posted September 30, 2008 03:07 PM            

Face it acoustic, Sarah Palin is a major threat to the kind of kill the babies feminists found in the radical leftist demoscat party.

Palin is a major threat to O'Bomber and O'Biden for the main reason she is more qualified to be President right now than either of them.

Palin is a major threat because she is capable of letting all the air out of the O'Bomber/O'Biden balloon, and quite willing to do so, which she showed when she spoke at the Republican Convention. "Difference between a community organizer and a Mayor...a Mayor has real responsibilities".

Now all these attempts to belittle Palin, to besmirch her reputation; all your sexist, misogynist statements and those of other O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinkers have backfired big time. These kinds of attacks may make you feel good in the moment but there's going to be a hangover from all that Kool-Aid the day after the election.

Tell O'Biden to buckle up Thursday night.

posted September 30, 2008 04:18 PM            

Palin Problem
She’s out of her league.

By Kathleen Parker

If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream — away from Sarah Palin.

To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president — and possibly president — is to risk being labeled anti-woman.

Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

— Kathleen Parker is a nationally syndicated columnist.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=

quote:

---

No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

---

posted September 30, 2008 04:57 PM            

How odd don't you think acoustic that you are always ready to side with a so called republican..if they're a RINO making RINO noises but at all other times you don't want to hear from them.

But it's not working. Conservative Republicans know the difference and Palin is a Conservative who has already stuck pins in the O'Bomber/O'Biden campaign balloon. Just in case you don't know this acoustic; America is a center right country with 60% identifying themselves as conservatives..without regard to party.

posted September 30, 2008 05:10 PM            

You can look up for yourself previous Kathleen Parker articles praising Palin's addition to the ticket, so the RINO argument doesn't make sense or work. Sorry bud.

quote:

---

Just in case you don't know this acoustic; America is a center right country with 60% identifying themselves as conservatives..without regard to party.

---

posted September 30, 2008 05:29 PM            

D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be...
(READ LIST, ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP)
Very conservative......18%
Somewhat conservative..41%

MODERATE (DNR)..........3%

Somewhat liberal.......26%
Very liberal ..........10%

UNSURE/REFUSED (DNR) ...2%

posted October 01, 2008 12:37 PM            

I wanted to bring you this, though:

What it's like to debate Sarah Palin
By Andrew Halcro
Wed Oct 1, 4:00 AM ET

When he faces off against Sarah Palin Thursday night, Joe Biden will have his hands full.

I should know. I've debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do.

On paper, of course, the debate appears to be a mismatch.

In 2000, Palin was the mayor of an Alaskan town of 5,500 people, while Biden was serving his 28th year as a United States senator. Her major public policy concern was building a local ice rink and sports center. His major public policy concern was the State Department's decision to grant an export license to allow sales of heavy-lift helicopters to Turkey, during tense UN-sponsored Cyprus peace talks.

On paper, the difference in experience on both domestic and foreign policy is like the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing a bullet. Unfortunately for Biden, if recent history is an indicator, experience or a grasp of the issues won't matter when it comes to debating Palin.

On April 17, 2006, Palin and I participated in a debate at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks on agriculture issues. The next day, the Fairbanks Daily News Miner published this excerpt:

"Andrew Halcro, a declared independent candidate from Anchorage, came armed with statistics on agricultural productivity. Sarah Palin, a Republican from Wasilla, said the Matanuska Valley provides a positive example for other communities interested in agriculture to study."

On April 18, 2006, Palin and I sat together in a hotel coffee shop comparing campaign trail notes. As we talked about the debates, Palin made a comment that highlights the phenomenon that Biden is up against.

"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.

While policy wonks such as Biden might cringe, it seemed to me that Palin was simply vocalizing her strength without realizing it. During the campaign, Palin's knowledge on public policy issues never matured – because it didn't have to. Her ability to fill the debate halls with her presence and her gift of the glittering generality made it possible for her to rely on populism instead of policy.

Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she's met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges.

In one debate, a moderator asked the candidates to name a bill the legislature had recently passed that we didn't like. I named one. Democratic candidate Tony Knowles named one. But Sarah Palin instead used her allotted time to criticize the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski. Asked to name a bill we did like, the same pattern emerged: Palin didn't name a bill.

And when she does answer the actual question asked, she has a canny ability to connect with the audience on a personal level. For example, asked to name a major issue that had been ignored during the campaign, I discussed the health of local communities, Mr. Knowles talked about affordable healthcare, and Palin talked about ... the need to protect hunting and fishing rights.

So what does that mean for Biden? With shorter question-and-answer times and limited interaction between the two, he should simply ignore Palin in a respectful manner on the stage and answer the questions as though he were alone. Any attempt to flex his public-policy knowledge and show Palin is not ready for prime time will inevitably cast him in the role of the bully.

On the other side of the stage, if Palin is to be successful, she needs to do what she does best: fill the room with her presence and stick to the scripted sound bites.

• Andrew Halcro served two terms as a Republican member of the Alaska State House of Representatives. He ran for governor as an Independent in 2006, debating Sarah Palin more than two dozen times. He blogs at www.andrewhalcro.com .
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081001/cm_csm/yseaquist

posted October 01, 2008 01:33 PM            

Anyone who knows anything about Democrat politics knows who Democrat Celinda Lake is and the role she plays in polling and Democrat politics.

"The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners are proud to add The George Washington University as the sponsor of the Battleground Poll. This project will now be known as "The George Washington University Battleground Poll." In addition, The George Washington University will serve as the official archive for all past Battleground Polls conducted to date.

The George Washington University Battleground Poll is a collaborative bi-partisan survey produced by Republican strategist Ed Goeas of The Tarrance Group and Democrat Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners. This national polling program is unique to the industry, in that it offers the distinct perspectives of two top pollsters from different sides of the aisle. Battleground Polls are conducted, not for the benefit of any paying client, but to give the public a look at Americans' opinions and an inside peek at strategic recommendations for both political parties.

Initiated in June 1991, the Battleground Polls have gained widespread media recognition as reliable bellwethers of national opinion and voters' intentions. The Battleground data projected the outcome of the 1992, 1996, and 2004 presidential race more precisely than any other similar effort in the country, including those of the major TV networks and national newspapers. In addition, Battleground Polls have consistently been major predictors of what is going to happen in approaching Congressional elections. The firms are currently conducting a rolling national tracking poll with N=200 interviews per night on Sunday night through Thursday night. The most recent available data is below."
http://www.tarrance.com/bg.cfm

Leave it to you acoustic to find an article written by a candidate/opponent who got his ass kicked in a debate with Sarah Palin.

I know we're all shocked, shocked I say, by what this debate loser...as well as republican candidate loser has to say about Governor Sarah Palin. Shocking really!!

But, Andrew Halcro isn't the only candidate who got his ass kicked debating Sarah Palin.

There was also the sitting Governor of the state of Alaska a Republican whom Palin defeated, Frank Murkowski and a former 2 term Democrat Governor of Alaska, Tony Knowles, whom Palin also defeated.

posted October 02, 2008 03:07 AM            

quote:

---

No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

---

That's a blatant lie. If you know more than a few SAHMs or, even moreso, housewives, you'd know that there are a great many people who criticize them for choosing not to work outside the home. That woman's piece is so far off the mark that it should be obvious [and the one before that is out loud laughable] but this one comment shows just how extremely out of touch she is.

As for conservatives versus liberals, meh. A recent poll by WH magazine shows that the average married woman supports McCain while the average single woman supports Obama. We know how age, experience and family life changes our worldview and this is just one more drop in the bucket. As I've grown older, I have moved from the (unbelievable to some here, I know) fairly liberal almost leftist mindframe to a more middle ground*, certainly more conservative mindframe. That doesn't really shock me. What does shock me is the number of people I went to school with who never in my life I would have dreamed would call themselves conservatives, much less Republicans, who now do. Love, marriage, kids, serious careers, investments, etc. Yup. Just my experience.

