(* ahem *)

Allow George and me to lead a return to civility (against the grain of some of our earlier postings when we were young and excitable), [I]not to mention [U]the thread topic[/U][/I] ...

[quote=Prime95;140996]IMO, they completely miss the boat in calling the choice of Palin a "snap decision". In fact, McCain made a brilliant calculated decision. The pick united [I]and motivated[/I] his base. Prior to Palin there was a significant chance the base would stay home. Palin also brings some of the independent women vote into play. It also brings interest to his campaign. Would any other VP candidate have generated 6 straight days of headline coverage? Would any other VP candidate have brought in 37 million viewers?[/quote]Yes, McCain seems, so far, to have been very good at this one.

What some might wonder, though, is whether McCain's publicly-expressed preference for quick decisions is appropriate for the office where, as has been pointed out many times in history, only the toughest-to-resolve questions reach the desk (all easier questions having been decided at lower levels).

[quote]Of course, Palin is not the most qualified to take over should the need arise.[/quote]"Only a heartbeat away from the presidency" is, IIRC, one view of the VP role. ... and McCain would be the [I]oldest-ever[/I] person to begin that presidency! Ay, yi, yi!

Some of us are _very, very_ concerned about that scenario! We certainly want to find out whether any of McCain's medical conditions are of the lifespan-shortening variety rather than merely the can't-raise-arms-above-shoulder type.

[quote]But from McCain's point of view the country will be better off if he becomes President and Palin gives him the best chance of that occurring.[/quote]I agree with that logic. I just worry about what would happen _after_ McCain would achieve that goal.

[quote]What's interesting, and somewhat sad, to me is that the press, pundits, and public seem more interested in her family life, her daughter's pregnancy, whether a mother with lots of children one with special needs can be a VP.[/quote]The other three (Biden, McCain, Obama) have already been in the national spotlight for at least a few years. Little details, similar to those, about them have already been sought-out and published. Palin's new to that spotlight. I, like tens of millions of other American voters, never even heard of her before ... when was it? ... eight or nine [B]days[/B] ago!

[quote]They don't spend much time talking about her real qualifications.[/quote]Uh, George -- she doesn't have any on the [U]national[/U] scale, yet. The other three do, in the United States Senate where important [U]national[/U] matters are debated and decided. There [I]is[/I] an obvious contrast there.

C'mon -- you can't realistically expect the press not to ask all sorts of basic questions about the personal life of a person nominated to be "only a heartbeat away from the presidency". It's _not_ political bias. It's that she's so new in the spotlight.

[quote]he also has a track record of being vindictive and prickly - not exactly consistent with the image he wants to project as one who can work with Democrats.[/quote]... or as one who can work well with foreign leaders ... or as one who can control his emotions when making important national decisions under intense pressure!

[quote=ewmayer;141030]
I'd be interested to hear what the Euros on this board think of that peculiar U.S. slang pejorative, "douchebag". I must admit it somehow rolls satisfyingly off the tongue, and has the benefit of not describing anything particularly "dirty" or "naughty".

[/quote]

Is a douche related to a bidet, or am I being too naive?
The OP asked what we (outside) made of the US elections.
As for the term "nigger" its use in the pejorative sense led
to its (deserved) rejection as an acceptable term.
But how do you spot an "American of African Origin" or
for that matter an Injun?

C'mon ... back to "New U.S. President", please?

[quote=cheesehead;141039]C'mon ... back to the topic, please?[/quote]
Either that or a new thread "What is a pottymouth?"
I believe in calling a spade a spade.
This side of the pond "political correctness" has thankfully
become a term of ridicule.

[QUOTE=wblipp;141008]That's twice Bob has resorted to misogynist, politically incorrect and offensive terminology to describe to Palin. If she inspires such hatred from ranting left wingers like Bob, she is an inspired selection.

On the other hand, Bob needs a timeout until he can get his potty mouth under control.

Kudos to the moderators for acting fast on censoring Bob's garbage[/QUOTE]

I suggest that you count the number of times I have actually used
profanity in this forum...... My choice of language here was deliberate
and well deserved.

This SPOS has gone on record stating not only that she is opposed to
gay marriage (which is not really OK, but I understand it) that partners
of gay people do not deserve benefits. This is one of the most hateful
things imaginable. She thinks she is entitled to censor books she does
not like, (and abuse her authority in the process), practice outright
bigotry, force her religion on everyone else, preach abstinance when
she herself was unwed and pregant, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

**** I said, and I STAND BY IT. I will NOT apologize. This woman
is dangerous.

[quote=wblipp;141008] misogynist, politically incorrect ........[/quote]
Is that spelt right?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;141037]Uh, George -- she doesn't have any on the [U]national[/U] scale, yet...[/quote]

She has some but not much. Any state governor will have some familiarity with national issues that affect their state.

[quote]C'mon -- you can't realistically expect the press not to ask all sorts of basic questions about the personal life of a person nominated to be "only a heartbeat away from the presidency". It's _not_ political bias. It's that she's so new in the spotlight.[/QUOTE]

I expect the national news to report the basic personal biography factually and then move on. Then I expect them to do the far more important work of reporting on, discussing, and debating her experience, strengths, and weaknesses. Instead, they have reported the personal biography and then debated how her personal life might affect her role as VP.

For example, one of the morning news shows today spent 10 minutes discussing whether a mother of 5 should be a VP? whether she should be VP because of her son's Downs syndrome? would a male be asked the same questions? yada, yada, yada.

They should have been focused on: What is her national and foreign policy experience? Is it enough? How does her religious background affect her public policy positions? What can we learn about her positions from her track record?

Maybe more of that will come out in the debates, but I doubt it. The VP traditionally just parrots the top of ticket's positions. If so, we'll know very little about what a Palin presidency might bring. As you point out, her personal beliefs are important because of McCain's age.

In other words, my beef is that the press & public are concentrating on the fluff not the meat.

[QUOTE=davieddy;141055]Is that spelt right?[/QUOTE]Is what spel{led,t} correctly? It looks OK to me.

Paul

[spoiler]He who lives by the pen shall die by the pen, or something like that.[/spoiler]

[quote=xilman;141065]Is what spel{led,t} correctly? It looks OK to me.

Paul

[spoiler]He who lives by the pen shall die by the pen, or something like that.[/spoiler][/quote]
Touche:smile:
Gynochology should have been a giveaway.

[QUOTE=Prime95;140996]whether a mother with lots of children one with special needs can be a VP. They don't spend much time talking about her real qualifications.



Now McCain has enough of a maverick reputation .[/QUOTE]

Maverick?? His voting record is public record. He voted with Bush
90+% of the time!!!!!!!

Actually, I would not object to McCain as president except for one
thing: his stance on Iraq.

And as for being a raving left winger, I voted for Romney as governor,
and I voted for Michael Sargent as governor (another republican).
I do not like the rampant social welfare in the U.S. (a right wing view),
I do not like allowing in all the immigrants (another right wing view),
and I am a strong advocate for requiring personal responsibility
(another right wing view)

Palin, OTOH is DANGEROUS. She tried to use her executive authority
as mayor to get a librarian fired because the librarian would not
censor books that were contrary to Palin's religious views.
[b]Can't you all see how dangerous that is???? [/b]She wants to teach
Creationism in school. The courts have already ruled that this is just
a disguised attempt to force the teaching of religion in schools.
[b]Can't you all see how dangerous that is???? [/b]
She wants not only to ban gay marriage, but to deny rights to domestic
partners of gays. [b]Can't you all see how dangerous that is???? [/b]

This is a woman who wants to force her religious views on others,
to deny rights to others based on those views, to practice censorship
based on those views. Someone called me a raving left winger.
I am simply someone who believes in the U.S. Constitution and its
guarantees of equal rights for ALL and on its guarantees of religious
freedom FOR ALL. The latter includes the right not to have the RRR
force its religion on everyone else.

This woman has me [b]freaking terrified[/b] that (owing to McCain's age)
she would become president!!! She was selected by McCain's
advisors to appease the RRR.

I do NOT buy the arguments about "unqualified due to experience".
Both Carter and Slick Willie have both stated that there is no prior
experience that helps once one becomes president. It is "on the
job training". How much experience did Lincoln (our most reverred
president) have? Zilch. This "unqualified" nonsense is an excuse
one side uses to attack the other.

