Election 2008, United States

[Deck Knight]

Does anyone think that Palin may help Obama? Bear with me on this.

In 2004, Bush and Kerry ran a "base" election, designed to turn out each others' bases while largely ignoring (and in Bush's case, alienating) independents. It was the first time in history that the winner LOST the independent vote (albeit by a 1% margin) - Bush won mostly by winning a large number of Democratic defectors (Southern Democrats, most likely.) This is especially strange seeing as Bush was fairly popular in 2004.

Now, fast forward to 2008. Notice that Obama's core strategy has been to run AGAINST BUSH - running against partisanship, running on populist notes, and such. The problem here is that his opponent is NOT Bush, and attempting to tie McCain to Bush has always rung a little hollow for center-right and centrist independents. McCain hijacks Obama's message and adds a track record to boot, so Obama's strategy was highly flawed. Of course, McCain has had a share of flip-flops that Obama seized on, but Obama weakened his ability to exploit those with his own flip-flops.


Now add Palin to the equation. Palin goes out there with a speech that excites the base, uses divisive rhetoric, and her record is decidedly right-wing. Palin is a lot more like Bush than McCain is - and that gives Obama the chance to reclaim the "change" mantle. Obama's goal should be to make people vote in the proportions they did in 2004 - because if they do, he wins comfortably.

This is a late response, but no, Palin hurts Obama. Badly.

Seen the gossip rag and the magazine covers lately? Obama who? The media has directed 100% of their attention towards a 24-hour smear campaign on a Vice Presidential candidate, completely forgetting about The Messiah and His Message. Barack Obama's star power, his only possible hope of riding to the presidency, has been dashed.

It's actually a brilliant pick on McCain's part. The only thing leftists hate more than conservatives is minority and female conservatives (they don't "think the right way," you see). The entire media establishment outside of Fox News (which is centrist, center right tops. It is only "extreme right wing" relative to the socialist alphabet networks.) is dominated entirely by barking mad leftists like Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, and Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger (NYT). Independents, such as they are, like to see a fair fight, and will generally support the underdog. The Media has been blatantly and demonstrably unfair to Sarah Palin, delving into the dumpster to attack her and her family personally where they give scant attention to any of Obama's questionable friends and partners. There have been polls indicating over half of the population thinks the media is treating Palin unfairly, and that requires quite a lot of independents. In fact, just about any number over 20% requires independents as a factor.

In other words, the media is in the tank for Obama and has overplayed their hand. Not only has Obama been forgotten in news coverage, but if the media ever figures out it ejaculated prematurely on killing Palin, by the time they come back McCain will have already stolen Obama's change rhetoric out from under him.

Ex: Obama's ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. McCain was ahead of the curve on this issue (he wrote on it in 2005, before The Election That Never Ends even started), and Obama just fed from the trough like every other good little Democrat. Unfortunately, the media has not been carrying Obama's water as much as they have been trying to utterly destroy Palin, so by the time they refocus on that it will be too little, too late.

Normally the economy would be good ground for Democrats, whose lies sound sweet to the ears of many, but with Obama being essentially tied at the hip to Fannie Mae (he was the #2 beneficiary of their contributions, right behind the chairman who supposedly regulates them, and in front of long-time Democrats. Moreover, two of his senior campaign advisers were former Fannie Mae chairmen), he's going to come sinking down with her. That's the kind of association not even the media can do away with, since they MUST report bad economic news for Democrats to have a chance, but their Presidential candidate is tied inextricably to the guilty party.

Palin only turns off independents who cannot see through the obvious, glaring media witch hunt. Anyone who does a study of her real record will find the media exaggerations and distortions to be just that: exaggerations and distortions. She has stolen his star power, and every assault he has made on her backfires right back onto him (inexperience being the first of many). Ultimately when you compare the Dem Presidential candidate to the Republican Vice President, you are inherently diminishing Barack just by making the comparison, and worse, Obama comes off lacking even when compared to her.

The hatred conservative women inspire in the left, coupled with Obama's train wreck of poor associations and idiotic decisions (like refusing public financing) is what dooms the Obama campaign. They took their eyes off their actual opponent, John McCain, to destroy the infidel (Sarah Palin), and McCain used the opening to get his message through and deliver a sucker punch. While pundits were busy explaining how a mother of five isn't a "real woman," John McCain was laying the groundwork for victory.

I'm voting for John McCain because he's the devil I know, and I know where I will have to fight him. In exchange for this negative, two things: 1. I get to see the future of the conservative movement made in Sarah Palin, who could easily be the first female president, and a true conservative one at that. 2. I know McCain is bad on only a few select issues like illegal immigration, but is awesome on foreign policy, the war on terror, and ahead of the curve on the most crippling economic issues.

