Vice President Palin?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:52 pm

Athletics wrote:Refute any of those points. The point is that arguments written in that style aren't arguments at all, they are written to inflame tempers and stretch the truth, and wasting energy refuting them is like banging your head against the wall because they aren't meant to be rationally debated.

Kind of like the bullshit ads McCain has been running about 'sex ed' for kindergarteners? or the 'lipstick on a pig' bitching and moaning?

Etirely too many people are going to vote for who they 'like' rather than issues, records and facts.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:54 pm

Athletics wrote:
Refute any of those points. The point is that arguments written in that style aren't arguments at all, they are written to inflame tempers and stretch the truth, and wasting energy refuting them is like banging your head against the wall because they aren't meant to be rationally debated.

Just average Americans imitating their political leaders. Kind of like the bullshit ads McCain has been running about 'sex ed' for kindergarteners? or the 'lipstick on a pig' bitching and moaning?

Entirely too many people are going to vote for who they 'like' rather than issues, records and facts.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:33 pm

Jake, great point. I am now totally convinced that Barack Obama spent all his time in the slums of Chicago to one day become President because he is a terrorist. It is the the most AMAZING terrorist plot of all time.

I'm a bit unconvinced on how a point about ethics and family values has anything to do with a terrorist plot. It's CLASSIC Republican - oh shit, quick FEAR THE WORLD!!!

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:27 pm

Jag, I just picked the first anti-Obama email I could find. It's really not that hard to find that kind of anti-Obama crap in all forms, you can check out www.nobamablog.wordpress.com if you want to see more, I wasn't going to bother wading through all the piles of crap for the best one.

As for Z, wow, way to completely miss the point. All I did was post an email that uses essentially the same style of argument (and level of truthfulness) used in the Palin chain letter to attack Obama, and boy as an Obama supporter was it unconvincing and bullshit sounding to you. That's exactly how the Palin chain letter you sent sounds to McCain/Palin supporters. I'm definitely not trying to say that the posted email represents what I actually believe about Obama or how Obama actually plans to treat Israel, simply to point out how it is equally ridiculous for you to post that Palin chain letter and call it political argument.

Bren, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say in either of your posts (reading it a second time didn't make it any clearer) so I'm not sure how to respond.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:12 am

As for Z, wow, way to completely miss the point. All I did was post an email that uses essentially the same style of argument (and level of truthfulness) used in the Palin chain letter to attack Obama, and boy as an Obama supporter was it unconvincing and bullshit sounding to you. That's exactly how the Palin chain letter you sent sounds to McCain/Palin supporters. I'm definitely not trying to say that the posted email represents what I actually believe about Obama or how Obama actually plans to treat Israel, simply to point out how it is equally ridiculous for you to post that Palin chain letter and call it political argument.

That wasn't a Palin chain letter - it was a Palin/McCain chain letter. I could very easily say the differences between the chain letters:
1) Mine was using actual facts about the candidates in an attempt to disprove Republican rhetoric about Obama's personal life.
2) Yours was using circumstantial and secondary evidence to say that Obama is going to destroy the United States.

I'd agree with Jag - it's not even close.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:06 pm

Um... OK, it was a Palin/McCain chain letter, I'm not so sure that makes a meaningful difference.

First of all, the point of that particular Obama email (since you don't seem to grasp the actual subtlety of what's being said and apparently need everything, even the explanations for my posts spelled out to you) was not that Obama was going to destroy America, it was that he is no friend of the Jews or Israel despite his protestations otherwise. Every fact cited in that email is both technically true and worded to be inflammatory, just like your McCain/Palin email. In fact, if anything its more worthy of discussion because it revolves around Obama's stand on an actual issue, rather than tabloid personal life bullshit, and we know that this email isn't worth wasting any intellectual energy on. Arguments like this drag us down into the gutter and are the reason why American politics is what its become. You can choose to continue to feed into that if you like, but I'm done.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:26 pm

And once again McCain's supporters have succeeded in distracting from the issues by arguing about semantics instead

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:35 pm

I literally posted a letter I got that I thought was humorous and you took it as an attack on the Republican race. In light of ALL of McCain's negative campaigns against Obama (so much so that, again, KARL FUCKING ROVE SAID THEY HAD GONE TOO FAR), it paints a totally different perception then McCain/Palin are trying to push on us. It was meant to, hopefully, bring some debate. Unfortunately you responded with an email telling us how much Obama hates Jewish people.

