforms that lead me to
believe he would do differently. What we're seeing in this economic
crash-and-burn in the last year can be laid at the feet of Ronald
Reagan, "Reaganomics" ("trickle down economics" which was also called
"voodoo economics" by its detractors) and the deregulation of many of
our institutions, such as Ma Bell. Perhaps the single most destructive
thing his administration did was gut the "Fairness Doctrine" which
allowed mega-corporations to take over what is essentially the
entirety of mainstream journalism. And remember the S&L scandal on his
watch? It was the Reagan administration that decided that the foxes
should be in charge of the henhouse. See:
http://forestpolicy.typepad.com/economics/2008/04/deregulation-go.html
Follow some of the links. It made me want to bang my head on the desk.
And Regan is Bush and McCain's role model. Jesus wept.
Terry Pulliam Burd
--
"Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here."
- Jack Nicholson in "As Good as it Gets"
queenie
<ntpu...@meatloaf.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:44:42 -0400, queenie <que...@nospam.com> fired
>up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>
>>The real Republicans, the ones who will be affected by Obama's tax
>>policy; those who earn over $250,000, hide behind the above--the bible
>>thumpers. The real Republicans only care about big business and the
>>wealthy. They know most Americans do not fall into that
>>category--their "base"-- so they enlist the bible thumpers who are so
>>focused on the social issues, that they don't care about the economy,
>>health care, job loss, education, energy etc. That is why, besides
>>not giving a damn about the country, McCain picked Sarah Palin as his
>>running mate.
>
>The Bushies have run what can only be described as a "plutocracy." I
>see nothing in McCain's vaguely defined platforms that lead me to
>believe he would do differently. What we're seeing in this economic
>crash-and-burn in the last year can be laid at the feet of Ronald
>Reagan, "Reaganomics" ("trickle down economics" which was also called
>"voodoo economics" by its detractors) and the deregulation of many of
>our institutions, such as Ma Bell. Perhaps the single most destructive
>thing his administration did was gut the "Fairness Doctrine" which
>allowed mega-corporations to take over what is essentially the
>entirety of mainstream journalism.
That is why they can say anything they want--any lie and they rarely
get called on it. All the media cares about is celebrity gossip.
>And remember the S&L scandal on his
>watch? It was the Reagan administration that decided that the foxes
>should be in charge of the henhouse. See:
>
>http://forestpolicy.typepad.com/economics/2008/04/deregulation-go.html
>
>Follow some of the links. It made me want to bang my head on the desk.
>And Regan is Bush and McCain's role model. Jesus wept.
It's really sad.
Dana Carpender
The whole laissez-faire, free market, let's deregulate everything,
that'll make it better thing is based on the charmingly naive notion
that people will not do bad things for money. Which, unsurprisingly,
has turned out to be a really, really bad bet.
Dana
queenie
<dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
>The whole laissez-faire, free market, let's deregulate everything,
>that'll make it better thing is based on the charmingly naive notion
>that people will not do bad things for money. Which, unsurprisingly,
>has turned out to be a really, really bad bet.
I just heard McCain say it was Obama's fault!
Dana Carpender
Oh, you've got to be shitting me. How, exactly, is this supposed to be
Obama's fault? Did he elaborate?
At least some of the gas crisis can be attributed to Phil Gramm,
deregulator extraordinaire, and father of the Enron Loophole, which
allowed the speculation in oil that's fueling the high prices. And he's
the guy McCain has said will be his economic advisor.
Dana
chicagofan
I LOL'd when I heard that! He's been there 26 years and Obama has been in the
senate for 4 years. Now I wonder who has had more lost opportunities to change
the status quo in Washington?
He looked so foolish saying that!
bj
chicagofan
Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy are at the root of a lot of losses to the
American people through their influence in D.C..
I held out hope for a long time they might be going to jail, but of course, it
never happened.
bj
madx
"chicagofan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Q_UAk.10772$Il....@newsfe09.iad...
The repubicans are now blaming the economic crisis on the American people
for taking out the subprime loans. That they should have known better.
