Discussion the presidential election race with your Northfield area fellow citizens here. (Previous blog post: DNC and the RNC: the good, the bad, the ugly has 365 comments.)
|
|||
|
896 comments to Presidential election 2008: candidates, campaigns, issues |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2012 Locally Grown Northfield - All Rights Reserved 
|
|||
What if it was Obama Palin vs McCain Biden?
The immediate answer is that if those were the tickets, pigs (with lipstick) would be flying overhead.
Bright, again, I’m not getting your point. How would you envision this even happening? Wouldn’t it be better to discuss the real issues instead of starting the thread with a detour?
But just to show I’m a good sport, I’ll give an answer.
Obama and Palin would never be on the same ticket because they are completely opposite on issues and their supporters don’t agree on the issues. They also would not be on the same ticket because Palin doesn’t have the experience, the underlying knowledge or the ethics to be on a national ticket. She maybe a quick study, but you can’t learn foreign policy in two months. She didn’t study foreign policy in college, she has had no interest in it until know. That’s exactly how we got into trouble with Bush; everyone thought if he had good advisers they could make up for his lack of knowledge. Not true.
News stories today outline her history of giving important jobs to old school friends, of using power for power’s sake. And she’s still lying about the bridge to nowhere, despite mountains of proof that she supported it.
And while I don’t support getting into family business, she has made being a mother a major part of her resume, so is it true that the daughter wasn’t engaged until the boy was ordered to show up at the RNC? Is it true the daughter was living with an aunt because Sarah Palin was angry at her for being pregnant?
I’m sorry, but a young boy shouldn’t be forced into marriage to fulfill a politician’s ambitions. And a mother doesn’t banish a child who fails to live up to her expectations.
The idea of her being a heartbeat away from the presidency is just too scary to consider.
Impossible to even consider…
Bright- Now that is a radical proposal! In this particular case, I think it would be like putting two cats into a bag and closing the end. The result would probably be two dead cats. Besides, what would we call such a ticket, since we Americans are so into labels. Republicat? Democan? The possibilities on this are almost endless, but I’m assuming Griff was looking for more serious debate here.
Hi, JG! Nope, I don’t think it’s radical. What I am looking for is to see people think outsideatha cube. It’s offensive to me that Americans, the oh so free and well educated people of the world, would only be able to lay down party lines and then go party. What about thinking what we want for ourselves, as any one of us might represent thousands of others with the same needs and dilemnas, and not let the party leaders do all the thinking for us.
Then, we use this fabulous tool called the Internet and disperse these ideas that are more likely to be more to the point of how we can all grow this young country of ours into a better place for everyone without the GOVT. standing in the way, and maybe even pave the way for greater innovation and surpassing the long lag times we now endure.
Ideas on how we can live with or without all those issues which are plaguing our good country, and how we can see eye to eye on solid solutions. They don’t always cost money. They need creative ideas that we know could work while still paying out less than we have had to in the past. I don’t know, this is just me tossing out some framework and to others who think
there is a bean to plant and grow here.
Ideas like flex time and job sharing and natural gas for vehicles and smothies.
Bright- Basically, what you are proposing is the original Greek democratic process. The internet does open up all kinds of possibilities for quick communication, but seeing how discussions amongst just a few people on this blog can get bogged down (perhaps that is why it is called a blog?), I don’t have much hope for any simplification or efficiency being attained through this type of method. Just because of the sheer size of the country, it would seem that our representative form of government is still the best.
As far as the two parties go, at least there can be some sense of majority rule. When Ross Perot tried to affect the process with a strong third party, it essentially split the conservative vote to the point that Bill Clinton was elected by only 43% of the voting public. This is still a simple majority by percentages, but I could see the country being polarized more and more by single issue oriented parties breaking off on their own. What with the Green, Independent, Democratic, and Republican parties right now, add into the mix a Latino Party, an Islamic Party and the Evangelicals rise up again with some kind of God Party, I could see chaos begin to ensue. Our process is certainly not ideal, but it does work.
As far as the two tickets before us, there is certainly not much in similarities, aside from the status quo of a burgeoning federal beuracracy. This election, IMHO, is going to be a good indication of where the voters have any trust in and put any hope in either ideology to provide a secure future. It will be interesting to see how it comes out. I don’t have any real sense of where the chips are going to fall.
Come on, ladies! Stretch the imagination for a moment. I wasn’t hoping for more candidate bashing. I am still hoping for some really take a minute to consider the possibility, what if Sarah was willing to comprimise like she said, and Obama was willing to reach hands across the aisle like he said, and McCain you know would listen to Biden on all sorts of things. This is totally possible. Biden admits what friends he is with McCain, except for a couple of issues, which he voted FOR anyway. This is possible. They are politicians, after all.