Barack Obama will never be President. After he loses this campaign, he will be political deadwood. His whole life will be examined after the campaign, including his dubious associations, and his highest aspiration will be a permanent seat in the Illinois Senate. The alphabet networks no longer have enough power to fleece the masses, it is easy to see where they run interference for their preferred candidate, and that trick only works once.

 

[Misty]

You just quoted a really old post that came pretty much right as she was announced and before the convention even started. I don't think anyone (outside of the far right) imagined that Sarah Palin would go over so well with Republicans.

Other than that, that was just about the angriest, most hate-filled spew I've ever seen. Good job.

 

[Blln]

Seriously Deck Knight, at this point I feel like you are almost ranting to yourself. How can you possibly expect anybody to take you seriously when you just drop in lines like

Normally the economy would be good ground for Democrats, whose lies sound sweet to the ears of many

it's one thing to adamantly believe something, but your posts are verging on ridiculous.

 

[bullfrogegg8]

I would vote Nader. I don't feel Obama or McCain are right for the job.

 

[Deck Knight]

Seriously Deck Knight, at this point I feel like you are almost ranting to yourself. How can you possibly expect anybody to take you seriously when you just drop in lines like



it's one thing to adamantly believe something, but your posts are verging on ridiculous.

This can be solved with a quick quiz on merely one example.

Democrats always argue for a "living wage," e.g. increasing the minimum wage to a point where it can provide for a family.

Question 1:

Which businesses traditionally pay their employees the minimum wage.

Question 2:

What is the largest expense of those businesses?

Question 3:

When the largest expense of a company goes up, what are their two most immediate options?

Question 4:

Historically, when the minimum wage rises, does unemployment go up or down?

The Answers:

1: Supermarkets and chain stores, places where people of the lowest income do business.

2: Labor

3: Cut costs (fire employees) or raise the price of goods (thus negating the value of the increased wage)

4. Unemployment goes up because of 3.

When an employee is only producing $6/hr worth of value for a business, but the government mandates the employer must pay $7.25/hr + taxes, there is a $1.25 loss/hr minimum to the business, multiplied by however many employees do not add the government mandated value. The employer is forced into one of two options: Fire employees incapable of providing the value/hr the government has mandated, or have the customers absorb the cost through higher prices. Generally some of both happens. The value of the extra $0.25/hr is diluted because everything in the store costs 25 cents more, and some employees are put out of a job in order to lower costs.

And yet every year, Democrats will argue to increase the minimum wage to a living wage. Why? Because "living wage" is a nice, easy thing to say that sounds compassionate. Even if its ultimate effect is the direct opposite of its intention. It is a sweet lie spoken softly, a siren song to people unwilling to actually analyze results.

If you need any more assistance, the next lessons are "railing against the rich" and "punishing oil companies with windfall profits taxes."

And since I'm still all "angry" and "hateful," on a completely unrelated note about why I still hate socialism:

British medical ethics expert: British people with dementia should off themselves to save faceless government health bureaucracy money.

The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

She insisted there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves.

[...]

Lady Warnock said: "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives – your family's lives – and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

Socialism kills. Your Grandma is next.

 

[akuchi]

At least the terrible socialism we've got here doesn't require women to pay for their own rape kits. Nice one, Palin.

My grandmother has dementia. Should I ever get it, or any other dehabilitating disease [I'm counting mental illness here too] I want to have the right to end my own life. I think she should have the right to end hers. She's not herself any more, she's not a person any more. I don't see why she should live, quite frankly - at the expense of my grandfather's sanity. She has no fun, she barely talks, she's strung out on antipsychotic medication and shits herself. She doesn't remember her children's faces. Personally, I'd euthanize her in an instant.

A friend of my boyfriends [some philosophy lecturer in Virginia] is going to flee the country if Palin gets in and come to Britain, which is quite sweet as we're planning to elope should Cameron get in [he refuses to live under a Tory government seeing as his family are Welsh coal miners, and we all know what Thatcher did to them].

I just want this election to be over so I know if the world's going to end in the next decade or the next fifty years.

 

[Trax]

Any how to me it looks like Obama will have this wrapped up. http://www.electoral-vote.com/ has been showing a nice lead for Obama now ever since McCain picked Palin, if anything that will be his down fall. McCain, Palin combo mostly appeal to the far right now like White men, and really hardcore Christians, that won't be enough of the over all population in November.

Currently shows: Obama 243 McCain 274 Ties 21

 

[JoeOE18]

I think most polls were showing that things were very close, although McCain had more slight leads than Obama did. That was a few days ago so things could have changed.