Dana Carpender
There is some truth in that; people got stupid during the bubble. They
bought more house than they could afford, and did it on adjustable rate
mortgages. They figured it would go up in a year or two, they'd sell,
and take a profit. When the market dried up and their interest soared,
they were screwed. I refuse to take out an adjustable rate mortgage on
anything.
Dana
queenie
<dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
>queenie wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:36:07 -0400, Dana Carpender
>> <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The whole laissez-faire, free market, let's deregulate everything,
>>> that'll make it better thing is based on the charmingly naive notion
>>> that people will not do bad things for money. Which, unsurprisingly,
>>> has turned out to be a really, really bad bet.
>>
>> I just heard McCain say it was Obama's fault!
>>
>
>Oh, you've got to be shitting me. How, exactly, is this supposed to be
>Obama's fault? Did he elaborate?
Sound bites. But he did say something about Obama and the ex-CEO of
Fannie Mae.
>At least some of the gas crisis can be attributed to Phil Gramm,
>deregulator extraordinaire, and father of the Enron Loophole, which
>allowed the speculation in oil that's fueling the high prices. And he's
>the guy McCain has said will be his economic advisor.
He's the guy who said Americans were a "bunch of whiners" and
suffering from a "mental recession". At the time he was running
McCain's campaign.
queenie
wrote:
>queenie wrote:
> >
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:36:07 -0400, Dana Carpender
>> <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
>>> The whole laissez-faire, free market, let's deregulate everything,
>>> that'll make it better thing is based on the charmingly naive notion that
>>> people will not do bad things for money. Which, unsurprisingly, has
>>> turned out to be a really, really bad bet.
>>
>> I just heard McCain say it was Obama's fault!
>
>
>I LOL'd when I heard that! He's been there 26 years and Obama has been in the
>senate for 4 years.
Obama had nothing to do with deregulation either.
>Now I wonder who has had more lost opportunities to change
>the status quo in Washington?
>
>He looked so foolish saying that!
He looked like a liar who will do anything and say anything to get
elected.
And who the F is Sarah Palin and her husband to refuse to testify when
subpoenaed? If they refuse to do it now, what will they do if she
becomes President? Haven't we seen enough of this coming from
Bush/Cheney?
Fionn
(in article <4-ydnXGnH4ThiEnV...@comcast.com>):
Because Obama is deep in the "Warshington" system that created the mess.
Even tho de-regulation is a Republican notion, and its high priest is Phil
Gramm.
Apparently McCain has not been in "Warshington" so it doesn't count for him.
Obama totally made fun of that today in a speech.
Fionn
Fionn
(in article <39c8d4d6bp8vnd1cn...@4ax.com>):
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:12:30 -0400, Dana Carpender
> <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
>
>> queenie wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:36:07 -0400, Dana Carpender
>>> <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The whole laissez-faire, free market, let's deregulate everything,
>>>> that'll make it better thing is based on the charmingly naive notion
>>>> that people will not do bad things for money. Which, unsurprisingly,
>>>> has turned out to be a really, really bad bet.
>>>
>>> I just heard McCain say it was Obama's fault!
>>>
>>
>> Oh, you've got to be shitting me. How, exactly, is this supposed to be
>> Obama's fault? Did he elaborate?
>
> Sound bites. But he did say something about Obama and the ex-CEO of
> Fannie Mae.
Yeah, the guy went to Obama's office one time and DID NOT meet with Obama.
Pretty close connection.
Fionn
Ðawn
----
Obama, Barack 126,349
Kerry, John 111,000
Bennett, Robert 107,999
Bachus, Spencer 103,300
Blunt, Roy 96,950
Kanjorski, Paul 96,000
Bond, Christopher 95,400
Shelby, Richard 80,000
Reed, Jack 78,250
Reid, Harry 77,000
Clinton, Hillary 76,050
Davis, Tom 75,499
Boehner, John 67,750
Conrad, Kent 64,491
----
Bob Vaught
MsLiz
> "Dana Carpender" <dcarp...@kivanospam.net> wrote in messagenews:4-ydnXGnH4ThiEnV...@comcast.com...
Too much verbage, too little objectivity. I see my Republican
Congressman and Senator on that list.