Anne, why did you feel it was necessary to come down on Bright for asking a question? Just because you don’t get her point is no reason to come down on her. Last time I checked free speech was still alloowed in America.
Perhaps you should look at your own postings before coming down on someone else for theirs. You seem to want to spread rumor rather that looking at the real issues. You are the one who posted “so is it true that the daughter wasn’t engaged until the boy was ordered to show up at the RNC? Is it true the daughter was living with an aunt because Sarah Palin was angry at her for being pregnant?”
This is gossip, not fact. These are family matters not anyone elses business. I would be willing to bet that most all Presidents and Vice Presidents have skeletons in their closets that they would rather not have come out.
It amazes me how we as citizens want to look at the negative in politics rather than the positive. Maybe is is because that is all we see in the tv ads from the candidates themselves.
I don’t classify myself as a democrat or republican and therefore do not vote along party lines. I tend to cast my vote based the positives I know about a candidate and the job I feel they can do for me and all of America.
So in closing, I do think that Bright’s question is a good one. Afterall, McCain (Republican) was considering Joe Lieberman (Democrat turned Independant) as his running mate.
Anne,
Thank you for your comments (#2). I couldn’t agree more.
There are MAJOR differences on major issues between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin. Leadership ability, judgment, personality and experience are also valid in discussing who should be elected president and vp. If there is to be discussion here, it would seem to be fruitful to focus on that.
For me, it boils down to who will serve this country and the world best as the single most influential individual in the single most powerful nation in the world over what are sure to be four (or eight) tumultuous, challenging years in which radical change of course is desperately needed in the US and the world. On issues and personal qualities, for me, Obama wins hands down over McCain as the possible change agent we so badly need. I know others will differ with me.
On the heartbeat away from the presidency issue, I feel comfortable with the possibility of Joe Biden as president, but Sarah Palin scares the bejeezus out of me. I can understand why the right wing is fired up by her addition to the Republican ticket, but enthusiasm from anyone else over her selection frankly baffles me.
Not much action here for the moment, for some reason, so let me try (not or the first time) something contrarian, vaguely related to Bright’s idea of the VP candidates trading places and to the many postings in that diss the R and D parties and congratulate the posters for their independent minds.
I like the two-party system. (I’m not crazy about the two parties we actually have right now, but that’s a different question.)
And I’d prefer more, not less, party discipline and party identification among candidates and elected officials. Independent-mindedness has its place, but in our political system, and in most others, parties are the means by which people actually get together to propose programs, enact legislation, etc. In a system with two reasonably viable parties, each party has an incentive to propose moderate rather than extreme policies, to which a majority of voters can reasonably be expected to be attracted.
The system works poorly when, as here and now, party discipline is weak and candidates tend to run (however dishonestly) as outsiders and mavericks rather than as experienced actors who might accomplish something. In such an environment parties compete less on serious programs and policies than on hot-button cultural issues, which don’t really belong in the political arena, and on cheap slogans and implausible promises. And parties feel free—and are free—to put forth ludicrously underqualified candidates for high office.
Viva partisan politics!
Paul Zorn
Paul Z: You offer an interesting position, to say you’re not particularly fond of the parties as they are, but to believe in partisan politics.
There have been times when many Democrats/liberals were in favor of exporting democracy and capitalism, and where, on the other had, Republicans (like Ron Paul and to some extent John J. Duncan, Jr., of TN) have advocated small government, avoiding foreign entanglements like nation-building, and a small military that is used more for national defense than for expanding US corporate-military empire.
Now we have a Republican party that wants it both ways: To claim they’re conservative about taxes and spending, but to support a global military (and increasingly expensive, privatized military) project that we can’t long afford. They’re pro-business and pro-free market, which means deregulation, like having a western town without a sheriff so the liars, outlaws and general thieves can have free run of the place. The party is fracturing especially in light of Bush-Cheney, but was also fracturing during the Bush I years. They say they’re in favor of traditional family values, but these conflict with the free market stuff listed above. Does this party have a future unless it undergoes some radical change in focus — or unless it keeps getting a lot of big money from the richest of the liars and thieves?
We have a Democratic party that is increasingly perceived as aligned with unions (decreasing in influence and popularity), with the poor, with minorities, feminists, gays, and elitist atheists. Who but those groups (and maybe some Christians dedicated to solidarity with “the least of these” as the Gospels say) especially wants to think of themselves as associated with that party? Does this party have a long-term future unless it changes its focus?
During the depression, many of the richest corporate CEO’s hated the New Deal, and some conspired to have FDR’s government changed to a Fascist government that favored corporate interests. But it was only the small help from the New Deal, and the large infusion of public (federal) funds for the war effort, that lifted the nation out of the depression. There was a disconnect: The rich didn’t see that it was in their best interests to have a thriving, productive middle class of active consumers.