Speaking of distracting - thought this was hilarious (NOTE TO JAKE: I promise to try and find a pro basketball supporter of McCain singing so I can balance this out):
http://deadspin.com/5047995/greg-oden-b ... oplay=true

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:15 pm

How ironic is it, that political views in the IBC, seems to be a microcosm of politics in America today?

Two sides, both ardently entrenched in their view, believing that it is always the opposite side that is playing "dirty politics" and slinging mud and avoiding the real issues that need to be debated. Never seeing the irony when they, themselves engage in the same propaganda mud slinging/marketing.

I guess that's what American politics has become.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:36 pm

Hey, I was trying to keep the debate on an issues level, but it takes two to tango on intelligent debate.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:25 pm

Athletics wrote:Hey, I was trying to keep the debate on an issues level, but it takes two to tango on intelligent debate.

Ha!

Like it or not, the stuff in the chain letter that Z posted IS an issue that a tragic number of Americans consider when they vote. A third of Americans erroneously believe that Obama is a Muslim, an opinion that the Republican party (discreetly) encourages, that kind of thing effects how people vote, that makes it an issue. McCain talks about family values as an issue, yet he's the one who dumped his wife for the billionaire heiress wife of a friend of his.

You don't understand my last post? Either you're full of shit and trying to ignore the mudslinging and whining being done by the Bush/Chen... er, McCain/Palin camp, or you're not half as smart as I thought you were.

I'll put it together for you very simply. You mentioned inflaming tempers and stretching the truth. I said that's just average Americans imitating their political leaders. mcCain's ad abotu Obama sponsoring a 'sex ed' for kindergarteners was jsut such an example of stretching the truth and inflaming tempers. As was the 'lipstick on a pig' hullabaloo. So is the "Obama wants to raise your taxes" ads. Stretching the truth in order to inflame tempers.
Bring me some crayons and I'll draw you a picture if that's not clear enough for you.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:00 am

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 36401.aspx

Also, reported from the Metro in Boston today, Palin's crew did NOT allow anyone into her meeting with Kissinger AND Uribe, and the CNN producer was booted after 40 seconds in the Karzai meeting. These moves are considered an unprecedented lack of access, and Palin's 4 weeks without a press conference during an election is the longest of my lifetime.

In other news, Biden calls Obama's ridiculous potshot at McCain being outdated out of line.

In other news, Karl Rove has said the Republicans are going to far.

In other news, this election is getting REALLY weird.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:12 am

Sorry for another report, but this from the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

"These sessions and meetings scheduled for Wednesday are part of the Republican campaignÃs effort to give Palin experience in foreign affairs. She has never met a foreign head of state and first traveled outside North America just last year."

I'm not going to lie, and I TOTALLY welcome open debate on this - but I think the McCain camp assumed Obama was going with Hilary. The conspiracy theorist in me sees the fact that most media saw Tim Pawlenty cancelling a bunch of meetings and speeches, and assumed he was the choice. I'm just wondering if there wasn't an emergency strategy session when Obama took Biden (which WAS a tad unexpected), and saw the opportunity to convert some of Hillary's massive voter base by taking someone who appealled to people in a lot of the same ways that Hillary did. Just a thought - would love to hear what peeps think on this...it's just really weird to me the lengths that the McCain camp is going to to shield her from the press.

Mariners · Post by **Mariners** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:20 am

We need a new election thread!

When conservatives George Will, David Brooks and David Frum have all written about what an awful pick McCain made here, and how her unfavorable rating has dropped 20 points in a week, it's time to make a new thread.