We have two choices for president at this point. One is a member of a
party which has put its interests above the country for thirty years
or more, and now has the nerve to adopt a slogan "country first" and
pretend they aren't who they are. McCain was once a loose cannon who
did not work well with others and now says he will single handedly
(well, with Sarah's help) change Washington. Who will vote for his
proposals? Not the Republicans, who he is running against. Not the
Democrats, who recognize that his ideas are pre-Hooverian. The
Republicans did not have a single candidate for president this year
who was up to the job.
Obama will do fine. He will surround himself with the best advisors.
He is a top quality thinker, and doesn't get his ego in a snit. He
isn't senile or deaf or in a state of panic, which McCain seems to
be. He may be acquainted with some folks we don't approve of, but so
is everyone who isn't a hermit.
At the meeting Congtress had last night in Pelosi's office, the
members were advised that our financial system may not last the week
folks. Meanwhile, McCain has proposed to revamp our health care
system to make it like our banking system.
Turn the Republicans out. They have been talking to themselves in an
echo chamber and they believe in trickle down economics and that greed
is good. They tell themselves that if it is American, it is the
best. They invaded Iraq and destroyed a civilization. What a
disaster. Yes Saddam Hussein was a dictator and slaughtered people,
but most people went about their everyday lives in safety. Not like
now.
The polls are turning, and I think "We're going to win this thing."
Then we are going to have to keep an eye on those who want to destroy
this country, and I am talking about native born power brokers, not
terrorists. We have to get civics back in schools so kids can learn
to think again.
Enough!
MsLiz
Shirl
> Obama will do fine. He will surround himself with the best advisors.
> He is a top quality thinker, and doesn't get his ego in a snit. He
> isn't senile or deaf or in a state of panic, which McCain seems to
> be. He may be acquainted with some folks we don't approve of, but so
> is everyone who isn't a hermit.
And he didn't pick an unqualified running mate solely on the basis of
being the best strategic move to get himself elected.
It's SO hard to separate the person from the politics, and I wonder how
separate that has to be. But the photos of Sarah Palin standing over the
dead moose, carrying the dead white rabbits, sitting with the bear head
carcass draped over the back of the sofa, and ESPECIALLY the one of the
dead wolf hanging over the struts of their airplane wing as if to be
showing off the kill DISGUST ME!
I realize hunting is more "accepted" in some states than others. But
it's hard for me to imagine a woman OR a man who is THAT proud to do
that to the life of a wild animal -- so proud that they would **take
pleasure** in draping the dead carcass on their airplane wing to
photograph it! -- having any genuine compassion for human lives of
people they don't know.
--Disgusted
Fionn
(in article <Xmnushal8y-523D2...@news.west.cox.net>):
The rule in our family is, you shoot it, you eat it. I guess she ate the
moose, dunno about the rabbits, they are a lot of cleaning for a little meat,
but I'm positive she didn't eat the wolf. Needless waste.
Fionn
madx
"Fionn" <Fi...@finnbarr.netinvalid> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C4FA80D0...@news.verizon.net...
To me the country first is not the way I see them at all - more accurately
ME first. They won't do the hard work to study the problem and find the
best solution. Its cowboy politics all over again shoot first ask questions
later if at all. I don't want any more go with the gut solutions.
Shirl
> It's SO hard to separate the person from the politics, and I wonder how
> separate that has to be. But the photos of Sarah Palin standing over the
> dead moose, carrying the dead white rabbits, sitting with the bear head
> carcass draped over the back of the sofa, and ESPECIALLY the one of the
> dead wolf hanging over the struts of their airplane wing as if to be
> showing off the kill DISGUST ME!
>
> I realize hunting is more "accepted" in some states than others. But
> it's hard for me to imagine a woman OR a man who is THAT proud to do
> that to the life of a wild animal -- so proud that they would **take
> pleasure** in draping the dead carcass on their airplane wing to
> photograph it! -- having any genuine compassion for human lives of
> people they don't know.
Fionn:
> The rule in our family is, you shoot it, you eat it. I guess she ate the
> moose, dunno about the rabbits, they are a lot of cleaning for a little meat,
> but I'm positive she didn't eat the wolf. Needless waste.
I don't guess she ate the bear, either!
