The 2008 Election

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Lol!

__________________
Bleacheddecay

It surprises me that after two elections that were a referendum on who you would rather have a beer and go hunting with, and now seeing the policy in action, that again people are impressed with a moose-hunting, working mother, conservative. Plus, many of the ones that cried sexism in the primary are now voting for someone else based on their gender, ironic? As far as the lipstick comment, please explain; even if he called her a pig, what is directly sexist about that? He twisted her phrase, much as they have his. Is it because she is a woman that you can't say this, or is it because the Republicans are doing what wins them elections? Divert and conquer!

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

To my way of thinking her whole nomination is a diversion. It helps keep people's minds off of the real issues for the main part.

This whole, "Look a woman! A mom like me!" thing, is utter crap. Unless of course you are a corrupt liar. I can't believe people are so stupid.

And CNN posting photoshoped pics as real helps with the main issues?

It would not matter who was nominated as VP, it would have been funny to Huckabee's head on that picture though.

Anyone else see Chuck Norris lose his mind last night? Him and Ariana Huffington got into a verbal fisticuffs. I must be honest, he came off as kind of a d*ck. He claimed that "all" the military personnel he talked to wanted to "finish the job". Admittedly, he said they were commanders, hardly the overall opinion. then he degenerated into classic; "you're a liberal who would surrender" shtick. Why is it that these neo-cons can't just say, look at some point we will have to leave and isn't it reasonable to start discussing an exit strategy? That's what irritates me so badly about Republicans, they are completely dismissive and always talk about "winning", when they know damn well that "winning" is a movable goal post that they keep moving.

If I was John McCain I would politely ask Chuck to be quiet.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Me too, I doubt this is the kind of thing they want affiliated with their campaign, especially with the accusations of being the third Bush term. You know, it's all about language, McCain will probably do mostly what Bush would do, but he could probably spin it a little better than Bush.

Not really, but sometimes comedy does help in the face of tragic stupidity.

It would not matter? I think it would. Perhaps if someone without a set of boobs and tons of scandal would have created less chaos. Just a thought . . .

When you think about it, either candidate has a better than normal chance of dying in office, for very different reasons. The VP choices are important despite the way McCain made it seem like an off hand trick.

I really think no matter who wins, despite the best intentions of McCain or Obama, that people won't be satisfied. The worst affects of this administration will not become fully realized until after they are out of office. The next President will most likely be reduced to mopping up the s*it from the Bush administration, which is what the current congress should have been doing.

Please define "tons of scandal" What you are saying is that Mitt Romney, or maybe Tom Ridge, or even Rudi G. have maybe less scandalous pasts than Palin? I think all the time and DNC money spent digging up useless garbage on an unexpected candidate is quite funny. Oh, and since when has there ever been an election w/o said chaos when a lame duck is sent to a dinner table?

OK, but then you are belittling the notion that anybody should care.

Look, I can't actually recall a worse President than Bush II. This is not meant to be a personal insult to all you here who actually have some reason to still support Bush II, but, from my own "alleged" objective observations, the guy seemed far more concerned with supporting his dad and somehow using his pop's administration to support his own questionable concepts and try to "correct" his own dad's non-invasion of Iraq as some sort of "I will right the "wrongs" of my pop's [albeit one-term] administration" that he couldn't be trusted. I thought that was pretty much non-deniable at this stage, but OK, if you still think Bush was mislead (by the people he surrounded himself with, per his own choice) and is somehow less responsible than people NOT in charge, please strongly consider your votes this year. I'm not trying to be nasty, but I thought that people were supposed to be "fair and balanced". Maybe I can't be, but you can correct for me if you think I'm lying.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Yep!
He essentially ran against his father's "mistakes", ironic considering the country was in much better shape then. Also, as far as McCain saying he's a "maverick", well Bush was a "unifier".
Thirdly, I find it ironic that Republicans tout ronald Reagan, yet the current party's behavior is the exact opposite. They were hardly fiscally responsible, and Reagan wasn't for the Iraq war.

Quite the opposite, at least IMO. I have said many times that my support for the Iraqi Invasion (this is what we are talking about right?) is very personal for me. The cease fire agreement was just plain and simply snubbed by almost everyone like it never mattered. All well and good. The simple fact is that Saddam was bad (anyone disagree?). So as a first hand witness to his truly heinous acts; I could care less if we got rid of him for playing tiddly winks, or gassing innocents, or accussing him of yakking with Al qaeda, or whatever - he was guilty. That is a bit off topic though is it not?

Show me a politician without a skeleton or two in the closet, hell show me a person without a rackof ribs hanging in their wadrobe!

The world is polluted with bad people, maybe we shouldn't waste our resources pouring gasoline into ant hills and focus our attention on feasible threats. Just a thought.

Ugh, feasible to who? The young Kuwati child that got his ears cut off from an Iraqi Republican Guard and left in a ditch to die just because of where he lived. I bet he thought Saddam was a "feasible" threat.

OK, 7th, look, I realize that it's difficult to separate you from those you believe they sent you on an American mission, and I'm not belittling you because if our situations may have been changed, we may have been each other. I have no bad feelings for any person who feels they did their duty. You have my greatest thanks for considering it was so important and for saving my own and others' asses. I'm not belittling the sacrifice, and if I or anyone else ever did, I'd tell you to get VERY angry. Even so, I love you and your family and we disagree. It doesn't mean that one of us is more right, but it does mean that people see things from a different perspective. I just wish we could all consider each other ALWAYS friends and family instead of people we need to pity.

Once again, why single Iraq out? In saudi Arabi they use genital mutalation, and have you heard of a thing called Darfur? By feasible threats, I mean the ones who attacked us, not people who look like them, or speak the same language, them. Considering that thousands of Americans lost their lives to MiddleEastern rebels,I am sure their families would consider them a bigger threat than some petty dictator.

Yeah he was petty, maybe compared to Hitler.

Not Iraq....Saddam. If you never "single" anyone or any government out then what, just ignore it.

So, after 9/11, we switch focus from those who actually admitted to killing thousands of Americans, to a big-mouth despit that did things that practically every country in the region is guilty of? You have to realize how silly it sounds, right?