Although, not being an American, my opinion is essentially worthless: I'd go for Barack.

 

[Doctor Heartbreak]

What, Deck Knight? It kind of sounds like you're saying McCain has made some admirable move by choosing an inexperienced Vice President, because it's a weakness Obama can't go after without shooting himself in the foot.

But just because Obama can't attack Palin on experience doesn't mean Palin is suddenly, magically prepared for the VP position. She is hugely inexperienced, only nobody can talk about it anymore. The problem has not gone away. It's just going to be ignored from now on.

And it's a double-edged sword, McCain and Palin can't attack Obama's experience any longer either.

So experience can't be an issue in this election. Both sides have chosen candidates with worrying experience, but neither can bring that up without sounding hypocritical and losing support.

Yeah, perhaps it's a good strategic move for McCain, but the American people are left with a choice between two tickets, both with inexperienced candidates. Everyone is worse off because of this decision - and when a political candidate sacrifices the well-being of his country to increase his chances of winning an election, something is wrong.

Stop treating politics like sports. This stuff will affect you and everyone around you for decades to come, there is no sense in putting stock in how candidates play the election game - focus on policy, not tactics. Nobody gains anything from the act of the Republicans or Democrats winning, we can only profit from what they bring about once they do.

 

[McGrrr]

Deck Knight would be funny if his posts were satire.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I think Deck Knight is one of the most consistently thoughtful and reasoned posters in this thread. I disagree with many of the things that Deck Knight says. But as online forum debate goes -- I wish more posters would follow Deck Knight's lead in the way they contribute to the discussion.

DK makes posts that are worded well, he presents opinions in an organized fashion, he conveys conviction in his beliefs, and he backs up his arguments with reasoning. I much prefer this to all the one-line postcount++ bullshit I see from many people that are slamming on DK (that comment is not specifically directed at McGraw's recent potshot at DK. McGraw has several good posts in this thread).

If you want to rip into DK's arguments, have at it. But don't act like his posts are a joke. Or if you really think they are a joke, then I suggest you start joking in the same format he does. If you want to post a one-sentence completely irrelevant insult, then take it to Firebot. If you want to use inflammatory hyperbole in the course of your argument (DK does this often), then go right ahead. But, don't act like you are adding anything by posting the online equivalent of "DK, you suck", and expect to impress anyone with your witty argumentation skills. You are just showing your ass, and showing that you are incapable of breaking down someone else's argument - therefore you must resort to personal insults.

I'll also point out that Deck Knight is almost single-handedly representing the "other half" of the debate here. Since it is obvious to me that most posters in this thread are Obama supporters, you should be glad that Deck Knight is giving you guys an opponent to argue against. Otherwise, this thread would be one big circle-jerk over Obama's wonderfulness -- and there's really no fun in that.

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not -- this IS an election race. There are two sides, and both sides are going to get a lot of votes. Obama is not going to win this in a 90% landslide. So, I suggest you wake up to the fact that Obama does have an opponent in this race. McCain may lose, but he is going to put up a fight. It behooves everyone in this thread to acknowledge the position advocated by McCain, and to familiarize yourself with the mindset of those that will support McCain. Currently, Deck Knight is one of the only active posters in this thread that is presenting that side of the argument.

Instead of making fun of Deck Knight's arguments, you should appreciate the fact that he is presenting them -- and respond with quality counter-arguments in return.

 

[Misty]

I am all for presenting counterarguments to valid points. If I wanted, I'm sure I could provide numerous devil's advocate arguments against Obama (I read a fair amount of conservative opinions).

That said, saying "Obama is a Marxist" and "he's buddy-buddy with terrorists" and using various ad hominem arguments isn't helpful. That's not to say some of the posters in this topic for the other side aren't worse - but it's not really promoting interesting discussion, it's just promoting arguments. (I wish Aeolus would post in this topic; he's a Republican and McCain supporter but his opinions are far more thoughtful than DK's.)

 

[Phizzlax]

Thank you, San Diego Super Chargers, for posting that tax chart. If that was a well known chart I think McCain would lost a lot of support... so many republicans I know that are voting for him are using the age old "I don't want liberals raising my taxes" argument, which doesn't have any factual base in this election (for the vast majority of voters).

Obama doesn't have a lot of experience, but he seems to have a good handle on things. His economic policies are well thought out and show promise for the future of our country. McCain's economic plans... are vague, almost non-existant.
As far as foreign policy goes, I don't think we should be involved in war overseas when we have so many domestic problems at the moment. It's a tremendous waste of man-power and tax-payer money. Aside from that, though I'd admit McCain has more foreign experience, but I still think Obama would be better on foreign policy. It's been said before in this thread, but I'll repeat it anyhow. Other countries like Obama, and see McCain as a crazy old warhawk. That's not the reputation we need right now.
I will post again with my opinions of other major issues soon.

