FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential General Election News & Discussion Center (Page 25)

  This topic comprises 68 pages: 1  2  3  ...  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  ...  66  67  68   
Author Topic: Presidential General Election News & Discussion Center
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
#2 is what I personally support, but frankly I'd be okay with #1 as well. I don't think the federal government should be in the marriage business at all. But I don't think that the government can mandate marriages for gay couples. So long as both sides have the same legal rights down to the last biologically possible detail, then I don't much care what they call it.

It's not like just because on paper it's a civil union gay couples aren't going to use the terms "married," "husband," and "wife." I'm more concerned about what it is than what they call it.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
2) The gov't says "we recognize civil unions. period. if you want to get married, go see your church but we don't care".

I'm unclear if this means a church can perform a 'meaningless to the law' marriage only or if a church can perform a civil union only or if a church can perform a civil union and 'meaningless to the law' ceremony called marriage?
It means that everyone gets the same legal rights and we call that a civil union on paper. If you want to go to your church and have any sort of ceremony for whatever reason, then go for it, but it won't have any legal effect. I believe the first description, that churches will perform "meaningless to the law" marriage services, but really, isn't that already the status quo? You don't currently HAVE to get married in a church to get married officially, you don't have to have a service of any kind, all you need is a marriage license.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Xann.:
It seems more to the point that you insulted him after he made a joke

He didn't make a joke. He used an obnoxious and crude term. I don't care if it's been used on 30 Rock. It's still piggish. "Mom I'd Like to F***?" That's a joke? Grow up.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Last week, Palin had me worried that the Republicans pulled off a coup that could be very bad for Democrats down the stretch.

As more information came out about her, by Yesterday I was not so worried. I am not talking about her family issues. Those are not important to the election. I am referring to things like at her church she asked that the Evangelicals pray that her gas-pipeline goes through, like her possible one-time membership in the Alaskan Independence Party, like her Pro-Earmark stance when she was mayor, like her political machinations of troopergate proportions as governor, like her performance as governor being more finishing other leader's projects instead of creating her own.

More importantly it demonstrates the difference between the two real candidates.

The first big Executive decision that any candidate makes is the choice of VP.

Senator Obama went with a reliable, well vetted, almost conservative choice.

Senator McCain went with a wild, politically motivated, untested choice. The man who wanted to shout "Country over Party" went Party over Country. It was a most non-conservative, pandering to conservative choice.

I am reminded of the movie, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". The John Wayne character is a true American Archetype, proud, brave, direct,--a Maverick. Jimmy Stewart is the hard working, deep reading, intellectual. While it is John Wayne who is the hero of the picture, it is Jimmy Stewart who gets sent to Washington to work best there.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
Great Daily Show clip
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It means that everyone gets the same legal rights and we call that a civil union on paper. If you want to go to your church and have any sort of ceremony for whatever reason, then go for it, but it won't have any legal effect. I believe the first description, that churches will perform "meaningless to the law" marriage services, but really, isn't that already the status quo? You don't currently HAVE to get married in a church to get married officially, you don't have to have a service of any kind, all you need is a marriage license.
Yes, I know that but my question is more along the lines of removing the authority of a church to legally join people in a 'civil union'. Would it be acceptable to you or LSM or whoever to allow churches (and judges, mayors, captains of ships, and whoever else can currently perform marriages) to perform civil unions?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
OK, you'll have to tell me if I'm just biased. But the general messages I got from the conventions so far was this:

Dems: Our opponent is a patriot, but he's wrong about the issues. Here's what's been done wrong for the last eight years, and here's how we'll fix it.

GOP: Our opponent is an elitist East Coast snob, and you should fear the media, the liberals, Islam, and whatever else we can think of.