Yet both the wolf and the bear are clearly *displayed* in that
disgusting (to me, anyway) "Look what **I** did!" way. I know
diehard hunters would have a field day with me, but I just don't
see how anyone can take such pleasure in killing and displaying
a beautiful wild animal. I can't stand to watch any interview
with Ted Nugent for the same reason ... he can't complete a
sentence without promoting hunting.
I dunno ... just seems to be that during an ELECTION, when
"every vote counts," the last thing you'd want to be doing is
advertising the fact that you take pleasure in shooting completely
defenseless (against a GUN) animals. I'm not comfortable with
how far she would take her "you can't blink" attitude.
Take the gun away, and let's see these people hunt the way the
animals do ... using only their own bodies and their own smarts
to catch it, wrestle it down and kill it. No "sport", IMO, in
an animal against a rifle, even in its own habitat.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Shirl
Dana Carpender
> Shirl:
>> It's SO hard to separate the person from the politics, and I wonder how
>> separate that has to be. But the photos of Sarah Palin standing over the
>> dead moose, carrying the dead white rabbits, sitting with the bear head
>> carcass draped over the back of the sofa, and ESPECIALLY the one of the
>> dead wolf hanging over the struts of their airplane wing as if to be
>> showing off the kill DISGUST ME!
>>
>> I realize hunting is more "accepted" in some states than others. But
>> it's hard for me to imagine a woman OR a man who is THAT proud to do
>> that to the life of a wild animal -- so proud that they would **take
>> pleasure** in draping the dead carcass on their airplane wing to
>> photograph it! -- having any genuine compassion for human lives of
>> people they don't know.
>
> Fionn:
>> The rule in our family is, you shoot it, you eat it. I guess she ate the
>> moose, dunno about the rabbits, they are a lot of cleaning for a little meat,
>> but I'm positive she didn't eat the wolf. Needless waste.
>
> I don't guess she ate the bear, either!
Actually, bear is supposed to be tasty.
> Take the gun away, and let's see these people hunt the way the
> animals do ... using only their own bodies and their own smarts
> to catch it, wrestle it down and kill it. No "sport", IMO, in
> an animal against a rifle, even in its own habitat.
>
Oh, heck, we'll even let her have a pocket knife.
Dana
Shirl
> Actually, bear is supposed to be tasty.
I'm sure there have been a few bears and other
wildlife that have said that about humans, too.
Shirl
Dana Carpender
No doubt.
I've heard -- no idea if it's true -- the theory that the Aztecs took a
liking to pork immediately (no pigs in America till the Spanish
invaders) because it, uh, tasted so familiar...
Dana
Fionn
(in article <Yb6dnSt5t_aou0jV...@comcast.com>):
> Shirl wrote:
>> Shirl:
>>> It's SO hard to separate the person from the politics, and I wonder how
>>> separate that has to be. But the photos of Sarah Palin standing over the
>>> dead moose, carrying the dead white rabbits, sitting with the bear head
>>> carcass draped over the back of the sofa, and ESPECIALLY the one of the
>>> dead wolf hanging over the struts of their airplane wing as if to be
>>> showing off the kill DISGUST ME!
>>>
>>> I realize hunting is more "accepted" in some states than others. But
>>> it's hard for me to imagine a woman OR a man who is THAT proud to do
>>> that to the life of a wild animal -- so proud that they would **take
>>> pleasure** in draping the dead carcass on their airplane wing to
>>> photograph it! -- having any genuine compassion for human lives of
>>> people they don't know.
>>
>> Fionn:
>>> The rule in our family is, you shoot it, you eat it. I guess she ate the
>>> moose, dunno about the rabbits, they are a lot of cleaning for a little
>>> meat,
>>> but I'm positive she didn't eat the wolf. Needless waste.
>>
>> I don't guess she ate the bear, either!
>
> Actually, bear is supposed to be tasty.
It's pretty greasy, to the point that it's hard not to have it taste rancid.
Like lamb or domestic goose times 1000. I don't care for it. Or I could
say, I can't bear it. (sorry)
>
>> Take the gun away, and let's see these people hunt the way the
>> animals do ... using only their own bodies and their own smarts
>> to catch it, wrestle it down and kill it. No "sport", IMO, in
>> an animal against a rifle, even in its own habitat.
