[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Perhaps if the American people in general had a clearer understanding of the Constitution and the founding spirit of the country, there would be a considerable amount of consensus on the major issues, thus obviating partisanship.

It's so tiresome to listen to republicans claim to be to guardians of the constitution. The constitution has been in flux since it was written- sometimes for the good of the country, sometimes not- and both parties have run roughshod over it. However, this Republican administration has played fast and loose with the constitution like none since FDR.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you'd rather a hypothetical broken, fragmented party with little support that calls themselves Republican and upholds some conservative ideas even if they are in no shape to actually do anything than a party that calls themselves Democrats that might be able to do some positive things that even you would be in favor of?

So, it sounds like you just want to severely red tape any party that isn't Republican by name? Isn't this just holding the country hostage to a particular ideology?

I think it's about supporting the only party who has any desire at all to uphold conservative ideals.

[besson3c]

Ah, so it's basically "my way or nothing" - holding the country hostage to your ideology. Gotcha.


Political compromises have to be made for the greater good, both domestically and internationally.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I think it's about supporting the only party who has any desire at all to uphold conservative ideals.

*cough*Libertarians*cough*

(I know Libertarians are not actually conservative, but they're closer to the original ideals of America than modern so-called "conservatives" are.)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ah, so it's basically "my way or nothing" - holding the country hostage to your ideology. Gotcha.

I'm just trying to hep you understand, since after ALL of your posts with questions, feigned ignorance and feigned non-partisanship haven't helped you.

Political compromises have to be made for the greater good, both domestically and internationally.

I hear that a lot from those on the left, too bad they never actually compromise anything themselves.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

*cough*Libertarians*cough*

(I know Libertarians are not actually conservative, but they're closer to the original ideals of America than modern so-called "conservatives" are.)

Right, conservatism and libertarianism are two different things.

The problem with the Libertarian party is that they are not well received. People seem to want to be coddled and cared for by a nanny-state. Kinda hard to make changes if you can't get elected.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It's so tiresome to listen to republicans claim to be to guardians of the constitution. The constitution has been in flux since it was written- sometimes for the good of the country, sometimes not- and both parties have run roughshod over it. However, this Republican administration has played fast and loose with the constitution like none since FDR.

I never claimed the Republican party was faithful to the Constitution. The only thing I have asserted is that they are closer, if only marginally so, to salient Constitutional principles than the Democratic party is.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I disagree. The problem with the Republican Congress and Bush administration was that both insisted on putting their ideology above the country.

The problem was very much due to single party control as well as a lack of commitment to truly conservative values. Bush is no conservative in the classical sense, nor was the servile Republican Congress that he had at his disposal. These were not men of great principle or political courage. Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" was actually a code-word for bigger government.

The problem with the Libertarian party is that they are not well received. People seem to want to be coddled and cared for by a nanny-state. Kinda hard to make changes if you can't get elected.

That's the problem. The citizenry has gotten accustomed to entitlements and an intrusive federal government. They have no appreciation for the Constitutional consensus that created a system of governance with inherent constraints and checks on its power. They want the pyramid entitlement schemes. They want Congress to legislate on every matter. They want the president to be in charge of evacuating New Orleans before the storm hits. They want to repeal the 2nd Amendment because they think doing so will help to solve gun violence. They want the Congress to lay out a national broadband network. There is no end to their demands for more governmental services. And that's precisely why the founding fathers held disdain for democracy - for they knew that if the masses gained sufficient control over government, the finely-crafted architecture put in place by the Constitution that limited the power of the federal government would be dispensed with. If B.H.O. were to win, it would be emblematic of the victory of the masses - the tyranny of the majority - that the founders so deeply feared.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

To take some of the edge off this conversation, IO9 has an interesting observation

Hey! That's my observation!

Seriously though, McCain != Tigh. But it is interesting to note how Roslin has become more and more conservative as the series progresses. When S1 started I disliked her quite a bit, now she's one of my favorite characters.

[Kerrigan]

Dead heat: http://thepage.time.com/2008/08/31/dead-heat/

McCain really killed that post-convention bounce. Now it remains to be seen how the hurricane will affect the Republican nomination.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I guess I didn't spell it out explicitly enough. There is no other reason to choose her, and it was entirely predictable that her sex would get a lot of attention, so I conclude that is why he chose her. Anybody's free to offer an alternative theory, but so far nobody has come up with anything.

