Possible Presidential Pairings?

222 replies [Last post]
Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

Fair enough.  While many minds here will probably go unchanged as a result of political threads, I like the exchange of information/propaganda and want to be an informed voter. Thus, I welcome the debate.
On a separate note, a reporter on one of the networks just referred to the New Orleans mayor as Mayor Nager (and then quickly corrected himself)...wonder what he was thinking...

Rugby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

Indyone wrote:A few random (and at times, partisan) thoughts after catching up from my mini-vacation...
  2.  Biden does have some baggage...I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.  His 1988 presidential candidacy was undone by an admitted charge of plagiarism and pretty much lying about his academic success and scholarships (he graduated 76th of 85).  Here's the skinny on Joe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden ...see 1988 campaign section for what I reference.
 This was the smarter of the (2) VP picks according to BG?  I can't see it.   Also, Bill Clinton highest praise of Obama was that "he hit it out of the park with this pick" in his speech last week?  Tough to craft defensive talking points on Biden after reading his bio.  Can't believe he would even be considered as a candidate after his crash and burn in the late 80s.  This smells like a some sort of trap for Obama and it really is tough to defend Biden's selection as a smart move for Obama.  A underachieving, plagiarist, career politician a heartbeat away from the highest office? Maybe the Clintons set him up for failure with this one.

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

Interesting selection for John McCain even with the recently released situation on her personal family situation. I do agree that Obama made not only the right political choice as well as the right personal choice that discussions on her family situation are " off limits ".
As for the Democrats claiming her lack of Leadership roles....she was/is the Governor of Alaska. Biden and McCain have extensive leadership roles in Washington. If leadership is the issue....Obama would be the LEAST qualified to become President.
On that note , it appears that Canadians will be heading to the Polls in October to either re-elect the Conservatives or bring back the Liberals. The same issues taxation and the economy versus environment and increasing taxes.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Indyone wrote:A few random (and at times, partisan) thoughts after catching up from my mini-vacation...
 
1.  It's neither truth nor a lie that Obama has more foreign policy experience than the last two presidents...it's simply a matter of perspective and opinion.  I do think that it's a long stretch to say he has even close to the amount that his opponent has.
 
Agree, that McCain has more FP exp than does Obama. I like McCain, he is a good man, and truth be told would make a good president. That said, my comments about Clinton/Bush's FP exp is not opinion or pov, it's fact. You can dispute that if you like, but you'd be wrong.
 
2.  Biden does have some baggage...I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.  His 1988 presidential candidacy was undone by an admitted charge of plagiarism and pretty much lying about his academic success and scholarships (he graduated 76th of 85).  Here's the skinny on Joe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden ...see 1988 campaign section for what I reference.
 
As said i'm not a Biden fan, but not because of this. The speech plagiarism was a minor gaff in which he didn't cite the a source that he had cited many times before while giving essentially the same campaign speech. The thing was blown out of proportion, which is what happens during campaigns. As for the law school thing. Yeah, somewhat problematic. However, that the highest court in his state gave him a pass tells me that we have to give him the benefit of a doubt on that one. Not enough evidence to convict. Note that the repubs aren't using it.
 
3.  Hats off to Obama for stating that a child's pregnancy is off limits...and thumbs down to the blogs that tried to make an issue of it.
 
Agree, taking the high road, by both candidates is refreshing. Any bets as to how long it lasts?
 
4.  It's fairly obvious to me after hearing her, that governor Palin is a very intelligent, well-spoken lady.  It's presumptuous to conclude that she is unfit for the office of president.  It's easy and partisan to say that running Alaska is a piece of cake, but it's apparent that she's taken the task seriously and the early results appear promising.
 
The better question to ask is "Is she most highly qualified candidate the republicans could come up with?" Even if we limit the choice to women, that's not the case. The republican party is chock full of articulate, smart, and qualified female candidates. McCain, vetted Palin, then after interviewing her for 15 minutes selected her. By the way, against advice of some of his handlers. Why pass over far more qualified candidates?
 
 
 
5.  Palin has been involved in politics/public service since being elected to her city council in 1992.  Source is the weekend WSJ page A7.  That's hardly just running a lawn mower repair business.
 
Indy come on, city council? 8000 people! Her local government experience is a joke when used as a qualifier. The biggest problem her town faced was whether or not there would be enough snow for the annual snow mobile races. Like most Alaska towns they've got more cash than they can spend and not enough people to give it to.
 
Compare that to my town of 80,000 people, where my wife was on town council for ten years. During her tenure the town council didn't raise taxes. That's ten years without a tax increase. Services were increased, parks were built, and community service programs flourished. Our town attracted residents and businesses in droves, built a 20 million dollar library that is the envy of city librarys.  Under her tenure her policies brought large corporations to our town including the American headquarters of a major auto manufacturer. Her tenure saw the lowest office/retail vacancy rate in the town's history. This was all done as the state and county reduced their financial aid to our town by 50% over those ten years. Using this as a qualifier, a town with a large population, large budget, large payroll, and yearly reduced outside help my wife and her fellow council members are more qualified for Veep than Palin. Yet, none is qualified for veep. Still I'd vote for my wife in a second and she is hot!!!!!!!!
 
 
6.  McCain's pick is certainly in line with his maverick reputation.  Sure, most GOP politicos are playing nice at the moment, but there's little doubt many of them would have preferred a "safe" selection.  There are plenty of rumors that McCain overruled several advisors in his own campaign in picking Palin.
 
He should have listened to them. Apparently there is more smoke coming from Palin's legislative investigation and McCain has sent investigators back to Alaska. Personally, I hope this doesn't blow up, but after a 15 minute interview...
 
7.  Of course, Obama was well-received in Europe.  He is the anti-war candidate, a view that is shared with great enthusiasm by most Europeans.  The way things are now playing out in Iraq, I doubt if either candidate will need to leave many troops there for much longer anyway.  I'm just not sure that I'm ready for Europeans, who have their own issues, telling us who our president should be.
 
The point wasn't that they loved Obama. The point is just how damaged our image is. By the way, the Europeans told us before the Iraq invasion that our government was lying to us. So, while i agree the election is our decision to make, don't write off what the rest of the world thinks or says. The planet ain't as big as it use to be.
 
8.  In times like this, I miss Mike Butler...
 
Yeah, me too!

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

iceco1d wrote:BondGuy wrote:
 
Did I hit a nerve?
 
 
Not until your last post you didn't. 
 
Still waiting for proof of Bush/Clinton pre 1st term FR experience. Get back to me when you've got something to say.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

lady_trader wrote:
Just to make this post not so serious----
You know the thing that I thought was most interesting with BG's post?! The comment that Sarah Palin was HOT. Sorry, but I just don't get it. I think she is fantastic and I wouldn't change her looks, but I don't in any way see her as a sex symbol. I mean, Paris Hilton is hot. Jessica Alba is hot. But Sarah Palin?
 
BG's top 5 Women List:
 
1) Sarah Palin
2) Martha Stewart
3) The Lady with the crazy, big, black glasses in the Old Navy Commercial. Margan faichild?
4) Hil. Clinton
5) Barbara Walters
 
 
 
They are all accomplished women. All but Clinton unqualified for executive office.
 
Just so you know, the hot comment, not mine. That's the book on Palin. Her looks have always been an issue. That I repeat it here is only to make a point, that it is a wedge issue. However, feel free to shoot the messenger.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

iceco1d wrote:BondGuy wrote:iceco1d wrote:BondGuy wrote:
 
Did I hit a nerve?
 
 
Not until your last post you didn't. 
 
Still waiting for proof of Bush/Clinton pre 1st term FR experience. Get back to me when you've got something to say.
 
Sorry BG,
 
I'm not going to participate in a debate or converstaion where the counterparty feels they need to speak down to me in condescending fashion.
 
You can have this point, and all the rest for that matter. 
 
Ice, not so fast there chief! You called me a liar. In fact you called me a liar twice. So, what's the deal here, you can dish it but not take it? How much more degrading can one get than calling someone a liar?
 
Ice, you were amped up in that post. That much was obvious to me. Thus my opening comment about hitting a nerve. And maybe you meant to say my comment wasn't true. Which could be consrtued as maybe I've got my facts wrong and you're calling me on it. But you didn't say that. You said that I was lying. You don't get a pass on that.
 
How did you expect me to react?
 
There are times I do have my facts wrong. And I don't mind being called on those mistakes. I've come back to this board more than once with my tail between my legs to apologize for something I got wrong, or to correct it. But i'm not going to let you or anyone question my integrity. In fact it is that integrity that allows me to admit my mistakes and lay them bare if need be.
 
That you come back to this thread with an attitude that you won't be talked down to after calling me a liar is insulting and quite frankly takes a lot of balls. A better way to go would have been to admit you were wrong and then apologize directly to me. Instead you come back with attitude.
 
As for the point, if you could have proved it you would have. You are wrong. Note how I'm able to say you are wrong without calling you names or questioning your integrity.
 
Good luck in your new moderator status.
 