BTW, one common argument of the RRR regarding gay rights is that it
will undermine/damage traditional marriage. As it turns out, the impact
on traditional marriage in Mass. has been ZILCH. It is just another lie
the RRR uses to further their social bigotry and repressive attitude.
Its impact on traditional marriage has been exactly zero. It is just
another excuse the RRR use in order to be socially repressive.
Indded, the Republican's use the word 'liberal' as if it were a dirty word.
I suggest in the same vein that everyone stop using the word 'conservative'
and replace it with 'social repressive'.

[quote=ewmayer;141025]c*** is a highly gender-specific slur.[/quote]
It is? And here I've always applied it to both genders indiscriminately. :ermm:

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;141050]**** I said, and I STAND BY IT. I will NOT apologize. This woman is dangerous.[/QUOTE]

ROTFLMAO!

So the logic is that vaginas are dangerous?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;141073]Maverick?? His voting record is public record. He voted with Bush 90+% of the time!!!!!!![/QUOTE]Bush doesn't vote on things. As pres. he can: sign bills, not sign (and allow to become law after 10 days), veto, or pocket veto. None of these are votes.

Be careful with your 'facts'.

The selection of Palin has to be one of the best political moves I've ever watched. It has generated both rage and aestheticism. This has to be worth millions in advertising. I can't even watch the local weather report without being bombarded by reporters belittling Palin and supporters defending her. The longer the bashing and bigotry persists, the better for McCain IMO.

It seems that McCain is not the one that picked "another old rich white-haired man".

Perhaps Obama should have selected a woman from the Democratic party. I believe there was one in particular that received over 17 Million votes in the [B]Democratic primary[/B]. 17 million votes would be useful on Nov 4th, 2008. After all, those were some of the people that got off their asses and went to the polls in August! I still can't believe he didn't try to OWN and honor those 17 Million trips to the polls by selecting Hillary as VP.

[quote=R.D. Silverman;141073]... the Republican's use the word 'liberal' as if it were a dirty word.
I suggest in the same vein that everyone stop using the word 'conservative'
and replace it with 'social repressive'.[/quote]

I don't believe "conservative" and "republican" are interchangeable.
I don't believe "Liberal" and "democrat" are interchangeable.

In Tennessee, you can register to vote, but there is no box or line to put a party affiliation. You check those boxes when you pick the primary in which you wish to particapate.

In Tennessee, (D) Gov. Bredesen appeals to conservatives. He won the last election in a landslide. I voted for him myself. The only complaint I've heard here deals with his pro-abortion stance and the "TennCare" reform he mandated. He cut off thousands of people that were using and or abusing state and federal funds for health care insurance. He continues to oppose a state income tax. The major tax in Tennessee is a sales tax which targets anyone who dispenses wealth for "whatever". I believe this is referred to as the fair tax.

[quote=Prime95;141056]S

I expect the national news to report the basic personal biography factually and then move on. Then I expect them to do the far more important work of reporting on, discussing, and debating her experience, strengths, and weaknesses. Instead, they have reported the personal biography and then debated how her personal life might affect her role as VP.

For example, one of the morning news shows today spent 10 minutes discussing whether a mother of 5 should be a VP? whether she should be VP because of her son's Downs syndrome? would a male be asked the same questions? yada, yada, yada.
[/quote]

George they do the same with everyone. There is no media bias here. Look at how much time and attention was spent on Rev. Wright and Obama's connection to him or to that developer guy in Chicago.

I'd much rather have the press discuss substantial issues such as how do you plan to reduce the federal deficit or where are you going to get the money to get the wars running forever. Or even, does it not strike you as shocking that the United States has the lowest life expectancy of a developed country?

But let's face it. This is too hard and the press is too much in hock to petty sensationalism.

[QUOTE=AES;141091]The selection of Palin has to be one of the best political moves I've ever watched. It has generated both rage and aestheticism. This has to be worth millions in advertising. I can't even watch the local weather report without being bombarded by reporters belittling Palin and supporters defending her. The longer the bashing and bigotry persists, the better for McCain IMO.

It seems that McCain is not the one that picked "another old rich white-haired man".

Perhaps Obama should have selected a woman from the Democratic party. I believe there was one in particular that received over 17 Million votes in the [B]Democratic primary[/B]. 17 million votes would be useful on Nov 4th, 2008. After all, those were some of the people that got off their asses and went to the polls in August! I still can't believe he didn't try to OWN and honor those 17 Million trips to the polls by selecting Hillary as VP.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. The attacks on her are having a backlash among female voters. The women who are undecided are more likely to vote for her because they are taking some of the attacks on her personally, especially the attacks on her family.

I definitely agree that Obama's choice was uninspired at best. Had he chosen Hillary, he would have been ripe for an assassination attempt. I imagine that there are dozens of people who would seriously consider offing Obama (after the election) to put Hillary in the White House.

According to the L.A. Times, [url]http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story[/url] Palin is not against teaching about contraceptives in school. McCain is the one in favor of abstinence only or he's saying that to keep the party's right wing happy).

Frankly, we need some good interviews with all candidates to find out where they stand on issues and which ones are important to their agenda.

This Daily Show clip on McCain's speech was quite amusing:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxGcn7lmTWY[/url]

Very funny. Is it just me or does McSame in that clip remind anyone of Dr. Evil?

I do not know if other non US people feel the same as I do. But when I hear the cheering at those political conventions or at other events*, I think of a bunch of hysterical teenagers acclaiming their pop idol, not of people working together to shape a nation. How many in the crowd are paid to be cheering ?

Jacob

* Did you see that infamous Steve Blamer show at a Microsoft convention. It appears ther is more than one, while searching for it I found a compilation [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llaM2Ca3QpM[/url] If one of the directors of the company I work with would do a tenth of that, I am sure somebody would call an ambulance, one half of the crowd would die laughing and the other half would die of embarasment :-)

[quote=S485122;141245]I do not know if other non US people feel the same as I do. But when I hear the cheering at those political conventions or at other events*, I think of a bunch of hysterical teenagers acclaiming their pop idol, not of people working together to shape a nation.[/quote]You expected solemnity? It's not an official government body's session.

Is there no delegate excitement at party congresses/conferences in Europe? Never cheers, music, songs, chants, placards, balloons?

[quote]How many in the crowd are paid to be cheering ?[/quote]Any political party that did that would suffer seriously when that practice was exposed by news media. Party delegates are quite emotional enough without payment!

Of course, each party plans (and spends money on, though not via direct monetary payments to delegates) convention events to make a good impression on TV viewers who might be undecided -- e.g., encouraging audience enthusiasm during prime time. They figure that some fraction of previously-undecided voters watching at home might be swayed to vote for the party whose members seem most energetic and committed to win the election, or at least whose convention was more entertaining.

For a politician she's kind of hot…

xyzzy,

Do you find anti-Semitic drawings of Jews to be offensive?
Do you find the cartoons that southerners drew of blacks to be offensive?
Would you distribute such literature? By posting a photoshopped picture of Palin you are doing just that.

Back to lurk mode.

Only southerners drew these demeaning cartoons?

Now now! There is a huge difference between racist cartoons and a photoshopped picture. Let us not lose our sense of proportion here.

[QUOTE=S485122;141245]I do not know if other non US people feel the same as I do. But when I hear the cheering at those political conventions or at other events*, I think of a bunch of hysterical teenagers acclaiming their pop idol, not of people working together to shape a nation. How many in the crowd are paid to be cheering ?

Jacob

* Did you see that infamous Steve Blamer show at a Microsoft convention. It appears ther is more than one, while searching for it I found a compilation [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llaM2Ca3QpM[/url] If one of the directors of the company I work with would do a tenth of that, I am sure somebody would call an ambulance, one half of the crowd would die laughing and the other half would die of embarasment :-)[/QUOTE]


I could tell some funny stories about Steve during his Currier House days...
He didn't have much hair even then. ('73-'77)

[QUOTE=AES;141091]


I don't believe "conservative" and "republican" are interchangeable.
I don't believe "Liberal" and "democrat" are interchangeable.

[/QUOTE]

A nice sentiment. In theory.
To most voters, however, they ARE interchangeable.
Remeber the Ronnie Raygun speech about the Demotwits? "They are liberal,
liberal, liberal". He used it as a dirty word.

[QUOTE=Prime95;140996]Palin was not supposed to deliver a policy speech. Her goal was to introduce herself, some of her accomplishments, and take on the typical VP role of attacking the other party`s candidate so that the head of the ticket can remain above the fray.[/quote]
The problem is, the very lateness of the "introduction" puts pressure on her to tell us a lot more than some cute soccer-mom jokes. All that scrutiny that Obama and the other better-known quantities [mostly the other erstwhile contenders for the two major-party nominations] have endured for over a year must now necessarily be compressed into 2 months. Is it fair? No. Did Team McCain and the GOP bring this on themselves? Yes.