 

[Lexite]

Obama is the highest spender. We dont want someone that goes and spends a lot of money on useless things. The US is having financhial problems. We dont want a big spender in office.

I am so tired of hearing about Obama. How is he going to creat jobs. How is he going to improve our falling economy?
He cannot create jobs! The only jobs he can creat are Goverment jobs, and oh look, more taxes have to be paied to pay those "new jobs" he created. How does that work. And if he wants to raise taxes for businesses all that does is decrease the number of jobs and hourd that workers can use. If a company has to pay more money, they adjust where all there money is going, what do they do, they cut a few hours here and there and they dont hire new people. That doesnt work. Honestly his plans are nothing but empty promises. Creat more jobs by doing street work? You need money for the street work and money to pay off the workers. Spend spend spend.

 

[Hipmonlee]

From wikipedia:
Keynes argued that the solution to depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches :

* a reduction in interest rates.
* Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.[1]

Not that I believe everything I read in wikipedia, but I dont think that the assumption that a big spender is a worse idea while having financial problems than at any other time is a fair one.

Have a nice day.

 

[Trax]

Obama is the highest spender. We dont want someone that goes and spends a lot of money on useless things. The US is having financhial problems. We dont want a big spender in office.

Ever heard the term "you've got to spend money to make money"?

Things like the US dependence on middle eastern oil are crippling your economy right now (to the point where it almost reached parity with the AUD before our economic slowdown), the solution is not to cut spending but to spend on things that will improve the US's ability to make money long term.

I know thinking more than 4 years ahead is hard for some people, but it's true.

 

[Lexite]

Ok, im sorry, cuz our economy is doing great right now and we are not heading for big problems. Whatever, im dont reading in here, no one hear really understands what is going on. Good bye.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Obama seems likely to oversee a bigger reduction in military spending than McCain which is reasonably likely to negate any extra money he would spend on social programs. I think the current analysis is that neither are going to get this country into the green though; it's a pretty sucky time to be a fiscal conservative (those don't really exist in mainstream politics anymore).

My only view on Sarah Palin being unfit to be vice president is that it greatly perturbs me that she probably wouldn't have been selected were she a man (there are plenty of men who have pretty similar conservative credentials). The fact that some people support her just because she's a woman is even more wrong; the whole thing is just promoting division between the sexes. It doesn't really matter that she would be a bad president because the odds of McCain dying in office if elected are pretty slim (he's 72, not 92); it's just that the whole media circus she got was ridiculous and for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Goodbar]

Ok, im sorry, cuz our economy is doing great right now and we are not heading for big problems. Whatever, im dont reading in here, no one hear really understands what is going on. Good bye.

lolwut?

I'm undecided at the moment on who I will choose (and I'm just old enough to vote yay), though leaning towards McPalin atm. It bothers me a lot because personally I dislike both candidates. It doesn't help that they continue to attack each other, which is a disease in today's politics. So not only do you continuously get to hear bad shit about them (a portion which is probably false though) but you also get to see what big hypocrites they are through their attacks (pig and lipstick ring a bell?). So in my personal opinion if you are a big supporter of either candidate, you're probably a radical or reactionary, aka imo dipshits (my dislike of political parties and personal experience listening to these kinds of people has led me to greatly dislike their points of view, sorry if you are one...).

 

[Hipmonlee]

Ok, im sorry, cuz our economy is doing great right now and we are not heading for big problems. Whatever, im dont reading in here, no one hear really understands what is going on. Good bye.

This isnt really a great reason not to post. If we understood what was going on and rejected your position out of some bias or something, then sure, but if we dont understand, then this should be a great opportunity to enlighten us.

Have a nice day.

 

[Misty]

Obama seems likely to oversee a bigger reduction in military spending than McCain which is reasonably likely to negate any extra money he would spend on social programs. I think the current analysis is that neither are going to get this country into the green though; it's a pretty sucky time to be a fiscal conservative (those don't really exist in mainstream politics anymore).

I pretty much agree with this, but I'm not sure if Obama is really going to cut military spending. Clinton used the "peace dividend" argument to cut military spending, but Obama definitely won't be able to use that, given that he plans to ramp up the war in Afghanistan.

I'll be honest, the only way to significantly cut spending is to fix our broken health care system (and hence reduce Medicare and Medicaid outlays), and IMO Obama's fix is better than McCain's "fix" which he put together in an hour.