 

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

Having read your rejoinder, BG, I decided against engaging in the ever-lengthening point/counterpoint posts (which I'm guessing get skimmed when they start getting so long).  I spent some time at lunch looking at various online news agencies and the concensus of most is that the daughter pregancy is a non-issue.  Trooper-gate may or may not get much play in the end, but I can tell you this based on what I've read thus far...the brother-in-law sounds like a loose cannon who should not be packing a gun and possessing law enforcement powers.  When all the facts are known, I'll predict that trooper-gate will not be a problem for Palin.  The spousal DUI from 20+ years ago is just typical dirt journalism as is the one time affiliation with the AIP.  I've yet to see anything of real substance and still some are already calling her Eagleton.  I call that wishful thinking.
In response to your question on whether or not she is the most qualified Republican my question is, most qualified for what?  I think she would make an excellent second in support of McCain.  She is an energetic reformer, and strong on energy policy.  Goodness knows, we need some help there.  Certainly, there are aspects of the VP job where perhaps she was not the strongest candidate, but that could probably be said for almost any candidate for the position.  You can discount her past experience, but the same concerns are valid for Obama, who has perhaps a bit more foreign policy experience, although he's been a virtual no-show in the senate the past two years.  Conversely, Palin, although she's not running for the position of president, has at least a similar advantage over Obama in executive experience that he might have over her in the area of foreign policy.  If Palin should assume the office of the president (which is a far cry less likely than Obama at this point), she would have a cabinet of advisors to aid her in governance and two powerful checks and balances in the legislative and judiciary branches.  Frankly, I'm getting well ahead of myself here.  If the medical profession can keep Dick Cheney ticking for the last 8 years, I suspect McCain will be good for at least four.  It's obvious to me that McCain is very pleased to have Palin on his team and if he's elected, I think he'll find her a very useful ally in the White House.  It is also my personal hope that if elected, he asks Mitt Romney to join him as an economic advisor.  That, in my mind, would make for a pretty effective combination.
Back to work...your turn...

snaggletooth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-13

Indyone wrote:
  It is also my personal hope that if elected, he asks Mitt Romney to join him as an economic advisor.  That, in my mind, would make for a pretty effective conbination.
Back to work...your turn...
 
Read this over the weekend:  http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/rip-reaganomics-revolution-1981-2011/story.aspx?guid=%7B9B24FFF5%2D8588%2D44AD%2DA59E%2D227DB7F1DCB5%7D
 
Secretary of Treasury is something we should all be concerned about, ya think?

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

iceco1d wrote:OK, BondGuy,
 
Now, I will admit something...YOU are getting under my skin.  A couple of points you may have missed:
 
#1 - I thought my original post came across as being an attack.  I APOLOGIZED BEFORE YOU EVEN POSTED THE FIRST TIME, and LIKELY BEFORE YOU EVEN READ MY ORIGINAL POST.  I'm NOT going to apologize again, and at this point, I almost regret apologizing in the first place.  Maybe I am not the one that needs help with my reading comprehension. 
 
Well, that could be debated. I did see your apology, but didn't take it as such. Why? Because apologies don't start with the word if. You attacked me along with calling me a liar, and there's some question in your mind that it is offensive? If? You're kidding me right?
 
#2 - I did not call YOU a liar.  You stated that Obama had more foreign policy experience than x, y, and z.  That is subjective, and that is YOUR opinion.  Perhaps it isn't a "lie" per se, but it is stating something as fact, when it indeed is not. 
 
No longer conceding the point? Yet, still nothing to support you contention that bill and george had more pre first term FP EXP?
 
First, let's get something straight, you are wrong on this point. Way wrong. My statement on this point is not opinion, it's a fact. Read up and come back and we'll talk. When you find out who george's foreign policy mentor was, you'll want to throw up. So, to be clear, i didn't state opinion as fact.
 
Second, You did call me a liar twice in that post. Both on the same point. Apparently this one point brings out the knee jerk liar response from you. The first time i mentioned it you said "That is a flat out lie, and you know it" The second time you said "BG, that's just a first class lie man, and you know it. "
 
Tell me, in your world when you tell someone what they've said is a lie, isn't that calling that person a liar? In your world, when you tell that person they know they are lying, isn't that calling that person a liar? Because, i gotta tell ya ice, in my world it is. But, then again maybe it's my reading comprehesion problem?
 
 
I am not "calling you out" about having incorrect facts.  I called you out about something you stated as a fact, when it is not.
 
No, instead of calling me out you said  that I purposely lied.  And, what i stated it is a fact. Prove me wrong.
 
If I wanted to call YOU a name, I would have done so, directly, and frankly.  I did not.  If I said something like, "you are a jackass," now that would be name-calling.  But of course, that was only an example, not me actually saying it. 
 
3.  It is pretty clear at this point, that you are pretty ruffled that someone suggested I would make a good moderator for this forum.  That's your problem.  I didn't nominate myself, and furthermore, no mention has been made that the moderator route is going to be explored any further.  In fact, I don't even recall posting that I would actually ACCEPT such a position on this forum.  So really, whatever your problem is with it, just let it go, it's ridiculous. 
 
No ice, i could care less. Just that moderators are supposed to be neutral and you are far from it. You got amped up over a fairly benign polictical discussion. Then after your attack , i lightly pushed your buttons and you've come more unglued. Ice, feel free to PM other long term posters here as to my history, I took it easy on you.
 
Truthfully, I'm not pissed off at you. Just perplexed that you would call me a liar over a perceived misstated fact. Even if i were wrong on the fact, it wouldn't make me a liar.  I'd just be wrong on that fact. Gee, been there, got the Tee Shirt. In my opinion you needlessly attacked me and you are misinformed regarding the facts relevant to the point made in my orignal comments.
 
Personally, I don't see the moderator route working.
 
It's pretty clear politics is something you are deeply involved in - I'm sure most, if not all, of your FACTS are indeed correct.  Kudos. 
 
By the way, just in case YOU missed it:
 
By the way, I didn't miss it. It wasn't an apology.
 
And you don't have to apologize. But before you go calling someone else a liar for stating a fact you are unaware of, read first, shoot second.
 
iceco1d wrote:By the way,
 
I'm voting for McCain for pretty simple reasons:
 
1.  I like paying lower taxes and could give a flying f*ck about supporting losers on welfare, and other worthless government programs that I'll (along with the rest of the SUCCESSFUL, NON-LAZY, NON-LOSER population of the forum) NEVER see a benefit from.
 
2.  I think we should leave Iraq quickly, but not at the expense of being a pussyfoot.
 
3.  I am sick to death of Affirmative Action, and everything that resembles it.  I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I owned slaves and/or did my part to oppress minorities?  Obama is going to make that even worse...and at heart, I truly think he's racist.
 
4.  I don't hunt, but I own a few guns.  I'd like to retain that right.
 
That's about all, with MAJOR emphasis on #1.
 
[Edit:  I'm compelled to apologize, in advance, to BondGuy.  If my post came across as disrespectful, or with an attitude, I certainly apologize, as it wasn't my intent to be condescending.  I respect you a great deal, and appreciate your posts and industry knowledge.  I simply disagree with you on this [relatively unrelated] issue a great deal.]
 
What happened to, "if you would have just apologized directly to me...?"  I apologized to you before this even started.  Now, you can acknowledge my apology, admit you missed it, put your internet junk back in your pants, and we can move on, anytime you are ready. 

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

BG, I think it's going to be near impossible to find neutral moderators who care enough about this board to actively keep the few real problem trolls out of here.  Pretty much everyone here has opinions that they aren't afraid to share and I wouldn't have it any other way.  Certainly, political threads, in what's probably the most interesting election in my lifetime, are going to bring out the passion.  I don't like the idea of going without at least a few volunteer moderators to keep the after-hours foolishness in check.  An appropriate test here, at least in my mind, is can a moderator, much like a jurist, set aside personal beliefs and biases to deliver justice.  For example, let's assume Iceco1d were a moderator here and came across your posts in this thread , which he obviously disagrees with.  As a moderator and participant, I would give him a pass on disagreeing with you, as long as he did it with some decorum.  Certainly, name-calling, slapping you down, deleting or modifying your posts and/or banning/suspending you would not be appropriate behavior to register his disapproval, although it would be reminiscent of the heavy-handed tactics of at least one moderator I've seen in another advisor forum.  We probably won't see perfect moderators if we see any at all, but I'd prefer imperfect moderation to none at all.
 
I'm all for freedom of speech here until it's abused at the expense of good participants.  That's where moderators, acting as jurists, could have a positive influence.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

Whew...wish I would have seen all this prior to my last post...we even have red and blue for the respective parties...
 
Maybe we should all back away from this thread for awhile...

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Indyone wrote:BG, I think it's going to be near impossible to find neutral moderators who care enough about this board to actively keep the few real problem trolls out of here.  Pretty much everyone here has opinions that they aren't afraid to share and I wouldn't have it any other way.  Certainly, political threads, in what's probably the most interesting election in my lifetime, are going to bring out the passion.  I don't like the idea of going without at least a few volunteer moderators to keep the after-hours foolishness in check.  An appropriate test here, at least in my mind, is can a moderator, much like a jurist, set aside personal beliefs and biases to deliver justice.  For example, let's assume Iceco1d were a moderator here and came across your posts in this thread , which he obviously disagrees with.  As a moderator and participant, I would give him a pass on disagreeing with you, as long as he did it with some decorum.  Certainly, name-calling, slapping you down, deleting or modifying your posts and/or banning/suspending you would not be appropriate behavior to register his disapproval, although it would be reminiscent of the heavy-handed tactics of at least one moderator I've seen in another advisor forum.  We probably won't see perfect moderators if we see any at all, but I'd prefer imperfect moderation to none at all.
 