>>
>
> Oh, heck, we'll even let her have a pocket knife.
>
> Dana
Well, there is sport, generally in that you have to walk around a lot and
don't generally see anyone to shoot at. Then you do see something all of a
sudden and you have to get off an accurate shot. Hunters go home empty more
days than not. Flying around in a plane takes that away. "Roadhunting"
(going down back roads in a truck) is looked down on here. I don't know
about Alaska, but in places where the ecosystem is more chopped up, you get
more deer, bears, etc. than the land can really support in winter. You do
them a favor by lessening the population, otherwise they starve to death in
the woods.
I have more respect for hunting than buying meat in the supermarket, as a
proper hunter is part of the predator/prey cycle. No one kills a cow, pig or
chicken with their bare hands either. But this airplane bullshit is not
hunting.
But Ms. Palin could probably throw her stiletto heel through someone's skull
at 25 yards, she has that lethal look in her eye.
Fionn
Dana Carpender
Haven't had goose, but can't say I find lamb particularly greasy.
Dana (loves lamb!)
queenie
<dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
>Dana (loves lamb!)
I do too. Give me lamb and a little mint jelly and I'm in heaven!
queenie
>"Dana Carpender" <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote in message news:4-ydnXGnH4ThiEnV...@comcast.com...
>queenie wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:36:07 -0400, Dana Carpender
>> <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The whole laissez-faire, free market, let's deregulate everything,
>>> that'll make it better thing is based on the charmingly naive notion
>>> that people will not do bad things for money. Which, unsurprisingly,
>>> has turned out to be a really, really bad bet.
>>
>> I just heard McCain say it was Obama's fault!
>>
>
>Oh, you've got to be shitting me. How, exactly, is this supposed to be
>Obama's fault? Did he elaborate?
>
>At least some of the gas crisis can be attributed to Phil Gramm,
>deregulator extraordinaire, and father of the Enron Loophole, which
>allowed the speculation in oil that's fueling the high prices. And he's
>the guy McCain has said will be his economic advisor.
>
>Dana
>
>The following caught my attention:
>
>McCain, Obama, financial crisis
>In May 2006 Sen. John McCain co-sponsored a bill, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S.109). The sponsor of the bill was Sen. Charles Hagel-Republican from Nebraska.
This caught my attention: Phil (America is a nation of whiners)
Gramm, McCain's economic advisor and former Presidential campaign
advisor.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html
Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time?
There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is
former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long
anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that
greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has
Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the
villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid
executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's
presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic
matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should
McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global
financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk
about a market failure.
Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as
chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down
Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests
for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's
workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm
also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms
from getting too close to the companies they audited—at one point,
according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the
commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999,
Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that
decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks,
investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms—setting
off a wave of merger mania.
But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the
financial services industry—friends who gave him millions over his
24-year congressional career—came on December 15, 2000. It was an
especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the
Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill
Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget
showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the
system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a
$384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page
measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with
the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator
Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the
measure had been considered dead—even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had
either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill
Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what
was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar
with the bill's history. <snip>
chicagofan
The following caught my attention:McCain, Obama, financial crisisIn May 2006 Sen. John McCain co-sponsored a bill, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S.109). The sponsor of the bill was Sen. Charles Hagel-Republican from Nebraska. The other co-sponsors of the bill, along with McCain, were Republican Senators, John Sununu from New Hampshire and Elizabeth Dole from North Carolina. The primary purpose of the bill was to address the regulation of secondary mortgage markets. The Democrats killed it.
Evidently, more than a few Senators, including McCain, believed that a crisis was looming if serious reforms were not made to address the problem of financial institutions making loans that were too risky. In a speech made on the Senate floor on May 25, 2006, Sen. McCain said the following::
McCain - For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
McCain - I underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
----
If this is factual, I'm impressed with his position then, and wonder *what* happened to him, to make him begin making speeches about our "sound economy" and our "sound economic fundamentals" in the past year, which indicated *he knew nothing about* these problems. Is his age showing, or his ambition, that made him forget all the things outlined above?