One appeals to reason, the other to emotion. Obviously that's overgeneralized; both conventions had a bit of both. But overall the messages seemed to be that the Democrats think the Republicans are wrong and the Republicans think the Democrats are actively out to destroy America. Maybe that's why the Dems keep losing national elections in what should have been walks. (Also why Stephen Colbert is so disturbingly funny)

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
Great Daily Show clip

that was brilliant.

I went looking for it last night after Lyrhawn posted but it wasn't up yet.

Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I turned off the Democratic convention in disgust over every speech being a crappy, personal attack on various members of the GOP.

I'm fine with criticizing the GOP's negativity, but the Dems are not doing better. They are definitely, definitely not doing well.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dabbler
Member
Member # 6443

 - posted      Profile for dabbler   Email dabbler         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm waiting until McCain's speech. I expect him to approach it like Obama did, with relatively specific reasons on why he's different and correct on policy. I didn't watch any of the other speechs in the DNC so I don't know if they were as attack-sharp as Palin's.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alcon
Member
Member # 6645

 - posted      Profile for Alcon   Email Alcon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I turned off the Democratic convention in disgust over every speech being a crappy, personal attack on various members of the GOP.
The difference is that, for the most part, when Dems make a personal attack against a specific Republican they're usually targetting the Republican's policies, actions and opinions. They aren't making character attacks.

When Republicans go on the attack they are often making character attacks. And said attacks are often only vaguely based in reality. If at all.

At least that's what I remember seeing, but I could be biased in my read of it.

Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
That's not what I heard.

It is what I wish were true, but that's not the discussion.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
docmagik
Member
Member # 1131

 - posted      Profile for docmagik   Email docmagik         Edit/Delete Post 
Does anybody really want to pretend that either party doesn't go after the other party in every politically advantageous way it can?

Here's what happens.

Both parties say, to paraprhase Chris, "The other guy will destroy America." To that side, they feel they're being very specific, that they're criticizing on issues that matter.

To the other side, it feels like they're saying, the other side intends to destroy America. In reality, both sides are just saying that the other party would. Through bad information, incorrect motivations, dim worldviews, inexperience, or whatever.

They use attacks that the true believers of the other party have already found satisfactory answers for, so the other party feels such attacks are "only vaugely based on reality." But neither party would have used the attacks if they felt they'd had them answered fully--so to them, it still feels like valid criticism.

It ends up being a completely different experience depending on where your loyalties lie going in. That's not a criticism of anybody--that's just the nature of conflict and human nature.

Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alcon
Member
Member # 6645

 - posted      Profile for Alcon   Email Alcon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That's not what I heard.

It is what I wish were true, but that's not the discussion.

Can you give me an example of where you feel a Democrat speaking at the convention made a character attack on a Republican?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dabbler
Member
Member # 6443

 - posted      Profile for dabbler   Email dabbler         Edit/Delete Post 
Biden text at bottom
quote:
That's the America that George Bush has left us, and that's the future John McCain will give us

. . . But John McCain doesn't get it

. . . John McCain is my friend. We've known each other for three decades. We've traveled the world together. It's a friendship that goes beyond politics. And the personal courage and heroism John demonstrated still amaze me. But I profoundly disagree with the direction that John wants to take the country. For example, John thinks that during the Bush years "we've made great progress economically." I think it's been abysmal. And in the Senate, John sided with President Bush 95 percent of the time. Give me a break. When John McCain proposes $200 billion in new tax breaks for corporate America, $1 billion alone for just eight of the largest companies, but no relief for 100 million American families, that's not change; that's more of the same. Even today, as oil companies post the biggest profits in history--a half trillion dollars in the last five years--he wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks. But he voted time and again against incentives for renewable energy: solar, wind, biofuels. That's not change; that's more of the same. Millions of jobs have left our shores, yet John continues to support tax breaks for corporations that send them there. That's not change; that's more of the same. He voted 19 times against raising the minimum wage. For people who are struggling just to get to the next day, that's not change; that's more of the same. And when he says he will continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq when Iraq is sitting on a surplus of nearly $80 billion, that's not change; that's more of the same.