I'm all for freedom of speech here until it's abused at the expense of good participants.  that's where moderators, acting as jurists, could have a positive influence.Political speech brings  out the worst in most of us.  In addition, the many colored fonts makes it difficult  to keep track of who spewed what.  If you are talking about moderators on this forum, I think we have to distinguish between professional posts, where we talk about product and process.... and the general and lounge categories where everything goes...like this topic.   We might consider moderating the professional areas, while letting the other venues be a free for all shooting match where almost everything goes.  I think if the spirited arguments become too "personal" and vituperative,  that would be when the moderator should step in and slap the crap out of the offending posters.On the other hand, if you are offended by the tone of some threads....don't look.  It never ceases to amaze me that people get theatrically offended by things that they could easily avoid

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

iceco1d wrote:BondGuy wrote:iceco1d wrote:OK, BondGuy,
 
Now, I will admit something...YOU are getting under my skin.  A couple of points you may have missed:
 
#1 - I thought my original post came across as being an attack.  I APOLOGIZED BEFORE YOU EVEN POSTED THE FIRST TIME, and LIKELY BEFORE YOU EVEN READ MY ORIGINAL POST.  I'm NOT going to apologize again, and at this point, I almost regret apologizing in the first place.  Maybe I am not the one that needs help with my reading comprehension. 
 
Well, that could be debated.
 
No BondGuy, it can't.
 
I did see your apology, but didn't take it as such.
 
You must be of limited mental capacity in that case.  Generally, when someone says, "I'm compelled to apologize" - that means, they apologize. 
 
Why? Because apologies don't start with the word if.
 
Look above.  It didn't start with "if."  And you questioned my reading comprehension? 
 
You attacked me along with calling me a liar, and there's some question in your mind that it is offensive? If? You're kidding me right?
 
No BondGuy, I'm not kidding you.  Your opinion is gospel.  I am going to call you a blow-hard egomaniac.  You love to hear yourself talk.  It's no surprise to me at all that you are involved in politics. 
 
You ARE right, I would make a terrible moderator.  After a certain point, I don't have tolerance to deal with abosolute ignorance and arrogance complemented by incessent whining, moaning, and vocabulary manipulation. 
 
I don't want to be a moderator...because I want to retain my ability to say, "BondGuy, you are being a first class asshole."
 
By the way, in case it isn't clear to you at this point, I rescind my apology AND the comment regarding having respect for you.  I have none.  You deserve none. 
 
#2 - I did not call YOU a liar.  You stated that Obama had more foreign policy experience than x, y, and z.  That is subjective, and that is YOUR opinion.  Perhaps it isn't a "lie" per se, but it is stating something as fact, when it indeed is not. 
 
No longer conceding the point? Yet, still nothing to support you contention that bill and george had more pre first term FP EXP?
 
No, I'm not.  But only to give you something else to bitch about.  I couldn't care less honestly.  Come over and debate about something industry-related and perhaps I'll participate. 
 
First, let's get something straight, you are wrong on this point.
 
If you say so God. 
 
Way wrong. My statement on this point is not opinion, it's a fact.
 
Obviously. 
 
Read up and come back and we'll talk.
 
You aren't worthy of anymore of my discussion time.
 
When you find out who george's foreign policy mentor was, you'll want to throw up. So, to be clear, i didn't state opinion as fact.
 
Can I make it anymore clear to you that I don't care at this point?  Is that sinking through your skull yet? 
 
Second, You did call me a liar twice in that post.
 
Ok.  Let's go with your position.  You are a liar.  A liar that loves to hear himself talk.  Things you say are gospel.  Bravo.
 
Both on the same point. Apparently this one point brings out the knee jerk liar response from you.
 
You know, the funny thing is, I don't even remember what you said, or I said.  I don't feel strongly about this.  I know you over-exemplified Obama's achievements, and did your best to belittle Palin's.  That was the point. 
 
The first time i mentioned it you said "That is a flat out lie, and you know it" The second time you said "BG, that's just a first class lie man, and you know it. "
 
Yes, and now, I'm very simply saying, "BondGuy, you are a liar!"  Now there is no reason to split hairs.
 
Tell me, in your world when you tell someone what they've said is a lie, isn't that calling that person a liar? In your world, when you tell that person they know they are lying, isn't that calling that person a liar?
 
Absolutely.  A liar is a liar.  A blow-hard is a blow-hard.  A prick, is a prick.  I follow.
 
Because, i gotta tell ya ice, in my world it is. But, then again maybe it's my reading comprehesion problem?
 
You do have a reading comprehension problem.  You also have an ego problem.  Whoops!  Did I mention that twice?! 
 
I am not "calling you out" about having incorrect facts.  I called you out about something you stated as a fact, when it is not.
 
No, instead of calling me out you said  that I purposely lied.  And, what i stated it is a fact. Prove me wrong.
 
If you are still talking about the FP issue, I don't personally believe it can be something that's proven. BUT, even if I did, I wouldn't bother looking up facts for this debate.  I don't care about the outcome of this conversation, and I don't plan on acknowledging further posts from you (though, I'm sure you'll find a way to engage me again - you are good at that.).
 
If I wanted to call YOU a name, I would have done so, directly, and frankly.  I did not.  If I said something like, "you are a jackass," now that would be name-calling.  But of course, that was only an example, not me actually saying it. 
 
3.  It is pretty clear at this point, that you are pretty ruffled that someone suggested I would make a good moderator for this forum.  That's your problem.  I didn't nominate myself, and furthermore, no mention has been made that the moderator route is going to be explored any further.  In fact, I don't even recall posting that I would actually ACCEPT such a position on this forum.  So really, whatever your problem is with it, just let it go, it's ridiculous. 
 
No ice, i could care less.
 
Doesn't sound like it.  
 
Just that moderators are supposed to be neutral and you are far from it.
 
Moderators aren't supposed to be neutral.  They are supposed to carry out their moderation duties in a neutral fashion. 
 
Humans aren't capable of true neutral behavior.
 
You got amped up over a fairly benign polictical discussion.
 
No, I seriously don't care.  I am AMP'd up over cowards like you that talk to no end on the internet.  I don't think I normally come across as a bad person, or a difficult one to get along with, but you made it your mission to piss me off.  You wouldn't even accept an advance apology.  Your wish is granted.  You are twisted.
 
Then after your attack , i lightly pushed your buttons and you've come more unglued. Ice, feel free to PM other long term posters here as to my history, I took it easy on you.
 
I don't have to contact long-term posters.  I've heard from several already - confirming my suspicion that this is just your typical behavior, and other people don't find it anymore tolerable than I do.
Unfortunately, against their advise, I was unable to keep my mouth shut while you ramble on with your b.s. 
 
Truthfully, I'm not pissed off at you.
 
Truthfully.  I don't care.
 
 Just perplexed that you would call me a liar over a perceived misstated fact.
Perplexed isn't even REMOTELY close to what you are.
 
Even if i were wrong on the fact, it wouldn't make me a liar.  I'd just be wrong on that fact.
 
Thank you, Captain Obvious!  BondGuy, are you this socially defunct in real life?
 
 Gee, been there, got the Tee Shirt. In my opinion you needlessly attacked me and you are misinformed regarding the facts relevant to the point made in my orignal comments.
 
No BondGuy, NOW I'm attacking you.  Before, I thought I came off in a less-than-friendly-manner - NOW I am attacking you. 
 
Personally, I don't see the moderator route working.
 
That's because you don't understand the term "moderation."  I bet if you were the only moderator, and it was your way, or the highway...you'd warm right up to moderation.
 
It's pretty clear politics is something you are deeply involved in - I'm sure most, if not all, of your FACTS are indeed correct.  Kudos. 
 
By the way, just in case YOU missed it:
 
By the way, I didn't miss it. It wasn't an apology.
 
You are brain dead.  I'm sorry.  You are.  "I'm compelled to apologize, in advance, to BondGuy" - Seriously, get over yourself. 
 
Here's a new one:  I regret apologizing to BondGuy, he is undeserving of an apology. 
 
And you don't have to apologize. But before you go calling someone else a liar for stating a fact you are unaware of, read first, shoot second.
 
I'll refer to that...never.  BondGuy, my advice to you, would be to adjust your attitude when talking to real, live people...oh wait, I'm sure you do that already.
 
iceco1d wrote:By the way,
 
I'm voting for McCain for pretty simple reasons:
 
1.  I like paying lower taxes and could give a flying f*ck about supporting losers on welfare, and other worthless government programs that I'll (along with the rest of the SUCCESSFUL, NON-LAZY, NON-LOSER population of the forum) NEVER see a benefit from.
 
2.  I think we should leave Iraq quickly, but not at the expense of being a pussyfoot.
 
3.  I am sick to death of Affirmative Action, and everything that resembles it.  I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I owned slaves and/or did my part to oppress minorities?  Obama is going to make that even worse...and at heart, I truly think he's racist.
 
4.  I don't hunt, but I own a few guns.  I'd like to retain that right.
 
That's about all, with MAJOR emphasis on #1.
 
[Edit:  I'm compelled to apologize, in advance, to BondGuy.  If my post came across as disrespectful, or with an attitude, I certainly apologize, as it wasn't my intent to be condescending.  I respect you a great deal, and appreciate your posts and industry knowledge.  I simply disagree with you on this [relatively unrelated] issue a great deal.]
 
What happened to, "if you would have just apologized directly to me...?"  I apologized to you before this even started.  Now, you can acknowledge my apology, admit you missed it, put your internet junk back in your pants, and we can move on, anytime you are ready. 
 
 
Wow!
 
Personally, I like the red. I find it temper appropriate. 