It seems McCain had a pretty good handle on things and that was over two years ago. And just to emphasize again, the Democrats killed the bill. Uh, Yeah. But, in retrospect, it seems those old guys like McCain can be pretty darn smart sometimes.
Will be interested to see how Mr. Vaught [or his sources] have determined that the "Democrats" killed the bill when they were outnumbered in Congress. Where did this article come from? That will say a lot.
By the way, exactly who were the recipients of that lobby money that Mccain said was being used "in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems." Well, here is the top 14 on the list, ranked in order with the recipients of the most money at the top:Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
Democrat Christopher Dodd, at the top of the list, currently serves as the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee. Amazingly, Democrat Barack Obama achieved reaching number two on the list, passing everyone except Dodd, and despite serving less than one complete term in the Senate! And now, we are about to find out why Obama got so much lobby money....
Remember earlier when McCain mentioned Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former Chief Executive Officer? Well, it seems he was the budget director under the Clinton Administration from 1996-1998. from Wikipedia::On December 21, 2004 Raines accepted what he called "early retirement" from his position as CEO while U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigators continued to investigate alleged accounting irregularities. He is accused by The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulating body of Fannie Mae, of abetting widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses.
----
Yet another former CEO of Fannie Mae was Jim Johnson. Johnson was one of three Obama economic advisors until earlier this year. Countrywide Financial Corp. gave Johnson $7 million in loans at below market rates, including a 3.875% loan for a $971,000 home in Washington, D.C. 3.875%. Uh, yeah. Try going to any financial institution yourself and see if you can get a loan at that rate. Johnson only resigned from working on the Obama campaign after Sen. Hillary Clinton brought this up during the primaries. Gee, one would think Obama would do a better job of "vetting" his economic advisers.
Yes... that's almost as bad as Phil Gramm, economic advisor, and all the lobbyists on McCain's campaign team. ;)
Little hint, if you ever start a business, don't hire Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, Franklin Raines, or Jim Johnson to work in your finance department. Here's another hint, don't hire them to run the economy either.Thank you,
Bob Vaught
Really *selective* criticism... from whoever this guy is.
bj
D.M. Stillwood
news:13fcdf15-8098-41d8...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Yet both the wolf and the bear are clearly *displayed* in that
> disgusting (to me, anyway) "Look what **I** did!" way. I know
> diehard hunters would have a field day with me, but I just don't
> see how anyone can take such pleasure in killing and displaying
> a beautiful wild animal. I can't stand to watch any interview
> with Ted Nugent for the same reason ... he can't complete a
> sentence without promoting hunting.
Agreed, esp. about the Michigan Madman.
> Take the gun away, and let's see these people hunt the way the
> animals do ... using only their own bodies and their own smarts
> to catch it, wrestle it down and kill it. No "sport", IMO, in
> an animal against a rifle, even in its own habitat.
>
> Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
>
> Shirl
We do agree about this.
D.--vegetarian (hold the moose, please)
Cory
que...@nospam.com says...
> But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the
> 24-year congressional career - came on December 15, 2000. It was an
> especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the
> Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill
> Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget
> showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the
> system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a
> $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page
> measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with
> the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator
> Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the
> either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill
> Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what
> was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar
> with the bill's history. <snip>
What I would really, really, really like to know is who the fuck is
going to pay for this $700 BILLION bailout???
Seriously... who's going to foot the bill for this?? Are American
taxpayers going to get stuck with higher taxes in the near future
because of this bailout, or is the government going to take it on the
chin and just not recoup the losses???
Oh... and by the way... I'm sorry, but Phil Gramm is NOT the only
imbecile responsible for this mess. Dumbya Dumbfuck (AKA George W.
Bush) is ALSO partly to blame for this mess, seeing as how he dragged
this country into an unwinnable war in Iraq to avenge a personal fucking
vendetta he had with Saddam Hussein because "'Saddam threatened to
kill' my daddy!!!!!"