I would elaborate but I see a, erm, poll-reading war on the horizon.

posted October 02, 2008 10:44 AM            

Was Bill and Hill putting their family first when Bill ran for Governor..and then President and Hill ran for Co-President?

Was John Edwards putting his family first..when he ran for the Senate..and then President? Well, we now know exactly what putting your family first means to Edwards.

Was/Is Barack Hussein O'Bomber putting his family first..when he ran for the Senate and now for President?

All these sexist statements and sexist, misogynist comments coming out of demoscats mouths and off their keyboards are an indication they fear Sarah Palin. The attacks against Palin are..so far as I can determine..going back into history in America..they are simply unprecedented.

The goal of demoscats and their lap dog "in the bag for O'Bomber" press is not merely to discredit Sarah Palin but to destroy her. She's not their kind of woman...an elitist woman, those who look down their haughty elitist noses at the rest of America. They're phonies, frauds and members of the self appointed intelligentsia; but Sarah Palin is real.

posted October 02, 2008 02:57 PM            

You could poll 1,000 people on if they've ever even heard of the battleground poll, and the majority answer would be 'no.' Perhaps you should keep snooping around the site until you find this page:
http://www.tarrance.com/whowedoitfor/politicallist.html (Who We Do It For)

quote:

---

Leave it to you acoustic to find an article written by a candidate/opponent who got his ass kicked in a debate with Sarah Palin.

---

I didn't have to search as you're implying. It was right there in Yahoo! News. And this guy didn't get his ass kicked. He knew the facts, and she just BSed. She fared better, but not due to any command of the subject material.

quote:

---

That's a blatant lie. If you know more than a few SAHMs or, even moreso, housewives, you'd know that there are a great many people who criticize them for choosing not to work outside the home.

---

As you know, I live in a fairly liberal area, and I've never heard of anyone criticizing a stay-at-home-mother, so I don't think it's quite the blatant lie that you seem to believe it to be. I would be interested in hearing your rationale for why people would be inclined to criticize stay-at-home-moms.

quote:

---

As I've grown older, I have moved from the (unbelievable to some here, I know) fairly liberal almost leftist mindframe to a more middle ground*, certainly more conservative mindframe.

---

Yeah, based on your posts of late, I'd have to say that you appear to be pretty mainstream Conservative. You seem to believe all the Democratic stereotypes, which really annoys me to no end ...because it undermines your contention that you're a Centrist (i.e. fair) in any way. You don't recognize that the last time government spending was under control it was under a Democrat (who shut the government down insisting on a balanced budget). You don't seem to know that the number of people in poverty went down under Clinton, and came back up under Bush. You don't seem to know that the richest guy in the world, Warren Buffet, thinks he should be taxed more, and the second richest man in the world, Bill Gates, sponsors National Public Radio (point being that top Capitalists can have Democratic leanings). Personal responsibility, sound financial management, and Capitalism can ALL come in Democratic packages.

I just wanted to make you aware of that, because I've seen you pull the "I'm a Centrist" card in your own defense before. When you go along with virtually every stereotype of Democrats it just doesn't seem like you're very Centrist. That said, I don't think you're radical by any stretch. It just appears that you're pretty solidly Conservative/Republican.

quote:

---

*(The lack of variety in issues probably helps any misconception about my views ... really this board has been little more than an I-hate-Bush-whine-fest for so long).

---

I would have to strenuously disagree with that [I-hate-Bush-whine-fest] assessment. Jwhop's threads dominate this board, and have for quite some time. He is not whining about Bush at all, though some of us believe he ought to from time to time. He whines (if you want to use that term) about every Democrat under the sun as often as possible.