VP picks are often meant to compliment the ticket and/or add to important States or constituencies.
- McCain was not garnering enough of a look from Conservatives. He needed help. Palin answered this.
- His ticket needed youth and energy. Palin answered this.
- McCain's party is viewed as the white man's club. Palin shatters this fallacy.
- Neither Obama nor McCain had been able to shore up the female, 40's and older demographic. Palin can help.
- The announcement was shocking and dynamic which all, but stole any ground gained by the Convention and Obama's ground-breaking speech. I don't say this to minimalize Obama's speech as I happen to think it was brilliantly delivered, but the fact remains; no one's talking about it.

It was politically shrewd, bold, and brilliant. This one move tackled a host of issues in one shot and served to take all the attention off an otherwise historical moment favoring the opposition. I'm not hearing how funny the pick is and how happy the left is with the choice. You'd think they'd be crying HURRAY for how stupid McCain was, but I'm not really hearing that to be honest.

[Chongo]

Camille Paglia

“We may be seeing the first woman president. As a Democrat, I am reeling,” said Camille Paglia, the cultural critic. “That was the best political speech I have ever seen delivered by an American woman politician. Palin is as tough as nails.”

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

We may be seeing the first woman president. As a Democrat, I am reeling,” said Camille Paglia, the cultural critic. “That was the best political speech I have ever seen delivered by an American woman politician. Palin is as tough as nails.”

... and without a teleprompter.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... and without a teleprompter.

*sigh* Palin must not use a teleprompter for all of her speeches because she is a Republican, and Obama must use one because he is a Democrat.

Dude, we get it. You are heavily invested in the Republican Way™. Unless there is some competition between you and Big Mac that I'm not aware of for who can demonstrate the greatest allegiance to the Republican Way and all things Republican, would you mind toning things down a little?

Yes, you are a good debater, and clearly you use that to your advantage. It seems like you are most interested in doing so and finding a way to convince yourself and others of your self-righteousness than you are having a good civil debate in here. Can you restrain yourself enough from getting these silly little digs in? If you value debate with people such as myself, please keep in mind that turning this place into partisan football, who can get the most clever cheap shot in, etc. is a serious turn off for me.

Sometimes you go too far with making this stuff intensely personal. Relax, okay? This is from the guy that makes what many might say an over abundance of poop jokes giving you a lesson on restraint!

[besson3c]

ebuddy: so was Palin picked because she was the best choice for VP, or the best choice to win the election?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: so was Palin picked because she was the best choice for VP, or the best choice to win the election?

I get tired of this question.

Why was Biden picked? Gore? Quayle?

The fact that some VP picks have more experience than others doesn't make their being picked less political.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I get tired of this question.

Why was Biden picked? Gore? Quayle?

The fact that some VP picks have more experience than others doesn't make their being picked less political.

Well, after several hours of thought I'm starting to agree with the wisdom behind the political strategy here, but it seems all too coincidental that she happens to fulfill all of these variables that will help McCain win the election and simultaneously is the best possible candidate for VP.

You will probably say that the same thing applies to Obama's choice, but seriously, take out all of the political strategy and tell me who might be better suited to be VP? He would definitely be in the top 5 or so for most people, right? Can the same be said for Palin?

Whether a Democrat or a Republican does something like this the point still remains: the choice was made out of political strategy, not who is best for this country, and people who find this off-putting have valid reasons for feeling this way.

The reason why I'm having a hard time with the selection has more to do with my growing tired of fiercely ideological far-right and far-left wingers. I don't know for certain that Palin is as unrelenting as Bush or Cheney (see firing O'Neil, stacking judges, etc.), but it sure seems like she is the card carrying Republican type. I've yet to come to know one that was able to compromise like the old maverick version of McCain which no longer exists. Yes this is a horrible generalization and just a gut feeling, but I wanted to be candid with you where I'm at now with my processing of this selection...

[0157988944]

Guys. She has international experience. Alaska is right up there by Russia.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think it was a very shrewd choice, and I sincerely believe McCain views Palin as qualified for the job.

Comedy gold!

[Kerrigan]

I know. It's risible that Democrats, who for so long made excuses for their presidential nominee's inexperience, are attacking a VP nominee for being too inexperienced. Hmm...

[macintologist]

McCain is toast. The circumstances surrounding Palin's pregnancy (fake or not) will blow up pretty soon.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

McCain is toast. The circumstances surrounding Palin's pregnancy (fake or not) will blow up pretty soon.