--- Cory
--
Dave Zweifel's Plain Talk: Hillary backers who vote for McCain either
spiteful or stupid (THE CAPITAL TIMES, Madison, Wisconsin)
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/top/302581
MY NAME SHOULD NOT BE PART OF MY E-MAIL ADDRESS... REMOVE IT TO REPLY
Shirl
> What I would really, really, really like to know is who the fuck is
> going to pay for this $700 BILLION bailout???
You really don't know?
> Seriously... who's going to foot the bill for this?? Are American
> taxpayers going to get stuck with higher taxes in the near future
> because of this bailout, or is the government going to take it on the
> chin and just not recoup the losses???
LOL. Cory, are you serious? OF COURSE we are! And I'm sure Alaskans are
all going to forego and donate those $1200 checks they've been getting
from Palin to help the rest of the country cover it, too! HAR!
WHEN does the gov't "take it on the chin"? And how COULD it afford to
take $700 BILLION on the chin?
News reports were saying that even though this is going to cost
taxpayers, it's still going to cost us less than the alternative
(letting those entities go down). I wonder.
> Oh... and by the way... I'm sorry, but Phil Gramm is NOT the only
> imbecile responsible for this mess. Dumbya Dumbfuck (AKA George W.
> Bush) is ALSO partly to blame for this mess, seeing as how he dragged
> this country into an unwinnable war in Iraq to avenge a personal fucking
> vendetta he had with Saddam Hussein because "'Saddam threatened to
> kill' my daddy!!!!!"
I have vowed not to listen to talk radio anymore. No one DARE lump "all
Republicans" together unless it is to *credit* them; yet Bruce Jacobs is
ALWAYS lumping ALL Demos/Liberals, saying they are only out for
themselves and "out to cause problems". Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh was
ranting about Obama and actually had the NERVE to ask: "Where's the
accountability?" Huh? After *8 years* of the Bush administration, the
country is facing what has been described as "the biggest financial
crisis since The Great Depression, and he wants accountability from
Obama?
*** What about accountability FROM GEORGE W. BUSH? ***
UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE the spin these guys put on this stuff...and they
have the nerve to trash-talk the OTHER media and journalists for
spinning? Scary thing is the followers of these guys just buy this stuff
hook, line and sinker.
Shirl (still disgusted by the photo displays of Palin's "kills", and
yeah, I know that has "nothing to do with the issues", but it does, IMO,
say something about her as a person that I don't/can't like or support.
Her "we have to do it without blinking" comment scares the heck out of
me!)
D.M. Stillwood
news:Xmnushal8y-BE721...@news.west.cox.net...
>
> I have vowed not to listen to talk radio anymore. No one DARE lump "all
> Republicans" together unless it is to *credit* them; yet Bruce Jacobs is
> ALWAYS lumping ALL Demos/Liberals, saying they are only out for
> themselves and "out to cause problems". Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh was
> ranting about Obama and actually had the NERVE to ask: "Where's the
> accountability?" Huh? After *8 years* of the Bush administration, the
> country is facing what has been described as "the biggest financial
> crisis since The Great Depression, and he wants accountability from
> Obama?
I listened to it for awhile for a project I was doing, and kept listening
long after I should have stopped b/c I was fascinated by how they could
rationalize the things they were saying. If a caller somehow hit upon an
unassailable truth (rare, since those calls are screened to keep out almost
all dissenting opinion), the host would just completely ignore it and focus
on some other bogus point. If the caller then said, "Yes, but what about
so-and-so that I just mentioned?" the host would say, "Get off the line, you
America-hater!" and hang up on them. I mean, it was interesting strictly as
a sociological study (not what I was doing, but what it became for me), but
it finally got so stomach-turning that I had to give it up. Either that or
buy stock in antacids. I never listened to Limbaugh (The Bloviator)
regularly, but I found Sean Hannity to be particularly odious, especially
when his callers would say, "Hello, Sean, you're a great American," and he
would echo it back to them--apparently that was his mantra.
Save your sanity and say adios.
D.
Dana Carpender
Who do you think? You and me. The "deregulation helps everyone!" R's
have stuck every single man, woman, and child with $10K in debt.
Dana
Dana Carpender
> Her "we have to do it without blinking" comment scares the heck out of
> me!)
I do not find the trait of never thinking twice appealing in a potential
POTUS.
Dana
madx
Its called take the money and run