. . . The Bush-McCain foreign policy has dug us into a very deep hole with very few friends to help us climb out. For the last seven years, this administration has failed to face the biggest forces shaping this century: the emergence of Russia, China and India as great powers; the spread of lethal weapons; the shortage of secure supplies of energy, food and water; the challenge of climate change; and the resurgence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real central front against terrorism.

. . . Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he said only three years ago, "Afghanistan--we don't read about it anymore because it's succeeded"?

. . . Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he rejected talking with Iran and then asked: What is there to talk about?

. . . Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he says there can be no timelines to draw down our troops from Iraq--that we must stay indefinitely?

Sorry that was so long. That's just about every mention of McCain in his speech. Here's Palin's comments.
quote:
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening

. . . I've noticed a pattern with our opponent. Maybe you have, too. We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers. And there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate. This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger, take more of your money, give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much he promises more. Taxes are too high he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific. The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.

. . . In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change. They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.

. . . And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely. There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you in places where winning means survival and defeat means death and that man is John McCain.

Make your own decision. To me, the "actual responsibilities," "turning back the waters and healing the planet," "Styrofoam Greek columns," and "self-designed presidential seals" were kinda snarky and superficial. Otherwise, the rest of the speeches were basically pointing out how they see the other's policy as incorrect.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
Neither Biden nor Obama attacked McCain (or even Bush) on a personal level to any significant degree. In fact, both went out of their way to distinguish that they thought McCain was an excellent person even though they thought his politics were awful. Obama pretty much called him a hero. The worst they said about him was that he was out of touch with non-rich Americans.

Palin, on the other hand, barely spoke about policies (though she spent a long time on her family), and instead focused the second half of her speech on attacking Obama as a person and asserting that McCain is a better person. At one point she declared sarcasticly that Obama's old role as a community organizer lacked "actual responsibilities". At another point she suggested he uses change solely to promote his own career.

This is what has been disappointing about McCain's candidacy. He has spent years acting like a "maverick" and keeping himself independent from the Republican establishment, yet now it seems like he's given all that up in hopes of winning. He spent years developing a reputation for "stright talk" and a better sort of politics, only to resort to all the traditional political negativity in this campaign. It seems like he wanted to reach across party lines, do something truly maverick and pick Joe Lieberman - but in the end he gave in to the more extreme conservatives and gave them the sort of negative, politically-useful VP candidate they wanted. Unless he does something drastic in the coming weeks, I think we can assume he has given in to doing the politically expedient thing.

And that is the last thing we need now. We've spent years in a political dynamic that pits liberals and conservatives shamefully against eachother in mudslinging, while our own government spins us and manipulates us. That's a message Lieberman was giving the other day at the RNC, when he said national pride is more important than party pride. I think it's also the reason Obama's message of "change" has caught on so well. McCain is the sort of candidate who could capture that same independent-minded spirit, and bring Republicans back to the high road. But instead of McCain changing the way the Republican Party has been doing business in the last decade, it seems like the Republican Party in this election has changed McCain.

What McCain says tonight might help clarify whether or not this is true. Will he appeal to reason and actual policies? Or will he just appeal to emotions and play politics against his opponent's character?

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Whoever the joker was on the night before Biden spoke that made me turn off the radio in disgust.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm trying to figure out who that would have been. Right before Sem BIden, there was a volunteer against domestic violence who nobody has heard of and Tammy Duckworth, who spoke about veterans issues. niether of their speeches was, IMO, disgusting in their partisan attacks.

Was it earlier than that?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
The night before, not right before.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Ah...misread. Sorry. I didn't hear anyone before Sen. Clinton. I'll read the speeches.

Hmmm...Gov. Schweitzer did make a joke in reference to Sen. McCain's many houses, but everything else was tied to policy.

Gov. Strickland was snarky with the sleeping bit which could be a sly way to refer to Sen. McCain's age.