[quote]As to the NY Times editorial, I have only two gripes. They do a great job of listing her problems, but (at least in your excerpt) spend no time listing her accomplishments. But it`s an editorial, they don`t have to be balanced. IMO, they completely miss the boat in calling the choice of Palin a "snap decision". In fact, McCain made a brilliant calculated decision. The pick united [I]and motivated[/I] his base. Prior to Palin there was a significant chance the base would stay home. Palin also brings some of the independent women vote into play. It also brings interest to his campaign. Would any other VP candidate have generated 6 straight days of headline coverage? Would any other VP candidate have brought in 37 million viewers?[/quote]
I disagree with your "calculated" characterization - to me that would imply more than a single phone conversation and brief face-to-face in terms of preannouncement contact between McCain and the would-be running mate. However, it may prove to be a brilliant "snap" decision - sometimes you go with your gut, I can understand that, especially given the other choices available to him. I agree that choosing Mitt Romney or Joe Lieberman as running mate would have almost certainly doomed McCain`s chances, in that any possible boost he might have gotten with moderates would have been negated by the alienation of the Christian Right, who, although they would never dream of voting for Obama, might have just stayed home in large numbers as a result.

[quote]What`s interesting, and somewhat sad, to me is that the press, pundits, and public seem more interested in her family life, her daughter`s pregnancy, whether a mother with lots of children one with special needs can be a VP. They don`t spend much time talking about her real qualifications.[/quote]
Perhaps because her "real qualifications" are woefully thin? Also, I think scrutinizing the family life of those who claim that "family values" is a cornerstone of their politics is eminently fair, just as scrutinizing the personal finances of those who claim to be "for the working class" and "for fiscal responsibility" is fair. It`s a simple test of whether they practice what they preach. Obama [among other things] preaches prosperity through Green Energy initiatives, so it`s fair to examine whether his voting record indicates a commitment to green energy, and whether his jobs-creation numbers are even remotely realistic. Obama says he will end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home, so it`s fair to see whether his proposed timelines for doing so square with what is happening on the ground there. OTOH, Palin says the Iraq War is "A task from God" or some such nonsense - how does one verify that, exactly, or check whether God thinks a cleasrly defined exit strategy is advisable?

[quote]Actual there were a pile of ideas in there - mostly the same old republican ideas from the last two decades. The closest thing to a new idea was a call for energy independence.[/quote]
...allegedly achieved by drilling our way to it. We already know how well that worked with the Alaskan North Slope Oil. Not a single significant mention of he absolute most-viable way of making progress toward that goal, namely conservation. Like you said, same old long-discredited Republican tropes. That`s why I said specifically "actual ideas", I meant that in the sense of "possibly practicable."

[quote]His only other new idea was to vow to veto any bill containing pork that comes his way. I`ve heard that before from politicians and it never seems to happen.[/quote]
I guess McCain doesn`t consider the multi-hundred-billion-dollar housing bailout [a.k.a. "Paulson gets his bazooka"] bill "pork" because he couldn`t even be bothered to vote on that one. Similarly, Palin apparently was a big fan of pork in her town and state until it became politically unpopular to flaunt one's addiction to it. Of course calling her a hypocrite because of her now claiming otherwise would be "blatant sexism" on my part.

[quote]I thought the POW experience was the best part of his speech. Yes, McCain is a war hero. He put up with far more than I could have endured. It is irrelevant whether the Vietnam was just - that`s the President and Congress` job, not the soldier`s. He told how his POW experience changed his thinking and made him the man he is today - all quite relevant to a President`s qualification.[/quote]
And having [or lacking] the judgment to recognize an unjust trumped-up war of aggression is irrelevant? I heard McCain brag loud and long about his backing of the Iraqi troop "surge" as being "the right strategy". Can there really be such a thing in a war which was completely wrong to begin with? All it says to me is that "we planned the war with woefully inadequate troop commitment - now, at long last, after having tried a hundred different things, the first 99 of which failed dismally, we finally figured out what our commanders were telling us along, namely that it`s important to have enough troops to get the job down, and to try to work *with* the real stakeholders, the Iraqi people, to do so." [And if *anyone* deserves credit for the surge it would be - yes, I`m gonna say it - Bush, who pushed it through over the objections of Cheney and the other Neocons - and General Petraeus, who also believed it was the last best chance to succeed there, knew it was a huge gamble, and whose ass was on the line in the actual theater of war as a result.] Yeah, awesome call there, John. Of course just 2 months ago he was mercilessly lacing into Obama for proposing a timetable for exit as being a "cut and run", and guess what? That`s exactly what the administration is doing now.

[quote]Anyway, I`m thrilled. We`ve got an truly interesting election ahead of us. The first black candidate, a "maverick" candidate, the first Republican female candidate. Lots of interesting story lines. The polls are close. Will the youth vote come out for Obama? Can he inspire lots of new voters? How many people will tell the pollster that race doesn`t matter yet change their mind when the enter the voting booth? Can Palin learn national and foreign policy issues in just a few weeks? Will she bring a significant number of females over to McCain? Truly fascinating.[/QUOTE]
Well, at least one thing we agree on. :)

[QUOTE=ewmayer;141466]I heard McCain brag loud and long about his backing of the Iraqi troop "surge" as being "the right strategy". Can there really be such a thing in a war which was completely wrong to begin with? All it says to me is that "we planned the war with woefully inadequate troop commitment - now, at long last, after having tried a hundred different things, the first 99 of which failed dismally, we finally figured out what our commanders were telling us along, namely that it`s important to have enough troops to get the job down, and to try to work *with* the real stakeholders, the Iraqi people, to do so."[/QUOTE]Those who forget the history of WW1 are doomed to repeat it.

Eventually, the generals on both sides realised that week-long artillery bombardments merely gave the enemy a week to prepare for the inevitable infantry charge --- which got nowhere. Thereafter, the artillery shelled (and I classify Stukas as a form of air-borne artillery) for an hour or two to make the enemy keep the head down and [i]then[/i] sent in the infantry and the cavalry (which by then was riding what we now call tanks and APCs instead of horses).

Since then, of course, those who try to re-fight WW2 tend to have a hard time on the battlefield. Blame CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, satellite phones and the interweb thingy for a large part of that.


Paul

[QUOTE=ewmayer;141466]The problem is, the very lateness of the "introduction" puts pressure on her to tell us a lot more than some cute soccer-mom jokes.[/quote]

Palin is to be interviewed by ABC News and to appear on CBS' "Face the Nation". I've not heard the exact dates. Should be interesting.

[quote]And having [or lacking] the judgment to recognize an unjust trumped-up war of aggression is irrelevant?[/quote]

Very relevant. Obama mentions his superior judgment on this point frequently.

[quote]I heard McCain brag loud and long about his backing of the Iraqi troop "surge" as being "the right strategy". Can there really be such a thing in a war which was completely wrong to begin with?[/quote]

Yes. Once the war was waged and Bush's head-in-the-sand-for-three-years-strategy failed, McCain's judgment that a troop surge was the best way forward was correct. McCain rightly mentions it frequently.

[quote]Of course just 2 months ago he was mercilessly lacing into Obama for proposing a timetable for exit as being a "cut and run", and guess what? That`s exactly what the administration is doing now.[/QUOTE]

Going forward from here, both candidates Iraq policy is almost the same. Both will slowly draw down troops as the Iraqis handle more responsibility.

[quote=Prime95;141480]Once the war was waged and Bush's head-in-the-sand-for-three-years-strategy failed, McCain's judgment that a troop surge was the best way forward was correct.[/quote]"was correct"? Mightn't that opinion be premature? We don't really know the outcome yet. (Compare [I]Bush v. Mission Accomplished[/I])

[quote]Both will slowly draw down troops as the Iraqis handle more responsibility.[/quote]But McCain was [I]against[/I] that before he was for that, wasn't he? (Compare [I]Palin v. B. T. Nowhere[/I])

McCain/Palin: Lying Scumbags
 

First we had the McCain ad that ran over and over during the Olympics, featuring John "Mr. Green Energy" McCain superimposed on a field of wind turbines - the very same kinds of wind turbines which McCain repeatedly voted against providing Government funding for.

Now in the latest blatant-lie ad, we have a voice saying that Sarah Palin was against the Bridge to Nowhere .. without adding the tiny detail that she only flipped her position after it became too much of a political hot potato.

George, it baffles me that an intelligent truth-seeking individual like yourself can find something to like in these lying scumbags.