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

On the lighter side guys .......after our respective elections , we WILL WAKE UP the next day and continue on. May I respectfully suggest before even more is said that we lighten up a bit Just one guy's opinion.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Indyone wrote:
Having read your rejoinder, BG, I decided against engaging in the ever-lengthening point/counterpoint posts (which I'm guessing get skimmed when they start getting so long).  I spent some time at lunch looking at various online news agencies and the concensus of most is that the daughter pregancy is a non-issue.  Trooper-gate may or may not get much play in the end, but I can tell you this based on what I've read thus far...the brother-in-law sounds like a loose cannon who should not be packing a gun and possessing law enforcement powers.  When all the facts are known, I'll predict that trooper-gate will not be a problem for Palin.  The spousal DUI from 20+ years ago is just typical dirt journalism as is the one time affiliation with the AIP.  I've yet to see anything of real substance and still some are already calling her Eagleton.  I call that wishful thinking.
In response to your question on whether or not she is the most qualified Republican my question is, most qualified for what?  I think she would make an excellent second in support of McCain.  She is an energetic reformer, and strong on energy policy.  Goodness knows, we need some help there.  Certainly, there are aspects of the VP job where perhaps she was not the strongest candidate, but that could probably be said for almost any candidate for the position.  You can discount her past experience, but the same concerns are valid for Obama, who has perhaps a bit more foreign policy experience, although he's been a virtual no-show in the senate the past two years.  Conversely, Palin, although she's not running for the position of president, has at least a similar advantage over Obama in executive experience that he might have over her in the area of foreign policy.  If Palin should assume the office of the president (which is a far cry less likely than Obama at this point), she would have a cabinet of advisors to aid her in governance and two powerful checks and balances in the legislative and judiciary branches.  Frankly, I'm getting well ahead of myself here.  If the medical profession can keep Dick Cheney ticking for the last 8 years, I suspect McCain will be good for at least four.  It's obvious to me that McCain is very pleased to have Palin on his team and if he's elected, I think he'll find her a very useful ally in the White House.  It is also my personal hope that if elected, he asks Mitt Romney to join him as an economic advisor.  That, in my mind, would make for a pretty effective combination.
Back to work...your turn...
 
I'm an independent. But if I was a republican I'd be mad as hell over Palin's veep run. Only because she is not the most qualified woman candidate in the repub party. Olympia Snowe the senator from Maine comes to mind as just one example.
 
Let's look at the past weekend:
 
McCain usurps Obama's convention bounce with a surprise veep pick. Brilliant!
 
Immediately, the news cycle turns negative & is dominated not by McCain's message or brilliance, but by republican after republican defending Palin, who like everyone has some baggage. The entire weekend was dominated by a negative news cycle. Not good! Ah, what is the repub message?
 
McCain was so secretive about his pick, wanting to kick Obama's butt, that he didn't inform key members of his own campaign. Thus there is, at this point, no narrative on Palin. The narrative guys were kept out of the loop. Thus the inconsistant response to legitimate questions surrounding her qualifcations. This was exemplified on CNN where McCain canceled an appearance on Larry King Live after a McCain top aide got caught off guard by a legit question. Apparently Mccain is miffed that the CNN anchor wouldn't let the aide off the hook and the aide clearly looked ridiculous. This is not good. Turns out that the question asked by CNN has a very positive answer for Palin. However, the McCain camp was unaware of that answer, which is scary and shows how unprepared they are. This will iron out, but half-assed is the only way the non faithful can view this. In other words bungled. We've had eight years of bungled, and now we've got it again? There is no excuse for a campaign not to know the published public policy facts about a vetted candidate.
 
The book on Palin is that she is excellent when scripted, but shakey when adlib.  Look for her to be electrifying tonite.
 
One note is that she has a tell when caught off guard. When asked a question to which she doesn't know the answer, she pauses and smiles, or cocks her head or purses her lips. Men interpret this as mild flirtation and as such go easy on her. Woman know she's a deer in the headlights and don't buy into it. Let's watch for this next week as she gets out on her own.
 
Palin has never been tested by a relentless press. One national columnist, who as a reporter covered an Alaskan Governor's race said what surprised him most, after trudging for weeks with one of the major candidates, was that not once did he see another reporter. If this was the case for Palin, well, she's not in Moosejaw anymore. It will be interesting to see how see does when not on script and with a press who are not members of her fan club.
 
Trooper-gate  - She is the only governor of Alaska who has been the target of an investigation. When the investigation was first announce she said bring it and that she has nothing to hide. She then hired a private attorney and is refusing to release somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 emails. Hmmm? One Alaskan source says that her refusal stems not from fear of criminal incrimination, but for her public image. Apparently, according to these sources, privately she is a petty and vindictive person and that comes out in these emails. Again, time will tell.
 
On a personal note on this thread what bothers me is that McCain supporters here have immediately embraced her. This I don't get. None of you, none of us, know her. How can you embrace someone you know nothing about? How reckless is that? This person could be president in a heartbeat. She may prove out to be the best thing that's ever happened to this country, but right now we know next to nothing about her.
 
I'll listen to what she has to say, but for me her being a creationist is a deal killer. It would take a lot of love for me to overcome that objection to someone who rejects known science. This from an oil and gas energy Governor who rejects that it took million of years for that oil and gas to form. To me this makes as much sense as someone who believes that the earth is flat. Her creationism beliefs make her an excellent VP candidate - for the 1860s.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Rugby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

BG-Alot of statements got lost in some of these line for line rebuttals in this thread.  One was that you think HRC is one of the few qualfied women to be POTUS.It is hard to believe you are an independent especially given your vast knowledge of what is wrong with Palin and the constant lengthy knock down points on her and the Repubs.   On the other hand you dismiss the shortcoming of the dem. ticket with a simple statement that "Biden is a jackass."You would like to see Hillary in the WH and we are to believe you are independent and an objective commentator?  Your lengthy negative posts on Palin make you appear "in the tank" for the dem. ticket.  Nothing wrong with that, but coupled with your positive viewpoint of Hillary, calling yourself independent seems to be a stretch.If you really are independent, why not let the election play out further ( i.e. hear Palin and Biden in debate on issues) before jumping on one side?  Even better, how about McCain/Obama debating issues?

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

Claim #1 (Palin was a member of the AIP) is debunked...and serious doubt of claim #2 (she supported Pat Buchanan's presidential run) is raised by a news organization that is clearly not pro-Republican...
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26524024/
 
I'll stand by my prediction that much of the media's attempt to undercut her candidacy will eventually be exposed as, at a minimum, inaccuarate and hasty conclusions, which have the potential to backfire among the electorate.
 
It's also interesting that the book on Palin is that she's very good when scripted but shaky when ad-libbing.  I don't doubt this as it's true for many politicians when faced with the spectacle of national media coverage.  It's also precisely the impression that I've had of Obama for some time.  His speeches are among the best of his generation, but in a town hall-type setting, such as the recent forum at Saddleback with Rick Warren, he struggled at times for answers, although I don't recall any gaffes to the degree of "hoping to eventually visit all 57 states" (paraphrase mine).  I won't say that he always comes off weak when ad-libbing, but I've noticed several examples when it seems as if he's struggling to find an answer, being careful to not say anything that will later bite him in the butt.
 
I've not set any decision in stone regarding Sarah Palin's candidacy, but I'll admit that my first and second impressions are positive, despite the media hatchet job we all knew she was going to face almost as soon as she was announced.  Again, to their credit, the Democratic ticket has remained above the fray and refused to take the bait lobbed at them by several reporters.  My guess is, as long as the polling margin remains at least mostly in place (6-8 points), they'll stay the course.  If the race gets tight...who knows...politics can be a rough business...

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Rugby,
 
I said Clinton was qualified. Where did I say I'd vote for her?
 
There is plenty from the dem platfrom that i'm not on board with. Bigger government, higher taxes, no nuclear power, nimby. I weight that against pre-emptive war, secret government and Real ID. I also weight it against eight years of of lies and bungled government, an economy in the shit hole, and a record deficit that only higher taxes and a strong economy will erase. From whom do you suggest we take those higher taxes?
 
Did i say something  negative about Palin? As the lone non member of the Sarah Palin fan club here on RR forums I merely point out the truth about the stranger many of you have embraced without knowing for the second highest office in the land. That you take it as negative isn't my fault. That it is negative isn't my fault. I didn't create the investigation into her past. Nor the investgation of wrong doing. And, I'm not responsible for her creationist views. Though I believe many here are on board with that anyway.
 
Note that i didn't mention any of the trash that's circulating about her, AIP, baby is really her daughter's etc. I did mention some things to watch for. And I offered a plausable non criminal reason for her legally shielding emails sought by investigators. Additionally, past creationism i didn't mention any of the religious commentary circulating about her.
 
I stand by my statements that her executive experience is bush league. Now let's see how it plays on a national stage.
 
The truth is, McCain in picking her threw a hail mary pass. Without someone like her, to energize his campaign, he was finished. It will either make it a race or blow up in his face. Point to John for having some balls. Now all he has to do is convince the 200 million plus americans who will benefit from Obama's tax policies that he's their guy.
 
And again, in case you missed it, I predict that tonight Palin will wow the crowd. Will she wow america?
 
As for your thinking i'm not independent, of course you would think that. I've spent a lot of bandwidth here downing McCain's judgement in picking Palin. That doesn't make me a democrat. It makes me a thinking person. Then again, perhaps you are so far right you don't recognize the center when you see it? I don't know you well enough to make that judgement. Try some far left sites and you'll find I'm far from the left. Not that it matters.