___________________

And now back to Jwhop:

quote:

---

All these sexist statements and sexist, misogynist comments coming out of demoscats mouths

---

And Conservative mouths, as in the article I posted. I can also cite known Conservative Dr. Laura Schlessinger for her views on the matter.

quote:

---

They're phonies, frauds and members of the self appointed intelligentsia; but Sarah Palin is real.

---

posted October 08, 2008 12:42 AM            

A
Arguments against SAHMs and housewives I've heard:

1) They're lazy because they don't have *real* jobs.
2) They use their families/children as an excuse to not face the *real* world.
3) They have nothing better to do than clean their homes which is a lowly task.
4) They're uneducated and only good at spending their husbands' money.
5) They're desperate and lacking meaning in their lives.
6) They're selfish to not be making more money for their children because living *comfortably* on one income is very hard.
7) Women who stay home have little arguments to make against their husbands who support them *alone* and should be responsible for all household duties, including kids.

The list goes on and on. I've been a SAHM/housewife for over 5 years and believe me that I've heard more than those. Not always directed at me or my friends but even casually tossed out in conversation or on various blogs/forums. These comments span political ideals, race, gender, culture, you name it. And, likewise, mommies/wives who work face the other end of being selfish for working and putting themselves *first*, etc.

Hey, how about women should be free to CHOOSE what is best for them and every family should be able to CHOOSE what is best for them without a disgusting backlash, from either side, about what the *right* place is for a woman?

B
It's not so much that I agree with or believe every Democratic stereotype but that they are often played out in this forum. And, especially, the stereotypes against Reps/conservatives etc. run amok here, as well. Anyone who disagrees with the leftists here gets thrown into the pile, too. So if I laugh or hyperbole about the BS that goes on here, it doesn't mean I think that about all dems/libs ... just the far left lefties who don't recognize themselves as extremists. My posts as of late mostly express my disgust with the leftist extreme trying to be played as the *average* which it is not. And, before you forget, I don't like many Republican politicians, either. I've commented on Palin especially because many of the attacks on her revolve around her being a woman and her role in her familiy's life. Also because, apparantly, representing rural people or "small towns" (nvmd the diversity in Alaska and the fact that there are a great many liberals there) is some kind of sin around here. She's a white female from Alaska, hence she must be some kind of country bumpkin with no understanding of the *real* world. For the record, I don't like politicians in general. I know Obama/Biden is not the answer but neither do I believe that McCain/Palin is the best of all possibile possibilities. And I can't understand why people wrap themselves up in the bs that all politicians throw around as though salvation is imminent. Dem politicians, as of late, are at the bottom of the barrel for me because they are completely inept, lying, cheating [insert your favorite negative adjectives] persons. That doesn't mean that I find Rep politicians to be their antithesis. No. I distrust ALL politicians. But it amazes me that some people are so tied into their *I'm a [this party]* or their *I hate [that party]* ideas/feelings that they believe that voting for the one they prefer is somehow going to automatically save the world or that, by default, their preferred party is ideal and not, as in reality, the least of current possible "bads". Insanely huge government with stupid amounts of power = WRONG, no matter who is charge, imo.

C
Even now, after years, you will find posts here that fall back on "I hate Bush" arguments. It's like a disease. Yeah, this or that may not be good but Bush is worse. The surge may have worked but Bush is still evil. Blah blah blah look at all the evil Bush has *singlehandedly* done. Nvmd all the Dems who voted right along with the war. Nvmd the faulty intelligence. Nvmd the successes that have been achieved which is why, strangely I'm sure, the war hasn't been top of the news list. Nvmd ALL the other important issues of contention with our government. I hate Bush = failsafe argument here. And, added to the stereotypes aforementioned, everyone who doesn't agree with the far left opinions here must, of course, love Bush.

posted October 08, 2008 10:25 AM            

Interesting how leftists claim to champion the rights of women...DNC and O'Bomber; then, in the case of the DNC, steal the nomination from Hillary. In the case of O'Bomber, he pays women about the same as the national average..for women, which is about 78% of what he pays men on his staff.