It seems we’re heading slowly (or today, more quickly) toward a new era of crippling economic challenge for the majority, with real inflation-adjusted wages falling over decades, with taxes cut for the rich, with social security withholding rising for the lower and middle class (still a slush fund), and with the national credit-card being used too often.
There seems to be little awareness that, when more people thrive, even the richest profit nicely — and when many suffer, then the rich, of course, suffer too. Short-sightedness.
Back in government class, high school days, I recall that the vice president was the principal representative of the U.S. to other nations. The idea being that the president was too valuable to send to potentially hostile nations, but the v.p. was in the place of the president and, unfortunately for the v.p., expendable.
While the role of vice president has changed drastically over the last 232 years, even today with the secretary of state assuming this vice presidential duty, I admit that the idea of Gov. Palin becoming the principal representative of the U.S. to other nations is not comforting.
The most important aspect of the next administration is who will be nominated to replace at least two retiring Supreme Court justices. For me, this is the most important issue. The next president has 4 or 8 years in office. The justices’ job is a lifetime appointment.
Don’t DFLers have any thing better to offer than bash, bash, bash Sarah?
Bright: I don’t think it’s bashing. If you interview various people for a job and note some of the facts on their resume and gathered from references, observing that one candidate is more experienced, etc., than another is not bashing.
This is like the response of some to observations like these:
- Bush brought us into a preemptive war (and certain Dems went along) against the Geneva conventions.
- Bush and his administration authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques” (another name for torture).
- Bush and Cheney authorized illegal wiretapping (and certain Dems went along).
- Bush, like Clinton before him, has practiced “Extraordinary rendition,” the practice where some assume that, while it’s illegal to torture people in the US, it’s OK to take them to another country where others will torture them to obtain information.
- The Constitution says that if congress passes a law (especially by a veto-over-riding majority) it becomes law, and the president must comply; but Bush has issued “signing statements” that take exception to, and ignored or failed to enforce other, laws passed by congress, in apparent violation of the basics of the constitution.
Note that this list is not simply a “liberal” list -- it’s pretty similar to the list created by the likes of conservative/libertarian Bob Barr and constitutional conservative Bruce Fein, at the American Freedom Agenda / americanfreedomagenda.org
Note also that I’ve included Clinton and Dems in some of the above criticism.
Now some respond to such criticism routinely by saying Bush’s critics are just Bush “bashers,” or “haters.” They change the topic of the conversation from Bush’s crimes to this: Why do people hate so much — like those Bush-haters? This is like a rhetorical shell-game. Keep your eye on the topic at hand, or suddenly evil is the new good (as a recent article I read was titled), and evil’s critics are suddenly the evil ones because they hate.
Like listening to overwhelming evidence given against a suspect in a rape case, a suspect named John Smith, say, and saying the lawyers for the prosecution were John Smith “haters” and “bashers.”
This is not to say that everything we hear about Palin and other candidates will be true. But discussions of the basic facts of her experience and her past actions as an elected official is not automatically “bashing.”
Who’s to blame for 9/11 ? “Mr. Clinton’s responsibility in Somalia doesn’t stop there. Despite the mistakes that October day, Aidid had been struck a blow. The U.S. military, with 18 dead, wanted nothing more than to finish what it had started. Mr. Clinton instead aborted the mission. The U.S. released the criminals it had captured that same day at such great cost, and the U.N., lacking U.S. support, was powerless to keep order. Somalia remains a lawless, impoverished nation. Worse, the terrorists of al Qaeda interpreted the U.S. retreat from Somalia as a sign of American weakness that may have convinced them we could be induced to retreat from the Middle East if they took their attacks to the U.S. homeland. ” http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002091
Paul Frieid, You needn’t accuse me of “automatically” saying that people around here are bashing when it’s the same phrases that the same people keep saying over and over again, without giving any credence to a woman who has made significant accomplishments in her life, against the grain of the old boy network and other similar anti women in office types…it is bashing and it is direct orders party line trash talk, imho.
And furthermore, I challenge you to prove any of the accusations you have made in the furtherance of the old tactic of not sticking to the question at hand, ie, Sarah bashing, and bringing up a whole bunch of other unfounded, unsourced, unproven statements, most of which I believe are only partly, if at all true.
Bright writes:
“You needn’t accuse me of “automatically” saying that people around here are bashing…”
Bright, Paul did not accuse you of automatically saying anything, he wrote instead that people who discuss Palin’s experience, or lack thereof, are not automatically bashing her. By misplacing his adverb, you are distorting his words and making them appear like a personal attack on your style of presentation instead of the substance of what you have to say.
David Henson: The president at the time of 9/11 was George Bush. He received a security briefing memo well before September 11 stating that terrorist were planning on using hijacked planes to crash into buildings. He and his administration did nothing.
