Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => General Off-Topic Board => Topic started by: SwEep on September 04, 2008, 12:57:26 PM

Title: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: SwEep on September 04, 2008, 12:57:26 PM
The first thing I thought when he announced his vp was...inexperience. I thought of this before I even saw commentators' reactions. The only legitimate criticism from McCain is that Obama is inexperienced. With this new VP who served as gov of Alaska for roughly a year... what's he got on Obama now?

Sarah Palin pick came as a surprise to me and reeked nothing less than desperation to get Hillary votes. McCain's campaign is a disaster and a stupid move. I was hoping for a closer race.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: EdinTally on September 04, 2008, 01:29:47 PM
Never underestimate the power of the Republican propaganda machine.  For anyone that caught Jon Stewart (Daily Show) last night, you can see they are already in full swing.  Good times ahead.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: SwEep on September 04, 2008, 02:20:29 PM
"Hillary votes" (feminists) wouldn't ever vote for McCain just because he has Palin (anti-feminist) for a running mate. Gender issues are more important then the gender of the person nominated. At least to smart people.

Have a donut.

yes i did hear this new VP is in favor of over-turning Roe. V. Wade and has a pregnant teen daughter. This can't be good.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on September 04, 2008, 04:31:22 PM
I think she's a strong candidate for VP.

Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: servinglife on September 04, 2008, 05:23:03 PM
The first thing I thought when he announced his vp was...inexperience. I thought of this before I even saw commentators' reactions. The only legitimate criticism from McCain is that Obama is inexperienced. With this new VP who served as gov of Alaska for roughly a year... what's he got on Obama now?

Sarah Palin pick came as a surprise to me and reeked nothing less than desperation to get Hillary votes. McCain's campaign is a disaster and a stupid move. I was hoping for a closer race.
I don't think it was a disaster. I have to admit, at first I thought it was a gaffe, but when you look at her record, she pretty much toes the line on the conservative issues. I actually am starting to think it was a pretty shrewd move because she doesn't have a ton of negative press, as long as it stays that way. WRT her daughter, Democrats realize that they should stay out of her business (it's the woman's right to choose, right?).

As far as inexperience goes, remember that she's the VP not the prez. There's a difference. I admit that if McCain drops over, then yeah, the inexperience could be a big deal. Maybe some people wouldn't be upset with her running the country.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Julie Fern on September 04, 2008, 06:55:47 PM
obama raise $8 million aft6er palin's speech:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/04/donations-pour-in-to-rnc-after-palin-speech/
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: bloomlaw on September 04, 2008, 10:23:41 PM
"Hillary votes" (feminists) wouldn't ever vote for McCain just because he has Palin (anti-feminist) for a running mate. Gender issues are more important then the gender of the person nominated. At least to smart people.

Have a donut.

I like to think that all the centrist, working class democrats that voted or would have voted for Hillary are too intelligent to fall for that aspect of the Palin nomination, that they would only view it as an insult. But I tend to have faith in the American people, in democrats especially. It would not really suprise me if I was proven wrong, and the decision proved to be a success in the long run.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: SwEep on September 04, 2008, 11:29:29 PM
I don't think it was a disaster. I have to admit, at first I thought it was a gaffe, but when you look at her record, she pretty much toes the line on the conservative issues. I actually am starting to think it was a pretty shrewd move because she doesn't have a ton of negative press, as long as it stays that way. WRT her daughter, Democrats realize that they should stay out of her business (it's the woman's right to choose, right?).

Short answer, NO.

Long answer, in the political arena, what you say and do must be consistent. You can't be a bible thumper and think you can get away with kids having kids. Especially since the Republican party likes to legislate on people's personal issues like sex and abortion, they better be consistent. This new VP isn't and that's why I think she's full of S.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: SwEep on September 04, 2008, 11:30:57 PM

I like to think that all the centrist, working class democrats that voted or would have voted for Hillary are too intelligent to fall for that aspect of the Palin nomination, that they would only view it as an insult. But I tend to have faith in the American people, in democrats especially. It would not really suprise me if I was proven wrong, and the decision proved to be a success in the long run.