Interesting too how these same people want to tell Sarah Palin to sit down, shut up and go home to take care of her children.

posted October 08, 2008 05:09 PM            

A

Because it seems to be clear that you would defend SAHMs, it seems that you wouldn't criticize a mother for putting her family first as the Conservative journalist said. You did call it a lie on the basis that apparently you've come across people who don't share your philosophy of family choice. You say the list goes on and on. My instinct tells me that the amount of people against SAHMs must be a fairly small minority as it wasn't too many generations ago that such was practically a norm. There is obviously the possibility that I'm wrong.

B
I'm trying to understand your take in part B. You say that you don't necessarily agree with or believe every Democratic stereotype, but when I see you use one it's difficult to imagine that you don't believe it.

I don't know what leftist extreme is trying to be portrayed as normal or average, so you'll have to educate me on that one.

Sarah Palin has only lived in Idaho and Alaska. Alaska isn't tremendously diverse; it certainly has Democrats, though. As Alaska has less inhabitants than San Francisco, I would absolutely have to concur with the idea of her being a "country bumpkin". We don't know if she could win an election in a major city much less a more populous state, and the Katie Couric interview showed exactly how saavy she is about the *real* world (She couldn't name a publication that she reads [though she claims to read them all like a small town mayor might say of his/her city's newspapers] or cite a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade).

quote:

---

Insanely huge government with stupid amounts of power = WRONG, no matter who is charge, imo.

---

That sounds exactly like something a Bush detractor would say.

C
Bush has the worst ratings since Nixon, and you expect that people won't blame Bush for things that happen on Bush's watch? You bring up the war, and wonder why people fall back on not liking Bush. Doesn't it make sense that since this war was unpopular even as an idea [before it started] that it's troubled progress would all be linked to Bush. Yeah, there have been successes, but there have also been failures. I'm sure you see both sides. I'm sure I see both sides...so isn't it rational to believe that most people see both sides even if they promote one side over the other?

It's weird for me that section C starts with a defense of Bush, and ends with the idea that disagreeing with the Left makes you a Bush lover. Are you saying that though you would defend Bush, you don't necessarily like him? Perhaps it's a matter of nuance.

I'd like to know if you really think you're getting "far left" opinion here, and what designates it as such. The use of such a term, to me, suggests that perhaps a Republican tactic is working.

________________________

posted October 08, 2008 11:19 PM            

A
It isn't so much that I defend one practice over the other but the right to CHOOSE what is right for ourselves. I think different circumstances call for different decisions in families. However, I don't think portraying any woman as automatically a bad mother or selfish for whatever her career decisions are is a good thing. It's a personal decision for each family and, short of criminal activity directly enmeshed in said choices, no one else's business to judge or damn a woman that way. But she's a "country" white female on a Republican ticket so it's more important, to the media, to focus on her gender/family roles than it is to focus on all the other questionable and important things that should be the focus of our candidates at this time. *Added* Alaska is not purely a country place. By diversity I meant that, surprise, they do actually have city folk. Many residents of Alaska also were not born there but have moved there over time ie, not country bumpkins but weary of the norm or at least looking for a different way of life.

(pause)

