Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
how does it feel to be attacked like this?
You Republicans and conservatives have blinders on if you don't think "attacks" like these have been launched on Democrats, the "ANGRY LEFT!" and those "damn liberals in Washington!". For sake, the message at the RNC last night (ie. Fred Thompson :rolleyes: ) was that you aren't patriotic and don't put your country first if you don't vote Republican.
This thread is a ing joke.
Ooooooo... the "angry left"... "damn liberals"...so harsh! SOOOO personal! What a bunch of ing babies if that gets them upset. There's just no comparison to what's being done to Palin and her family right now. I've never seen someone try to be so personally destroyed. People in the press demanding for DNA samples of her baby? Yeah, that's true. Bringing up her husband's DUI from 22 years ago? There's a laundry list of many things much more vulgar and despicable that the far left is doing in an attempt to ruin her life, and it goes way beyond Fred Thompson's speech. I watched it, and he did not get vulgar or personal or attack families; he ripped policy and propoganda
DjWhooCares
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
blah blah blah i eat for breakfast
srsly..(the following is my opinion... hehe)
i think even the media is tired of bush' past 8 year term...so perhaps their attacking the mccain-palin ticket more so mccain doesnt continue bush' "3rd term" ..
ps..what do you guys think of ron paul?
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Ooooooo... the "angry left"... "damn liberals"...so harsh! SOOOO personal! What a bunch of ing babies if that gets them upset. There's just no comparison to what's being done to Palin and her family right now. I've never seen someone try to be so personally destroyed. People in the press demanding for DNA samples of her baby?
A story, mind you, validated by nobody other than McCain's campaign chair. So your "far left" story is actually one coming from the "near right".
quote:
There's a laundry list of many things much more vulgar and despicable that the far left is doing in an attempt to ruin her life, and it goes way beyond Fred Thompson's speech. I watched it, and he did not get vulgar or personal or attack families; he ripped policy and propoganda
So.... implying that Barack Obama is for the killing of NEWborn babies is not vulgar or an attack?
You're a sorry joke man.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
I love the seething hatred...haha. You guys are going nuclear over this issue. How do you know her "incompetance" and failure is imminent? I want your crystal ball. Polls suggest all sorts of things to the person who is reading the particular poll at the time. If you live your life by what the polls say, I feel sorry for you. And the best thing about Palin is that she's not Hillary Clinton. She would never get those ultra liberal votes from those who wanted to vote for Hillary anyway... but she will get votes from regular women who can relate to her. Unlike Hillary, she has achieved success independant of riding her man's political coat tails. She has a loving values based family that normal american's can relate to, and doesn't have to play the victim role that Hillary played after her husband ed an intern in the oval office. Self made, truly successful independant woman... THAT is where the appeal is, and it scares the out of the so called feminists that are supposed to support women's advancement.
Ignore polling all you want - there's a margin of error for a reason. But when only 30% of all respondents in multiple series of polling data have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, it's more or less safe to say that constitutes a statistical majority.
I'm just pissed that a man running for President - who had a real shot - would gamble with America's national security. And what's more - I'm SHOCKED that people like you don't seem to care.
And as for battalions v. brigades - I'm just happy that there's a VP candidate out there who knows something about Iraq other than what's "been on the news".
Honestly, my estimation of a lot of conservatives went down in light of their reaction to Sarah Palin. I thought you wanted what's best for your country, but now I see all you want is to win.
DjWhooCares
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Honestly, my estimation of a lot of conservatives went down in light of their reaction to Sarah Palin. I thought you wanted what's best for your country, but now I see all you want is to win.
Lebez ftw...
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You're a sorry joke man.
Who's the sorry joke? You really should study up on what you're talking about before making such a stupid comment so casually. Fred wasn't implying it, he was stating FACT. Obama supported a bill that would allow for babies who survived abortions to still be killed outside the womb. His own campaign team admitted Obama's lie on TV, after they had no choice when someone dug deep enough to find out the truth.
See paragraph 13---> http://www.nysun.com/national/obama...abortion/84059/
And here's a little bonus commentary:
quote:
Obama initially said he voted against the 2003 bill protecting born-alive aborted fetuses only because it would have threatened abortion rights due to its lack of a “neutrality” clause vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade. Minor problem: The bill did include that clause and State Sen. Obama was one of the committee members who made sure that it did — before he voted against it anyway. Meanwhile, the bill he voted against was identical to a bill that passed 98-0 in Congress which he claims he would have voted for if he had been a U.S. Senator at the time. How to reconcile the two positions? Simple: Since there are no federal abortion laws, the federal bill was essentially a symbolic gesture, whereas there are of course state abortion laws in Illinois that could have been affected by the state bill. Which is to say, he was prepared to take a stand on the issue if he knew that his stand would have … no practical consequences whatsoever.