Social crime worthy of castration. American generosity, American Dream, and the American Spirit checked out about 40 years ago. Don't count on it. Ignorant citizens deserve ignorant leaders. Based on our performance in the past 8 years, we deserve 12 more years of agonizing suffering under leaders like George W. Bush.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: jack24 on September 04, 2008, 11:42:04 PM

I like to think that all the centrist, working class democrats that voted or would have voted for Hillary are too intelligent to fall for that aspect of the Palin nomination, that they would only view it as an insult. But I tend to have faith in the American people, in democrats especially. It would not really suprise me if I was proven wrong, and the decision proved to be a success in the long run.

Social crime worthy of castration. American generosity, American Dream, and the American Spirit checked out about 40 years ago. Don't count on it. Ignorant citizens deserve ignorant leaders. Based on our performance in the past 8 years, we deserve 12 more years of agonizing suffering under leaders like George W. Bush.

You are an idiot.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: SwEep on September 05, 2008, 01:47:11 AM

I like to think that all the centrist, working class democrats that voted or would have voted for Hillary are too intelligent to fall for that aspect of the Palin nomination, that they would only view it as an insult. But I tend to have faith in the American people, in democrats especially. It would not really suprise me if I was proven wrong, and the decision proved to be a success in the long run.

Social crime worthy of castration. American generosity, American Dream, and the American Spirit checked out about 40 years ago. Don't count on it. Ignorant citizens deserve ignorant leaders. Based on our performance in the past 8 years, we deserve 12 more years of agonizing suffering under leaders like George W. Bush.

You are an idiot.


you got me
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: bloomlaw on September 05, 2008, 01:58:52 AM
Doesn't this, IE voting on things completely outside the issues,


Long answer, in the political arena, what you say and do must be consistent. You can't be a bible thumper and think you can get away with kids having kids. Especially since the Republican party likes to legislate on people's personal issues like sex and abortion, they better be consistent. This new VP isn't and that's why I think she's full of S.

make you a prime example of this:

Social crime worthy of castration. American generosity, American Dream, and the American Spirit checked out about 40 years ago. Don't count on it. Ignorant citizens deserve ignorant leaders. Based on our performance in the past 8 years, we deserve 12 more years of agonizing suffering under leaders like George W. Bush.

In my opinion, to say anyone is full of *&^% because of a choice their child makes is downright hilarious.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:12:43 AM

I like to think that all the centrist, working class democrats that voted or would have voted for Hillary are too intelligent to fall for that aspect of the Palin nomination, that they would only view it as an insult. But I tend to have faith in the American people, in democrats especially. It would not really suprise me if I was proven wrong, and the decision proved to be a success in the long run.

Social crime worthy of castration. American generosity, American Dream, and the American Spirit checked out about 40 years ago. Don't count on it. Ignorant citizens deserve ignorant leaders. Based on our performance in the past 8 years, we deserve 12 more years of agonizing suffering under leaders like George W. Bush.

You are an idiot.


then again, he not one think he jack bauer.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: SwEep on September 05, 2008, 02:16:33 AM
Doesn't this, IE voting on things completely outside the issues,


Long answer, in the political arena, what you say and do must be consistent. You can't be a bible thumper and think you can get away with kids having kids. Especially since the Republican party likes to legislate on people's personal issues like sex and abortion, they better be consistent. This new VP isn't and that's why I think she's full of S.

make you a prime example of this:

Social crime worthy of castration. American generosity, American Dream, and the American Spirit checked out about 40 years ago. Don't count on it. Ignorant citizens deserve ignorant leaders. Based on our performance in the past 8 years, we deserve 12 more years of agonizing suffering under leaders like George W. Bush.

