Who Are You Voting For?

You have to live in the Bible Belt, I do not cook grits for Yankees.

__________________

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

You're an exception to the rule. Congrats. What I'm saying wasn't meant as a slight, it's just unfortunately true that a majority of working class or lower middle class red state families adhere to a more biblical and patriarchal way of thinking. Hence "bible-belt".

Yeah, I'm a blue-state cooker. Sorry, although it confirms how your entire concept is BS.

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

If your previous posts are any indication, not agreeing with your "logic" should be something you're used to.

Me? I'm a Yankee? I eat grits?

If this wasn't for me, then quote it the next time, you booby.

__________________

I have no idea if you are a Yankee, but you have a Yankee typing accent. We better skedaddle from this here thread with our southern drawl, we are mucking it up.

that will be a stupid woman then!

It doesn't. We'll have to wait for the investigation to finish for that, though it sounds as if you've already made up your mind about it.
So you don't even care if the firing was valid?
Have you even been following this case? "Contrived stories." "Unsubstantiated allegations." You haven't done your homework. The issue of Wooten started before Palin was even Governor, and was investigated nearly three years ago. Here's a memo detailing the findings, which supports the primary accusations being made about his conduct.

Wooten himself doesn't even deny using the taser on his son; he offers a ridiculous explanation about "training" him how to use it.

And by the way: on what planet is a trooper's horrendous misconduct a "red herring" in a discussion about his dismissal? Sorry, but the paragraph above is awfully telling. You don't even seem to know what's happening, but you've still got all sorts of opinions on it. This is what happens when you start with a conclusion, and try to make an argument by working backwards: factual errors, spurrious reasoning, and a whole lot of anger interspersed to compensate.
His "regular lead" of just a few points. Try to focus on the actual argument we're having here. You keep drifting off and going on angry rants. You made some sarcastic remark about McCain leading, and I pointed out that, in one poll, he did. Here's another: he led by 2 in a Gallup poll...three days before his "desperate" pick.
"Everyone"? Like who?

Like I said: you're seeing what you want to see. You see 2 and 3-point leads for a month solid, then a bump up to 6 immediately following a convention, and you believe the latter. Of course you do.

Even if I were to agree that Obama's 6-point lead is the norm, nobody with any serious understanding of politics thinks a 6 point lead on September 1st -- before any of the debates, even -- is even in the same universe as having the election locked up. Nobody.
I'm not sure I see your point. ABC says Palin will help sway Hillary supporters. I say she won't, and that the McCain camp didn't pick her for that reason. I'm supposed to agree with ABC...why? So which of your points is this supposed to support, exactly?
"My own conservative Fox News." You really do think every Republican is George W. Bush, don't you? Can you conceive of a conservative who doesn't fit whatever cartoon image of a Republican you have in your head? Judging by your generalizations about the Bible Belt, it would appear not.

Back to the actual discussion: every candidate is after every vote they can get. But there's a huge difference between trying to win a group over, and basing one of the most important decisions of your campaign on the idea. You're taking an article stating that McCain wants to win more Hillary votes -- a huge "duh" point if there ever was one -- and pretending that somehow supports the idea that he chose his running mate on that basis. That's what's called a "non-sequitur." There is no logical progression from the evidence to the conclusion.

Frankly, it says more about how McCain's critics view this pick than anything. It's as if they can't look at Palin without considering her gender, and ascribing it meaning. I'd stop short of calling it sexism, but it's not nothing, either.
No, I didn't say he wasn't targetting Hillary supporters. Sorry, but you only get to argue with what I actually say. I said he didn't pick Palin for that reason. Because it defies the polls AND common sense.
Uh, no. I'm basing it on two things: a) almost every major poll showing him within a point or two right before the Democratic convention, and 2) the fact that a modest bump (even if only of a few points) is the norm coming out of a convention. Narrowing the gap coming out of his party's convention wouldn't be "magical" -- it wouldn't even be unusual! It's expected. You're the first person I've ever heard suggest otherwise.

Seriously, let's look at the polls over the last month. Here's Obama's margin, per Gallup, starting with the day he made his choice, and working backwards:

+8, +1, -2, EVEN, EVEN, +2, +1, +1, +2, +1, +3, EVEN, +1, EVEN, +3, +6, +5, +5, +3, +5, +3, +3, +2, +4, +4, +3, +1, EVEN, EVEN

That's August. Average Obama margin: 2.2%. Margin of error: 2%. If this is "sinking like the Titanic," then the iceberg should be nervous.

Sorry, but there is simply no room in reality for the idea that Obama's running away with this. He's had a slight lead all month, and got a modest bump out of the convention, which everyone and their dog predicted and expected.
There are so many inaccuracies in the paragraph above that I barely know where to start. For example: Bush doesn't have the lowest job-approval rating of all time; that distinction belongs to Harry Truman. Carter and Nixon both went lower, as well. Also, the Halliburton contracts were not private (or "no bid," as they're often called); they were an extension of a competitively bidded contract awarded under the Clinton administration.