As for what terrible effect, precisely, the state bill would have had on those state abortion laws, it’s not clear. Here’s the money passage from Obama’s own fact sheet:
QUOTE]2003 BORN ALIVE LEGISLATION OBAMA OPPOSED IN COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE SAME IMPACT AS FEDERAL LEGISLATION. Planned Parenthood: “Although The Definition Is Similar To The Proposed Federal Legislation, Its Application Would Have A Different Impact On State Abortion Law.” Planned Parenthood wrote in a fact sheet, “SB 1082 & SB 1083 are NOT the same as the socalled “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” which was recently passed in the U.S. House. The federal legislation is considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. It does not amend or change current Illinois law. Federal law does not regulate abortion practice. That is left to the states. Therefore, it is state legislation that would affect abortion practice in Illinois. The package of SB 1082 & SB 1083 creates new provisions in Illinois law. Although the definition is similar to the proposed federal legislation, its application would have a different impact on state abortion law.” [Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet, 2/28/03]
"So the 2003 bill would have done something “new” and “different” to existing law — notwithstanding the neutrality clause that would have prevented any erosion of constitutional abortion rights — but this doesn’t say what, specifically. Read the fact sheet and you’ll see that the 2005 bill that eventually did pass (after Obama left the legislature) apparently included an extra clause specifying that it wouldn’t affect any other state abortion statutes. Is that why Obama voted against the 2003 version, because it lacked a second “neutrality” clause with respect to state laws? If so, then (a) how come he didn’t push to add it when he added the first neutrality clause in his committee meeting, and (b) how come he didn’t mention that to David Brody, opting instead to claim — incorrectly — that the bill was “trying to undermine Roe v. Wade”? Adding to the nuance here is the campaign’s alternative argument, that the 2003 bill actually wasn’t important because it was already the law in Illinois for doctors to try to save born-alive fetuses. (See the end of the fact sheet.) How are we supposed to square that with the point about radically “new” and “different” provisions? Either the bill would have done something or it would have done nothing; Team Barry appears to be arguing that it would have done both. And incidentally, according to Freddoso, it’s not true that Illinois law already clearly governed born-alive situations. If it did, why did the AG conclude in 2000 that there was “no basis for legal action” against a hospital where fetuses were being left to die? As Freddoso says, it’s precisely because Illinois law was insufficient at the time that the legislature was debating a new bill to begin with."
Groundhog Boy
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Honestly, my estimation of a lot of conservatives went down in light of their reaction to Sarah Palin. I thought you wanted what's best for your country, but now I see all you want is to win.
This is completely not the McCain that I voted for in the 2000 primary. The candidate we see before us now is a pandering shill willing to do anything to become President before he dies. The cynical decisions that he's made since Bush defeated him, emulating Bush in every way, have turned him into the same man that spearheaded my departure from the Republican Party.
I don't agree with Dems about all of the issues, but the ones that you GOP folk are touting as strengths are the ones that I despise the most. It doesn't help that your sole talking points are complete fabrications (that waste of life Heather Wilson last night on Obama's abortion views), hyperbole (that Obama is closely tied with terrorists because he's met Ayers), or pandering to the people that I never wanted to be in a party with to begin with (the Christian Right whackjobs).
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
so what about the source? Absorb the content and don't get blinded by who said it.
Edit: the point of NOT giving the source right away is because doing so in this case gives automatic bias and reason for most readers on this site to ignore it without actually soaking it in
The content is just as as the source.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
This is completely not the McCain that I voted for in the 2000 primary. The candidate we see before us now is a pandering shill willing to do anything to become President before he dies. The cynical decisions that he's made since Bush defeated him, emulating Bush in every way, have turned him into the same man that spearheaded my departure from the Republican Party.
I don't agree with Dems about all of the issues, but the ones that you GOP folk are touting as strengths are the ones that I despise the most. It doesn't help that your sole talking points are complete fabrications (that waste of life Heather Wilson last night on Obama's abortion views), hyperbole (that Obama is closely tied with terrorists because he's met Ayers), or pandering to the people that I never wanted to be in a party with to begin with (the Christian Right whackjobs).
Ding ding ding!
I actually liked McCain when I worked in the Senate.