But based on the latest national polls, a whole lot of our nation appears to enjoy being lied to, especially when the faces doing the lying are attractive white ones. But then again, we already knew that after nearly 8 years of being lied to by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Greenspan Axis of Incompetence - I had however hoped that after seeing the dire results of all the lies and incompetence, "the average voter" might have developed at least a tiny bit of healthy skepticism. Seems I was wrong.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;141574]George, it baffles me that an intelligent truth-seeking individual like yourself can find something to like in these lying scumbags.[/QUOTE]

I'm not a fan of lying or truth-stretching. All politicians do it - especially in campaigns. I'm also not a big fan of labeling politicians scumbags (but if the last name is Clinton I can't help myself :smile:). I'm not a fan of Obama's recent irrelevant, bashing-the-rich, "McCain owns 7 homes" ad. In short, there is a lot about politics and government I'm not a fan of. I'm quite cynical.

Yet, for the first time ever, I find things to like in both parties candidates. McCain's POW story is powerful and his willingness to take unpopular stands is refreshing. Obama is smart, eloquent and inspiring. Coupled with the right policies, he could take America past the me,me,me baby-boomer generation.

I'm still in the undecided camp. It will all hinge on the third debate on economic policy. Obama is far more liberal fiscally than I like. If I think his policies will lead to a huge increase in government programs, then I'll vote for McCain in hopes of gridlock. If Obama refuses to give more details than he has to date, then I'll have a dilemma. I'd probably take a risk on a positive outcome rather than opting for the blocking move.

[QUOTE=Prime95;141587]I'm not a fan of lying or truth-stretching. All politicians do it - especially in campaigns.[/QUOTE]
"Stretching" is one thing ... "distorting beyond all recognition, or to the point where a reasonable hearer would infer the precise opposite of what actually occurred" is to me tantamount to a flat-out falsehood.

[QUOTE]I'm also not a big fan of labeling politicians scumbags (but if the last name is Clinton I can't help myself :smile:).[/QUOTE]
I calls 'em as I sees 'em - and to me, folks who repeatedly lie for political gain deserve the label. When Bill lied about Monica and "not inhaling" and so forth, I also considered him a lying scumbag. One difference, though - I didn't believe his political actions and policies to represent a clear and present danger to the country, as I do with Bush and McCain's. And I'm not necessarily talking about the Great Neocon Iraqi Adventure - supporting fiscal policies which end up wrecking a nation's economy is at least as dangerous as starting an ill-conceived war. Similarly, I consider Palin's religious zealotry and amply-demonstrated inability/unwillingness to separate her religious views from her official actions and policies a real danger to the constitutional separation of church and state, which has already been significantly eroded by 2 Bush terms.

[QUOTE]I'm not a fan of Obama's recent irrelevant, bashing-the-rich, "McCain owns 7 homes" ad.[/QUOTE]
We can argue about relevance or lack thereof, but there is one *tiny* difference between that ad and the McCain/Palin ones - namely, the Obama ad is [b]factually correct[/b], even if you don't like the spin. Although, yes, the ad is not entirely accurate - as it turns out, McCain & wife own at least [url=http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/aug/22/mccain-hangs-a-curve-on-number-of-homes-owned/]eight properties[/url], and some of those contain multiple houses and outbuildings. Shame on you, Obama, for getting the number wrong.

I'm just disappointed that my state only gives two options to vote for (and no write-ins). :yucky:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;141602]"Stretching" is one thing ... "distorting beyond all recognition, or to the point where a reasonable hearer would infer the precise opposite of what actually occurred" is to me tantamount to a flat-out falsehood.

[/QUOTE]

Has anyone noticed that Bush Senior has announced publicly that he will
not vote for McCain????? He doesn't like Obama either.

BTW, Palin has not [b]just[/b] shown herself to be a religious nut-job.
She has shown that she is willing to [b]abuse[/b] her position of power
to further her religious beliefs.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;141693]BTW, Palin has not [b]just[/b] shown herself to be a religious nut-job.
She has shown that she is willing to [b]abuse[/b] her position of power
to further her religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]

That might end up being the issue that tips the scales for me. I consider myself a non-theistic Christian. Her religious beliefs frighten me (as would any other religious zealots). I do not think that McCain will apply the pro-life litmus test to any Supreme Court appointee, but she would if she had the opportunity. IMO, people like her would love to turn the U.S. into a Christian version of Iran.

I heard someone on the radio today imply that if McCain wins this year that it could be a Palin vs. Clinton election in 2012. That's really scary.

So Palin is a "tough fiscal conservative", eh?
 

[url=http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html]Time Magazine | Sarah Palin's Alaskonomics[/url]
[quote]...maybe Governor Palin does represent everything that is good and fine about America, as she herself maintains. But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative.

Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie that she said "No, thanks" to the famous "bridge to nowhere" (McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending). In fact, she said "Yes, please" until the project became a symbol and political albatross.

Back to reality. Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.

Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices. Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.

As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.

...

One thing Barack Obama and McCain disagree on is an oil windfall–profits tax. McCain is against it, on the theory that it is a tax and therefore bad, and also that it would discourage domestic production. Obama is for it, on the theory that if oil companies can make a nice profit when oil sells for $50 per bbl., they can still make a nice profit when it sells for more than $100, even if the government takes a bit and spreads the money around to those who are hurting from higher oil prices.

Although Palin's words side with McCain in this dispute, her actions side with Obama. Her major legislative accomplishment has been to revamp Alaska's windfall-profits tax in order to increase the state's take. Alaska calls it a "clear and equitable share" tax. The state assumes that extracting oil from the tundra costs about $25 per bbl. and takes as much as 75% of the difference between that and the sale price.

Why is a windfall-profits tax good for Alaska but not for the U.S.? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? People in Alaska are better than people in the rest of the U.S. They're more American. Although there are small towns and farms and high school hockey teams in the lower 48, there are fewer down here, per capita, than in Alaska. And there are many more journalists and pollsters and city dwellers and other undesirables who might benefit if every American had the same right to leech off the government as do the good citizens of Sarah Palin's Alaska.[/quote]

Regarding GOP accusations that Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark ("... you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.") was sexist:

NPR just broadcast a number of recordings of politicians (including Cheney) making that, or a similar, "lipstick on a pig" remark in previous years. (None of those politicians were accused of sexism at those times.) Then NPR interviewed, by phone, a pig farmer as he stood out in a field with his pigs and a tube of lipstick. The fellow applied lipstick to a pig's lips, as well as he could (pigs have very small lips) but getting most of it on the pig's nose. He then confirmed that the just-lipsticked animal remained ... a pig.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;141828]Regarding GOP accusations that Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remarks were sexist.[/QUOTE]

Obama's comment was ill-conceived in the age of sound bite politics. Palin's lipstick joke from her convention speech was played over-and-over last week. So in many minds Palin/lipstick are associated with one another. When the news organizations clip Obama's comment down to "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" the quick reaction is "Did he just call Palin a pig?"

Surely unintentional as it is was vote-losing comment.

Yes, George, we all got the reference.

When Palin compared soccer moms to lipsticked pit bulls, did any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) accuse [I]her[/I] of sexism for that remark?

Has conservative word-twisting (e.g., "values", "government spending", "'death' tax") managed to convert all jokes about applying lipstick to an animal whose name begins with any letter of ["G", "O", "P"] into ones that only Republicans may utter without bias?

"Putting lipstick on a pig" is an extremely common expression in the financial world, meaning "making something out to be better than it is."

But since the GOP have nothing useful to say on any substantive issues, this is the kind of "meaningful political debate" we get.

And, rampant sexist that I am, I see Palin *still* has yet to make her first unscripted appearance. But she's really very attractive ... and she can flay a moose in seconds flat, even if it's wearing lipstick.

[i]Guardian[/i]'s headline writer has fun:

"Obama collars McCain over claim of Palin lipstick smear"

[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/10/uselections2008.barackobama1[/URL]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;141833]Yes, George, we all got the reference.[/QUOTE]

Well, Cheesie, go to the head of the class. Excuse me for adding that Obama blundered. Instead of two news cycles going on the offensive linking McCain to Bush, he's on the defensive against Palin.

Get Fuzzy "Ferrets out the Truth"
 

I love this strip:

"CBS takes down McCain webad, suggests it's 'misleading'"

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080910/pl_politico/21051;_ylt=AhVayPQrhcAnGsUqhNLmAL92wPIE[/URL]

[quote]
[URL="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/politico/pl_politico/storytext/21051/29042872/SIG=10psi9dkb/*http://www.youtube.com/"]YouTube[/URL] has removed a webad that casts Sarah Palin as the victim of sexism on the request of CBS, whose anchor Katie Couric was featured in the ad.