You might not know these sorts of things, presumably because you don't want to. If you hear something, and it's something you WANT to believe is true, why go digging around for reasons it might not be? It's called confirmation bias.

Anyway, as far as I can see this does't have anything to do with what we've been discussing. But since you asked: yes, I think they might elect McCain. Because they're not stupid enough to equate McCain with Bush just because people keep insisting they're identical. Because hating Bush is not a valid reason for electing whoever the Democrats happen to nominate. Because candidates should be evaluated individually.

All this should go without saying, but instead I keep finding myself dragged into arguments that are supposed to be about McCain, and end up being about Bush. As a political tactic, this might work, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

I find it refreshing. She's maintained that Alaska can and should provide America with a good deal of its energy, and so when an aspect of Obama's plan concurred, she agreed, rather than offer up a kneejerk rejection in an election year, which is the norm.

What I find amusing is that you keep rushing to Obama's defense even though the bulk of his energy plan is completely antithema to the things you say we ought to do.

Hillary's supporters WERE "convicted" to a side, but it so happens that that side isn't in the race. Policy-wise, Obama is closer to their candidate than McCain. It's more likely they'd simply stay home on election day than defect to a campaign they disagree with on so many fronts.

In my last post, I stopped short of calling something you said sexist. This time, I won't: this IS sexist. Do you have ANY hard evidence to suggest that Hillary's supporters were voting for her simply because she was a woman? And what reason do you have to believe that Hillary supports were "conservatives that jumped ship on Bush"? Is there anything behind these statements, or are you just pontificating?

He isn't. He's widely regarded as one of the most calm, rational, and most-respected people on this site, and in this thread, he's showing why.

I'm wondering, after recent events, how American mofos feel about the parties as a whole now?

__________________

Undercoverlovers 100 REDUX

I like parties just fine, but I'm happy to just stay at home with the family too.

Quick follow up, since Holds might have money on this: InTrade has the option on her dropping out...welll...dropping; it's down 9 points today alone. Current odds at 5%, though you might wanna wait, because I figure it'll get a bit cheaper yet.

I'm sure I said this in the shoutbox, but I'll say it again here. Safety should come before anything else, and there are some things I don't think Americans can do nationwide safely. So the fact that Obama doesn't want to do somethings doesn't bother me. I'd rather one of the candidates invest merely in research and safety, rather than doing it or not doing it. You have to pick and choose your battles, though.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Why would something like that matter to anyone, when the investigation is to see if Palin was involved in trying to fire him? This isn't an investigation about the trooper, it's to see if Palin is guilty of misconduct. I'm much more concerned to know if our possible next VP is corrupt, than I am to know if this guy goes to church on Sunday. Aren't you?

Sounds like you've already tried him. I can only imagine how many wrongfully prosecuted innocent people are sitting in jail because of one-sided thinking like yours.

You seem confused. Your digression to the question of the troopers guilt is a red herring. You keep arguing whether or not the trooper is guilty. That's completely irrelevant here. The investigation is to determine whether or not Palin is involved in the firing of her brother the trooper. Palin, who has previously stated her administration didn't exert pressure to get rid of trooper Mike Wooten, later had to explain and audio recording that reveals her aide pressuring the Public Safety Department to fire him. Now her staff is playing Alberto Gonzales and smell like Fisherman's Warf.

Who's angry? Whatever lead you to that conclusion is probably the same famous logic that lead you to believe a pattern of McCain loss could magically turn around for him when the more charismatic, and articulate Obama faces him in a debate.

Everyone that saw the stats you just pointed out for starters. Beyond that, anyone in the nation who's even marginally been following the race thus far (except for the not so popular Republicans in denial of course).

Right. It's called seeing how it is, as you just explained to yourself, but apparently failed to grasp.

As if the debates were going to help McCain against the likes of Obama somehow? Where Obama has always excelled, and McCain is notably weak? It's not "locked", but most people will admit McCain is fighting an uphill battle. Republicans aren't that popular right now. Bush made sure of that. And since McCain has openly professed his war-mongering desire to perpetuate a fruitless war, and voted with Bush 90% of the time, the GOP will continue to be fighting from behind.

Why, George Bush is the only conservative that watches Fox News?

My own experience with conservatives, both statistically, and anecdotally is that they share two or more of the following characteristics: Intolerant, culturally inept, uneducated, stiff, dry, boring, unsophisticated, ethnocentric, facile, stubborn, reckless, war-mongering with childlike compulsions to see explosions/fire guns and wage war for the sake of war (or to prove something), emotionally unstable, gullible, vacuous, bigoted, religious nuts.