In my opinion, to say anyone is full of poo because of a choice their child makes is downright hilarious.

so most americans are full of poo since they condemn children of illegal immigrants who's been bound by the choice of their parents.?
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:21:35 AM
not even great grandpa john trust her talk reporters.. ever:

http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=3591
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: jeffislouie on September 05, 2008, 11:18:19 AM
Choosing Palin was brilliant.
Just look at how energized conservatives, independants, and Reagan Democrats are!
And just look at how pissy hack liberals are ever since the announcement.  When Biden was nominated for VP, nobody gave a crap.  Conservatives were thankful - how often does fortune favor anyone like this?  Biden once said:

" I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

and

"If the Democrats think we're going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we're making a tragic mistakeÖ"

But with Palin, the leftist response has been to attack her daughter, attack her experience (the last thing we want in a president is a history of running anything or fighting dirty republicans), and attack her for being from a small town.

The left is freaking out harder than I've ever seen before.  Thank you John McCain.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: SwEep on September 05, 2008, 11:39:59 AM
Choosing Palin was brilliant.
Just look at how energized conservatives, independants, and Reagan Democrats are!
And just look at how pissy hack liberals are ever since the announcement.  When Biden was nominated for VP, nobody gave a crap.  Conservatives were thankful - how often does fortune favor anyone like this?  Biden once said:

" I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

and

"If the Democrats think we're going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we're making a tragic mistakeÖ"

But with Palin, the leftist response has been to attack her daughter, attack her experience (the last thing we want in a president is a history of running anything or fighting dirty republicans), and attack her for being from a small town.

The left is freaking out harder than I've ever seen before.  Thank you John McCain.

(http://bp0.blogger.com/_eR6Moyh3NnM/R34lxg_Kq3I/AAAAAAAAADY/z9jSnaaCLHQ/s320/early_morning_wake-up_call.jpg)
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:03:39 PM
Choosing Palin was brilliant.
Just look at how energized conservatives, independants, and Reagan Democrats are!
And just look at how pissy hack liberals are ever since the announcement. When Biden was nominated for VP, nobody gave a crap. Conservatives were thankful - how often does fortune favor anyone like this? Biden once said:

" I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

and

"If the Democrats think we're going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we're making a tragic mistakeÖ"

But with Palin, the leftist response has been to attack her daughter, attack her experience (the last thing we want in a president is a history of running anything or fighting dirty republicans), and attack her for being from a small town.

The left is freaking out harder than I've ever seen before. Thank you John McCain.

yes, great grandpa, thanks!  obama look even better now.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:09:18 PM
thank you, great grandpa!

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5734511&page=1
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:10:35 PM
let's hear it for al that executive experience! palin never sell that jet n e-bay.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/09/sarah-palin-did-not-sell-that-jet-on-ebay.php

but, of course, she told us that, right?
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: SwEep on September 05, 2008, 02:13:36 PM
latest rumors are that palin had an affair. since we know republicans don't have hetero sex scandals, it had to be with a chick.

i think i just voted in my pants.

May Julie bless your soul
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:13:44 PM
biden beating palin among moderates:

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Story?id=5725793&page=3
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:14:17 PM
latest rumors are that palin had an affair. since we know republicans don't have hetero sex scandals, it had to be with a chick.

i think i just voted in my pants.

yes, and her alleged paramour just asked judge seal his divorce file:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/here-we-go.html

why dat?
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:14:43 PM
latest rumors are that palin had an affair. since we know republicans don't have hetero sex scandals, it had to be with a chick.

i think i just voted in my pants.

May Julie bless your soul

consider self, and pants, blessed.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: bloomlaw on September 05, 2008, 05:14:05 PM

The left is freaking out harder than I've ever seen before.  Thank you John McCain.

Do you have a link or any evidence of this? Or is this just you talking it up to try to create what you speak of?
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: bloomlaw on September 05, 2008, 05:19:05 PM

so most americans are full of poo since they condemn children of illegal immigrants who's been bound by the choice of their parents.?

Do I really need to answer that? LOL. Half of Americans hate Arabians because of what a small group of them did. It's not right, but that's the way it is. Just because everybody else makes stupid judgments about people based on circumstances out of control doesn't mean that you should as well.