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

Let's not forget among all this, that there are infinite reasons why certain, apparently "qualified" candidates, are not considered for the VP role.  Some don't want it, some have checkered pasts that we will never know about (most likely case), and some have sketchy voting records in Congress or elsewhere.  So, often times, it comes down to the best of the mediocre, not the best of the best.  Also, there is so much jockying and strategy involved, that often times the VP candidate is selected for reasons we can't begin to imagine.  I think it is reasonable to assume that Palin MAY have been selected for what will happen in 4 years if the McCain ticket wins...."talk amongst yaselves"

Rugby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

BondGuy wrote:Rugby,
As for your thinking i'm not independent, of course you would think that. I've spent a lot of bandwidth here downing McCain's judgement in picking Palin. That doesn't make me a democrat. It makes me a thinking person. Then again, perhaps you are so far right you don't recognize the center when you see it? I don't know you well enough to make that judgement. Try some far left sites and you'll find I'm far from the left. Not that it matters. BG-  If you were a thinking person you would give equal bandwidth to the vetting of Biden and the dems.  How about some positives on Palin to go with all of the negatives?  Unfortunately, you are coming across as partisan and close minded.  I'm guessing you have visited a fair share of far left sites to help craft some of the fiction you have posted here.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

If I were a thinking person? Nice!
 
For days before i got on to this thread the boys here were doing  a pretty good job of downing Palin themselves. What with the hittin it comments and links to GILF Tee shirt websites. So, I guess i'm confused as to just what's getting under your skin about my comments. Several here participated in sexist comments and you give them a pass? There were racist comments as well regarding Obama that no one got called on.  You didn't call any of them on their comments. Why? Are you a racist as well? Or a sexist?
 
The thread turned to Palin. i didn't turn it there. I merely followed. I figured the bar had been set low by the sexist/GILF crowd and that i could come in with some facts to try to raise the conversation a bit. Little did i know sexist/GILF OK, facts out of bounds. Apparently here, telling posters that Palin is the Governor I'd like to F**k isn't a problem, but talking about her real baggage in a non offensive way is. My mistake.
 
And you call me the non thinking person?
 
 
 
 

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

Just for grins, I'm going to start marking the RCP poll average so we can watch the direction of the race between now and election day.
 
As of 9/3/2008 - Obama 48.8% - McCain 43.0 - Obama+5.8%

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

S\Will be interesting to see the polls tomorrow .
She really killed it tonight.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Hockey Mom Scores - Washington post
 
Palin's First Punch A solid Hit - LA Times
 
Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party -  NYT
 
A Hockey Mom Finds Her Voice - The Philadelphia Inquirer
 
Then there is this:
 
Palin's using the Bridge to nowhere as an example of her fiscal conservatism isn't quite true. She was for it until the federal government pulled the funding. She wanted it but only if she didn't have to pay for it. - Fox News (of all places!)
 
Pentecostalism obsured in Palin's biography - Associated Press
 
Palin had her youngest child after a prenatal showed he had Down syndrome. But she doesn't believe other woman should be able to make their own choice. Prenancy is indeed private. Decisions are to be discussed and determined in a family. But the party meeting in St. Paul Minnesota would put decisions about prenancy in the hands of the government...
- Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Ellen Goodman
 
A number of business and political leaders in Alaska said noone from the McCain camp spoke to them before she was selected - Philadelphia Inquirer
 
McCain has made his opposition to federal earmanrks a cornerstone of his candidacy. But as mayor of Wallisa..., Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure $27 million in other federal earmarks. - Philadelphia inquirer
 
The speech that Gov Sarah Palin gave was well delivered, but was written by George Bush's speech writer and sounds like exactly the same divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George for the last eight years - The Obama campaign
 
Why is this important? Because it doesn't matter how she played to the crowd in St. Paul. What matters is how she plays in places she needs to win to become veep.
 
 
Me:
If you look a Pennsylvania it's a red state that is blue on it's southeastern and south western corners. According to the local ABC affiliate 6ABC, located in Philadelphia,  the speech was a hohum typical stump speech, well delivered.
 
My opinion: The barracuda did a fine job! McCain has his attack dog. A Pit Bull with lipstick!
 
I though Rudy was better
 
Huckabee, showed why he's alikable person but got his facts wrong with the Palin got more votes for mayor than Biden got in his run for president. The numbers are: 1996 palin won 651 votes, 1999 she won 909 votes, versus Biden getting 2378 with his fifth place Iowa finish. Biden went on to get over 79,000 votes in other states after he dropped out. I will addd, everyone of them a wrong vote!
 
Romney was embarrassing.
 
However, all in all the losers bracket did it's job.
 
Absent from all speeches any mention of the B word. B as in Bush. Why bring the crowd down? Also absent, any mention of issues which polling clearly shows the repubs losing on all points. Turns out you can't control the WH for eight years, the congress for 6 out of the last 8, and the Supreme court for 7 out of the last 8, totally screw up foreign policy, get us into a war, and eff up the economy, and then claim you are not to blame. So why remind people of all those accomplishments?
 
Listening to all the speeches of what they will do if elected I kept thinking, but you've got the white house now, why wait?
 
McCain is a good man and would make a good president.
 
It should be a good race.
 
 
 
 
 

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

Rudy did get lost in the shuffle.  I looked at him and Fred Thompson and thought, if they'd delivered that well during the campaign, they might have made the ticket.  Someone said that they were so far behind schedule last night that they were feeding Rudy's teleprompter whole paragraphs at a time and he had to do a lot of ad-libbing to keep up.  If that's so, it makes his time at the podium that much more impressive...I didn't notice him missing a beat.
 
Two questions come to mind after last night.  One, which you've already referenced is how will the candidates do with answering off the cuff?  My best guess is that McCain and Biden will be more polished than the two younger candidates, but I doubt if any of the candidates at this point will leave us with many serious gaffes.  The second question is...how hard will McCain have to work tonight to not be upstaged by his veep's performance last night?  Delivering speeches is where the younger candidates are shining and the pit bull with lipstick may have left McCain with a hard act to follow.
 
I'll try to remember to put up the national poll numbers from time to time, but if you're a political junkie, like I'm becoming, a good bi-partisan site where I pull much of my political intelligence is Real Clear Politics.  Here's their link:
 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
 
If you're not watching, listening and reading, you shouldn't be voting.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Indyone wrote:
If you're not watching, listening and reading, you shouldn't be voting.
 
Amen to that!

Rugby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/That is an excellent site, thanks for the link.  The polling numbers are interesting, especially in the battleground states.I'm not getting too caught up in the polling numbers, as their track record was just horrible the last election.  I'm sure they made some adjustments, but they seem to be all over the map at this point and still too many undecided out there.Look for the sentiment to swing to one ticket just days or a week before the election.  I personally think what will trigger it is the performance and sound bites in debate (Obama & McCain).  (Reagan with his words and confidence in '80 versus Carter; Nixon sweating and pale versus Kennedy etc...)  Should be a barn burner and super exciting to watch.  4 Scenarios at this point-1)  Obama eeks it out against McCain  (wins a few battlegrounds and does well down the stretch)2)  McCain eeks it out against Obama (no Palin McCain gaffes, Ohio, PA, Florida give it to him)3)  McCain-Palin win in landslide, country at least off the coasts not voting for Obama due to race, experience issue, etc.; he can't close the deal/connect with middle America like he couldn't against Hillary.  Obama debate gaffe.4)  Obama wins in landslide.  MCCain-Palin blow up.  Obama connects to middle America (blue collar) and MCain screws up royally.I could see 1,2,3 happening.  #4 I find it difficult to see happening primarily due to race (not fair, but a reality?), unanswered questions about Obama (Ayers, Rev. Wright), and because of many of the points Palin outlined in her speech last night.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Sooner or later McCain is going to have to stop attacking Obama and start talking issues. Polling clearly indicates the repubs dead in the starting gate on that count. Economy in the shithole with them in power to blame. Being bogged down in Iraq and having the six foot seven diabetic who attacked us still walking around isn't helping much either.
 
Though you can't put much faith in a convention speech to the home team, McCain tried to distance himself last night. However, while he is a maverick, he is also a member of the entrenched elite who have maintained the status quo. So, now he's done with that? 
 
Obama's appeal to blue collar america is in his promise to help them. While the John McCains of the world are getting richer these people are struggling to make ends meet, are losing their jobs, and in some cases losing their homes. Can a guy who owns six, or is it seven, homes connect with them?
 
McCain also may not be who he says he is. Last night he spent  alot of time telling us how he has always put country first. I'll give you he is a good man. However, in his ambition to win the oval office he contridicted those country first words with his pick of Sarah Palin. Palin was picked, clearly, to connect with the republican social converative base who were unexcited about his candidacy. They are now raving about his brilliance. Yet, she has zero foreign policy experience, next to zero domestic expereince and is a contradiction herself in that her anti pork fiscal conservatism is newly found. As mayor and again as governor she had little problem spending federal earmarks. In fact she sought them with zeal. So she's fine with wasting other peoples money. I'll give you that she is a fabulous speaker. So, in her pick for veep, McCain did not put country first, he put himself first. This is how it reads to those not in the fold. Actions speak louder than words.
 
Next week out of the glare of the lights of St paul should be interesting.
 

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

RCP Average polling this morning:
Obama - 47.2% - McCain - 43.4% - Obama +3.8%
 
As expected, the race tightens back up with the Republican convention counter-bounce.  I would expect it to tighten further as the convention is not yet all factored in.
 
We'll have to disagree with Palin not being a country first choice.  In McCain's mind, he's better for the country than Obama and the VP choice will probably not have a significant effect on policy if he's elected president, other than possibly opening up ANWR if Palin can influence his thoughts in that area.  McCain is doing what he thinks is necessary to prevent an Obama presidency, which he likely views as a very bad thing for the country.
 
All the arguments about Palin's lack of experience stick to Obama as well and again, he's running for the #1 spot on the ticket, putting that glaring inexperience at the top.  The more that is made of Palin's relative lack of experience, the more Obama's campaign opens their man up to the same criticism.
 