To continue this repeated claim that Clinton should have put policies in place to guard the airlines before he left office is only correct when you find out how incompetent the Bush adminstration has been. Yes, Clinton should have forseen that his successor was an idiot and he should have convened all kinds of committees before he left office--his briefings of the Bush administration was obviously inaffective.
Too bad Clinton thought that the next guy was actually going to act like a president, instead of working on putting all his buddies into appointed offices and making false claims that all the “W’s were missing from the computer key boards.
The information was there and Bush did nothing.
For 8 years McCain has rubberstamped Bush, and now has adopted the same nasty campaign techniques he once was on the other end of. All McCain can do is try to distract us from the failures of the Republicans, and he is doing so by claiming that being liberal is a bad thing and that we are all sexist to point out that Sarah Palin is an incompetent candidate.
The next presidency will be about cleaning up the mess made by Bush and his Republican friends, including John McCain--how can anyone really expect McCain to repair what he was a party to in breaking.
Gee, Barry, I don’t remember asking you to interpret my meaning and once again accusing me of doing something that was not in my intention to do.
Furthermore, a poorly constructed sentence must know that it might be misinterpreted sometime. I never used the word “automatically” in bringing up the subject this time in post no. 13, and made the interpretation they way I did because that is the only way it made sense to me. If I had said that people were automatically bashing Sarah, then it would have made sense to me as you interpreted it.
I don’t know what Paul Freid thinks of his words, but I think that you, Barry, might have given me the benefit of a doubt if you weren’t an anti woman thinking sort of dude. Please forgive me if I err yet again.
Thanks, Barry.
Bright, here are some examples:
- If it’s true (if that Palin lowered income taxes and placed a (regressive, harmful to the poor) sales tax on food, then we can disagree over analysis of what this means, but facts are facts, and it’s not bashing to ponder.
- If it’s true that Palin is against sex education in the schools, for traditional Christian family values, but has somehow failed to pass on these values to her daughter who became pregnant outside of marriage, we can disagree in our analysis of the meaning of these facts, but it’s not bashing to ponder the stuff.
- If it’s true that Obama was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review (have I got that right?), and that Palin moved around from school to school before getting a degree, and has not been to foreign countries other than Canada, Mexico and Iraq (as governor to visit troops) outside of a fuel-landing in Europe on the way, then these are facts. We can disagree on what they mean, how we interpret them (does Palin’s school record reflect a lack of direction? Her lack of first-hand knowledge of foreign countries reflect a lack of experience?) — but the facts behind our questions are not bashing, and I’d claim the questions are not bashing.
- If it’s a fact that Palin was in favor of banning books, or teaching both evolution and creationism in schools, then citing this is not bashing, nor is healthy questioning and debate about what it may portend for a future in which she might be elected.
- If it’s a fact that Palin’s husband was a member of a secessionist party (The Independence party of Alaska) and that Palin herself addressed the party convention twice, then it’s not bashing to mention these things, or to question and debate what they may mean. There are 27 active secessionist movements in the US, and what with pork spending, the regular deficit, the national debt, a criminal but unimpeached president and vice president, and health care and education in this country that is often second-rate or worse compared to other first-world nations, perhaps there is a need for a new constitutional convention to fix some of the problems, and perhaps Palin is visionary for her secessionist sympathies — or perhaps she is unpatriotic. Talking about, and striving to analyze the possible meaning of, such facts is not bashing.
- If Palin was interviewed and hesitated, and asked questions, hemmed and hawed, when asked about the Bush Doctrine (preemptive war, the US claim that it can invade any country that it thinks is harboring terrorists), then it’s OK to wonder and ponder about her hesitation, and to strive to interpret what seemed to be her lack of understanding of the idea. This is not bashing, but paying attention and asking hard questions.
A questions for Paul or anyone else who can answer …
In post # 14, Paul states -- “The Constitution says that if congress passes a law (especially by a veto-over-riding majority) it becomes law, and the president must comply; but Bush has issued “signing statements” that take exception to, and ignored or failed to enforce other, laws passed by congress, in apparent violation of the basics of the constitution.”
Who is responsible for keeping tabs on the President to ensure he is following the law? Is it Congress? The Attorney General? Who should have their feet held to the fire when the President, or others in Congress, do not follow the law? Why would the person responsible not do their job? Is it due to party affiliation?
Okay, Paul, I really need to get going but I’ll play this game with you for a few more minutes. First of all, if O’bama wasn’t Daley’s man then you might have something there. IF Obama wasn’t still smoking cigarettes, and if that isn’t a stroke maker in black men who die much younger than white men, and if
torture was unconstitutional, which it is not, only cruel and unusual punishment according to Justice A. Scalia on 60 Minutes last Sunday evening.
And if every personal and private belief was to keep anyone from running for office, we’d have a bunch of robots running the country, and if I had more time and the inclination, I’d go on, but it still remains, Obama has nothing.