The pick was made for one reason, to electrify the base, which has always had a distrust and/or hate for John McCain. The women in my life (wife, mom, grandma, aunts, cousins, & freinds) would never vote for McCain just because he chose someone with "tits" (as quoted on the 'so-called' Fox News).

Mariners · Post by **Mariners** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:27 am

Edit: shoul be - "favorable/unfavorable".

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:12 pm

Royals wrote:Sorry for another report, but this from the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

"These sessions and meetings scheduled for Wednesday are part of the Republican campaignÃs effort to give Palin experience in foreign affairs. She has never met a foreign head of state and first traveled outside North America just last year."

I'm not going to lie, and I TOTALLY welcome open debate on this - but I think the McCain camp assumed Obama was going with Hilary. The conspiracy theorist in me sees the fact that most media saw Tim Pawlenty cancelling a bunch of meetings and speeches, and assumed he was the choice. I'm just wondering if there wasn't an emergency strategy session when Obama took Biden (which WAS a tad unexpected), and saw the opportunity to convert some of Hillary's massive voter base by taking someone who appealled to people in a lot of the same ways that Hillary did. Just a thought - would love to hear what peeps think on this...it's just really weird to me the lengths that the McCain camp is going to to shield her from the press.

I'm losing faith in her by the hour at this point, but on the other hand with the way that the media has treated her I don't blame the campaign for trying to protect her. I think the much more interesting question is the point McCain raised today, saying that he wants to push back the debate so he can go to Washington and work on the economic mess and Obama saying to press on. I'd hate to think that a VP choice (which was absolutely made to electrify the base out of political necessity, the future long term masthead of the conservative movement as a presidential candidate is Bobby Jindal if its anybody) is going to sway the election away from the guy who wants to fix the problem and to the guy who wants to keep campaigning.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:42 pm

I think the much more interesting question is the point McCain raised today, saying that he wants to push back the debate so he can go to Washington and work on the economic mess and Obama saying to press on. I'd hate to think that a VP choice (which was absolutely made to electrify the base out of political necessity, the future long term masthead of the conservative movement as a presidential candidate is Bobby Jindal if its anybody) is going to sway the election away from the guy who wants to fix the problem and to the guy who wants to keep campaigning.

My view on this is that is scares me half to death that McCain wants McCain and Obama to come up with the solution. The solution should be designed by the people in the goverment who understand the situation the best. That's why God created experts.

Politicians don't want foreclosures because foreclosures mean they don't get re-elected. But isn't it about time we cut the chord on these situations? Isn't that dragging down the credit and insurance markets? I'm a relative newbie on these situations (as stated, this is my first year really educating myself on this stuff), so I'm totally willing to listen here...

It just scares me half to death to think that it's going to be McCain and Obama who solve this (a POW and a Lawyer) who have to get elected or re-elected at some point, rather than an economist. It'd take Obama and McCain one day to fly in to washington, listen to the presentation, and vote. That just makes more sense to me, rather than them going back to solve it themselves...

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:18 pm

To me it seems more representative of Obama's nature to want to give a speech rather than do the dirty work, but I understand that I have a pretty slanted view of him generally (you really should have to accomplish something to become President...). I want McCain there because I trust him to be a hawk about not wasting any money spent on paying back favors to various Wall Street corporations while also recognizing that being punitive to Wall Street will ultimately hurt Main Street too (yes, that is a partisan screed, I've given up on intelligent debate at least through the election).

As for the economic implications of foreclosures, what happens when there are mass foreclosures is that banks try to sell off the homes quickly and below market value to get the asset off of their books and recapitalize as much of the lost loan as possible. The impact of this is that it floods the market with cheap real estate, which in depressed areas drags the value of homes down even more. The result of this drop in home prices people who need to refinance to stay in their homes because their rates are adjusting suddenly lose a ton of equity (many people now owe more on their homes than their homes are worth), meaning that they can't get new loans and the only option is to foreclose, which just perpetuates the problem. So in a microeconomic sense you are correct, banks need to foreclose on those individual loans and cut the cord so they don't end up with nothing, but in a macroeconomic sense the impact of all of those banks cutting all of those cords at the same time puts us into the mess we are in now.