Was it one of those?

Now I'll go read the Rep speeches.

[ September 04, 2008, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I honestly don't remember what exactly was said. I do remember my disappointment and disgusted reaction.

I am also not terribly interested in "My group is less biased and nasty than the other one." If people are identifying with a "my party", then I'll assume normal, tribal human nature is in play. Partisan blindness, demonization of the Other, and defensive justification of tactics is part of the territory.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay. I'll stop trying to argue actual facts with you, then.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
A letter from a Wasilla resident familiar with Palin and her life in government

Interesting read. Worth noting that you are obviously reading one person's perspective on Palin.

Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, please. I gave my impressions and you're waving away the attacks you found as nothing. You're not dealing in facts at all - you're defending your corner of the playground.

As if my impression of the convention were even up for debate.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
I hate election speeches.

"But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate."

Obama has written one memoir and one campaign book (as opposed to McCain's three memoirs). And sponsorship of 820 laws in Illinois, authorship of 152 bills and co-sponsorship of 427 in Washington, including the 2007 Ethics Reform bill... what would she consider "major"?

"This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign."

Probably because he doesn't see the war on an abstract concept as one that can be won.

"But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan?"

Maybe to return the columns to Bush? They looked an awful lot like the columns behind Bush when he accepted the 2004 nomination, but I'm sure they meant something totally different then.

"What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?"

I'll give her this one; Obama's speech was far too messianic in his laundry list of miracles.

"The answer is to make government bigger,"

Than Bush did? How?

"...take more of your money..."

If you're making more than $250,000 a year, yes. The average voter would pay less.

"...give you more orders from Washington..."

Not sure what this means.

"...and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world."

I assume this means pull troops out of Iraq. On the other hand, he wants to commit more to Afghanistan to finish what we started, and go into Pakistan to find al-Queda. According to Obama's website, he wants to "build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a more robust capacity to train, equip, and advise foreign security forces, so that local allies are better prepared to confront mutual threats." He also plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops.

"America needs more energy our opponent is against producing it."

Obama is against oil dependency. He is very for alternative fuels, which would be renewable and help sever the hold that middle-eastern countries currently have over us.

"Victory in Iraq is finally in sight he wants to forfeit."

Is it? It looks more like Iraq is kicking us out, whereupon they will go back to their civil war as the government tries to kick out the Sunni militants we've been paying to help the surge. And a very large chunk of Americans want us out of the war.

"Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay he wants to meet them without preconditions."

Yep, he does. And I'll bet he won't be looking into their eyes and getting a sense of their souls, either.

"Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?"

I believe he's worried, as I am, that ignoring our rule of law and using an "ends justify the means" attitude towards prisoners and towards the privacy of Americans will continue to erode our country's ideals and moral high ground.

"Government is too big he wants to grow it."

I assume this is the health care thing. Otherwise Bush has grown the government more than any other recent president, its hard to see what Obama could do more.

"Congress spends too much he promises more."

And he promises to use pay-as-you-go budget restrictions to make sure it's covered, unlike the last eight years when the national debt grew by 50%.

"Taxes are too high he wants to raise them."

He wants to let Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy drop as they're scheduled to in 2010, yes. Until fairly recently so did John McCain. But Obama wants to keep the tax breaks for anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

"His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific. The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

The line that McCain has been pushing for some time now. I love the fact that it's thoroughly debunked at snopes.com (as are some of Obama's claims about McCain's tax plans).

Come to think of it, maybe we should ask snopes.com to debunk all of the candidates' speeches. Maybe in a picture-in-picture thing...

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not trying to speak for her, but I think kmbboots was just honestly trying to figure out what you found offensive. I could completely understand being disgusted by the examples she gave.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
"I am also not terribly interested in "My group is less biased and nasty than the other one.""