....all over the left. Be careful and not get any on you.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

…but seriously, take out all of the political strategy and tell me who might be better suited to be VP? He would definitely be in the top 5 or so for most people, right? Can the same be said for Palin?

I guess it depends upon how we define qualifications, or at least which qualifications appeal you you most. Is really experience? We've been hearing Obama supporters downplaying experience for months now. Personally, for the job of VP I'd much rather have someone who is smart, quick witted, principled and likable than a person who with decades as a career politician. For that job, I would pick Palin over Biden. I don't like his politics, his personality and he is a loyal partisan. Palin's lack of experience is an asset as far as I'm concerned. I don't want another prep school, Ivy league career asshat in the white house. (yes I know that Biden isn't an Ivy leaguer, I was thinking of Obama )

Obama spent years in the state senate of one of the most notoriously corrupt states in the US and what has he accomplished there? What did he take leadership on? Where are his big accomplishments there? WHAT DID HE CHANGE? What did he attempt to change?

The change candidate who has never led anything and never changed anything in his career then chooses a white male, notoriously partisan career politician a running mate?

What good is experience if you are always wrong?

Whether a Democrat or a Republican does something like this the point still remains: the choice was made out of political strategy, not who is best for this country, and people who find this off-putting have valid reasons for feeling this way

It's valid to entertain criticism from those harboring a double standard? I submit to you that there would not be this complaint from the left if Obama had chosen a white, male, working-class-hero type with tons of experience in government to counter apprehensions of his race, elitist image and inexperience…oh wait…

One thing we have learned is that we can't tell how good or bad a person will be in the white house, or always agree on it. The Dems thought Carter was the second coming and he was a disaster, and Reagan's victory led to 12 years of republican rule yet there is not a consensus on how good or bad he was.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

McCain is toast. The circumstances surrounding Palin's pregnancy (fake or not) will blow up pretty soon.

Are you on crack ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I guess it depends upon how we define qualifications, or at least which qualifications appeal you you most. Is really experience? We've been hearing Obama supporters downplaying experience for months now. Personally, for the job of VP I'd much rather have someone who is smart, quick witted, principled and likable than a person who with decades as a career politician. For that job, I would pick Palin over Biden. I don't like his politics, his personality and he is a loyal partisan. Palin's lack of experience is an asset as far as I'm concerned. I don't want another prep school, Ivy league career asshat in the white house. (yes I know that Biden isn't an Ivy leaguer, I was thinking of Obama )

Did you like Cheney as a VP?

Obama spent years in the state senate of one of the most notoriously corrupt states in the US and what has he accomplished there? What did he take leadership on? Where are his big accomplishments there? WHAT DID HE CHANGE? What did he attempt to change?

These things have been listed, Obama and other Democrats have rattled some things off that I've tuned out. I don't have time to go over the things he has done, and even if I did it really comes down to my gut feeling whether or not this person was truly instrumental and demonstrated solid leadership, or whether they simply signed their name on a piece of paper and created a good appearance of being productive. Obviously we know what your gut feeling on the matter is, but this makes for very lousy debate material, don't you agree?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

McCain is toast. The circumstances surrounding Palin's pregnancy (fake or not) will blow up pretty soon.

Yeah, just like when it came out that Obama was a Muslim…oh wait…

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Did you like Cheney as a VP?

No, not really. Why? Did you?

[Mithras]

Camille Paglia is a Democrat? I thought she was just a rabblerouser.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You will probably say that the same thing applies to Obama's choice, but seriously, take out all of the political strategy and tell me who might be better suited to be VP? He would definitely be in the top 5 or so for most people, right? Can the same be said for Palin?

If the VP is the tie breaker in the Senate, and the person who goes to funerals for foreign dignitaries then Palin is no worse pick than Biden. If a VP is the person who you really want as President if the elected President can't do it, then Biden isn't the guy either. Was he even in the top 5 for candidate for his party? How many times has the guy tried to become President and gotten shot down?

He does have more experience in office, but if experience in office is a determining factor, than Obama never should have been nominated over Hillary. What has Obama accomplished? While Palin's years in elected service isn't really any greater than Obama, the minute they announced her name they actually had things they could crow about that she was the leader of. Things she'd accomplished and spearheaded while in office. What bills did Obama sponsor that mattered? What cause was he at the forefront of in order to change the way things are done? Empty suit? Yep. That's what the debate regarding "experience" is about. When you get in office, what do you do with your time.