The one misconception they've all shared, that I've seen, is the primitive and ludicrous assumption that caution, intellectualism, and a diplomacy-first approach, is somehow synonymous with having "no balls".

I don't need to generalize, from my experience Republicans are caricatures of their own stereotypes.

I find it hilarious that even conservative media admits Palin was a move for Hillary supporters in the 8% undecided base, and yet here you are trying to pretend she's a normal VP choice, selected on the basis of her experience and qualifications somewhow. Why would that be a non sequitur? Palin was the least qualified among all of the known options being discussed prior Aug 29. She's certainly an unconventional pick in most regards The only people left McCain has a chance of winning over are in that 8% undecided base that reportedly shares a signifcant amount of Hillary supporters. In light of that, it's comical that you could try to pretend to conclude otherwise.

We've unfortunately been exposed to your brand of "common sense" already in this thread, and have likewise seen it exposed for its ridiculousness (as was explained in your failed non sequitur charge).

So he's shown a pattern of leading the polls, and "everyone and their dog" predicted he would come out on top, yet you're convinced McCain has a good shot? Must be that famous "common sense" you were talking about.

.

Are we supposed to infer from that, that you're projecting now?
Either you're in complete denial, or that was all hyperbole to save face.

Actually there aren't so many "inaccuracies". There was one. I stand corrected on the lowest approval rating all-time. Bush is actually the 3rd most hated president ever. The rest of what I said is well corroborated. Contrary to your claim, Carter was never lower than 28%, which is what Bush has now. Truman takes the cake with 22%. In any case, we haven't seen these kinds of approval ratings since Nixon after Watergate, with the exception of Carter who actually rebounded after a fuel crisis. Bush has failed to rebound.

With regards to Halliburton, if what you claimed were actually true, there wouldn't be an ongoing investigation by the FBI into the fairness of contract awards for both Halliburton and KBR, as well as several other profiteering investigations actively underway by the The Justice Department. This is a giant profiteering scam now so transparent that virtually every Democratic Senator has addressed private contract profit corruption: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer , it's a familiar talking point among Media and watchdog groups: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/ , untold amount of books have been written about it: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw...ey+Halliburton , and there has even been a movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815181/. One excerpt from an article goes into more detail about the actual money Bush's cronies are making thanks to taxpayers buying them yachts and new condos.

"Leading Pentagon watchdogs have been calling for Halliburton’s debarment or suspension from Pentagon contracts since August. At that time the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) issued a memo complaining that Halliburton could not account for more than $1.8 billion of $4.3 billion of work in Iraq and Kuwait. For the third time, the DCAA recommended that the Pentagon not pay Halliburton until it coughed up all the receipts.

The long list of waste, fraud, bribery and other abuses associated with Halliburton’s Iraq contracts now fill volumes. Vigilant oversight by Rep. Henry Waxman’s office and Pentagon investigators—with the help of company whistleblowers—have uncovered attempts to charge taxpayers $45 per case of soda, $100 per bag of laundry, $10,000 a day to use five-star hotels in Kuwait. (Meanwhile, the troops are sweating it out in tents in the desert). There’s been $167 million worth of price gouging for imported gasoline, and $186 million charged for meals that were never served to the troops, and a $6 million kickback to two employees (fired by the company) from a subcontractor."

Incidentally, KBR has also had whistle blowers from under its own employ flag them for not accounting for high spending done in Iraq on many occasions over a period of 4 years. The bill from that spending is charged to US taxpayers as well. Good thing we're all paying rent on KBR condos, while Bush was cutting health care for our children.

If you mean to suggest that Cheney being an ex CEO of Halliburton, but still receiving deferred compensation and retaining stock options with them while he is VP has nothing to do with Halliburton getting the first big contract before any bidding was done is just a coincidence, I'm not buying it. And I doubt anyone else here would either. Especially given the fact they're still under investigation for that.

It's certainly not inaccurate that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsefeld was forced to resign on the heels of the fallout of the Abu Ghraib scandal and other blunders, or that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was forced to resign in the teeth of an impeachment investigation, allegations of perjury and other criminal charges, and I don't think I need to bring up all the ugliness of the revenge outing of Plame, fallguy Libby, and the various Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove scandals.

No of course not. Why would they equate McCain to Bush? McCain's only voted with Bush 90% of the time, and like Bush supports a continuation of the war. They're clearly apples and oranges. To pretend the nation won't transfer most of the Bush animosity to McCain tells me you're in either la-la land, or in denial.

Party politics aside: V.D. is a bit infected, kinda like a VD

I hope for your sake that wasn't supposed to be funny.

Nope, just a fact.

I am not a statisics kind of guy, but you know what? Obama has voted with Bush 93.1 % of the time...look it up - I do not lie.