MisterOpus1
Ahh, yes, it must be the Democrats who are panicking:
Transcript:
quote:
CHUCK TODD: Mike Murphy, lots of free advice, we'll see if Steve Schmidt and the boys were watching. We'll find out on your blackberry. Tonight voters will get their chance to hear from Sarah Palin and she will get the chance to show voters she's the right woman for the job Up next, one man who's already convinced and he'll us why Gov. Jon Huntsman.
(cut away)
PEGGY NOONAN: Yeah.
MIKE MURPHY: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work. And --
PEGGY NOONAN: It's over.
MIKE MURPHY: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.
CHUCK TODD: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.
PEGGY NOONAN: Saw Kay this morning.
CHUCK TODD: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --
MIKE MURPHY: They're all bummed out.
CHUCK TODD: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?
PEGGY NOONAN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political bull about narratives --
CHUCK TODD: Yeah they went to a narrative.
MIKE MURPHY: I totally agree.
PEGGY NOONAN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.
MIKE MURPHY: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.
CHUCK TODD: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.
That's 2 big-time, well-known conservatives discussing how other well-known conservatives are stating how depressed they are at this pick.
Your little team is on the defensive not because of the big meanie librul blogs or the incompetent boobs in the mainstream media. It's because your team didn't perform the proper vetting of this pick, and a brand new face like hers without any background info. on hand was bound to come out. The trouble for you is that no one, not even those darn librul bloggers, anticipated so much damn meat to be on the bone.
So play your Victim Card against that darn "librul" media, as you always do:
quote:
Sen. John McCain's top campaign strategist accused the news media Tuesday of being "on a mission to destroy" Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by displaying "a level of viciousness and scurrilousness" in pursuing questions about her personal life.
...The McCain camp has been unusually aggressive in pushing back against the media, and it seems to hope to persuade journalists to back off in their scrutiny of Palin. ... "They decided a long time ago that they were going to work the refs," [Fineman] said.
But thanks to the meanie librul bloggers, the dip press can blame them instead:
quote:
The intensity of media inquiries hit a new level after an anonymous blogger on the liberal Web site Daily Kos last weekend charged that McCain's running mate is actually the grandmother of Trig Palin, the 4-month-old baby born with Down syndrome, and that the real mother is her daughter, 17-year-old Bristol Palin. That led to mainstream media inquiries, which prompted the McCain camp to disclose in a statement Monday that Bristol is five months pregnant and plans to have the baby and marry the teenage father.
Did you get that? When confronted with a rumor started by a diarist at a blog (not even one of the main bloggers on the website), McCain's knees buckled and he threw out the story about Palin's daughter getting knocked up as a ing diversion. He of course could have said, "that story is bull" right off the bat, but instead it was actually the McCain camp that spilled the beans on her daughter, spurring that story to such fever pitch levels we hear now.
Your Victim Card may unfortunately work because that darn "librul" media seemingly likes McCain (actually IMO their little circle-jerk for him is ing nauseating to me). We'll see if the rest of the public buys into it, however.
Man, ing Limbaugh? Stop sucking on the man's tit, will you?
And he has the stupidity to bring up the silly ministers that influenced Obama's life? Surely he never heard of the anti-semitic that's spewed out of Palin's minister, has he? Or how 'bout those lovely anti-semitic, anti-catholic s that once endorsed McCain like Hagee (and whom McCain aggressively sought at one point)?
This is why your source gets discredited quickly. He's a ing tool who cares nothing but to get the GOP elected at all costs.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Man, ing Limbaugh? Stop sucking on the man's tit, will you?
And he has the stupidity to bring up the silly ministers that influenced Obama's life? Surely he never heard of the anti-semitic that's spewed out of Palin's minister, has he? Or how 'bout those lovely anti-semitic, anti-catholic s that once endorsed McCain like Hagee (and whom McCain aggressively sought at one point)?
This is why your source gets discredited quickly. He's a ing tool who cares nothing but to get the GOP elected at all costs.
If he was so stupid, he wouldn't be where he is today. And if you really knew anything about Limbaugh, you'd know he's been skewering McCain his entire career, totally at odds with his perspectives, and was never on board with him in this campaign until very recently... not until McCain did less pandering to the left and started touting his conservative positions. Is McCain doing it to help get himself elected? Of course he is. But Limbaugh does NOT subscribe to a GOP vote by fiat... he is purely conservative first, and not necessarily Republican and I can guarantee he wouldn't have voted if McCain picked Leiberman for his VP.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
If he was so stupid, he wouldn't be where he is today. And if you really knew anything about Limbaugh, you'd know he's been skewering McCain his entire career, totally at odds with his perspectives, and was never on board with him in this campaign until very recently... not until McCain flip-flopped to more conservative positions. Is McCain doing it to help get himself elected? Of course he is.