[TheMosco]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/us...in&oref=slogin

Didn't see this posted.

or weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, Mr. McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that Mr. McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Mr. Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored.

With time running out, and after a long meeting with his inner circle in Phoenix, Mr. McCain finally picked up the phone last Sunday and reached Ms. Palin at the Alaska State Fair. Although the campaign’s polling on Mr. McCain’s potential running mates was inconclusive on the selection of Ms. Palin — virtually no one had heard of her, a McCain adviser said — the governor, who opposes abortion, had glowing reviews from influential social conservatives.

[Dork.]

Interesting. I'm surprised the McCain campaign allowed this to come out. I suspect a staffer is not very happy with the choice.

However, it should be noted that the source in the article claims that Palin was on the short-list of candidates, and was fully vetted. So the decision wasn't quite as "last-minute" as it might seem.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

*sigh* Palin must not use a teleprompter for all of her speeches because she is a Republican, and Obama must use one because he is a Democrat.

Egadz besson, project much?

Dude, we get it. You are heavily invested in the Republican Way™. Unless there is some competition between you and Big Mac that I'm not aware of for who can demonstrate the greatest allegiance to the Republican Way and all things Republican, would you mind toning things down a little?

Is this really coming from the one who has espoused more vocal support for a candidate than his own spokesman??? With all due respect besson, you act like you don't even know who you're talking to. My first post about McCain railed on his campaign finance reform with Soros and concluded with the statement that I didn't think I was even going to be voting this time around. This is like a farm of strawmen here. You're asking me to tone it down?

Yes, you are a good debater, and clearly you use that to your advantage. It seems like you are most interested in doing so and finding a way to convince yourself and others of your self-righteousness than you are having a good civil debate in here. Can you restrain yourself enough from getting these silly little digs in? If you value debate with people such as myself, please keep in mind that turning this place into partisan football, who can get the most clever cheap shot in, etc. is a serious turn off for me.

I've been posting in here for 5 years besson, I've been fairly consistent in how I address issues and people. If you haven't noticed that my tone matches the tone of the person I'm addressing, there's really not much else I can do. This entire rant was in response to my statement that she did well in her speech without a teleprompter? Really? Teleprompters are fairly common in speeches nowadays, particularly a speech as important as your coming out as a running mate. I felt it was noteworthy in response to Chongo having cited an article by someone who appreciated the speech. I've also mentioned numerous times how brilliant an orator Obama is. I've stated that his convention speech was brilliant. This is toeing the party line eh? A silly little dig? Convincing others of my self-righteousness? Lacking restraint? With all due respect here, I don't think there was anything hyper-energetic going on with my posts here.

Sometimes you go too far with making this stuff intensely personal. Relax, okay? This is from the guy that makes what many might say an over abundance of poop jokes giving you a lesson on restraint!

For an intensely personal reaction, see above. The reason I'm a good debater (as you say) is that I address posters in the manner they address me. I try to present facts in an unemotional manner (whether it invokes emotion is another story) and have been complimented by others who generally disagree with me. I find your complaint a little one-sided and frankly, unfair and unnecessary. If this is the kind of discourse you'd like to have here maybe it is best that we not address one another. I don't know what else to say.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If the VP is the tie breaker in the Senate, and the person who goes to funerals for foreign dignitaries then Palin is no worse pick than Biden. If a VP is the person who you really want as President if the elected President can't do it, then Biden isn't the guy either. Was he even in the top 5 for candidate for his party? How many times has the guy tried to become President and gotten shot down?

He does have more experience in office, but if experience in office is a determining factor, than Obama never should have been nominated over Hillary. What has Obama accomplished? While Palin's years in elected service isn't really any greater than Obama, the minute they announced her name they actually had things they could crow about that she was the leader of. Things she'd accomplished and spearheaded while in office. What bills did Obama sponsor that mattered? What cause was he at the forefront of in order to change the way things are done? Empty suit? Yep. That's what the debate regarding "experience" is about. When you get in office, what do you do with your time.

Careful. Citing facts and challenging differing opinions might make you appear to be a Republican shill.

[smacintush]

Well that explains things…Bristol Palin is pregnant.

Some geniuses were even suggesting that this baby belonged to Bristol and Track. I realize that some people don't like McCain or his VP but WTF? Incest?

And yes, McCain knew and he (rightly) did think that this shouldn't matter at all.