 

[Cuchonchuir]

This is a late response, but no, Palin hurts Obama. Badly.

Seen the gossip rag and the magazine covers lately? Obama who? The media has directed 100% of their attention towards a 24-hour smear campaign on a Vice Presidential candidate

Have they been smearing her? Oh, good. Considering how corrupt and ignorant she is, that's a good thing. I mean, anyone who thinks Dinosaurs walked the earth 4000 years ago should not be VP.

It's actually a brilliant pick on McCain's part. The only thing leftists hate more than conservatives is minority and female conservatives (they don't "think the right way," you see).[/quote]

As usual, you have a knack for making absurd and unsubstantiated claims (Deck and I go way back). Who are these 'leftists'? Are you referring to centrist Democrats? Where is any evidence?

It couldn't possibly be that they disagree with her politics or find her unfit for being VP. Or maybe find her 'family values' stance hypocritical due to her corruption in Alaska and the fact that her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock (personally, I don't care. No leftists I know care, either. They simply see her as a hypocrite).

But, no. It's not any of that, it's that "leftists" hate "minority and female conservatives".

The entire media establishment outside of Fox News (which is centrist, center right tops. It is only "extreme right wing" relative to the socialist alphabet networks.)

Fox News is extremely right-wing, and all news networks are centrist at best. Unlike you, I can present proof. All news networks are owned by large corporations. Corporations whose profit margins would be undermined if not outright destroyed if they actually were 'leftist' and called for progressive changes in society. Clearly, they're not so stupid as to be self-destructive.

BTW, can you actually *define* socialist other than by using a non-answer like 'Russia' or 'something I don't like'? Can you do so in an objective way?

Independents, such as they are, like to see a fair fight, and will generally support the underdog.

This is another odd, unsubstantiated generalization.

The Media has been blatantly and demonstrably unfair to Sarah Palin, delving into the dumpster to attack her and her family personally where they give scant attention to any of Obama's questionable friends and partners.

How is it demonstratable?

There have been polls indicating over half of the population thinks the media is treating Palin unfairly, and that requires quite a lot of independents. In fact, just about any number over 20% requires independents as a factor.

What are your sources?

In other words, the media is in the tank for Obama and has overplayed their hand. Not only has Obama been forgotten in news coverage, but if the media ever figures out it ejaculated prematurely on killing Palin, by the time they come back McCain will have already stolen Obama's change rhetoric out from under him.

Normally the economy would be good ground for Democrats, whose lies sound sweet to the ears of many, but with Obama being essentially tied at the hip to Fannie Mae

You're exactly right, here. Democrats can't offer any real changes because they are simply in the pockets of capitalists. The only difference is that Democrats are sometimes slightly liberal on social issues. Clinton, for example, was liberal on social issues, but was as far right as Reagan when it came to the economy.

Palin only turns off independents

I think she turns off people who actual want to have a competent leader.

I'm voting for John McCain because he's the devil I know, and I know where I will have to fight him. In exchange for this negative, two things: 1. I get to see the future of the conservative movement made in Sarah Palin, who could easily be the first female president, and a true conservative one at that.

Deck, it's your choice, of course, but Palin really isn't very bright. She is not even aware of what the Bush Doctrine is, which I know is something you probably know/agree with. There is some reason to believe she is rather corrupt and ineffectual at keeping crime down (she was mayor of the meth capital of Alaska, for example).

2. I know McCain is bad on only a few select issues like illegal immigration, but is awesome on foreign policy, the war on terror, and ahead of the curve on the most crippling economic issues.

How is he awesome on foreign policy and the war on terror? In my opinion, his only decent stance - being against torture - evaporated in order to fit his party line.

And before you defend torture, it's simply an ineffective tactic for ANYTHING. People will tell you what they think you want to hear. It's simply a terror weapon - terrorism, basically. In a war like this, where you can't intimidate the enemy, that only backfires and makes more people want to fight you.

If you really wanted to win the "war on terror" (which I think is a farce to begin with), you'd not do it by being brutal to your enemies. You'd do it by treating them extremely nicely; make prison camps a paradise. It would completely undercut the arguments used by the enemy in saying we are devils. If you converted captured enemy combatants to your side, you could win easily. This is called 'winning a battle and becoming stronger'. It's one of the oldest tactics used by generals who actually win wars and battles.

Deck Knight would be funny if his posts were satire.

Quoted from McGraw

You're absolutely right.

BTW, Deck, your signature is funny since the worst murderers in history were, by far, capitalists.

 

[Phizzlax]

Obama does intend to go through old programs set up decades ago and cut the ones that no longer have a purpose (there are dozens of them eating our tax dollars -_-).

Forgot to mention my views on Palin.