And quit trying to smear Palin, please. Criticize her policies and her plans, not her daughter or her husband or her extra marital affairs. That has nothing to do with being Vice President. By attacking her the way you do, you make us liberals look weak and pathetic.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: pig floyd on September 05, 2008, 05:57:33 PM
And quit trying to smear Palin, please. Criticize her policies and her plans, not her daughter or her husband or her extra marital affairs. That has nothing to do with being Vice President. By attacking her the way you do, you make us liberals look weak and pathetic.

tbh, she (or her campaign) made her family fair game, to some extent, by holding her most recent child up as evidence of her pro-life convictions.  When that same conviction comes into play with her eldest daughter, it seems again to be fair game.  Not to mention her other convictions that twist around the issue of teen pregnancies.  She (or the people she is supposed to attract) are the ones who condemn teen pregnancy and suggest a strong nuclear family and religious upbringing as the solution.  In other words, take her and her daughter's situation as a case study, if you will.  It is absolutely fair game and goes to the heart of some aspects of her positions.

By way of analogy, if someone in her family had been killed by a gun accident in the home, we would say that goes to the heart of her position on guns.

And of course, we shouldn't focus exclusively on her family issues.  Her other positions deserve attention too.

 :)
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: bloomlaw on September 05, 2008, 06:22:34 PM

tbh, she (or her campaign) made her family fair game, to some extent, by holding her most recent child up as evidence of her pro-life convictions.  When that same conviction comes into play with her eldest daughter, it seems again to be fair game.  Not to mention her other convictions that twist around the issue of teen pregnancies.  She (or the people she is supposed to attract) are the ones who condemn teen pregnancy and suggest a strong nuclear family and religious upbringing as the solution.  In other words, take her and her daughter's situation as a case study, if you will.  It is absolutely fair game and goes to the heart of some aspects of her positions.

By way of analogy, if someone in her family had been killed by a gun accident in the home, we would say that goes to the heart of her position on guns.

And of course, we shouldn't focus exclusively on her family issues.  Her other positions deserve attention too.

 :)

I completely understand your point. But, by doing this, liberals play right into republicans hands. These social issues are essentially meaningless, they are only used to influence voters, but they don't actually matter. Abortion, guns, religion, others, I mean. By bringing them up, liberals therefore make these divisive issues. By discussing them, we somehow indicate it matters, and these issues- sex education, GOD, guns- are the reasons that rural, poor, working class people who should vote democrat in every election for their own betterment always vote republican.

Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: pig floyd on September 05, 2008, 06:26:42 PM

I completely understand your point. But, by doing this, liberals play right into republicans hands... these issues- sex education, GOD, guns- are the reasons that rural, poor, working class people who should vote democrat in every election for their own betterment always vote republican.



Does she even have positions beyond god and guns?

 :)
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: bloomlaw on September 05, 2008, 06:35:03 PM
Exactly. I just wish democrats would bring that up rather than attacking her child's pregnancy or anything else stupid like that. When a republican talks up palin, I just wish people would ask them, ok, good, but what is she going to do as VP?


But our system is way too screwed up for that level of intelligence from the average voter. All we care about is gossip.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: pig floyd on September 05, 2008, 06:37:03 PM
When a republican talks up palin, I just wish people would ask them, ok, good, but what is she going to do as VP?

They won't know.  She doesn't even know.   :)
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: jeffislouie on September 05, 2008, 07:12:44 PM
I would wager that she would help pressure Congress to actually work, be an advocate for families with special needs children, and various other vice-presidential duties, as promised.

What would Joe Biden do exactly? 

Yeah.  The same sort of *&^% that every VP does - whatever needs to be done.

This is an empty argument because it implies that democrats know exactly what Joe Biden will do as VP and only stupid conservatives or, god forbid, dissillusioned, ostracized, life-long democrats like me don't.

