|
Mccain-Palin 08! (pg. 39)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Who cares about whether her family is functional or dysfunctional? She's still a liar, and she still is not fit to run for Senate, much less the VP. |
Yes, Obama and Biden are the bastion of honesty! At least be even-handed. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
PS: ALASKA
people. alaska. come on. think about it. alaska. |
Bill Clinton hails from Arkansas...come on. Think about it. Arkansas. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Yes, Obama and Biden are the bastion of honesty! At least be even-handed. |
Blasphemy!!!! Outlander!!! ;)
you got a point there... but Palin represents something that is even darker...
:nervous: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
you got a point there... but Palin represents something that is even darker...
:nervous: |
Perhaps those 3-6 months out of the year when there is little to no sunlight...;) |
|
|
| LazFX |
Damn ..... GOP is going Low
| quote: | http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/09/mccain_criticizes_obama_vote_o.php
McCain criticizes Obama vote on sex ed legislation
McCain ad criticizes Obama vote on sex ed in Illinois, Obama camp calls claim 'shameful'
CHRISTOPHER WILLS
AP News
Sep 09, 2008 21:41 EST
Republican John McCain's presidential campaign released a new television ad Tuesday that says Democratic rival Barack Obama is bad for families because he supports sex education for kindergarteners. Obama's campaign called the ad a "shameful" distortion.
The ad says Obama has a weak record on education and that his only accomplishment was legislation to teach sex education to kindergarteners.
"Learning about sex before learning to read?" the ad says. "Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."
But the legislation was not Obama's, it never became law and it would have required age-appropriate information in schools. Obama has said that means warning young children about sexual predators and explaining concepts like "good touch and bad touch."
"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.
Burton noted that in a recent interview with Time magazine, McCain refused to define 'honor.' "Now we know why," Burton said.
The McCain campaign released the ad hours after Obama gave a speech on education and offered proposals normally more popular with Republicans. Obama promised to double funding for charter schools, pay teachers based on performance and replace those who aren't up to the job.
As a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted for the sex education bill in committee in 2003, but he was not a sponsor.
The measure said schools offering sex education must include medically accurate information appropriate to the age of the students. The lessons were to cover the consequences of unprotected sex, the effects of various forms of contraception and the option of abstinence.
It also would have allowed parents to pull their children from sex education classes if they wished.
The full state Senate never voted on the bill.
The following year when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, Republican Alan Keyes tried to make an issue of the sex-education vote, but it never gained traction with Illinois voters. Obama defended the idea of giving kindergarten pupils some basic information — that babies aren't brought by a stork, for instance — but said those decisions should be left to local school officials and parents.
McCain's ad is to air in parts of Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri and Wisconsin, as well as on the Discovery channel.
___
On the Net:
McCain ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?vuVLQhRiEXZs
|
|
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Yes, Obama and Biden are the bastion of honesty! At least be even-handed. |
Sarah Palin hasn't said a single thing about her record that is true. And she keeps on repeating the same lies over and over again. I'll admit that Biden and Obama are wrong more than they should be, but nothing I have ever seen even remotely compares with Sarah Palin's inability to say anything truthful.
What's very telling is that you deflect any criticism of Palin by projecting criticisms, similar or otherwise, back onto the Democrats. But in reality, you have not repudiated or defended a single thing about Palin's record.
So, Shakka, the money's on the table.
Why does Sarah Palin deserve my vote for Vice President of the United States? How do I know I can trust her to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States? If she says she is a reformer, what has she reformed? Has she ever gone on the record with an opinion about American foreign policy that doesn't relate to building more pipelines in Alaska? Does it not make you nervous that a major candidate for executive office has been hiding from the press until favorable interview terms could be agreed to? What does it say about her as a candidate that the only time she speaks about her record as governor and mayor is to lie about the bridge to nowhere, selling her plane on ebay (which she didn't), and being a fiscal conservative (which she assuredly was not)? Furthermore, what does it say about McCain that he would choose someone to be Vice President - a heartbeat away from the Oval Office - without even giving her the semblance of a thorough vetting job? Is this indicative of the decision-making strategy he would use as President? Does he not have a responsibility to the American people, when making decisions of extreme national importance, to do his homework beforehand? Is it acceptable for a President to shoot from the hip and make decisions from the gut with no evidence to support said decision? Do we want someone who cares not one iota about the national defense of this country should something happen to him to have his hand on the nuclear football?
As Andrew Sullivan says:
| quote: | He does not have the minimal public integrity to be president of the United States.
Game this all you want; distort it all you want; bamboozle the morons at cable news all you want; win however many news cycles you want.
This claim is absurd on its face, like the Palin nomination to begin with. Absurd. And you can now tell who on the right has even a scintilla of intellectual honesty. That's all this episode is about : another tail-spin in the death throes of the Republican party.
|
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.c...ipsti.html#more
Dollars to donuts, you're not able to answer any of the questions laid out above without deflecting my criticism to Obama, Biden, or some Democratic congressman. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | McCain's Integrity
10 Sep 2008 01:40 pm
For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?
So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.
And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil.
He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was.
And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism.
And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.
Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time.
McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.
|
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.c...ns-integri.html
I'm going to go ahead and rest my case now.
Q, Shakka, The17sss, Latin, etc.:
I eagerly await your replies. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| But its cool to torture people, thats how we save American lives! ITS THE ONLY WAY. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Do you worship at the altar of Andrew Sullivan? Have you ever read anything by someone else? Not that there's anything wrong with him, it just seems that everything you post comes primarily from one source. Is he some sort of authority on all things political? Are no other dissenting opinions as meaningful as his?
I'll read your posts later, I've been in a meeting all day. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
The thing that "scares" me the most about Palin is her lack of a substantial political track record. I realize the chances are slim, but if she were to be elected VP, she would be one person away from the presidency. I feel that even though that possibility is unlikely, the VP should be just as qualified to assume the presidency as the person running for the job. In order for me to feel comfortable about electing someone for either position, I need to know what they think now, as well as what they've done in the past.
Everything we know about Palin, her politics and her leadership ability comes from 6 years of a mayor of a town of less than 10,000 and as the governor of Alaska for barely 2 years. People will try to make a similar argument against Obama, but he has 7 years as Representative of Illinois' 13th district (a population of 750,000...larger than the entire state of Alaska) and 3 years as a US Senator in which he has built a substantial political history. I have a pretty good understanding of what he has done and the actions he has either taken or not taken to prove his beliefs. With Palin I feel as if I have nothing. I have a ton of spin from both sides over the very few things she has (or has not) done, but even those boil down to a few positions on a scant array of real topics.
I need to feel as if I have a good understanding of what a politician stands for and a history to prove it. That just isn't there with Palin and I don't think that's acceptable when running for VP of the US. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Do you worship at the altar of Andrew Sullivan? Have you ever read anything by someone else? Not that there's anything wrong with him, it just seems that everything you post comes primarily from one source. Is he some sort of authority on all things political? Are no other dissenting opinions as meaningful as his?
I'll read your posts later, I've been in a meeting all day. |
He hits the nail on the head more often than not. |
|
|
|
|