Hmmm... do I want a person who doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? A person who spent 15 million tax dollars to build a sports facility for a town with 6,000 people (after all of the legal fees because she started construction for the facility on property not even owned by the city). Earmarks for Wasilla (the city she was mayor of) were 1,000$ per capita. The average for the US is 50$ per capita. Sounds like she'd be great at handling the economy =/
Anything she's ever said that wasn't scripted has been a complete disaster. She's going to explode in her first debate with Joe Biden (the MOST qualified man in america to be president IMO, an experienced, intelligent, quick-witted politician who is also a good debater).

Lexite: Where do you live? Not the U.S apparently, unless you live under a rock. Our economy has been getting worse for a while now, and with the huge bank problems this week it's going to get a lot worse.

 

[Deck Knight]

Have they been smearing her? Oh, good. Considering how corrupt and ignorant she is, that's a good thing. I mean, anyone who thinks Dinosaurs walked the earth 4000 years ago should not be VP.

Palin fought corruption in her own state, which, need I remind you, was dominated by Republicans. Obama was a Chicago Daley Machine hack. Obama didn't fight corruption, he made deals with it. Tony Rezko, convicted felon, was his real estate agent.

As for your ludicrous Dinosaur claim, did you rip that straight from DailyKos or is that just your imagination running wild again?

As usual, you have a knack for making absurd and unsubstantiated claims (Deck and I go way back). Who are these 'leftists'? Are you referring to centrist Democrats? Where is any evidence?

Yes. Totally. Unsubstantiated. Rumors. About. Left Wing. Hatred of Sarah Palin's being.

I submit I lost here, as I was not able to find a unique link for each word in the previous sentence. It appears the upper limit on blatant bias/hatred is 6 articles. There are the more subtle snipes at her unseriousness due to her being physically attractive, but I honestly don't think people searching for incriminating bikini photos counts as hatred as much as lust.

It couldn't possibly be that they disagree with her politics or find her unfit for being VP. Or maybe find her 'family values' stance hypocritical due to her corruption in Alaska and the fact that her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock (personally, I don't care. No leftists I know care, either. They simply see her as a hypocrite).

The day I hear someone say "her contraception failed, therefore comprehensive sex education is a categorical failure" is the day I'll put any stock against abstinence education. As it stands, you will never become pregnant if you remain abstinent, but stories of "safe" sex failing to prevent pregnancy are legion. Rape is a non-sequiter, as rapists do not tend to use protection. Leftists expected the "right wing," e.g. people like me, to turn on Sarah Palin. We didn't because we realize that parents only have limited control over their teenagers, and teenagers have a habit of making mistakes. Sarah Palin is no more a hypocrite for her daughter getting pregnant than would Obama be if his hypothetical teenage daughter got pregnant.

Leftists do not think we are capable of this nuance. A Leftist's view of the Right Wing is as a demonic caricature, not as a real person. Why else would the pregnancy of a minor be front page news in America's "Paper of Record?"

Going back to the above: If Obama had a teenage daughter who used contraception and still got pregnant, would it be cited as just another example of the categorical failure of comprehensive sex-ed? You and I both know the answer is no. It is no because "safe" sex is a multi-billion dollar industry whereas willpower is essentially free. Somebody makes money off of pills, condoms, mouth guards, etc, and its in their interest to keep selling those things. The people that make money off those products are wholly linked and merged with Big Abortion. When their products fail, as they inevitably do, as all things which fight against the very nature of biology, abortion is there to step in.

But that is enough for now, onto the rest of your concerns.

But, no. It's not any of that, it's that "leftists" hate "minority and female conservatives".

Oh, there are some people that oppose her because of her positions. But they aren't in the media. Call me when the NYT runs a front page story about Barack Obama's dubious associations. I'm counting 1 large hit piece on Palin and nothing but kisses and adulation for the big O.

For comparison:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refer...tml?query=OBAMA, BARACK&field=per&match=exact

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/sarah_palin/index.html

I note with particular interest the NYT managed to interview the 25% of people in Alaska who are not satisfied with Palin for their interviews, and yet they merely repeat the Barack Obama Campaign's talking points about Ayers simply being a guy in Obama's neighborhood.

The press sent dozens way up to Wasilla to gather every last negative opinion of Palin they could, and yet they could not be bothered to check Obama's associations from their Chicago office?

Fox News is extremely right-wing, and all news networks are centrist at best. Unlike you, I can present proof. All news networks are owned by large corporations. Corporations whose profit margins would be undermined if not outright destroyed if they actually were 'leftist' and called for progressive changes in society. Clearly, they're not so stupid as to be self-destructive.