She'll push her agenda, which appears to revolve around energy independence through mutliple realistic avenues, supporting our military, promoting peace and democracy, defending the constitution, cleaning up the environment, and changing the way washington works (because it hasn't in quite some time).

I agree that the republicans made serious mistakes.  I agree that the republicans wasted their opportunity and were corrupted to some extent.  But the problem isn't only those republicans who lost their way - just as many democrats did too.  I don't think Obama represents the kind of change in politics that any of us want or need.  I've lived in Chicago my whole life and Chicago politics, cook county politics, and Illinois state politics are all about power grabs, growing government, and asking for pay raises.  We don't need that.  McCain has been fighting waste and standing against his own party at great personal risk since he came to washington, and he won't stop as President.

The left doesn't want another Bush, and with McCain they won't get one.  But with Obama, there is a good chance of recession, more governmental control over individuals, and less money in everyone's pocket.  He will weaken our military and damage our economy.  Even a glimpse over his tax plan should be enough for anyone to realize that under an Obama Presidency, the cost to the consumer of goods and services will increase - and by a lot.  He says he'll tax business.  If you buy anything, you will pay more because businesses will pass the bill on to you.

Palin isn't as much of an unknown as you think. 
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25970197

And I was pretty sure that one of Obama's selling points was that he wasn't a washington outsider....  Then he picked the biggest insider in washington to run with, primarily to try and force McCain from attacking his experience.  Well, McCain went the other way.  He's been around and even though he fights for what he believes, often crossing the aisle to get things changed, he realized that he needs an advocate for change who isn't entrenched in the washington scene.

Let's not forget, Bill Clinton was the governor of another small, usually disrespected state too....
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: sinkfloridasink on September 05, 2008, 07:21:56 PM
I would wager that she would help pressure Congress to actually work, be an advocate for families with special needs children, and various other vice-presidential duties, as promised.

What would Joe Biden do exactly? 

Yeah.  The same sort of *&^% that every VP does - whatever needs to be done.

This is an empty argument because it implies that democrats know exactly what Joe Biden will do as VP and only stupid conservatives or, god forbid, dissillusioned, ostracized, life-long democrats like me don't.

She'll push her agenda, which appears to revolve around energy independence through mutliple realistic avenues, supporting our military, promoting peace and democracy, defending the constitution, cleaning up the environment, and changing the way washington works (because it hasn't in quite some time).

I agree that the republicans made serious mistakes.  I agree that the republicans wasted their opportunity and were corrupted to some extent.  But the problem isn't only those republicans who lost their way - just as many democrats did too.  I don't think Obama represents the kind of change in politics that any of us want or need.  I've lived in Chicago my whole life and Chicago politics, cook county politics, and Illinois state politics are all about power grabs, growing government, and asking for pay raises.  We don't need that.  McCain has been fighting waste and standing against his own party at great personal risk since he came to washington, and he won't stop as President.

The left doesn't want another Bush, and with McCain they won't get one.  But with Obama, there is a good chance of recession, more governmental control over individuals, and less money in everyone's pocket.  He will weaken our military and damage our economy.  Even a glimpse over his tax plan should be enough for anyone to realize that under an Obama Presidency, the cost to the consumer of goods and services will increase - and by a lot.  He says he'll tax business.  If you buy anything, you will pay more because businesses will pass the bill on to you.

Palin isn't as much of an unknown as you think. 
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25970197

And I was pretty sure that one of Obama's selling points was that he wasn't a washington outsider....  Then he picked the biggest insider in washington to run with, primarily to try and force McCain from attacking his experience.  Well, McCain went the other way.  He's been around and even though he fights for what he believes, often crossing the aisle to get things changed, he realized that he needs an advocate for change who isn't entrenched in the washington scene.

Let's not forget, Bill Clinton was the governor of another small, usually disrespected state too....

If you're a life-long Democrat, I'll eat my shoe.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: bloomlaw on September 05, 2008, 09:46:37 PM
I need a shovel for all of the poo in this thread.