He has never run any financial operation, he still smokes, he is turning old already, and McCain takes care of himself and is strong and has proved through this campaign that he can do the job and do it strong and well, and not appear as weak and fragile as Obama. NO one is even talking about Biden, cuz he would work with McCain no matter what if asked.
This is from TruthDig (link at bottom) and Eugene Robinson, some clips from an article about what Robinson claims is lying by Palin.
(I’m noticing today that I’m on the time-delay plan: I made an earlier post that hasn’t shown up. Pardon if it seems I’m stacking my comments; they’re not appearing for now).
Here are some clips:
……………………………………………..
What kind of person tells a self-aggrandizing lie, gets called on it, admits publicly that the truth is not at all what she originally claimed-and then goes out and starts telling the original lie again without changing a word?
….
I’m sorry, but to explain my point I have to make another visit-my last, I hope-to the never-built, $398-million “Bridge to Nowhere” that was to join the town of Ketchikan, Alaska, with its airport on the other side of the Tongass Narrows.
You’ll recall that in her Republican convention speech, Palin burnished her budget-hawk credentials by claiming she had said “thanks but no thanks” to a congressional earmark that would have paid most of the cost. A quick check of the public record showed that Palin supported the bridge when she was running for governor, continued to support it once she took office and dropped her backing only after the project — by then widely ridiculed as an example of pork-barrel spending — was effectively dead on Capitol Hill.
In her interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson, Palin ‘fessed up. It was “not inappropriate” for a mayor or a governor to work with members of Congress to obtain federal money for infrastructure projects, she argued. “What I supported,” she said, “was a link between a community and its airport.”
Case closed. Except that on Saturday, days after the interview, Palin said this to a crowd in Nevada: “I told Congress thanks but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere-that if our state wanted to build that bridge, we would build it ourselves.”
That’s not just a lie, but an acknowledged lie. What she actually told Congress was more like, “Gimme the money for the bridge” — and then later, after the whole thing had become an embarrassment, she didn’t object to using the money for other projects.
…it’s weird for a politician — or anyone else, really — to maintain that an assertion is true after admitting that it isn’t true.
Maybe Palin cynically believes she can keep using the “no thanks” line and manage to stay one step ahead of the truth police. Maybe she calculates that audiences would rather believe her than their lying eyes. Or maybe she really believes her own fantasy-based version of events. Maybe the Legend of Sarah Palin has become, on some level, more real to her than actual history.
And quite a legend it’s turning out to be. The Washington Post reported Sunday that as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Palin pressured the town librarian to remove controversial books from the shelves, cut funds for the town museum but somehow found the money for a new deputy administrator slot, and told city employees not to talk to reporters.
And The New York Times reported Sunday that as governor, Palin appointed a high-school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to a $95,000-a-year job as head of the state Division of Agriculture. Havemeister “cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency,” the Times reported, noting her as one of at least five schoolmates Palin has given high-paying state government jobs.
….
Here’s the URL, busted up a bit:
http://www.truthdig.com/
report/item/
20080916_palin_keeps_lying_and_lying_and/
Arlen (#21): It’s the responsibility of the congress, technically (starting with the House), to impeach if there are impeachable offenses… which they should do, unless it seemed that impeachment might make things worse.
Congress has decided for now that impeachment is off the table. Why? Some of the stated reasons, plus a few speculations either of my own or which I’ve read:
- Impeachment would be too time-consuming, while there are many other important things to do, and historically, no president impeached by the house has been tried and convicted by the senate to be removed from office.
- There are some Democrats who knew about various illegal acts by the president, such as torture, and they don’t want to have those Democrats implicated during an impeachment proceeding.
- Given the historical unliklihood of a successful impeachment and removal, consider that, given the current administration, it would be even harder to impeach and remove both Bush and Cheney, and have any strong hope of success.
- What if you impeach both, and remove Bush, and then you’re left with Cheney as president, the same Dick Cheney who was considering a run in ’08 with either Voldemort or Satan as a running mate?
- What if you start impeachment proceedings, and then Bush and Cheney arrange for Israel to start bombing Iran, and all hell starts to break loose in the world — and we need a commander in chief, but even our own military is split on whether to follow the orders of what might be an illegitimate president in the long-delayed process of being removed? Sort of a cornered animal lashing out phenomenon?
- What if you impeach one at a time, and the remaining one (either Cheney or Bush) pardoned the other?
It’s a messy situation, and it reveals some of the flaws in our constitution (which was made by a bunch of humans, after all).
So in an ideal world — and perhaps if congress could stop time and complete the impeachment proceedings? — impeachment is overdue. In the real world, it’s messy.
Paul -- a real problem for Dems is all the complaints you make just make people like Palin all the more , do you think we would rather she did not appoint her friend that “loves cows” and instead brought in the Ivy League educated head of Lehman Bros ? I mean “you just don’t get it
”
.