George Soros is a billionaire socialist. He is very comfortable throwing money around to lost liberal causes like Air America. Moreover, your "proof" is a logical algorithm loosely translated as follows:

Corporations are rich
Rich entities cannot be left-wing
Therefore, corporations must be right-wing.

I, however, have this study.

Pictures:

Read the whole thing, of course. But as I said, Fox News is only "extreme right wing" in relation to the other networks. This is just 2008 election data, I'll need to scrounge around more for data over a longer time period, but basically Fox plays it mostly down the middle. This should amply answer your queries on media bias and coverage.

BTW, can you actually *define* socialist other than by using a non-answer like 'Russia' or 'something I don't like'? Can you do so in an objective way?

Socialist: Any person who believes government should have as much control over economic and personal decisions as possible. Thus, a socialist policy will seek to nationalize all industries, especially those inextricably linked to health, safety, and well-being: e.g. Energy, Health Care, Finance, and Social Services.

You're exactly right, here. Democrats can't offer any real changes because they are simply in the pockets of capitalists. The only difference is that Democrats are sometimes slightly liberal on social issues. Clinton, for example, was liberal on social issues, but was as far right as Reagan when it came to the economy.

Democrats are in the pocket of socialist groups that support expanded government social services. Pro-Abortion groups want government provided daycare, for example.The Sodomy lobby is easily bought with promises of forced acceptance for their sexual preferences, in exchange for government being able to define marriage as it sees fit. Labor Bosses are currently trying to remove secret balloting because unions are now more about securing kickbacks than opposing bad labor conditions.

Oh, and while we're at it, can you define "capitalist" outside of "republicans" or "corporations" or "something I don't like?"

I think she turns off people who actual want to have a competent leader.

Obama has never shown any inclination towards competence. He can't even command the English language when removed from a teleprompter.

Deck, it's your choice, of course, but Palin really isn't very bright. She is not even aware of what the Bush Doctrine is, which I know is something you probably know/agree with. There is some reason to believe she is rather corrupt and ineffectual at keeping crime down (she was mayor of the meth capital of Alaska, for example).

Obama was State Senator and then U.S. Senator representing the most corrupt Political Machine in the country. You're not seriously going to compare Chicago's crime, corruption, and violence levels to Wasilla, Alaska, are you? Chicago is probably simultaneously the crystal meth, crack, weed, and PCP capital of Illinois. Obama did a great job organizing that community; they appear to be living in the same shoddy tenements as before. That's Change you can Hope for, but, of course, will never receive.

Now, Define the Bush Doctrine. And no, do not use "pre-emptive war for oil." If you want to know what it is, I recommend asking Charles Krauthammer.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

[..]

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

I support fighting terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head. This does not mean we need to send the US Army and Marines everywhere, it means we must oust terrorist supporting states when possible and work with democratic countries to fight the terrorist cells in their nations. The US cannot reasonably invade everywhere, but they don't need to if terrorists have no refuge anywhere on earth.

How is he awesome on foreign policy and the war on terror? In my opinion, his only decent stance - being against torture - evaporated in order to fit his party line.

Please tell me how a man literally maimed in a war is a warmonger. Fact is, McCain got the Georgia-Russia conflict right instantly, Obama took 3 days to reach a carbon copy of John McCain's first position. McCain knows a KGB man like Putin when he sees him. He was also railing against government excesses with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, before, amazingly, Election 2008 even started.

And before you defend torture, it's simply an ineffective tactic for ANYTHING. People will tell you what they think you want to hear. It's simply a terror weapon - terrorism, basically. In a war like this, where you can't intimidate the enemy, that only backfires and makes more people want to fight you.

The United States has used torture exactly three times since Sept. 11th to obtain information, all of which were before the Iraq war. The incidents at Abu Ghraib were deplorable and those responsible were punished. They violated the UCMJ, the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

And here is a fun one Cuchonchuir: Define torture. then explain to me how I support torture under your definition of torture, citing examples of things I have written.

If you really wanted to win the "war on terror" (which I think is a farce to begin with), you'd not do it by being brutal to your enemies. You'd do it by treating them extremely nicely; make prison camps a paradise. It would completely undercut the arguments used by the enemy in saying we are devils. If you converted captured enemy combatants to your side, you could win easily. This is called 'winning a battle and becoming stronger'. It's one of the oldest tactics used by generals who actually win wars and battles.

Terrorists do not value their lives. Their sole goal is to kill you in the name of Allah. Giving them creature comforts will not placate them. They will eat your meal, thank you graciously, and then detonate their suicide vest. You cannot reason with the unreasonable; the only thing they understand is raw, total obliteration. Yours is the policy of Neville Chamberlain. How did that work out? Did we achieve "peace in our time?" Did Hitler come to his senses and realize Britain and France really only wanted to be friends, and that he should stop running over Poles and Slovaks and Russians with tanks?