[TheMosco]

This is video of Palin addressing the Aalaska Independence Party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

The AIP goal is to :

The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHFY1otOWjQ

Here is the video of the VC of AIP mentioning Palin being the one they wanted to win and her being a former AIP member.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHFY1otOWjQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9RDjKN8t4w

She isn't exactly professing her support for them, but she did say they were doing good work. So not damning evidence, but take it for what its worth.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Well that explains things…Bristol Palin is pregnant.

And she is keeping the baby and will marry the father.

[besson3c]

I hope they get along!

[Kerrigan]

Women can be treated appallingly in politics. Confer with Thatcher and Clinton on this point.

People first started attacking Palin because, as a mother of a child with Down Syndrome, she would be entirely too negligent as a mother to take up such a huge responsibility as VP. Would anyone ever say that about a male politician?

For all of the left's claims to be the sole proprietors of the feminist cause, they are attempting to insinuate that a woman politician is inextricably connected to, and prohibited by, her duties as a mother. It is as if her role as a mother --her role in taking care of her son and protecting her daughter's privacy-- automatically prohibits her from seeking high political office.

The truth is beginning to make itself evident . . . . The left peddles disingenuous promises of equality and opportunity, but like the seedy guy that hits on you in a bar, as soon as you refuse to go to bed with him, he lashes out at you and tries to hit you where it hurts most. This is how the left treats all of its constituent minorities.

[Doofy]

An observation along those lines, Kerri, is that the left keep banging on about everyone being equal and how they're fighting for the "working man", yet as soon as the "working man" pops his head up and says anything the chorus from the left is "but you're not an academic!".

I'm betting the taps in the Kremlin were gold plated. Which kind of sums it all up perfectly.

[TheMosco]

http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com...candidate.html

Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

what?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

An observation along those lines, Kerri, is that the left keep banging on about everyone being equal and how they're fighting for the "working man", yet as soon as the "working man" pops his head up and says anything the chorus from the left is "but you're not an academic!".

I'm betting the taps in the Kremlin were gold plated. Which kind of sums it all up perfectly.

Really, Doofy, can you provide any real world examples to prop up this mythology?

I'd say a better story about modern American politics is how the Republican party consistently mobilizes the "values voters" to their side during elections by portraying themselves as the more religious and moral party, but with 6 years of absolute power in this country, what did they do for value voters? Bumpkiss. Why not? Because if they satisfied that crowd, they wouldn't be able to rile them up during the next eleciton? Perhaps they don't really care at all about their issues? Who can say...

[Helmling]

And speaking of the value voters, can you believe this: Her 17-year old daughter is pregnant! But the McCain campaign was quick to say she'll marry the father. Oh yeah, way to get the feminists on your side...Good pick with Palin, John.

The interesting thing is that if this was Hilary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, her campaign would use the living hell out of this to wedge those value voters away from McCain. I wonder what Obama will do? He promised when squaring off against Clinton to run a different kind of race...let's see what's happened to that rhetoric.

I'll go ahead and say what I hope he doesn't. It really shows how effective this good old fashioned kind of morality that the Republicans promote is when push comes to shove. If this kid had been given responsible instruction about pregnancy and contraception, I'd wager McCain's campaign would not be dealing with this political liability. Teaching kids to stigmatize sex does nothing to discourage them from having it, but teaching them to view it responsibly like young adults can help save them from life-altering mistakes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Really, Doofy, can you provide any real world examples to prop up this mythology?

Not off the top of my head. Except perhaps the constant "peer reviewed!" guff coming out of the global warming voodooists.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Really, Doofy, can you provide any real world examples to prop up this mythology?

I'd say a better story about modern American politics is how the Republican party consistently mobilizes the "values voters" to their side during elections by portraying themselves as the more religious and moral party, but with 6 years of absolute power in this country, what did they do for value voters? Bumpkiss. Why not? Because if they satisfied that crowd, they wouldn't be able to rile them up during the next eleciton? Perhaps they don't really care at all about their issues? Who can say...

Replace "Republican" with "Democrat", and "value voters" with "working man" or "minority". Now what do you have?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

And speaking of the value voters, can you believe this: Her 17-year old daughter is pregnant! But the McCain campaign was quick to say she'll marry the father. Oh yeah, way to get the feminists on your side...Good pick with Palin, John.

Uh yeah. That's already been mentioned.

The interesting thing is that if this was Hilary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, her campaign would use the living hell out of this to wedge those value voters away from McCain.

I don't recall McCain pandering to these people too much.