“One of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life," Couric is quoted in the ad.

In the original clip, which aired months before Palin entered the race, Couric was talking about Hillary Clinton. The ad applies her words to Palin.

Asked about the ad, CBS spokeswoman Leigh Farris said, "CBS News does not endorse any candidate in the Presidential race. Any use of CBS personnel in political advertising that suggests the contrary is misleading."

YouTube's page displaying the ad now tells visitors, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by CBS Interactive Inc."

Couric's original commentary can be seen here. McCain still has the ad, "Lipstick," on his website.[/quote]

- - - - - - - -

"Analysis: McCain ad twists truth"

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_adwatch;_ylt=AiL4frlrVPp6N.rCKgWmeKp2wPIE[/URL]

[quote]TITLE: "Fact Check."

LENGTH: 30 seconds.

AIRING: The campaign would not disclose where this ad will air other than to say in "key states" where McCain already is running commercials. That lack of information raises questions about how often this ad will be seen by voters or whether it was simply made to generate news stories and publicity.

SCRIPT: Announcer: "The attacks on Governor Palin have been called 'completely false' ... 'misleading.' And, they've just begun. The Journal reports Obama 'air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers' into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Palin. As Obama drops in the polls, he'll try to destroy her. Obama's 'politics of hope?' Empty words." McCain: "I'm John McCain and I approved this message."

KEY IMAGES: Palin and Obama are shown, as well as what appears to be a pack of wolves running through brush. McCain also is shown.

ANALYSIS:

This ad takes the truth and twists it.

The campaign asserts that "attacks on Governor Palin have been called 'completely false' and 'misleading" — and uses pictures of Obama to suggest that the Democrat has been spreading lies about Palin.

To back up its claim, McCain's team points to comments made by prominent Democrats, including some with links to Obama's campaign, incorrectly aligning Palin with Pat Buchanan and a fringe political group in which some members supported Alaska's secession from the United States.

More prominently, McCain's ad quotes a nonpartisan online organization called [URL="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_el_pr/storytext/mccain_adwatch/29044330/SIG=10muij34d/*http://factcheck.org"][COLOR=#003399]factcheck.org[/COLOR][/URL].

But the group wasn't referring to Obama when it talked of false and misleading attacks. Rather, it referenced Internet rumors, saying: "We've been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain's running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false or misleading."

At the same time, the McCain ad takes Obama's campaign to task over a Wall Street Journal column that said operatives were going to "dig into her record and background." The ad distorts that by saying "dig dirt."

Obama's campaign has called the Journal report "false," and Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said in a conference call that "there are no Obama or DNC staffers or researchers that were air-dropped into Alaska." He declined to answer whether Democratic lawyers in Alaska had been recruited to do research on Palin in the state.

What McCain doesn't say in the ad is that Republicans also have amassed reams of research on Obama and his running mate Joe Biden after going through their records and backgrounds. This "opposition research" is the norm in modern political campaigns, not that a viewer would know that from the commercial.

It's certainly the case that Obama has criticized Palin, saying that she and McCain don't deserve the label of change agents and are spewing "empty words."

But it remains to be seen whether such criticisms have "just begun" as the ad asserts, and whether Obama really will "try to destroy" Palin as he "drops in polls." Neither of those assertions are drawn from facts; McCain's campaign simply is saying what it believes will happen without offering voters any proof.

McCain's ad claims that Obama is spreading misleading information about Palin, yet it was unveiled one day after the GOP ticket itself released its own commercial that stretched the facts.

That ad said that Obama's only education accomplishment was legislation to teach sex education to kindergartners. Obama voted for the sex education bill in committee in 2003 as an Illinois states senator, but he was not the sponsor of that legislation. The bill also would have required age-appropriate information in schools and would have allowed parents to pull their children from sex education classes if they wished. It never became law.[/quote]

A "nonpartisan online organization called [COLOR=#003399]factcheck.org[/COLOR]" ([URL]http://www.factcheck.org/[/URL]) is mentioned in the second article quoted above. After modest examination, I think it may be impartial and reliable; it has several articles about missing facts, and outdated and out-of-context quotes, in Obama speeches and ads, as well as similar flaws in McCain speeches and ads. It also covers various rumors and allegations about the two made by others on the Internet.

Another fact-checking site, of long history and fine reputation, that I've frequently recommended is the "Urban Legends References Pages" at [URL]http://www.snopes.com/[/URL]. Snopes.com has covered all sorts of political rumors, as just one of its 45 categories, since 1995.

McCain used the "lipstick on a pig" line last year to refer to a Hillary Clinton proposal. Was that sexist?

Or is it that a line can be "sexist" only when a liberal uses it ... because conservatives take it for granted, as part of their worldview, that men and women have unequal rights, and that therefore the term "sexist", when applied to something a conservative says, is a synonym for "in the natural order of things"?

Check which side opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.

Hmmm... Might it be that Republican campaigners were

1) so clumsy with their "sexist" allegation about Obama,

but more generally

2) so willing to jump on the chance to distinguish themselves from Democrats by nominating a female VP (remember -- that consultant I quoted a while back, as predicting that McCain would choose a women if Obama didn't, was indicating that it would be a superficial gender choice-of-opportunity, not because a woman would be McCain's most qualified choice regardless of gender) who so much contradicts what the GOP had previously been saying about experience and other matters,

because their conservative "strict father" worldview interferes with their ability to genuinely understand the way liberals view gender-equality issues?

Hmmm ... I've been assuming that the McCain campaign would make sure to bring in experts on the "strict father"/"nurturant parent" worldview axis. Maybe there aren't enough of those in key positions?

If not, GOP strategists will need to be careful to keep that from being a future source of similar McCain/Palin clumsiness/contradictions.

Upon further thought, the most likely explanation is that this particular speculation of mine is the faulty part. I'm not in the GOP's target audience, so my reaction doesn't matter. Occam's Razor.

[quote=ewmayer;141841]I love this strip:[/quote]

I guess everyone likes a good comic strip.

[quote]
Credit AP

“John McCain says he’s about change, too. And so, I guess his whole angle is, ‘Watch out, George Bush. Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics … we’re really gonna shake things up in Washington,’” [...] Obama said during a rally Tuesday in Lebanon, Va.
[/quote]

[quote=rogue;141711]That might end up being the issue that tips the scales for me. I consider myself a non-theistic Christian. Her religious beliefs frighten me (as would any other religious zealots)...[/quote]

Will someone please cite a valid, nonpartisan (if it still exists) source that validates "Palin wants creationism added to public school curriculum"? I can't find it.

I'm ready to see the Palin interviews promised by the McCain camp.

[QUOTE=AES;141870]Will someone please cite a valid, nonpartisan (if it still exists) source that validates "Palin wants creationism added to public school curriculum"? I can't find it.

I'm ready to see the Palin interviews promised by the McCain camp.[/QUOTE]I don't have a direct quote from Sarah herself, but I did watch an interview of Cindy McCain done by Katie Couric not that long ago and Cindy said that she agrees with Sarah that it should be taught alongside evolution. I don't doubt that Cindy would know how Sarah thinks on the subject as she said she is also in agreement with Sarah on abortion, except Cindy thinks there are exceptions for rape and incest and Sarah does not.

[quote=Jwb52z;141872]I don't have a direct quote from Sarah herself, but I did watch an interview of Cindy McCain done by Katie Couric not that long ago and Cindy said that she agrees with Sarah that it should be taught alongside evolution. I don't doubt that Cindy would know how Sarah thinks on the subject as she said she is also in agreement with Sarah on abortion, except Cindy thinks there are exceptions for rape and incest and Sarah does not.[/quote]


Yes, but Katie Couric and Cindy McCain are irrelevant IMO.

I'm searching for a valid, relevant quote from Palin, or her signature on legislation which supports the statement: "Palin wants creationism added to public school curriculum"

[QUOTE=ewmayer;141834]"Putting lipstick on a pig" is an extremely common expression in the financial world, meaning "making something out to be better than it is."[/QUOTE]That may be, but does no-one else here remember that international sex icon Miss Piggy?

"Pretentious, moi?"


Paul

Oh yeah! And that thwack with the handbag accompanied by the mwaaaah!