As expected, McCain's speech, which while not a disaster, certainly did not excite and inspire like his veep's did.  As has been said many times, McCain should do better off the cuff than he does with a prepared speech.
 
Rush Limbaugh said something to the effect last night that he sees some unfortunate event causing Biden to bow out of the campaign opening up the door for Hillary to join the ticket and stem the momentum that the Palin pick is giving to McCain.  That's clearly one of the most outrageous statements that I've seen from the far right blogs this campaign season...

Rugby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

At this stage the Palin pick is being received very well.  The Obama camp is adjusting to the "rock star" label being moved from him to her.  Interesting that her speech drew more TV viewers than his acceptance speech in Denver.Her lack of "experience" is not really a negative thus far and is instead drawing attention to Obama's resume (i.e.): -  What does a "community Organizer" actually do?-  Why did he compare his experience of running a big budget campaign to her running a 12 mil. a year town budget with 50 employees?  Do any of you put your job hunt as experience on your resume?  Not the best comparison, but you may get my point....his experience is thin...That can't play well and is appears to be hurting him.-  Obama comments today that he has been at this for 19 months, and Palin 4 days and if she wants to be treated as one of the guys....All of this focus on Palin, his experience etc...is not helping him win over the voters he needs to send him to the WH.   He should avoid talking about her AT ALL.  Rock star persona sticks on her at least through the election.  Likely much longer. My dem. friends all mention ethics legislation as his experience and qualifications.  That is the one talking point I keep hearing over and over.  What else?  Leader of the Harvard law review is a little too early in his career for me BG.  What has he done lately?  Campaigning for prez, writing books, playing the part of a big time politician...?  IMO, status quo with a fresh face.

HymanRoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-25

BondGuy wrote:Sooner or later McCain is going to have to stop attacking Obama and start talking issues.Are you describing Obama, or McCain?  It sounds to me like you have the two of them confused. Yet, she has zero foreign policy experience, next to zero domestic expereince ...So she's fine with wasting other peoples money. I'll give you that she is a fabulous speaker. So, in her pick for veep, In a similar vein, can't we pretty much use the same words as above to describe Obama's track record and lack of executive experience? 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Hyman, the experience thing is so, well, last week. The new new thing is CHANGE! Try to keep up.
 
I can't blame you if you fell asleep during John's speech, but just so you know,  the messege was change. His campajgn managers took one look at the election map and realized that experience, in itself, was a non starter. They need to first connect with Obama's change messege and then push the experience gap. This will give Obama's change supporters a no gap bridge to cross over to McCain's camp.
 
Of course there is one problem with this:
 
"We are all Georgians"
 
Remember McCain saying this? You can google it. He said it recently and prominately in support of the republic of Georgia. He said it on advice from his senior foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann. Turns out that Randy is a lobbyist. A lobbyist who's firm took $200,000 from the Georgian government this past spring to represent them in DC. Of course the McCain camp says there is no connection. Isn't that what politicians always say? I'd say that was money well spent. What do you think?
 
Considering how many lobbyist are working for McCain on his campaign including his campaign mamager, long time republican insider and lobbyist Rick Davis, his change messege is laughable. The messege, as stated above, is merely a sleight of hand campaign tactic to draw off Obama's change supporters. The coasts are already figuring this out, leaving the question; is the middle of the country gullible enough to buy into it? Based on 04, my guess is yes. Never under estimate the gullibillity of the heartland. Good people, who take people at their word. Even those they shouldn't.
 
Hyman, think for a moment about this: McCain is employing DC insiders, lobbyist, and Bush admin advisors in all the key roles within his campaign. Yet, he says it's a new day DC and all these people are out on their asses come day one of his administration. Do you really believe that will happen?
 
It's a new day yet "We are all Georgians." A $200,000 sound bite.
 
Smart campaigning, but sleight of hand. This doesn't play well with those who are tired of the subterfuge.
 
As for the John not talking issues, his campaign manager Rick Davis told reporters that this campaign is not about issues. Well, when you've effed up for eight years what else are you going to say?
 
Agree though, Obama needs to sharpen his messege and stop parsing his coomments.
 

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

"The coasts are already figuring this out, leaving the question; is the middle of the country gullible enough to buy into it? Based on 04, my guess is yes. Never under estimate the gullibillity of the heartland. Good people, who take people at their word. Even those they shouldn't."

From someone in the heartland, these are offensive and divisive words, my friend. They sound just like Obama did in San Francisco ealier, and that, more than anything will be the reason he struggles in the flyover states (and yes, we find that term offensive also). Without being racist, sexist, etc., we folks in the heartland think there are plenty of idiots on the coasts also. I don't believe those folks smashing windows this week were from Minnesota.

Rugby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

Any argument that McCain is a crooked politician (i.e. Georgian lobbyist connection) is deeply flawed.  If we are now indeed moving from last week's "experience" argument to the "change" argument...Like Obama is ill advised to go after Palin regarding experience; he really cannot afford to take on McCain in the "judgment" and "shady politician" argument.  Why?  A few reasons:1)  Tony Rezko, convicted felon slumlord (linked to him through his time as a "community organizer", financial backer to get him going on this wonderful journey he has been on.2)  Rev. Wright.  Need we see say more about judgment?3)  The William Ayers connection.  This one needs more light shed on it.  Too bad for the Repubs. that the Media couldn't put as much into finding out about this association  as they did the Palin baby story.  I have a feeling more will come out about this.   If not, this is still a large knock on the judgment of Obama.Like Obama is in a tough spot on experience issue and VP issue....Their camp is also dead in the water on shady connections, politician stereotypes, character, judgment, arguments when comparing to McCain.I agree that this about CHANGE.  Obama's challenge is how he can convince voters that he is the best candidate to initiate change and to minimize everything else....My guess it will prove very difficult for him to accomplish when he has not differentiated himself in other areas in any extraordinary way.  While the election should be about change, can he hold the voters focus there and then sell the voters on his specific changes?   I can't see enough people buying into him...Lets see though...If he is that special, maybe he can get it done.  The worst part if he loses is that wench Hillary will be back on the scene in 4 short years.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

As for the John not talking issues, his campaign manager Rick Davis told reporters that this campaign is not about issues. Well, when you've effed up for eight years what else are you going to say?

You know it really isn't about the issues.  People are tired of hearing the same tired old talking points (aka lies) being repeated over and over and over by people who don't know WTF they are even talking about.  Pie in the sky.  Tax/punish the rich. Everything for free.  Nothing turns me off of a candidate or his appointed mouthpiece more than answering a question with a pre prepared script that has nothing to do with the question.  They are only out there to parrot and squawk their mantras not engage in serious discussions.   None of us out here in the real world believe anything they say.
Character and honesty are what more people are interested in.  General overall goals and themes that we think the candidates actually believe and will really be able to attempt to implement, rather than beating us over the head with the same old same old points with everyone using the exact same words.  They must have little hand books and practice together like a synchronized swimming team....  All together now,  Sarah Palin hasn't got the experience to be President on day one..... All together now....We can't drill our way out of this oil crisis.    All together now......
 
The mere fact that Palin is completely outside of the mold the the left liberal elites consider proper for a woman  and that she thumbs her nose at them is enough for me to think that she IS ready.   Nevermind that she has been a Mayor and Governor....not nearly as impressive as working within the corrupt Chicago political machine to get some toilets working in slums that the Democrats created by their very own policies.
 
As to the education thingy that BG thinks is so important.  If you went to an ivy league school that somehow makes you better than a person who went to a lesser (low class) school?    It's all about getting a degree to be able to make executive decisions, is it?   Well, somebody better tell that to Bill Gates.  I guess he isn't ready to run one of the most profitable and influential companies in the world.  He should step down!!

HymanRoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-25

BondGuy wrote:Hyman, the experience thing is so, well, last week. The new new thing is CHANGE! Try to keep up.
 
I can't blame you if you fell asleep during John's speech, but just so you know,  the messege was change. His campajgn managers took one look at the election map and realized that experience, in itself, was a non starter. They need to first connect with Obama's change messege and then push the experience gap. This will give Obama's change supporters a no gap bridge to cross over to McCain's camp.
 
Of course there is one problem with this:
 
"We are all Georgians"
 
Remember McCain saying this? You can google it. He said it recently and prominately in support of the republic of Georgia. He said it on advice from his senior foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann. Turns out that Randy is a lobbyist. A lobbyist who's firm took $200,000 from the Georgian government this past spring to represent them in DC. Of course the McCain camp says there is no connection. Isn't that what politicians always say? I'd say that was money well spent. What do you think?
 
Considering how many lobbyist are working for McCain on his campaign including his campaign mamager, long time republican insider and lobbyist Rick Davis, his change messege is laughable. The messege, as stated above, is merely a sleight of hand campaign tactic to draw off Obama's change supporters. The coasts are already figuring this out, leaving the question; is the middle of the country gullible enough to buy into it? Based on 04, my guess is yes. Never under estimate the gullibillity of the heartland. Good people, who take people at their word. Even those they shouldn't.
 
Hyman, think for a moment about this: McCain is employing DC insiders, lobbyist, and Bush admin advisors in all the key roles within his campaign. Yet, he says it's a new day DC and all these people are out on their asses come day one of his administration. Do you really believe that will happen?
 
It's a new day yet "We are all Georgians." A $200,000 sound bite.
 
Smart campaigning, but sleight of hand. This doesn't play well with those who are tired of the subterfuge.
 
As for the John not talking issues, his campaign manager Rick Davis told reporters that this campaign is not about issues. Well, when you've effed up for eight years what else are you going to say?
 