I can't wait until all of you young bucks have to start paying taxes on your biglaw salaries.  The majority of you will be Republicans within 5 years of graduating law school. 

The old saying goes: If you are under 30 and a conservative, you don't have a heart. If you are over 30 and liberal, you don't have a brain.

And I would vomit up my liver before I took a job in big law, so please don't stereotype.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: SwEep on September 05, 2008, 10:44:14 PM
truth be told, i've been a Republican all my life up until recently. I think I reached age of reason fairly late, but it's better than never.

I just can't see how you can be a grown up modern person and still support the Republican party.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: goaliechica on September 05, 2008, 11:43:51 PM
I need a shovel for all of the poo in this thread.

I can't wait until all of you young bucks have to start paying taxes on your biglaw salaries.  The majority of you will be Republicans within 5 years of graduating law school. 

Yes, because we don't understand what taxes are when we make these arguments. Way to call people out  ::)

I think plenty of us have paid plenty of taxes on jobs that paid far less than biglaw. But thanks for that.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: jeffislouie on September 06, 2008, 12:32:06 AM
If you're a life-long Democrat, I'll eat my shoe.

Break out a good knife and a whole lot of ketchup then.
When I was growing up, my father volunteered time to the local democrat party.  This happened to coincide with my 17th birthday, and being interested in politics at that young age, I would sometimes go along to meetings.  He even helped get Senator male private part Durbin elected to the US Senate, working the phones, organizing, etc (a fact he now regrets deeply).  When I turned 18, Bill Clinton had just taken office.  I spent Clinton's first election cycle covering the democrat's local party circuit as part of my Senior Year Radio Broadcasting class/after school program.  I won a prize for the radio feature I had prepared featuring Carol Mosely Braun.  I was at the party the democrats threw for her the night she won a seat in the US Senate.

When Clinton ran for reelection, I voted for him - and supported him.  I went door to door for that campaign.  He won.  I was part of the process.  It felt great.

When Al Gore ran against W the first time, I voted for Gore/Lieberman but due to my job as a bar manager, I didn't have time to work on his campaign.  The night Bush was elected, a night I remember clearly, was a total pooch screw by the media.  When they first called it for Gore, I bought everyone in my packed bar a shot.  When they flipped and called it for Bush, the bar fell silent.  By 3 am, we figured we wouldn't be getting an answer right away, but as I closed that night I turned to my last regular before he left and said "Here comes a recession."

When John Kerry ran against Bush, I was 100% behind Kerry.  My family would fight with me about this vote (they still do).  I voted for Kerry.  He lost.  I had become a restaurant GM.  I barely had time to vote and once again wasn't able to work for the campaign.  Kerry lost.  It was about a year and a half later when I started getting angry with the democrats.  Instead of running on issues and winning legislative wars by compromising but getting it done, I started to see an increase in the personal attacks levied against our sitting President.  Perhaps it began as some psychological need to fight for the little guy, but it ended up with me realizing that the left had been overrun by overly sensitive, overly nasty, fringe players. 

Howard Dean became the chair of the DNC, a huge mistake, and the party was lost to the far left.  He started saying things like "I hate republicans and everything they stand for."  Hate?  From a democrat?  I never hated republicans.  Some of the things they stand for align perfectly with democrat ideals.  Often the difference was approach to the problem.  But hate?  EVERYTHING they stand for?  I became disillusioned.  My more liberal friends stopped hanging out with me.  They didn't like the way I challenged the democrat talking points with fact and a differing opinion.

Even if you truly hate Bush, you have to admit that much of the attacking that has gone on has been disrespectful, hate filled, and innapropriate.

I started reading less liberal news and paying more attention to the people who were spreading hate, distrust of government, and anger.  I began to realize that many of these people were either lying or doubly guilty of betraying the people they should be representing.