[QUOTE=AES;141873]I'm searching for a valid, relevant quote from Palin, or her signature on legislation which supports the statement: "Palin wants creationism added to public school curriculum"[/QUOTE]

Here ya go - This was during the 2006 race for the AK governorship. She says she is a "proponent of discussing ID in classrooms", but not necessarily of "adding it to the curriculum", but note the bit about the AK governor appointing the members of the state school board [who decide the curriculum] and the official position of the AK Republican party on the matter:

[url=http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html]Anchorage Daily News | 'Creation science' enters the race[/url]: [i]GOVERNOR: Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools.[/i]
[quote]By TOM KIZZIA
Anchorage Daily News

Published: October 27, 2006
Last Modified: October 30, 2006 at 09:40 AM

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

...

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

"I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to.

"We're talking about the gas line and PERS/TERS," she said Thursday, referring to the proposed natural gas pipeline and public employee and teacher retirement systems.

The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."[/quote]

The current platform of the Republican Party of Alaska has a slightly revised statement on Creation Science:

[URL]http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/PartyPlatform.aspx[/URL]

[quote]...

[B]III. EDUCATION[/B]

...

E. We support teaching various models and theories for the origins of life and our universe, including Creation Science or Intelligent Design. If evolution outside a species (macro-evolution) is taught, evidence disputing the theory should also be presented.

...[/quote]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;142007]The current platform of the Republican Party of Alaska has a slightly revised statement on Creation Science:

[URL]http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/PartyPlatform.aspx[/URL][/QUOTE]

I notice they don't say "various [b]credible[/b] models"...nor do they specify that "[b]credible[/b] evidence disputing the theory [of evolution] should be presented" ... nor do they say anything about credible evidence disputing *Creationism* being presented. Is it me, or does their stance seem just a bit biased?

[quote=ewmayer;142010]I notice they don't say "various [B]credible[/B] models"...nor do they specify that "[B]credible[/B] evidence disputing the theory [of evolution] should be presented" ... nor do they say anything about credible evidence disputing *Creationism* being presented. Is it me, or does their stance seem just a bit biased?[/quote]It's you. [I]Your[/I] bias is showing.

I'm quite sure they really do mean that the evidence must be credible (... to them, of course -- just as you and I would insist on evidence that's credible to [I]us[/I]). Notice that a bit further up in the platform (III. C.) is "We also support teaching the accurate historical Judeo-Christian foundation of our country", showing that they value accuracy in teaching.

IMHO it's a mistake to think the folks who write that stuff are only trying to weasel-word. They (most, anyway) honestly believe what they say. It's a mistake to treat them as though they're dishonest.

IOW, the difference is not in [I]whether[/I] credible or reliable or accurate evidence is required; it's in the [I]standards for judging[/I] credibility, reliability, or accuracy.

If one believes that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then only evidence consistent with the Bible can be credible, reliable, or accurate. In any conflict between material evidence and the Bible, there must be some flaw in the material evidence (or, possibly in a few cases, in one's understanding of the Bible's Word of God).

[QUOTE=rogue;141711]IMO, people like her would love to turn the U.S. into a Christian version of Iran.

<snip>

That's really scary.[/QUOTE]

Or a Christian version of Saudi Arabia.... Kiss the constitution goodbye.

She is [b]really[/b] scary.

[quote=R.D. Silverman;142120]Or a Christian version of Saudi Arabia.... Kiss the constitution goodbye.

She is [B]really[/B] scary.[/quote]
This side of the pond, we are not so fond of a constitution.

[QUOTE=davieddy;142125]This side of the pond, we are not so fond of a constitution.[/QUOTE]


Magna Carta?????

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;142130]Magna Carta?????[/QUOTE]Nope. Neither is the Bill of Rights. (Yes we have one, something relatively few Americans realize, and about a century older than the US version.)

There are any number of documents which influence common law and/or statute law, Magna Carta and BoR amongst them, but there is no formal written constitution.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;142138]There are any number of documents which influence common law and/or statute law, Magna Carta and BoR amongst them, but there is no formal written constitution.[/QUOTE]

Seems fairly obvious whence the difference - in the US there was a fairly clearly defined and narrow time period which serves as a "founding event" for the democracy, whereas in England democracy had to emerge very cautiously over centuries, in fits and starts, under the monarchical system. When the US was founded, the founders were able to use the history of that long painful process, pick what they liked [e.g. English common law], dispense with what they didn't [Kings and Queens and the entire peerage system] and make a clean start. Your pain was our gain, as it were.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;142158]Seems fairly obvious whence the difference - in the US there was a fairly clearly defined and narrow time period which serves as a "founding event" for the democracy, whereas in England democracy had to emerge very cautiously over centuries, in fits and starts, under the monarchical system. When the US was founded, the founders were able to use the history of that long painful process, pick what they liked [e.g. English common law], dispense with what they didn't [Kings and Queens and the entire peerage system] and make a clean start. Your pain was our gain, as it were.[/QUOTE]Sounds like a good summary to me.

However, there are still interesting by-ways to explore.

For instance, slavery was outlawed in (what became) the UK long, long before it was in the US. Come to that, it was outlawed in the British Empire a generation before it was in the US. The last US slave died in the 1960's AFAIK.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;142195]Sounds like a good summary to me.

However, there are still interesting by-ways to explore.

For instance, slavery was outlawed in (what became) the UK long, long before it was in the US. Come to that, it was outlawed in the British Empire a generation before it was in the US. The last US slave died in the 1960's AFAIK.[/QUOTE]

True enough - one of the rather ironic twists in the post-colonial comparative history of the US and the UK. On the flip side, one could argue that much of Victorian era "progress" was achieved on the suffering of a vast underclass whose living conditions and limited social mobility made their lot little better than that of the U.S. slaves - just that the invisible shackles of wage slavery make for less dramatic imagery than real chains. I grant you that outright lynchings were likely fewer on your side of the pond.

Back to the "Lying Scumbags" theme
 

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin]NYTimes Op-Ed: Blizzard of Lies[/url]: [i]Anyone with an Internet connection can disprove many assertions of the McCain campaign.[/i]
[quote][i]By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 11, 2008
[/i]
Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

...

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin][More][/url][/quote]

[quote=ewmayer;142201]True enough - one of the rather ironic twists in the post-colonial comparative history of the US and the UK. On the flip side, one could argue that much of Victorian era "progress" was achieved on the suffering of a vast underclass whose living conditions and limited social mobility made their lot little better than that of the U.S. slaves - just that the invisible shackles of wage slavery make for less dramatic imagery than real chains. I grant you that outright lynchings were likely fewer on your side of the pond.[/quote]

Agreed but that is an issue of class. And the underclass in the US didn't have it any better than the underclass in the UK. Visit one of the historic 19th century tenements in New York next time you are there and you'll get the idea. Most Italian and Irish immigrants had a pretty hard life. Slaves were a pretty major step below that.

[QUOTE=xilman;142138]There are any number of documents which influence common law and/or statute law, Magna Carta and BoR amongst them, but there is no formal written constitution.[/QUOTE]
The Constitution isn't such a shiny example to follow these days anyway.
It should be called the Reconstitution...just water it down. Signing Statements help.

Alaskan Lumberjack song:
[url]http://thecentrecannothold.net/2008/09/03/the-alaskan-lumberjack-song/[/url]

[quote=99.94;142226]Alaskan Lumberjack song:
[URL]http://thecentrecannothold.net/2008/09/03/the-alaskan-lumberjack-song/[/URL][/quote]
Yes - I thought of Michael Palin when I first heard of her:smile:

[QUOTE=davieddy;142267]Yes - I thought of Michael Palin when I first heard of her:smile:[/QUOTE]

Great Minds apparently think alike. :)

It's a bit runnier than you'd like it sir....

Beautiful plumage!

McCain Confuses Spain With Venezuela
 

[url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/the-brain-in-mccain-under-strain-about-spain/2008/09/19/1221331207145.html]Senior Moment: McCain Confuses Spain With Venezuela[/url]
[quote]A SENIOR'S moment or a genuine hardline stance against Spain from Republican John McCain? Comments made by the presidential candidate in an interview with a Miami radio station this week about his attitude to the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, have caused consternation in the European nation.

In an interview this week, a reporter asked the senator whether, if elected, he would receive Mr Zapatero in the White House.

He answered: "Honestly, I have to analyse our relationships, situations and priorities, but I can assure you that I will establish closer relationships with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to harm the United States."[/quote]

[url=http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/]McCain on banking and health[/url]
[quote]OK, a correspondent directs me to John McCain’s article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.

Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:
[i]
''Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, [b]as we have done over the last decade in banking[/b], would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.''
[/i]
So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry![/quote]

Please... ...