I'm an Independent. I favor Obama, but until this summer or so I would have been nearly as content to see McCain in office as I considered him an honorable man. Now I see him turning into exactly the sort of candidate he once despised, and I'm saddened by it.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
No. I was trying to understand your impression. I didn't see all of the speeches, so, rather than being dismissive, I went and checked. Looking for the actual facts of what was said. I did find some snarky stuff - which I noted.

And then I asked if it was that or if there was something I missed, giving you an opportunity to tell me I needed to look further if I still had missed it.

You, on the other hand, were dismissive. You, beyond not wanting to explore what you actually heard (which is your right), assumed a negative motivation on my part. You even said so!

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dabbler
Member
Member # 6443

 - posted      Profile for dabbler   Email dabbler         Edit/Delete Post 
It looked like boots was trying to determine which speech the comments that made you disgusted were from, kat. It's hard to find facts (the text of the speech) when you've basically said you can't remember any of the things said.

On the other hand, I posted excerpts from Palin and Biden, two people who ARE on the ballot and deserve to have their speeches discussed. Bring in other speeches from the conventions. But saying "every speech being a crappy, personal attack" then "I honestly don't remember what exactly was said" makes us do all the work to bolster your claim.

Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Neither Biden nor Obama attacked McCain (or even Bush) on a personal level to any significant degree.
See, when Obama said that McCain doesn't get it, I heard, "McCain is a war hero, he is just stupid."
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
See, when Obama said that McCain doesn't get it, I heard, "McCain is a war hero, he is just stupid."
The two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Being a war hero shouldn't be an effective shield against criticism of one's other attributes.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I heard, "McCain doesn't understand that the economy isn't working for people who aren't wealth". He tied it to the Republican policies of trickle down economics which Sen. McCain does support.

I was disappointed that Sen. Obama mentioned the "$5 million a year" line. It goes to the issue, but it was out of context and cheap.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dabbler
Member
Member # 6443

 - posted      Profile for dabbler   Email dabbler         Edit/Delete Post 
When you disagree with someone there are limited routes to take in explaining why you disagree. He said explicitly that one way would be to say "You don't CARE" and that he wasn't taking that tactic. The method he took is "You don't understand."
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Humean316
Member
Member # 8175

 - posted      Profile for Humean316   Email Humean316         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I am also not terribly interested in "My group is less biased and nasty than the other one." If people are identifying with a "my party", then I'll assume normal, tribal human nature is in play. Partisan blindness, demonization of the Other, and defensive justification of tactics is part of the territory.
Oh sure you are Katharina. You are part of the group that assumes that you are less biased and nasty than those who identify with "my party", the only exception being that you really don't have a name for that group. It's hard to look down on people without being inconsistent and hypocritical...

quote:
As if my impression of the convention were even up for debate.
This is another thing that bothers me. If my impression of the Republican National Convention was that John McCain was a Nazi rapist who views women, Jews, and African Americans as little more than dogs, and that Sarah Palin is a Communist who wants to destroy America, then that is not up for debate?

See, every time someone says, "well that's my opinion" or "my perspective is not up for debate", it smacks of laziness and entitlement, which are two traits we do not and should NOT embrace.

Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
I haven't been around this site in a while but last night I finally got around to watching the Obama acceptance speech and since this is just about the only place I can talk politics, I thought I'd join the conversation. Please excuse me if I end up rehashing something you've talked about already...there's no way I can go back through all these posts!

I really liked Obama's speech. Being an independent (politically speaking), there were parts I agreed with and parts I disagreed with, but I liked a lot of the broader messages, such as the idea that Americans have to work together to make the country great and that there are things the government can and can't do. Personal responsibility is one of the ideals of the Republican party that caused me to vote for GWB 8 years ago. (Sorry! I didn't vote for him 4 years ago, if that helps. [Smile] )

I'm going to try to watch McCain's speech tonight.

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:

I was disappointed that Sen. Obama mentioned the "$5 million a year" line. It goes to the issue, but it was out of context and cheap.