I wonder what Obama will do? He promised when squaring off against Clinton to run a different kind of race...let's see what's happened to that rhetoric.

He's already said that it's "off limits" and a family issue.

It really shows how effective this good old fashioned kind of morality that the Republicans promote is when push comes to shove.

I think it shows a family doing the right thing.

If this kid had been given responsible instruction about pregnancy and contraception, I'd wager McCain's campaign would not be dealing with this political liability. Teaching kids to stigmatize sex does nothing to discourage them from having it, but teaching them to view it responsibly like young adults can help save them from life-altering mistakes.

Do you know WHAT she has been taught? No. Do you really think that in todays America she didn't know these things?

I guess kids that receive "proper sex ed" don't get pregnant huh?

In the real world people get knocked up for a variety of reasons. Don't pretend that this is some sort of moral disaster. This isn't 1956.

[smacintush]

Once again people are trying to portray McCain as a "typical" republican and once again people don't really understand what the morality and values message of the party is about.

I predict that this will only gain traction with those who were never gonna vote for them in the first place.

[TheMosco]

Who cares about pregnancy? **** happens.

There are for more interesting stuff going on that. Stuff that actually matters.

You got a vp-candidate that has 2 years experience as governor. This wouldn't have been a big deal if McCain hadn't been helping on experience this whole time. You have Carl Rove, one of the most influential people in Republican Politics, criticizing Obama for McCain ended up doing. Back in 2004, you have the GOP Candidates saying that Edwards didn't have enough experience to be VP, and here are in 2008, the GOP faithfully accepting Palin as VP.

I am sick of the GOP turning a blind eye to its own hypocrisy. Atleast admit it. I am not arguing that she is inexperienced, I just want republicans to admit that republican leaders are hypocrites. The evidence is there. Will you admit it?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by TheMosco 

Who cares about pregnancy? **** happens.

There are for more interesting stuff going on that. Stuff that actually matters.

You got a vp-candidate that has 2 years experience as governor. This wouldn't have been a big deal if McCain hadn't been helping on experience this whole time. You have Carl Rove, one of the most influential people in Republican Politics, criticizing Obama for McCain ended up doing. Back in 2004, you have the GOP Candidates saying that Edwards didn't have enough experience to be VP, and here are in 2008, the GOP faithfully accepting Palin as VP.

I am sick of the GOP turning a blind eye to its own hypocrisy. Atleast admit it. I am not arguing that she is inexperienced, I just want republicans to admit that republican leaders are hypocrites. The evidence is there. Will you admit it?

I want YOU to quit being such a blind partisan. Not being glued to the DailyKos is a good start.

Of course they are hypocrites. THEY'RE POLITICIANS. It's people like YOU that are a part of the problem when try to pin accusations like this on the other guy. Your favorite party is JUST AS GUILTY of this kind of political double standard. I actually heard one of yours accuse McCain of "using" his experience in Vietnam for political points. Um…John Kerry anyone?

Then there is Obama harping on McCain being the same old thing we've had for 8 years, then the "candidate of change" chooses a notoriously partisan, 35 year career politician as a running mate?

Why is this kind of thing ok if you are a Democrat?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by TheMosco 

I am sick of the GOP turning a blind eye to its own hypocrisy. Atleast admit it. I am not arguing that she is inexperienced, I just want republicans to admit that republican leaders are hypocrites. The evidence is there. Will you admit it?

I'm a liberal. I support Obama. The Democrats are just as hypocritcal about all sorts of things. The whole system is a hyper-partisan disaster. Will you admit that?

[besson3c]

I agree, the whole system is f-ed up. I don't give a rat's ass about this pregnancy or Palin's husband's 1984 DWI. However, given that I believe strongly in proper sex education, this does underscore the fallacy of abstinence-only education. People are going to ****, there is no point in clinging to puritan dogma.

Honestly, this goes regardless of political party or whatever, this publicizing of this event just gives me a convenient excuse to get on my soapbox for a minute

[besson3c]

I really can't decide whether the left or the right in general are more open-minded about stuff. On one hand you have the idiotic religious right and their lack of tolerance towards gays, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and everything else outside of their religious sphere, but you also have the left saying hateful and intellectual lazy things. I think the bottom line is that people are people, and while politics may shape some forms of tolerance and intolerance, it is nearly impossible to come to any valid generalizations.

I'm glad to see the religious left growing in prominence though. Sorry Republicans, I'll be blunt, I think that the whole social conservative thing is a crock of ****.