David, there’s a great columnist who said last week that it’s not sexism to want the person flying the plane to be a licensed pilot instead of the really nice person sitting next to you on the flight.
I believe the friend who loves cows was chosen instead of a professional in the field of agriculture, which one would think would be a reasonable background for the head of the top Agriculture position.
Following your reasoning, I’d love to watch when you ask your old high school buddy who wore braces to do that root canal you need.
I didn’t realize that Palin is running for POTUS?
Very early in Obamas campaign (and to some degree today) you were considered a racist if you questioned his past.
I am still waiting for the same level of research in to his affairs i.e. Rezko and Wright that is being exhausted on Palin.
Part of the election game is scrutiny and false rumors that is what you have to expect when you run. However the lopsidedness of the current witch hunt is pretty sad and very UN American.
Why don’t the just tap the phones of the candidates. Thats real American.
One more thing referring to my post no. 22, which relates to PF’s post no 20, Paul said,
.
And if it is true that Obama said that he thought his Harvard education was a waste, as was his prepatory high school education, and that is why he decided to give back, by going into Chicago neighborhoods to organize the community. I have a video showing people claiming that Obama didn’t do anything to change that community whatsoever. It’s on youtube, if you are interested. You get what you put into school, not what school puts into you, cuz this world changes way too fast, and by the time you get your degree, all the knowledge is outdated. It’s just a matter of attending class and learning about the form of the subject at hand.
I attended three colleges and found it most useful. Many schools simply don’t teach anything useful in the real world. Taking courses and finding out what you need and want is often more useful than taking what is given to you. Bush went to Yale, so what? It’s not the degree, it’s the person, esp. when it comes to non science courses, imho.
bright, are you one of those people who switched over to mccain after palin was named vp?
Hello, Anthony.
Truth is that I did say I was on the McCain side, but had been leaning that way earlier on, because between Obama, who I sincerely believe is just a front man for the Kennedy’s and Richard M. Daley of Chicago, which means he says hes for one thing or other, but nothing gets done for the people, and although I think it would be good to have a minority president, I don’t think he is the man for the job.
I have seen him falter in his normal conversation, I have seen him drift off into his own head, and to me, the best sign of a great leader is his or her ability to communicate effectively, leaving no person behind. If Obama cannot do this, how can he talk to Congress or world leaders? It is not a good sign. That is the main reason, something I saw with my own eyes.
McCain is the lesser of two evils. I have said this from the very first word, that none of the candidates were presidential enough for me, and that some combination of the several runners might work. Anyway, my answer to your question is no.
I do like Palin though because she engenders a lot of good vibrations and she will help heal this country wherever she lands, that’s her gift and that is what is driving some DFLers crazy cuz they are so full of stress and hatred because they don’t have it all. Dems, some of you need to learn how to share with others.
did you know she is campaigning as a special needs kids advocate, and as governor of alaska she cut the special olympics budget in half. cut 250k from teh budget. doesnt sound like she is building bridges to me.
sounds liek a lot of lies.
I think I am going to donate some money to the alaska special olympics right now.
Bright, it’s not very civil to say that people who disagree with you are full of hate and stress. In fact, Obama has made me more hopeful that I have been in 20 years.
I’m not going to go through the points again, because we’ve covered ground over and over.
We disagree. That’s all. And it’s a disagreement that works out pretty well for me. You will have to vote for the lesser of two evils. I get to vote for the person I feel is the best candidate on the ballot.
Good for you, Anthony. But as for believing the assertion that Palin did what you say she did, I would have to see the copy of the whole bill that she rejected, to know why she rejected it, to know if there was a more dire need somewhere, or a better bill for the special kids. I am so over this sort of attempted diminishing of a woman, and especially of one who decided to keep a special needs kid rather than abort, rather than kill the baby, even when she knew ahead of time that this baby might have special needs.
Another poster wrote, somewhere above:
… I think that you, Barry, might have given me the benefit of a doubt if you weren’t an anti woman thinking sort of dude. …
What might this accusation mean? Here are some possibilities that occurred to me:
1. Barry is a “thinking sort of dude” who is anti-woman.
2. Barry is a “sort of dude” who is opposed to “woman-thinking”, whatever that might be.
3. Barry is anti-woman but thoughtful, and not a real “dude” but only “sort of” a dude.
I know Barry, and so can attest that none of these charges seem well-founded (except perhaps that he’s a “thinking sort of dude”). In any event, the one thing these puzzling possibilities have in common is that they’re all textbook cases of the ad hominem fallacy. Surely we can do better.
you asked
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/bills/SB221_with_vetoes.pdf
page 100 #30
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/palin-cut-funding-for-alaska-special-olympics/
(the last link gives context)
The public CONTINUES to gobble up the lies the mccain campaign in spewing. I don’t understand it at all.