When Obama became a serious contender, I looked into his past the best I could.  I paid attention to what he said and compared it to what I saw.  I thought Kucinich was interesting - some of his ideas brilliant even.  Then he swore he saw UFO's and he lost me.  Fred Thompson had incredible potential.  Limited government, an ability to properly communicate his ideas - but not desire.  McCain was always an honorable man - I remember many times when he bucked party politics to introduce bills with liberal democrats.  McCain was the lefts favorite senator!

At some point, I became a conservative, though I am still somewhat liberal on certain things.  For instance, I'm not really pro-life - I believe a woman has a choice, but at a certain point she's missed her chance.  If a woman is pregnant for 8 months, I don't think she should be allowed to abort a viable, fully developed fetus - first trimester abortion doesn't bother me one bit.  But things get complicated.  I also think that there should be a way for the government to encourage employers to pay more, keep jobs local, and give back to their communities, but I don't think they should be forced to nor do I think the government has any right to label any profits as windfall without direct, irrefutable evidence - and even then they have no right to seize it - tax abnormal profits at a higher rate maybe, but steal it and redistribute it?  That's what communist countries did with industries after the corrupt communist elite took their cut.

In this election, for me, this boils down to 1) National security 2) non-activist judges and 3) economic plan.

McCain wants to strengthen our military, finish our job in Iraq, and go after Bin Laden.  Obama wants to defund the military, pull out of Iraq immediately, and go after bin laden.

McCain will nominate strict constitutionalist judges.  Obama will elect activist judges who will misuse the position.

McCain's plan puts more money in everyone's pockets and stimulates the economy by encouraging small business.

Obama's plan has massive tax increases on businesses, which will drive up prices, decrease the number of jobs, and encourage companies to move their operations out of the US.

There simply isn't a choice here.  If you want to vote for ideas like hope and change, you are voting for words that mean little.  If you want to vote for ideas like reforming washington, bettering the economy, and staying secure, you have to vote for McCain.

You don't REALLY have to eat your shoe, btw.  But I am still a registered democrat.  I have the card, and it stays in my wallet.  No matter how many times I've been so fed up that I've wanted to tear it up and switch affiliations, I still believe in moderate democratic ideas.  The party doesn't, but I still do.

Barry Goldwater once remarked that after history has run its course, he'd be remembered as a conservative, but by the time anyone bothered to remember him, conservatism and liberalism will have switched platforms.  Well, in one way they have.  The right has moved towards the center and the left has become more polar - which was exactly what Goldwater fought against, the far right.  He hated the religious right.  For a time, they owned the party.  Now the far left liberals own the democrats.  Goldwater was wrong, but to a degree he was dead on.  What switched was the direction of the parties, not their ideology.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Julie Fern on September 06, 2008, 04:16:41 AM
"democrat" party, eh?  how very republican of you.

know what "concern troll" is?  that you.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: DutchessA on September 06, 2008, 09:44:09 AM
truth be told, i've been a Republican all my life up until recently. I think I reached age of reason fairly late, but it's better than never.

I just can't see how you can be a grown up modern person and still support the Republican party.

It's easy--I want the government to be smaller (not larger); I want the deficit to be smaller (not larger); and I want my paycheck to be larger (not smaller).

I don't want to give 50% of my hard-earned money to people who don't have the desire to do for themselves--because under Obama the government will do for them.  The United States is a government of the people, by the people, & for the people--and I mean everyone--not just those who make less than $75k.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: servinglife on September 07, 2008, 01:16:41 AM
truth be told, i've been a Republican all my life up until recently. I think I reached age of reason fairly late, but it's better than never.

I just can't see how you can be a grown up modern person and still support the Republican party.

It's easy--I want the government to be smaller (not larger); I want the deficit to be smaller (not larger); and I want my paycheck to be larger (not smaller).

I don't want to give 50% of my hard-earned money to people who don't have the desire to do for themselves--because under Obama the government will do for them.  The United States is a government of the people, by the people, & for the people--and I mean everyone--not just those who make less than $75k.

As a fairly conservative (in the libertarian/free market sense) person, I don't feel that the Democrat's policy are worse than the Republicans. 