B

Leftist opinions here are not the average dem/lib opinion, ime. The war, yes. Plenty of people support that view. But on the rest of the platform the Dems are pushing, there is not the same unified perspective. Ie, media, Dem Party, and many (not all) left leaning posters here represent the extreme in views. Examples: Abortion. Dems/leftists project an unrestrained support of abortion while, in reality, most people who support abortion freedoms do so with many restrictions on the practice. War. Dems/leftists project a completely pacifistic attitude about war/violence when, in reality, most people against this war are against this particular war but can understand the need for a military and the need, in certain cases, to go to war. More? Religion. While one cannot say that America is a land of one religion, the Dems/lefties portray us as a nation without any religion or that religious beliefs are stupid and should be dead. While you'll find many liberals who do not support one organized religion, neither do they mostly share the same view that religion has no place in this country or that people of this or that religion should be shut up. Most Americans believe in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God and follow some of the theology/religous practices. HUGE DISPARITY between what the media portrays and what people actually believe in America. (This point crosses over into section C territory regarding the extreme leftism rampant here.) Not saying you or he or she always have this belief or that but that, over the course of my time here, those are the loudest leftist opinions shared here especially as though they are the only right ones or as though everyone "knows" that or as though everyone who doesn't agree is some kind of an [negative adj]. In fact, this board and the ridiculous antics over the years have contributed to my political shift. Was much more lefty when I joined. Everyone plays dirty, different topic, and I wish everyone would stop. Still, the outrageous claims made actually have encouraged me to research more and, lo and behold, I find conservative values now, and certainly traditional values always, (*NOT THE SAME AS CURRENT REPUBLICAN VALUES*) to be more to my liking.

If that's all confusing, in my head, political leanings are a circle and not a line. So you've got the point at which we can imagine the meeting place of right and left, say at the South point or moderate/centrist. Between South and West you have liberal opinions. At West you hit leftist. Current political climate, between West and North you have the current Dem Party and extreme leftists. Similar thing on the right though not exactly the same leanings ... variance due to McCain vs. Bush ideologies. And North on the circle is where, shudder to think, fascists, socialists, communists, etc. ALL MEET UP because their different ideologies all require the same kind of iron grip to succeed. Sure, some are more left leaning and some are more right leaning in ideology but the end result is the same, total government control.

If it sounds like I'm detracting from Bush, that's fine with me. Never once have I stated I completely agree with his policies or that I was in agreement with his decision to go to war the way we did. The blind allegiance shown to both parties makes my head spin. This government is TOO big. I do believe Obama/Biden will make it worse as, to me, they are hovering on the North point of my political circle. But neither do I think that McCain/Palin will be able or more importantly willing to do enough to shrink this monstrosity of a government to a reasonable, constitutional size.

Small federal government, respect of state powers, proper federal representation, less taxes. Long live the Republic. Unchecked democracy = equals mob rule without respect for minority (not racial amount wise) opinions. Balance point. People working for their communities, themselves and each other versus being government fodder for a lying bunch of politicians. That is, the government has failed. Not will fail, not is failing but already has. We believed, as Americans, in our government and that they would take care of us. As the decades went by, we gave them more and more power and more and more money because they said they needed that to "fix" things. And the promises have not been met. Some progress, sure. Overall failure. One head, two hands, people. Can't keep striking the fingers and blindly hoping for change. Machine is not far from the truth, imo. Capable of functioning on its own as a system regardless of who is feeding or "manning" it. Stop the machine and go back to that little piece of paper worthy of respect. <--- Big woots from me.

(pause)

C

No. I don't expect people to be stupid enough to think that one person has that much power or influence. Anyone taking over the reigns of this enterprise known as our government is riding on the successes or failures of past leaders. If you take over a business as it is failing are you instantly responsible for the failure? No.

Do I think Bush is a great president? No. People look at Clinton as though he didn't ride the wave of success of his predecessors while wasting his time and ours in the White House. And neither can I blame Clinton alone. Go back. And keep going back. Each president has contributed some good but also some bad. Proper historical context is imperative. Cause and effect, remember? You can't say that what soandso did decades ago doesn't matter because it does. Our governmental policies are cumulative, in general. There is no president, imo, who was "perfect". Failed policies are snowballing and, though I would never suggest a longer period of leadership, 4 or 8 years (haha fate and destiny) are not long enough to deal with all the crud that has been put into effect. Especially with the corruption in DC. It's not just Dems it's most if not all politicians and their contributors, it's lobbyists, it's the media, it's a big, fat, failing mess and for the life of me I will never understand how people still WANT TO BELIEVE that it is something other than it is.