Sorry Anthony but your post has already been debunked
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
thinkprogress
moveon
commondreams
Are nothing more then the same animal under a different name…mostly George Soros mouthpieces.
oops my bad, I should check stuff better
I feel the excitement over Palin and Obama are rooted in the same desire to throw out the old within the beltway “corruption as usual crowd” and get on a new track. However, these two are tied to McCain and Biden, two business as usual guys and that’s where the focus should be. After Nov 3 it will still be the Imperial party of power whether they have an (R) or (D) after their name.
They will both:
1. expand the GWOT (cover story for perpetual Imperial wars)
2. expand the power and size of the federal gov
3. continue handing out favors to their campaign contributors and lobbyists
4. continued support of AIPAC and Israel
They should have a box at the bottom ” NONE OF THE ABOVE”
We need to be careful about what kind of “CHANGE” we are voting for, and “THE LESSOR OF TWO EVILS” we are expecting. I think Hitler was for CHANGE and a LESSOR EVIL also. We should not have to settle for what is spoon fed to us! I feel Americans should send a message by not checking off anyone that has an (R) or (D) after their name this Nov.
DavidH and AnneB: Thanks. You’d think she could look far and wide in the college/university system in Alaska, or even out of state, to find some Republican-leaning woman or man who knew some good stuff about AG.
But I know what you mean about how some people just like her all the more because of the attacks. Especially with cheerleaders like Billy O’Reilly and Rush Limburgler.
Many of us have read or heard what they say about how the massacre started in Rwanda: Talk radio hosts. And those studies about how people would rather follow authority, and conform, than resist authority and/or be a nonconformist.
Those folks are not ALL, spontaneously “liking Palin all the more” on their own. We are not only an oil-addicted nation, but a media-addicted nation. We should pick our media talking heads carefully, or like Jesus says (John G, you out there) (did Jesus say that? Oops), “The blind leading the blind”….
Paul & Anne -- you can feel good that the media and the Republican party will ruin Palin soon enough. I felt she was holding back on her answers too much -- clearly accepted guidance from all those high qualified *@$#.
The best answer was when Charles Gibson said “call me a cynic but ….” and Palin’s reply was “I do think you’re a cynic ….. ” Which is true since he sold out to get the interview and could probably care less about the topic. Gibson actually seemed a little hurt.
But the Dems corrupted Obama right from the get go and at least there is hope for Palin. My fav was when Obama said “I love this country too much to let them” and he could barely choke out the “love this country” part -- clearly told to say this and unnatural for him.
I never listen to Billy O’Reilly and Rush Limburgler. I wouldn’t be against someone just because they are for them.
And the one about Palin, arranging for the ex-husband of a relative to lose his job….
Now some folks are thinking: If I had the power, I’d'a done it too, if he was a jerk. Who wouldn’t? What’s a little power for if you can’t use it to help your friends and family, and grind your enemies into the dust?
Look at David Wilson and the Yellow Cake story. The ungrateful, unfaithful jerk!
Whistleblower? Fighting for truth and justice? How old fashioned is that in the Bush-Cheney world of raw power and, usually, no apologies unless they’re absolutely necessary for PR?
Who cares if it looks suspicious that Cheney and Bush want a war with Iraq, and a forgery conveniently turns up to help make a case for nukes in Iraq? Who cares if the people who arranged for the forgery are probably Cheney & Rove, with the usual considerations for plausible deniability and all that.
Some people are out there thinking: Gee, what kind of forgery should be arranged for next, and how easy will it be to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public again?
There is a kind of pleasure that comes from appointing your friend who likes cows, and outing Valarie Plame, and arranging for wiretapping, and the smearing of your enemies. Or planning to bomb Iran. All the secrets, all the expensive secrets.
If someone in your administration gets an ethical wake-up call, leaves and writes a tell-all whistle-blower book, then smear ‘em. Information war time. That guy was probably just trying to sell his book.
He’s being greedy --
NOT like W-Dick-n-”Turd Blossom” Karl.
And the public BUYS it, to a large extent. Of course, some don’t, but ENOUGH DO, and that’s what counts. Not ethics, but winning. Raw power. Tell the big lie, and people often believe it. It’s like a dare: How big a lie can we get away with today? What a rush. Who could resist? The lure of power. Use it or lose it.
If I were president, I’d put my daughter in charge of the National Program for the Advancement of Ice Skating, and my son in charge of an international musical exchange program for drummers. Let him travel around the globe and drum, with the taxpayers picking up the bill for his airfare. And I’d send my dad on a speaking tour for OSHA, lecturing about the importance of safty with the use of table-saws, and the struggle after thumb-reattachment. He and mom could go anywhere in the US — heck, I’d send ‘em overseas too. You can’t be too safe with table saws, and my dad has valuable first-hand experience he could share.