A NY Times [B]blog[/B] column entitled "The Conscience of a Liberal" and an AU Newspaper article by "Anne Davies, Washington Correspondent"?

I can tune to the local NBC station (or MSNBC if I want it spoon fed) and get the same spew, out of context, unopposed, and out of date.

Maybe we should reference some Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh spew to even it out.

I look forward to the debates.

That is a cheap shot. Anne Davies is a respected and experienced journalist. Perhaps you would like to explain just what is out of context and out of date about her report?
[url]http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/10/25/1192941209257.html[/url]

[quote=AES;143309]Please... ...[/quote]Please [I]what[/I]?

[quote]A NY Times [B]blog[/B] column entitled "The Conscience of a Liberal"[/quote]So? It quotes McCain's own words, from [URL]http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf[/URL]. See for yourself. The quoted portion is on page 30, starting at the bottom of the left-hand column and continuing at the top of the right-hand column.

"Out of context"? There's the link, right in the blog, so anyone can see the context for themselves.

"Unopposed"? Well, the same Sept./Oct. issue of [URL="http://www.contingencies.org/"]Contingencies[/URL] also has an article by Obama at [URL]http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/obama.pdf[/URL]. But I don't suppose that's what you mean.

I hope you don't mean that the blog's pointing-out of the contradiction between McCain's messages in different places is unaccompanied by some opposition, in that same blog, to this pointing-out-of-contradictions.

So, exactly what opposition do you expect that blog to provide that could equally be expected to be provided by any blog written from any other political point-of-view?

"Out of date"? It's the September/October 2008 issue!

[quote]an AU Newspaper article by "Anne Davies, Washington Correspondent"?[/quote]"Spew"? Are you claiming it's not factually correct? How so?

"Out of context"? How so?

"Unopposed"? What opposition, exactly, was this news article supposed to include?

"Out of date"? The article is dated "September 20, 2008"! It refers to "Comments made by the presidential candidate in an interview with a Miami radio station [I]this week[/I]" (my italics)!

- - -

Or is it just that you wish to characterize any unfavorable comment about, or coverage of, McCain as having some inferior qualities such as being "out of context", "unopposed", or "out of date" "spew", [I]regardless of whether there is any evidence to support those characterizations of that comment or coverage[/I]?

AES,

Care to comment on the following section of the "Blizzard of Lies" opinion piece linked by Ernst above? It's the continuation from the last sentence that Ernst quoted.

I've boldfaced a phrase I consider important.

[quote]But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about [B]the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows[/B]. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.[/quote]I notice that the most frequent TV ad for McCain that I see nowadays repeats the already-disproved assertion that Palin stopped "The Bridge to Nowhere". Even though it's been well shown in multiple news reports elsewhere that Palin actually supported the bridge up until it became too publicly notorious, and that her supposed "Thanks, but no thanks" must not have been referring to the federal money, because Alaska kept that, the Republicans' ad keeps repeating the false "Bridge to Nowhere" assertion over and over and over and over ...

AEC, that's the Big Lie technique -- if you repeat a big lie (not a little lie ... a _big_ one) often enough, forcefully, as though it were actually true, a substantial proportion of the population will believe it.

We have had 8 years of a Big Lie administration. Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that a McCain/Palin administration would be more honest than the Bush/Cheney administration?

I'm not inviting you to avoid direct response by simply asserting that Democrats are liars, too. I'm asking you to directly and honestly answer my queries about McCain/Palin honesty.

I apologize. It's just irritating when one can see the bias in so many news reports. Political advertising has always been fairly nasty and something I try to avoid. And no, I don't believe a McCain/Palin administration would be any more honest. The "Bridge to Nowhere" assertion proves this to me.

[QUOTE=AES;143309]Please... ...

A NY Times [B]blog[/B] column entitled "The Conscience of a Liberal" and an AU Newspaper article by "Anne Davies, Washington Correspondent"?

I can tune to the local NBC station (or MSNBC if I want it spoon fed) and get the same spew, out of context, unopposed, and out of date.

Maybe we should reference some Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh spew to even it out.

I look forward to the debates.[/QUOTE]

Typical Repugnican diversionary strategy ... avoid talking about the idiotic and/or frightening things your candidate says by railing against the "liberal elite" messenger.

[quote=cheesehead;143320]I notice that the most frequent TV ad for McCain that I see nowadays repeats the already-disproved assertion that Palin stopped "The Bridge to Nowhere".[/quote]... and another Republican ad just showed (during a Packer game break) that talks about Obama and liberal cohorts wanting to:

increase government spending by billions (as though all those Bush administration "supplementary" bills for hundreds of billions of war expenses have _not_ increased government spending -- I've seen an estimate that if US withdrew troops in a few years, there'd still be so many follow-on expenses for things like paying for rebuilding Iraq ["You broke it -- you fix it"] and treating veterans' health problems that the eventual Iraq total will be over two trillion),

increase the size of big government (as though Homeland Security had _not_ been the biggest increase in size of federal government since the 1950s [maybe since WW2, I don't recall which]), showing a looming shadow (as though the PATRIOT Act had _not_ been the biggest Big-Brother diminution of personal privacy in US history),

increase taxes on natural gas and heating oil (as though Republican refuse-to-save-energy policy had _not_ greatly increased the amounts we pay to not-too-friendly countries for oil, which also had _not_ had the side effect of greatly diminishing our national security),

and some other similar mirror-image stuff.

[quote=ewmayer;143364]Typical Repugnican diversionary strategy ... avoid talking about the idiotic and/or frightening things your candidate says by railing against the "liberal elite" messenger.[/quote]

ewmayer, I apologize for railing against your message. I was out of line. I have a great deal of respect for you and your work. I believe I saw one too many references to lipstick in the news AGAIN last evening combined with with a withering 401k and a healthy portion of Evan Williams.

The point I intended to convey is, the media is in shambles. It's either biased for or against a party, candidate, or idea... Or worse yet, the reports are about absolutely nothing of importance. I see complaints by conservatives as well as Liberals.

Eric Boehlert is not a "Repugnican" in my judgment. He contributes to a very Liberal site. He details his perception of news media incompetency and bias extensively in an article he posted [URL="http://mediamatters.org/columns/200809160015"]here[/URL]: [URL]http://mediamatters.org/columns/200809160015[/URL]

I don't agree with his political ideology, but I agree with many of his assertions about the press.

Someone posted a link to [URL="http://factcheck.org"]factcheck.org[/URL] earlier in this thread. This is the type of delivery I prefer. National news organizations should adopt this format IMO.

[QUOTE=AES;143377]ewmayer, I apologize for railing against your message. I was out of line. I have a great deal of respect for you and your work. I believe I saw one too many references to lipstick in the news AGAIN last evening combined with with a withering 401k and a healthy portion of Evan Williams.

The point I intended to convey is, the media is in shambles. It's either biased for or against a party, candidate, or idea... Or worse yet, the reports are about absolutely nothing of importance. I see complaints by conservatives as well as Liberals.

Eric Boehlert is not a "Repugnican" in my judgment. He contributes to a very Liberal site. He details his perception of news media incompetency and bias extensively in an article he posted [URL="http://mediamatters.org/columns/200809160015"]here[/URL]: [URL]http://mediamatters.org/columns/200809160015[/URL]

I don't agree with his political ideology, but I agree with many of his assertions about the press.

Someone posted a link to [URL="http://factcheck.org"]factcheck.org[/URL] earlier in this thread. This is the type of delivery I prefer. National news organizations should adopt this format IMO.[/QUOTE]
I don't follow. One of the two reports about which you sneered ("spew") appeared in a foreign newspaper, written by a foreign journalist for a foreign readership in a Western country. Where is the axe to grind? What incentive would such a person have to pursue a bias? Few in your domestic market would read it. And in any case, how does it reflect in any way the shambles you say is the US media?

[quote=99.94;143406]I don't follow. One of the two reports about which you sneered ("spew") appeared in a foreign newspaper, written by a foreign journalist for a foreign readership in a Western country. Where is the axe to grind? What incentive would such a person have to pursue a bias? Few in your domestic market would read it. And in any case, how does it reflect in any way the shambles you say is the US media?[/quote]

I was out of line.

AES: Apology accepted ... we all have bad days.

I admit having a bias in this matter, but I do always try to support my arguments with facts and links to at-least-somewhat-unbiased news sources.

AES,

I, too, accept your apology. (And, in return, I apologize for once having mistakenly called you "AEC".) It's the sort of thing that commonly happens in political discussions. [I]C'est la guerre[/I] ([URL]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/c'est%20la%20guerre[/URL]).