Agree though, Obama needs to sharpen his messege and stop parsing his coomments.
 Agreed that it is hard to swallow McCain's talk about 'change' when he has so many insiders trying to ride on his coattails.But the guy was strong enough to resist torture in the Hanoi Hilton, so who's to say he can't fight off the attempts of DC insiders to co-opt his rise to power.  Maybe he is using them to get elected, but they have underestimated his strength of will.I find Obama to be an intelligent man and one of the best speakers I've ever seen.  Yet, here's what I've learned about him that makes him a complete non-starter when I try to consider with an open mind giving him my "change" vote:1.)  He has already confirmed that he intends to raise my taxes, and is playing the old traditional democratic card of demonizing the rich.  I've never once seen a situation where ANY economy was helped by a higher tax burden.  Furthermore, it is those "evil rich" who are often the entrepreneurs who have started companies and provided jobs to those poor working class folks Mr. Obama has sworn to serve.   Ironic, really, considering that he's made millions from two books that he wrote while working as a government employee.2.) Related to #1, he's exhibited a fundamental lack of understanding of the most basic of economic theories and principles  whenever I've seen him speak on the subject.3.) His lack of experience is a major concern to me.  From what I know of his career, he does not have any significant "executive" experience where he has been responsible for leading folks to acheive a concrete goal.  Furthermore, in his limited time in the legistlature(on both a state and local level) he has not authored a significant piece of legislation, nor led any significant initiatives.  What has he actually done other than write books and campaign for the presidency? 4.) I am especially concerned about his lack of experience(and apparent lack of savvy) when it comes to international affairs.  He has publicly stated that, as the head of the most powerful democracy in the free world, he would be willing to meet with the president of IRAN and the leader of the Palestinian Authority with NO PRECONDITIONS.  These are people who see a willingness to negotiate on their terms as a sign of weakness.  If Obama were to do this as President, it would be very hurtful to our image in the Middle East, and would send a signal to other hostile countries and terrorist groups that we were being led by an administration that was weak and naive when it came to protecting our country.5.)  I find his connections to Rev. Wright to be troubling.  More so when he tried to deny ever knowing that Rev. Wright had such hateful and divisive views about his own mother country.  How could Obama be a member of that congregation for over a decade, be a friend of Rev Wright, and not know that Rev. Wright hold those radical viewpoints?  It calls Mr. Obama's very credibility into question IMHO.In summary, I will say again that I think he is a great man with profoundly good intentions.  I also respect his place in history.But for the reasons outlined above, I just can't trust him.  McCain is far from perfect, but I'll sleep a lot better with him in the White House than Mr. Obama.

HymanRoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-25

BondGuy wrote:Hyman, the experience thing is so, well, last week. The new new thing is CHANGE! Try to keep up.
 
I can't blame you if you fell asleep during John's speech, but just so you know,  the messege was change.Agreed as well that when it comes to delivering a prepared speech, McCain doesn't measure up to Obama.  But that's only a small part of the job they're competing for.....

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

 
I thinnk Obama's own words speak for themselves.
 
 
>From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

 From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

 From Dreams of My Father:  'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

  >From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

 

 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Primo wrote:

 
I thinnk Obama's own words speak for themselves.
 
 
>From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

 From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

 From Dreams of My Father:  'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

  >From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

 
I'll get back to most of you with some thoughts on your posts, but let me take this piece of trash first.
 
Here in America anyone can say whatever they want. They can even email it to as many people as they wish and the can post it on forums like this one. Obviously Primo isn't an Obama fan and when he got this email he was so happy to get the goods on Obama he sends it here to alert us to the real Obama.
 
Of course(and you know this is coming) none of it is true. The statements are either completely made up, twisted to another menaing or taken out of context.
 
For example the statement about whites, Obama never said it. The statement about standing with Muslims: in context  that he would never inter them as we did the Japanese in WW2.
 
The first tip off should come from the fact that the originator of this email trash wasn't smart enough to even get the title of Obama's book right. The correct title of the book is  Dreams From My Father. The actual quotes come from places like "The American Conservative" Big surprise there!
 
Factcheck.org, and snopes completely debunk this email as completetly untrue. It is untrue ,read the books if you don't trust Factcheck.org
 
 
Here's the problem: I'm gonna give Primo the benefit of a doubt here and say he wouldn't have posted this here if he knew it was untrue.
 
I don't know where Primo lives, but that's the gullibility I speak of.
 
How many of you read that post and believed it to be true? How many of you thought it could be partially true. Primo thought it was true and  I'd bet he's not alone.
 
How many non thinkers out there do you suppose will see an email like this and use it as a basis for their vote? The bogus Pledge of Alligiance email helped defeat Obama in the Ohio primary.
 
In an informed thinking society emails such as this would pose no threat. Informed, thinking?  That ain't us folks.
 
People the only thing at stake is our future. I'm only saying, regardless of who you are for or against, think.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Indy, gullible: offensive and devisive words?
 
Gullibily is not a negative. It's one who is easily duped or deceived.  That's the personality trait of a trusting person. Does this not discribe the personality of the american heartland?People who take you at your word? I don't see it as offensive or devisive, and if you do then you are reading in an alternative meaning. That's your problem.
 
To clear it up in the context of my post here's what i meant; For those who voted for Bush in 2004, let's start with this question; If you knew then what you know today about George Bush, the lies, the deceit, all the rest, would you have voted for him?
 
Most people answer that question no.
 
Most people today are not happy about the direction Bush has taken us and had they known then what they know today they most likely would not have voted for him in 2004. Here's the point: The Bush negatives were in the public domain in 2004. There for anyone who wanted to see them. However, the 04 Bush campaign was in itself so deceptive that many people were deceived into voting him to a second term. The heartland is awash in red on that count. Can i blame them for falling for the deceit? yes and no.
 
I'll give you that it may be unfair to call the only heartland gullible when I live in a repulican congresssional district that went for Bush in 04. Especially when i have neighbors tell me how discusted they are with Bush/cheney and they quote something they don't like. Mostly it's the war, but almost all of what i hear was out there before 04. They too were duped.
 
 You said it best yourself "If you're not watching, listening and reading you shouldn't be voting."
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:Primo wrote:

 
I thinnk Obama's own words speak for themselves.
 
 
>From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

 From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

 From Dreams of My Father:  'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

  >From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

 
I'll get back to most of you with some thoughts on your posts, but let me take this piece of trash first.
 
Here in America anyone can say whatever they want. They can even email it to as many people as they wish and the can post it on forums like this one. Obviously Primo isn't an Obama fan and when he got this email he was so happy to get the goods on Obama he sends it here to alert us to the real Obama.
 
Of course(and you know this is coming) none of it is true. The statements are either completely made up, twisted to another menaing or taken out of context.
 
For example the statement about whites, Obama never said it. The statement about standing with Muslims: in context  that he would never inter them as we did the Japanese in WW2.
 
The first tip off should come from the fact that the originator of this email trash wasn't smart enough to even get the title of Obama's book right. The correct title of the book is  Dreams From My Father. The actual quotes come from places like "The American Conservative" Big surprise there!
 
Factcheck.org, and snopes completely debunk this email as completetly untrue. It is untrue ,read the books if you don't trust Factcheck.org
 
 
Here's the problem: I'm gonna give Primo the benefit of a doubt here and say he wouldn't have posted this here if he knew it was untrue.
 
I don't know where Primo lives, but that's the gullibility I speak of.
 
How many of you read that post and believed it to be true? How many of you thought it could be partially true. Primo thought it was true and  I'd bet he's not alone.
 
How many non thinkers out there do you suppose will see an email like this and use it as a basis for their vote? The bogus Pledge of Alligiance email helped defeat Obama in the Ohio primary.
 
In an informed thinking society emails such as this would pose no threat. Informed, thinking?  That ain't us folks.
 
People the only thing at stake is our future. I'm only saying, regardless of who you are for or against, think.
 
At first I felt bad BG that you put that much effort in to responding to obviously false statements.  To use your own words, the wrong title of the book was the first clue.  You suggested that I "think", I suggest you do the same.  Then I went to factcheck.org and realized you basically copied their text in your post.  Now I am back to being amused.  Ironically, I posted the email to see who would bite on it.  Who would take it at face value and run with it.  In other words, who doesn't "think".

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Hyman, did you vote for Bush in 2000?
 
If so was his foreign policy experience a front burner issue with you then as it is for you with Obama today? Even if it was, you did you still vote for Bush?
 
Pre first term Bush had zero foreign policy experience. This isn't  atop secret or some left wing tin foil diatribe. Nor is it as some RR posters put it, a first class lie, or fiction. Bush freely admits to this. Read Bob Woodward's book 'State of Denial" if you are interested in learning the details of Bush's early FP mentoring.
 
So the question is: if it wasn't an issue then, why is it an issue now?
 
The answer is it shouldn't be an issue at all. Many presidents come to office with no foreign policy expereince. The question shouldn't be are they qualified on day one. Because, clearly, most aren't. Clinton and Bush are two modern day examples. The question should be, do they have the capacity to grow into the job based on their experiences and character?
 
It is only an issue because Mccain has made it an issue in this campaign. He can't run on the iisues because he is a clear loser on the the issues. So, first he ran on experience and now he's running on change.
 
Hyman, back in 2000, if you voted for Bush, was his minister a front burner issue for then as it is for you today with obama?
 
I'm gonna guess no. And that's as it should be.
 
I too respect Mccain's military history but we're past that now. it's what is he going to do to lead this country?
 
As for the economy, It is Obama who has hit the nail square on the head. it is the Mccain campaign that is adjusting to counter Obama's very effective with working guy message.
 