But like Palin with her daughter, my dad is one of us. Not some elite. So I’d make sure he had a good job, lots of salary, and free air fare with mom.
Then I’d start thinking about how I could arrange for some forgery hinting that certain oil-rich nations (and China and Japan, which own most of our debt) were about to attack us, so we had to attach them first.
It would be cool: Could I out-Cheney Cheney? A kind of contest. Could I convince enough people in the US? I’d figure out which church to go to that would make me popular with the most Christians, and I’d hunt and fish a lot, and drive a bullet-proof pickup truck. Maybe wear a dew-rag, like Jesse Ventura. Maybe a Fu Manchu moustache, also like Jesse. And I’d shave my head, like Jesse. Maybe a nose-ring.
Or not. You stop and think about it and realize your kids and wife wouldn’t let you get away with that many lies ‘n’stuff, so never mind.
All that power. Slipping through my fingers.
But I can dream, can’t I?
In #31 Bright wrote, “I have seen him falter in his normal conversation, I have seen him drift off into his own head…”
Frankly, that is one of the major reasons that I support Obama. To me that means that he is a listener and a thinker--qualities I feel our current President seems to lack.
Paul,Paul,Paul!
Your starting to sound like an angry Dem. Must be that Sara Palin irritant taking hold. Which is exactly what the Republican propaganda machine is hoping for. They are appealing to the base instincts of the ignorant American Idol crowd! As Joseph Goebbels Nazi propaganda minister once said, ” If you repeat a lie enough times it will become the truth” . Its all about sound bites and sex appeal.
A link below to sink your teeth into about the McCain/Palin deception. Sounds like another angry Dem , but very insightful on the Republican propaganda machine.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10239
Anthony (posting #39) writes:
“oops my bad, I should check stuff better”
Anthony, indeed you should. Peter Millin’s link debunks a charge you didn’t make. FactCheck.org lays to rest a claim that Palin cut funding for special needs education by 62%. But your assertion in posting #32 was that she cut $250k, roughly half the budget, from special olympics, and that does not seem to be in dispute (except you seem to have gotten the number slightly wrong). Here’s a snippet from an Associated Press article (found by googling “palin special olympics veto”):
“During her few years as governor, she vetoed $275,000 for Alaska’s Special Olympics — half the amount being sought. Money for a program that helps rural school districts provide special education has remained flat. But she supported another legislative proposal to boost spending for students with special needs by some 175 percent in 2011.”
Your mistake, if you made one, was citing a partisan website on a factual matter. However, that site at least links to an official document, the budget bill showing vetos (your other link in posting #37). As Peter, I hope, will agree, if you’re going to make statements of fact, it’s a good idea to have reliable documentation to back them up.
Barry,
I suggest you read factcheck thoroughly……
Looks like the silly season is fully upon us.
Anne, I never said I would vote for McCain, and in past posts I said I might be changing sides again. I only said for now I am for McCain over Obama, but not exactly in those words. SO, let me clarify, if it’s any of your business, and it’s not…I will vote for whomever I feel is the best candidate on Nov. 4th and it’s my business and mine alone.
Also, I did not say that people who disagree with me are full of hate and stress. Those are your words. See post No. 34
What has gone on here in this topic and the previous political topics is exactly why I have not gotten into politics previously to this year. It has been a very interesting year for me, and I have learned a lot. But mostly I am very deeply disappointed.
This is my last post on the topic. Have a good election and keep it real and honest.
Bright, I do feel pretty silly right now.
In #31 you said:
“…although I think it would be good to have a minority president, I don’t think he (Obama) is the man for the job.”
“McCain is the lesser of two evils.”
“I do like Palin though because she engenders a lot of good vibrations and she will help heal this country wherever she lands, that’s her gift and that is what is driving some DFLers crazy cuz they are so full of stress and hatred….”
We are barely a month away from the end of an election season that has lasted two years. You have not had a single kind word for Obama. The two candidates couldn’t be more opposite in their views, plans, styles and supporters. To contend now that you aren’t sure or haven’t made up your mind or you are waiting for the candidates to switch parties and form a job-sharing team and sing Kumbaya at their joint inauguration just boggles the mind.
I am sorry for misunderstanding you. I realize your vote is your business, but there are only two choices, so I made what I thought was a reasonable interpretation of your comments. Yes, I feel pretty silly right now.
Peter writes:
“I suggest you read factcheck thoroughly……”
Peter, I read the webpage you linked to very carefully. There is no mention of special olympics there. Your posting #38 “caught” Anthony in an error he did not commit — or at least it failed to provide any evidence of an error. That you might originally conflate a cuts for special ed myth with a cut in special olympics report is understandable; that you would persist in your claim (which is the obvious implication of your “suggestion”) is beyond the pale.