Do you happen to know the context here? I was kind of wondering where that came from.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Humean316, I don't think we need to make assumptions about what group kat identifies with or speculate on her motives.

ETA: Sorry if that sounded like I was scolding you. I just know that it ticked me off when it happened to me.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
For the record (as if anyone cares), what I've read about Palin has changed my mind about her. I don't think she's any more of a fiscal conservative than McCain is, and she's definitely no treat.

That said, she's still a Washington outsider, and that's a plus in my book. And since both the donkeys and the elephants are going to be disastrous for the US, I think I'm down to voting on the basis of which of them will be less bad for Israel. So even though Palin is no great shakes, and even though my vote doesn't count (thank you, Alexander Hamilton, for your idiotic electoral college), I'll probably wind up holding my nose and voting for McCain and Palin anyway.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Christine, the context of the $500 million quote was a response by Sen. McCain during the faith Forum. He was asked what he would consider to be a rich person and responded along the lines of someone who makes more than $500 million dollars a year. I think he was kidding.

Lisa, Even though you are still voting repubblican, I am glad that you checked into it. At least it makes sense to me (not that that was your goal) and gives me hope that other people won't be fooled.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Lisa, just because she doesn't live in DC doesn't make her an outsider. The earmarks she got while Mayor and her mentoring under two great Alaskan Insiders has me worried on that count.

And she is all about the Oil. More oil = More energy in her speech last night. While Obama will be all over himself trying to prove he isn't anti-Isreal, Palin's oil first platform will keep the US dependent on oil imports--mostly from Isreal's enemies.

Just a thought.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
H, nothing you just said either made sense or had any substance. You don't know what you're talking about.

If you would like to a crack at establishing the facts of what, exactly, my impression was, I will be fascinated to see how you go about that.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Solar Macharius
Member
Member # 7775

 - posted      Profile for Lord Solar Macharius           Edit/Delete Post 
The context of the "$5 million" line was that, when questioned about what he considered to be sort of the cutoff for people being rich, he said $5 million in an obviously joking manner. Further, he said that he was sure it was going to be taken out of context.

He forgot to follow that up with a real answer, which would have stopped people commenting on it.

Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:

I'm an Independent.

The Innepenents were a bunch of inbred, cowardly pisspots shoulda been killed offa every world
spinnin'.

But seriously,

quote:
I favor Obama, but until this summer or so I would have been nearly as content to see McCain in office as I considered him an honorable man. Now I see him turning into exactly the sort of candidate he once despised, and I'm saddened by it.
I agree. At one point I felt like the country couldn't really lose this time around. I liked Obama best of the various potential presidents, but I felt like he, Clinton, Edwards, or McCain would have provided the country with at least decent leadership. My impressions of all of those people have been tarnished a fair amount, but my impression of Obama is less tarnished than the others. 2008 McCain almost seems to be a parody of what 2000 McCain stood against in his own party.

[ September 04, 2008, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]

Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Lisa, just because she doesn't live in DC doesn't make her an outsider. The earmarks she got while Mayor and her mentoring under two great Alaskan Insiders has me worried on that count.

If her relatively short time in politics is enough for her to be accused of being inexperienced, shouldn't it also apply here? How much of an insider can she be in such a short time?

quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
And she is all about the Oil. More oil = More energy in her speech last night. While Obama will be all over himself trying to prove he isn't anti-Isreal, Palin's oil first platform will keep the US dependent on oil imports--mostly from Isreal's enemies.

See, I don't get that. Seems to me it's those who want to prevent us from digging for our own oil who are sticking us with Arab oil the most.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post 
kat, could you ignore Humean and address the very valid points that everyone else responding to you are making? kmbboots, dabbler, and Tresopax cited several speeches as a counterargument to your original claim that "every speech being a crappy, personal attack on various members of the GOP," which it seems now was based entirely on listening to part of only one speech. And it wasn't even one of the "big" ones (i.e. the ones that large numbers of people actually paid attention to, and are therefore likely to form the "take home" message of the convention).
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I think that part of the problem is that one has to get elected in the system that exists before one can really make progress toward changing the system to what it should be. That is always going to bite reformers in the butt. People who want to reform finance, for example, are going to have to have funds to get into a position where they can reform finance.