No, I am not defending Bush in previous section C. Read it over. I'm not saying Bush is better than this or that. I'm saying that, no matter what happens, the argument reverts to "I hate Bush". Which is absurd. Especially now with a Democratically controlled Congress and the gaining power Dems have had even before in DC that people would SINGLE out Bush as though he did it all by himself, good or bad. It's BS. It's blind partisan favoring regardless of the fact that, essentially, they ALL SUCK.

Where is the cry against the Dems who've messed up? Practically nonexistant on this board. Even Jwhop has slammed Bush and McCain on certain issues. But all we ever hear about the Dem Party is how great they are or that, hey, at least they're not Bush. Come on. If you seriously believe that there is nothing wrong with the party or with the politicians, that's ... we'll say that's your right to believe. But I don't believe people are that naive about either party. So why the tap dancing? Why the refusal to talk about the bad? Don't know about anyone else here but I pledge allegiance to our country, not to one political party.

That's my issue with extreme lefties and also with extreme righties. The same antics, the same crud, the same trash. Ignore the bad we've done or are doing and focus on this particular bad they're doing. Forgive us our many faults because that one guy's faults are worse. Don't talk about the skeletons in our closet because you might give that other guy a chance. Hey, you know, if everyone stopped with the BS then the truth would actually be out there for view. But then both parties would probably collapse and heaven forbid voters think independantly.

Yes, I think Bush has not been a great president but neither do I think he's the worst. Yes, I was against the war from the beginning but I do not believe that bomb and go is the right thing to do and which is why I support our efforts there NOW to rebuild. Yes, I believe that liberals have many admirable ideals, some of which I share, but I also think that this recent crop of Dem politicians are full of it and that they are equally guilty, at least, of the current economic crisis and for our role in the war and all the other problems we are facing.

posted October 09, 2008 02:02 AM            

quote:

---

Where is the cry against the Dems who've messed up? Practically nonexistant on this board.

---

Almost every day Jwhop is here trying to make some Democrat(s) look bad. I don't know how you could possibly see that as "nonexistant." And on volume of threads he's started, he probably bests us all. I don't understand how you've come to your perception.

quote:

---

But I don't believe people are that naive about either party. So why the tap dancing? Why the refusal to talk about the bad?

---

In the absense of someone being constantly on the offensive, this place is transformed.

quote:

---

Hey, you know, if everyone stopped with the BS then the truth would actually be out there for view. But then both parties would probably collapse and heaven forbid voters think independantly.

---

I think that's a practical impossibility. A great many BSers are completely unwitting.

quote:

---

I also think that this recent crop of Dem politicians are full of it and that they are equally guilty, at least, of the current economic crisis and for our role in the war and all the other problems we are facing.

---

I can agree with you on that.

I know I haven't commented on a lot that you've said. I do have various little comments I'd make, but nothing too major.

I am still a bit in the dark about the extreme leftist views. I can see it better perhaps if we are taking a longer view spanning years. Beyond that, I don't think you or anyone else probes for a more nuanced opinion, so if you just get a rote statement/opinion from someone on the Left I don't think it's surprising. I wouldn't say that I generally see that kind of probing to see what people really believe.

posted October 09, 2008 04:13 AM            

And, yes, over the years is my perspective. To me, it seems like every time we're making progress (us oldies) on actually talking about issues, there pops in some inflammatory whiner rehashing the arguments we've all been through way too many times. Oh, ye search feature, please function once again! And maybe people will use it before they commence the poop slinging, yes! But I doubt it.

Also, don't see the need for probing. Someone asks, you answer. I hope. I do try. However, I don't think there is enough respect between posters here and find that some people are quick to dismiss the others even when there are sincere questions being asked. I've talked about trust issues here before, seems a constant problem. Usually, I revert to sarcasm and hyperbole when I just don't think further discussion will get us anywhere because no one is taking it seriously. And, sometimes, I just laugh at my own private jokes.