Not advising your wife to leave the bling at home while in the national spotlight  of a presidential convention shows an out of touch element. Cindy, as you know by now was wearing an outfit estimated by Vanity Fair to be worth $300,000. Hyman, that doesn't play well in factory towns.
 
 
 
 
 
 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Anyone else get the impression that Bond Guy is a complete elitist snob that you wouldn't invite to a back yard barbeque if your life depended on it?   Gullibily is not a negative. It's one who is easily duped or deceived.
 That's the personality trait of a trusting person. Does this not
discribe the personality of the american heartland?People who take you
at your word? I don't see it as offensive or devisive, and if you do
then you are reading in an alternative meaning. That's your problem.He can't understand why his words are offensive to those of us who live in small town America.  Sure, everyone likes being called gullible and condescended to by people like Bond Guy.  Being told that your values are just a result of some sort of mental defect. Keep it up.  Keep insulting people and that's a sure fire way to win them to your side.  Hope you don't use this tactic with your clients.  Not advising your wife to leave the bling at home while in the national
spotlight  of a presidential convention shows an out of touch element.
Cindy, as you know by now was wearing an outfit estimated by Vanity
Fair to be worth $300,000. Hyman, that doesn't play well in factory
towns.Ah yes...... the old class warfare bullshit that the left always tries to play. I know no such thing about her outfit as I don't read Vanity Fair, who would?  First of all, as a woman I thought that Cindy McCain looked rather nice if a bit overdressed.  I preferred Sarah Palin's more understated style. However, what plays well in factory towns is the fact that Cindy's family got their wealth the good old fashioned way by working their asses off: starting a small business with one beer truck and building it into a success story that is the dream of those poor gullible dopes (as Bond Guy would put it) who live in the factory towns.   Clue for you......people are not resentful of such stories but instead take hope that they too might be able to achieve the same success.Try again.  This is the crap that the left keeps trying to float, but it won't work because you have no connection to or understanding of what Mid America or small town America is about.Here is a story to illustrate the snobbish disconnection of city vs the rest of the country.  Snobs like Obama vs ordinary working people like Palin.  I live in a rural/agricultural/resort area.  Recently had some relatives come to visit from the Big City.  At a local function I introduced them to one of my clients who was wearing jeans, beaten up cowboy hat and had just come from a 'roping competition'.  My relatives were cold and not in the least interested in talking to him and after he left made fun of him.   Little did they know he is a multi multi millionare who owns large amounts of the Big City they came from and has controlling interests in several industrial center complexes throughout the State as well as homes in places they could only hope to visit.   My client built his wealth based on a small plumbing business in the Big City that he inherited from his father.  He lives here in bumfuck rural America because he wants to and he likes the people who live here and holds the same values.   They were standing in the midst of millionares and people who can afford to own $80,000 horse trailers for their $100,,000 roping horses and enjoy doing what they like.   BUT....because they didn't have the designer sun glasses, perfectly coifed hair and had some dirt
on their boots they passed them over like they were trailer trash. See yourself in this scenario anywhere BG?

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Bond Guy...I suggest you read something other than the Daily Kos for your talking points.  The dress that Cindy McCain wore wasn't 300K.  Granted she was wearing some kick ass jewelry which she owns and paid for through her business income.  No one gives Angelena Jolie grief for her expensive expensive outfits......or for her mothering skills for all the children she has accumulated either.When Cindy McCain made her first appearance at the Republican National
Convention, she was wearing a buttercup-yellow shirt dress with a
flipped-up collar by Seventh Avenue designer Oscar de la Renta. As is
the current fashion, the dress looked as though the designer had found
some inspiration in the early 1960s world of "Mad Men." It was
feminine, reserved and lovely. Ballpark price for a de la Renta dress:
$3,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090501027.html?nav=rss_print/styleHow much do you pay for one of your good business suits and accessories?  Rolex?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Looney, it is only wrong to be wealthy if your are not a Democrat.  I would like to see a Democrat put their money where their mouth is.  Maybe send a few extra bucks to the IRS each year to do their part.   

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Primo, are you saying that you posted the email knowing it was false?
 
I gave you the benefit of a doubt that you posted it thinking it was true? We all do that from time to time. An honest mistake. From an integrity POV, that's the better outcome. Lest we never trust anything you post here in the future.
 
After rereading my post I apologize to you about the thinker comment. In the last three lines of that post i was talking about people in general, not you. After rereading it though, I don't blame you if you're pissed at me. I can see how it reads. Just to be clear, i wasn't calling you a non thinker.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

I'm not upset in the least, and yes I was aware it was false before I posted it.  I assumed it was so blatantly obvious that only a "non-thinker" (to use your own term) would run with it.  Sometimes I have been criticized for my subtlety.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

babbling looney wrote: Anyone else get the impression that Bond Guy is a complete elitist snob that you wouldn't invite to a back yard barbeque if your life depended on it?   Gullibily is not a negative. It's one who is easily duped or deceived.  That's the personality trait of a trusting person. Does this not discribe the personality of the american heartland?People who take you at your word? I don't see it as offensive or devisive, and if you do then you are reading in an alternative meaning. That's your problem.He can't understand why his words are offensive to those of us who live in small town America.  Sure, everyone likes being called gullible and condescended to by people like Bond Guy.  Being told that your values are just a result of some sort of mental defect. Keep it up.  Keep insulting people and that's a sure fire way to win them to your side.  Hope you don't use this tactic with your clients.  Not advising your wife to leave the bling at home while in the national spotlight  of a presidential convention shows an out of touch element. Cindy, as you know by now was wearing an outfit estimated by Vanity Fair to be worth $300,000. Hyman, that doesn't play well in factory towns.Ah yes...... the old class warfare bullshit that the left always tries to play. I know no such thing about her outfit as I don't read Vanity Fair, who would?  First of all, as a woman I thought that Cindy McCain looked rather nice if a bit overdressed.  I preferred Sarah Palin's more understated style. However, what plays well in factory towns is the fact that Cindy's family got their wealth the good old fashioned way by working their asses off: starting a small business with one beer truck and building it into a success story that is the dream of those poor gullible dopes (as Bond Guy would put it) who live in the factory towns.   Clue for you......people are not resentful of such stories but instead take hope that they too might be able to achieve the same success.Try again.  This is the crap that the left keeps trying to float, but it won't work because you have no connection to or understanding of what Mid America or small town America is about.Here is a story to illustrate the snobbish disconnection of city vs the rest of the country.  Snobs like Obama vs ordinary working people like Palin.  I live in a rural/agricultural/resort area.  Recently had some relatives come to visit from the Big City.  At a local function I introduced them to one of my clients who was wearing jeans, beaten up cowboy hat and had just come from a 'roping competition'.  My relatives were cold and not in the least interested in talking to him and after he left made fun of him.   Little did they know he is a multi multi millionare who owns large amounts of the Big City they came from and has controlling interests in several industrial center complexes throughout the State as well as homes in places they could only hope to visit.   My client built his wealth based on a small plumbing business in the Big City that he inherited from his father.  He lives here in bumfuck rural America because he wants to and he likes the people who live here and holds the same values.   They were standing in the midst of millionares and people who can afford to own $80,000 horse trailers for their $100,,000 roping horses and enjoy doing what they like.   BUT....because they didn't have the designer sun glasses, perfectly coifed hair and had some dirt on their boots they passed them over like they were trailer trash. See yourself in this scenario anywhere BG?
 
Oh, i see you're confused about the meaning of the word guillible. Let me give you some synonyms: innocent, trustful,simple, naive. Anything meaning mental defect in those words? There isn't. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant.
 
The people i put down in that post are the deceivers. To clear that up for you they would be the 2004 Bush campaign leaders. These are the people who duped good people into giving them a second term. people including my neighbors and coworkers. Average people who didn't bother to inform themselves and just voted the party line. People like you babs. People like you who wouldn't give Bush another term today because of all that has happened, voted for him then. You voted for him then even though almost all the negatives were in the public domain at that time. There to see for anyone who bothered to look. But you didn't look. You took Bush at his word. Things could have been different.
 
To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie. Yet he got away with putting it past the American public in 04. That's the deception. The heartland voted overwelmingly for Bush in 04. They were the deceived, the innocent, the naive, the trustful. Maybe in your book that's a mental defect, in mine it is far from it.
 
Apparently, you've read many things into that post that i never said. I live in a town, not a big city. I wasn't putting small town america down. That you've connected alternative meanings to the word gullible is more than a little scary.
 
Lastly, that you immediatly embraced Palin without knowing her is disconcerting. Sarah Palin may turn out to be the best thing that's ever happened to this country, but that's not the point. McCain could have appointed a bucket of shit to run with him for office and you'd have embraced it as well. You keep making the same mistake.
 
You are the problem babs. Take a look around at the mess this country is in. Economy in the toilet, tens of thousands of people dead on a war based on a lie. People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by. Our rights flushed. Look at all that and then look into a mirror. Because it's your fault babs. You and your millionaire roping horse freinds who are just fine with the way things are.
 
lastly, the cindy Mccain thing, I got it from fox news. They are the ones concerned that McCain may come off as out of touch. You can google it. It checks out. What was she thinking wearing an outfit that cost as much as nice house?
 
 
 
 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Primo, whew, you scared me there for a minute.
 
Unfortunately i don't think we can assume people won't buy into things like this. i've got two clients who sent me that email and fully believed it to be true.
 
 On another forum one poster keeps using Obama's middle name yet says he's not anti muslim, just trying to be factually correct. Yet, he doesn't use Mccain's middle name.
 
Politics, it's ugly.
 
 
 
 
 

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×