This, I think, is why Democrats lose elections. I can't tell you how angry I get at activists who refuse to vote for someone who is not perfect even though he might be a thousand times closer than his opponent. This annoyed the heck out of me during ant-war rallies. For many of them, it was all or nothing.

I do think that the McCain/Palin ticket is sincere about wanting to change how things work in Washington. I think that despite them leaping onto the change bandwagon fairly late. I think, though, that what they mean by change is a "clean up this town" kind of change. Which is good, but it isn't the fundamental kind of change that Senator Obama is talking about.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Combing speeches I didn't enjoy hearing the first time around is definitely not going to happen.

If the general thesis is that the GOP convention is out of line and the Dems were basically models of civic participation, then I'll just assume that it's impossible for those who have drunk the Kool-Aid to see themselves clearly.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Lisa, just because she doesn't live in DC doesn't make her an outsider. The earmarks she got while Mayor and her mentoring under two great Alaskan Insiders has me worried on that count.

If her relatively short time in politics is enough for her to be accused of being inexperienced, shouldn't it also apply here? How much of an insider can she be in such a short time?
I could turn the same argument back at you: if Obama is so "inexperienced," how could he be a Washington insider?

Regardless, the two are not necessarily mutually inexclusive in either case. Obama only has two full years in the Senate, but he could have spent those two years integrating into the Beltway mindset (thus adequately fulfilling the definitions of "inexperienced" AND "insider"). Similarly, Palin only has a single full year of gubernatorial experience, but she could have spent that year bringing in pork from Washington- again, both terms would be fitting.

Now, I would argue that the latter case far more closely matches reality than the former, but the point is that you can be both.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
And she is all about the Oil. More oil = More energy in her speech last night. While Obama will be all over himself trying to prove he isn't anti-Isreal, Palin's oil first platform will keep the US dependent on oil imports--mostly from Isreal's enemies.

See, I don't get that. Seems to me it's those who want to prevent us from digging for our own oil who are sticking us with Arab oil the most. [/qb]
Additional drilling is, at best, a stopgap measure that would support us for about a year, and this after several years first to set up the infrastructure to tap those new oil fields. "Drill, baby, drill" is a sop to the oil industry, nothing more, and is certainly not useful to the American people as a whole. Alternative fuels are the only way to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and yes, that can include nuclear power. Which, as I mentioned several pages back, Obama is open to exploring.

quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Combing speeches I didn't enjoy hearing the first time around is definitely not going to happen.



The whole point is that you didn't actually hear them the first time around. You heard one speech that included some nastily partisan comments, and assumed that meant that all of the other speeches were the same. The cites provided in this thread alone prove otherwise.

quote:
If the general thesis is that the GOP convention is out of line and the Dems were basically models of civic participation, then I'll just assume that it's impossible for those who have drunk the Kool-Aid to see themselves clearly.
You should really check your own glass first.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
2008 McCain almost seems to be a parody of what 2000 McCain stood against in his own party.
I called this 2 years ago. It just took some pressure to bring it out so obviously.

I think it may have been easier to see how much he lost because I was such a feverent supporter in 2000.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
This is a great line: "In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."

I like this section, too:

"This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it."

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think it may have been easier to see how much he lost because I was such a feverent supporter in 2000.
Could be (or it could be that he's in the spotlight more now, or that I'm just looking more carefully at him than I was a few years ago). I'd forgotten it when I wrote my post, but now that you mention it I think I remember your saying something to that effect.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 68 pages: 1  2  3  ...  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  ...  66  67  68   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2