BTW, Deck, your signature is funny since the worst murderers in history were, by far, capitalists.

Adolf Hitler, Bennito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Ho Chi-Minh, Pol-Pot, and Mao-Tse-Tung: Ardent Capitalists, them. I believe their combined death toll is somewhere around 5% of current world population. Mao killed more Chinese people under his rule than in all of China's recorded history. Pretty sure Uncle Joe did the same for Russians. Hitler was smart enough to know that you throw in Nationalism with Socialism, so that you end up with less dead Germans and more dead everyone else. Ironically, he was actually the first of the atheistic socialist leaders. I suppose there were also elements of corporatism in there, but corporatism isn't capitalism.

You may continue to live in fantasy, but so far the worst thing stupid capitalists have done is make stupid decisions with inherently crappy financial instruments. The net effect this has had on America is that poverty is defined as living and eating indoors and having only one vehicle. Compare this with socialist countries, where the definition of poverty is dead in a street with a jackbooted thug standing over your corpse (poor socialism ala North Korea) or double-digit unemployment, inability to project power or defend against a real threat, and faceless bureaucracies that view your life as a series of expenses instead of something with intrinsic value (rich socialism ala The Netherlands, and soon Britain).

I do believe I remember you Cuchonchuir, but it was quite a while ago, and I'm about as impressed now as I was then, which is not very.

 

[Peanut-Lover]

There are a few states to still consider, and these will make the difference of McCain and Obama winning...


Pennsylvania - A few weeks ago, when McCain first selected Palin, electoral-vote.com said that she would appeal to the working class people of Pa, Oh, Va, WV, and the like. It is really working for him in Pa - Pennsylvania is essentially a statistical tie, as opposed to a 55/40 split for Obama.

Virginia - A Republican is usually guaranteed this state. That is, if demographics were what they used to be. The northern suburbs that are heavily liberal/democratic are now about twice the population size they were before.
Sarah Palin has fixed this though, and brought it back under the "right" majority (thats a pun - right meaning correct and right wing meaning republican. In before oxymoron comment).
The success here hinges on Palin staying popular.


Colorado - It splits down the middle, really a coin toss, honestly - its usually 48/52 splits if that far. Any comments to help me with this is greatly appreciated.

New Mexico - similar to Colorado, but a bit more umm...anti-McCain. Immigration, issues perhaps?

Nevada - Not much to say - really not clear on why its been going iffy iffy. Help here?

Florida - A battle ground for the past what - 2-4 presidential races? You have the people with lots of money and big mansions, and then you have the poor people that live in big commerce areas for service in places like Disneyland and Sea World. You have the relatively rich retirees who are making hand over fist from bank savings and retirement funds, and you have the elderly that grew up from the poor as highlighted above. Really questionable, but its shifting very conservative courtesy of no major hurricanes damaging things and causing another humiliation for the current administration.



Sort-of-Swing states that were not highlighted:

Ohio / Indianna / Michigan - look up the Palin Effect, and then Pennsylvania and Virginia. Michigan was looking more and more Republican from beforehand, but Palin is really trying to shift things back to McCain

Minnesota: Don't ask me, I have no clue. Quite a recent development that its only a slight democrat leaning Republican, as opposed to very strong democrat. The convention, maybe?

Wisconsin - see Minnesota, minus the guess. I have no clue whats going on here in terms of "barely Democratic", except for possible polling errors or that the people are "reverting to old ways and clinging to guns and religion"?



Former Swing States:
Texas - some analysts said it was a problem, similar to Virginia - the nuntil McCaorthern areas are highly democratic, and they have been increasing in population. Back on May 8th, it looked plausible that the senate race would be tight.
You also have a lot of immigrants coming in, and a good number got voting rights (those there for years), and they do not go conservative.
That was all plausible, except when Texas got more rich from more oil, and everyone prospered, calling for tax cuts.

Iowa: Iowa has been republican for a long time. That is, until McCain essentially ditched corn ethanol and Obama supported it. More corn going to ethanol means higher food prices. It is now completely democrat, and essentially sealed as "blue"





Edit: Late by a long shot. 4-5 hours of formulating a post - I probably shouldn't have eaten dinner and fallen asleep.
Anyway, Deck Night - I totally support you in most of what you said.

The only problem was back in the television industry and "who they support" - I find CNN to be a bunch of socialist fuktards, and you know as well as I do that Fox is very conservative (not as arrogant as CNN, though).