The other issue is that since all of these banks are losing all of this money in writing off and foreclosing on these mortgages, they don't have the capital to lend to businesses for reinvestment, and since that kind of credit has been the fuel of the economy pretty much forever (warning, mildly related history lesson: for most of recorded history Jews were only tolerated in Europe as moneylenders, because Christians couldn't lend money at interest to other Christians but government leaders understood that only interest bearing loans could effectively increase money supply and grow the economy), so if banks aren't giving out credit then businesses can't invest in new projects which means they can't grow, which means job cuts and all sorts of bad things to the average taxpayer. What really bothers me are the people calling for punitive measures on Wall Street, because any punishment inflicted on Wall Street will be inflicted even more on Main Street (a recent study showed that when someone on Wall Street is fired 1.5 other jobs are lost).

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:18 pm

I'm really confused by this - this is the Presidential Election. Unless I'm mistaken, Election Day itself isn't moving - and I sure as hell would rather hear what my future president's have to say on the issues than have them trying to solve an issues neither has any history saying they are anywhere near qualified for. It's not like Obama's not going to Washington - he is. So's McCain. This is not the only issue that impacts America, though - it's just one of them. Time is valuable for America to understand who they should be voting for for the next four (potentially eight years). Pushing off time to try and solve an issue they have no business solving - rather just voting for or against once hearing the proposed resolution - and, apparently from Bush's speech, has been months in coming - seems a bit, uh, stupid.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:44 pm

The reality is that this bailout will have more impact on what either McCain or Obama can do with their administration than any other possible situation, so it certainly merits their full attention. I actually heard Jackie Speier, my local congresswoman and a true blue Democrat, say that A we need to have some sort of solution in place, and B this means that those lofty goals like Universal Health Care are going to have to be put off because our money is going to this bailout. More importantly though, check out this article, which I think is totally spot on. I'm now in favor of suspending the campaign for no other reason then because we need a break, we can't even properly digest anything anymore.

Mariners · Post by **Mariners** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:40 pm

Why am I not surprised that you think a Neocon/Ex-Reagan-Bush speechwriter was "spot on"?

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:23 pm

Joe Biden thinks that FDR was president when the stock market crashed and reassured Americans talking to them on TV. You may have things you don't like about Palin, but at least she's not a moron

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:14 pm

DBacks wrote:Why am I not surprised that you think a Neocon/Ex-Reagan-Bush speechwriter was "spot on"?

How about arguing the point rather than the person who wrote it? Especially since I didn't even know that about the guy. The scary thing is that as heavily covered as this campaign has been, 2012 is only going to be more intense because there's only going to be more technology available.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:25 pm

Cardinals wrote:You may have things you don't like about Palin, but at least she's not a moron

I think that's news to the American People. There's nothing I've seen from this woman who makes me think she's either intelligent or competent. Running a state that has ZERO fiscal issues due to a massive, continuous influx of money from the oil industry isn't exactly difficult. Lars' Real Girl could do it.

I'm in agreement with jake about one thing, there's entirely too much campaigning going on for entirely too long (which is part of why setting a point before which primaries cannot be held it important). If anything, all the primaries need to be pushed up (WAY up, so they're starting in about march, not ending then) and we need to find some way to discourage politicians from starting their campaigns almost two years before the election and have them actually do their jobs instead of spending half their terms campaigning for the next one.
More than anything else, this was what disgusted me about Mitt Romney. As soon as he became governor of Massachusetts he started positioning himself and campaigning for president.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:03 pm

That's one of the things I really liked about the Confederate Constitution. As president, you got one 6 year term. That was it, that way the president didn't spend his entire term worrying about getting reelected, but rather on dealing with the problems at hand.

Bren, Obama's basically been campaigning since 2004 to be president. How is that any different from Romney?