[quote=AES;143377]National news organizations should adopt this format IMO.[/quote]You're [U]such[/U] an idealist. :smile:

[quote=cheesehead;143375]increase taxes on natural gas and heating oil (as though Republican refuse-to-save-energy policy ...[/quote]It's [I]electricity[/I] and home heating oil.

"Anti-Obama Smears About Religion or Race?"

[URL]http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/09/destroying_barack_spitting_on.html[/URL]

[quote=Eboo Patel]. . .

I thought one of John McCain's most statesmanlike moments was when he congratulated Obama for the historic nature of his accomplishment on the night he received the nomination.

Which is exactly what makes the race/faith smear campaign against Obama so stomach-turning.

In his [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin"][COLOR=#0e7890]New York Times column[/COLOR][/URL] on Sunday, Nick Kristof stated that almost one-third of Americans either "know" Obama is a Muslim, or believe he could be. Kristof was shocked to discover that columns he's written, especially one in which he quotes Obama expressing respect for the Muslim call to prayer, were being used as evidence of his secret Islamic beliefs.

That's like saying every tourist who strolls by St. Paul's Cathedral in London is Christian.

Here's Kristof's take on this: "Religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice. In public at least, it's not acceptable to express reservations about a candidate's skin color, so discomfort about race is sublimated into concerns about whether Mr. Obama is sufficiently Christian."

. . .

As Kristof states, the campaign to "otherize" Obama has no shame. There is no such thing as below the belt for people like Jerome Corsi, author of the hatchet job "The Obama Nation."

Corsi wrote a bestseller, but that doesn't give him the last word on this matter. The strategy of linking Barack's fictitious Muslim-ness with his dark skin might just backfire. After all, America has a creed that makes us proud and a dream to live up to and we don't like it when people try to gain advantage by violating our precious heritage.

. . .[/quote]Of course, conservative think-tank political strategy has managed to make Republicanism fairly synonymous with Christianity, so it's less of a wonder that we have

"Church Silence on the Economy"

[URL]http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/09/the_churchs_silence_on_the_eco.html?tid=informbox[/URL]

[quote=David Waters]I've been waiting for a week for at least one major Christian denomination to help us gain some spiritual or even scriptural insight into Wall Street's moral failings, first brought to our attention by Brother Alan Greenspan in 2002.

"An infectious greed seemed to grip much of our business community," the then-Fed chairman [URL="http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/HH/2002/july/testimony.htm"][COLOR=#0e7890]told Congress[/COLOR][/URL]. "It is not that humans have become any more greedy than in generations past. It is that the avenues to express greed had grown so enormously."

Since Wall Street began melting down last week, the only avenue of greed the major Christian denominations have felt called upon to inspect this has been the one that leads to their church pensions. Good news, clergy and lay employees of the United Methodist and Episcopal churches. Your pensions are safe. No word on how your parishioners are doing during the current housing/credit/debt crisis, and not a hint of rebuke for the free enterprise faithful who caused all of this grief, but your billions of investment dollars are being looked after.

. . .

I'm not saying our religious leaders should threaten to withhold communion from the greedy sinners responsible for the economy's going to hell in a financial basket, because that might include just about all of us. I know I've taken advantage of lower interest rates, mortgage refinancing, home equity growth (remember that?), stock options and other little 'trickle-down' perks we get during the bubbles.

I'm not even saying our religious leaders should withhold endorsements from candidates whose policies, votes or views encourage the sort of risky business that blows parts of our economy into bubbles that burst all over us. Those are people we've all voted for.

I am saying that the best moral analysis of these financial failures shouldn't come from Alan Greenspan, who arguably is as responsible as anyone for our growing indebtedness.

. . .[/quote]Some comments to that article point out that churches _have_ expressed sympathy to their congregation's plight, but none seems to address the main point Waters made: there's a paucity of religious analysis of the causes of the financial mess.

Why did I write above that it's less of a wonder that we have church silence on (that aspect of) the economy? Because now that Republicanism has been made fairly synonymous with Christianity,

Christians may well feel uncomfortable about questioning Republican financial policies.

Biden Calls Ad Mocking McCain 'Terrible'
 

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/biden_campaign_ad]Biden Calls Ad Mocking McCain 'Terrible'[/url]
[quote]WASHINGTON (Sept. 23) - Barack Obama's running mate says a campaign ad that mocked Republican presidential candidate John McCain as an out-of-touch, out-of-date computer illiterate was "terrible" and would not have been done had he known about it.

Obama, McCain's Democratic rival, launched the ad earlier this month, part of an aggressive push to slow McCain's rise in the polls after he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. It included unflattering footage of Sen. McCain at a hearing in the early '80s, wearing giant glasses and an out-of-style suit, interspersed with shots of a disco ball, a clunky phone, an outdated computer and a Rubik's Cube.

"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class," the ad says.

Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the "CBS Evening News," Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it.

"I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden said.

Asked why it was done, he said: "I didn't know we did it, and if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it."

Late Monday, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton issued a statement from Biden. In it, Biden said he "was asked about an ad I'd never seen" and was "reacting merely to press reports."

Biden said that, as he said in the interview, there was nothing "intentionally personal" in the criticism of McCain's views.

"Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Sen. McCain's ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize, especially when they continue to distort Barack's votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators," Biden said.

Biden was referring to a McCain ad that said Obama supported sex education for kindergartners, based on a bill he voted for as an Illinois state senator. Obama's campaign said the ad was a "shameful" distortion of his record because the bill's language meant young children would have been taught about sexual predators and concepts such as "good touch and bad touch."[/quote]
Again, however, note the key difference - while Obama's ad may be unflattering and include some cheap shots, THERE IS NOTHING FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN IT. In fact, if Obama wanted to really "mock the 80s McCain" he could do so factually, by reminding people of McCain`s disgraceful role in the Savings and Loan scandal.

LOL, a disco ball...OTOH, if McCain actually knew how to *unscramble* a Rubik`s cube in best "Ah've taken on tougher enemies than this here [snort, spit] - ah'm a reformer, a real maverick, just lahk Tom Cruise in 'Top Gun', dagnabbit" fashion, I might actually be impressed.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;143535]if McCain actually knew how to *unscramble* a Rubik`s cube in best "Ah've taken on tougher enemies than this here [snort, spit] - ah'm a reformer, a real maverick, just lahk Tom Cruise in 'Top Gun', dagnabbit" fashion, I might actually be impressed.[/QUOTE]You Americans are remarkably impressionable. Even I can unscramble a Rubik's cube within a minute or two and I'm a self-confessed barely-competent at the process.

Now, if he could unscramble one, repeatedly, in under 10 seconds I'd be a bit more impressed. Not as the self-styled leader of the free world, mind you, but at least someone with manual dexterity and well-learned pattern recognition.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;143537]Now, if he could unscramble one, repeatedly, in under 10 seconds I'd be a bit more impressed. Not as the self-styled leader of the free world, mind you, but at least someone with manual dexterity and well-learned pattern recognition.[/QUOTE]
McCain probably thinks that "manual dexterity" is the leader of Uruguay.

The ad:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ae409tJEI[/url]

A little racy but some of you Americans will surely enjoy it (I hope) ...

[url]http://www.jibjab.com/originals/this_land[/url]

It's the economy, stupid
 

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303667.html?hpid=topnews]Washington Post | Economic Fears Give Obama Clear Lead Over McCain in Poll[/url]
[quote]By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 24, 2008; Page A01

Turmoil in the financial industry and growing pessimism about the economy have altered the shape of the presidential race, giving Democratic nominee Barack Obama the first clear lead of the general-election campaign over Republican John McCain, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national poll.

Just 9 percent of those surveyed rated the economy as good or excellent, the first time that number has been in single digits since the days just before the 1992 election. Just 14 percent said the country is heading in the right direction, equaling the record low on that question in polls dating back to 1973.[/quote]
I`ve been telling friends that Obama`s big mistake post-convention was letting himself get sucked into the Republican "politics of distraction", rather than simply continuing to hammer McCain, the GOP and the Bush administration on their wrecking of the economy, similarly to Clinton`s "It's the economy, stupid" strategy in 1992. A couple of weeks ago, just after the Freddie and Fannie emergency bailout, I told them that the economy would most likely determine the outcome of the election - most scoffed. Then the credit-market shit suddenly hit the fan all at once. Whoops! sometimes it`s not much fun being right.

Gosh, haven`t seen much of the lovely Sarah Palin on the front pages of the papers lately ... disappointing, that.