1) The belief that Republicans are small government is problematic.  Clinton reduced government and balanced the budget.  In the past 30 years, the deficit only became overwhelming troublesome during the 8 years of Reagan and the 8 years of W. Bush.  Unfortunately, recent Republican administrations have shown zero adherence to small market principles.

2) While Republicans still tend to advocate lower taxes and larger pay checks, this hasn't necessarily translated into increased personal financial welfare.  As long as the cost of living increases while consumer confidence diminishes, our slightly greater paychecks do not go as far. 

Therefore viewing this traditional conservative statement: "It's easy--I want the government to be smaller (not larger); I want the deficit to be smaller (not larger); and I want my paycheck to be larger (not smaller)." --> Previous Republican led governments have in actuality promoted larger governments, larger deficits, and diminished standards of living.

I am actually for programs that increase the welfare of the lower-middle to middle class.  The rational is not derived from some bleeding heart ideology, but due to my adherence that the best way to promote large businesses such as an electronics store is NOT to reduce their taxes creating an often times negligible economic stimulus - but to increase the portion of the population that can afford and are willing to buy a television.  Best Buy will be more likely to hire additional employees when they experience a higher volume of costumers - not because they can afford more employees.

So, I believe in small government, lower deficits, and allowing those to rot who refuse to work.  I just don't think modern day conservatives do much to promote this standard.

well said cash.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: SwEep on September 07, 2008, 01:20:58 AM
truth be told, i've been a Republican all my life up until recently. I think I reached age of reason fairly late, but it's better than never.

I just can't see how you can be a grown up modern person and still support the Republican party.

It's easy--I want the government to be smaller (not larger); I want the deficit to be smaller (not larger); and I want my paycheck to be larger (not smaller).

I don't want to give 50% of my hard-earned money to people who don't have the desire to do for themselves--because under Obama the government will do for them.  The United States is a government of the people, by the people, & for the people--and I mean everyone--not just those who make less than $75k.

As a fairly conservative (in the libertarian/free market sense) person, I don't feel that the Democrat's policy are worse than the Republicans. 

1) The belief that Republicans are small government is problematic.  Clinton reduced government and balanced the budget.  In the past 30 years, the deficit only became overwhelming troublesome during the 8 years of Reagan and the 8 years of W. Bush.  Unfortunately, recent Republican administrations have shown zero adherence to small market principles.

2) While Republicans still tend to advocate lower taxes and larger pay checks, this hasn't necessarily translated into increased personal financial welfare.  As long as the cost of living increases while consumer confidence diminishes, our slightly greater paychecks do not go as far. 

Therefore viewing this traditional conservative statement: "It's easy--I want the government to be smaller (not larger); I want the deficit to be smaller (not larger); and I want my paycheck to be larger (not smaller)." --> Previous Republican led governments have in actuality promoted larger governments, larger deficits, and diminished standards of living.

I am actually for programs that increase the welfare of the lower-middle to middle class.  The rational is not derived from some bleeding heart ideology, but due to my adherence that the best way to promote large businesses such as an electronics store is NOT to reduce their taxes creating an often times negligible economic stimulus - but to increase the portion of the population that can afford and are willing to buy a television.  Best Buy will be more likely to hire additional employees when they experience a higher volume of costumers - not because they can afford more employees.

So, I believe in small government, lower deficits, and allowing those to rot who refuse to work.  I just don't think modern day conservatives do much to promote this standard.

well said cash.

did u seriously read all that *&^%? dude time to lay off the internet and make more friends.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: jeffislouie on September 07, 2008, 10:03:55 AM
This is exactly how I know the democrat ticket is in real trouble.
When they picked Biden, conservatives mostly laughed because it invalidated much of Obama's campaign (washington outsider, against the iraq war, bi-partisan future efforts, experience doesn't matter - all destroyed with a single decision).  We didn't go on the attack, no personal attacks against Biden were made, and life moved on.
But something about Sara Palin scares liberals so much that they just can't stop talking about her. 
Why should they care who we put on the ticket?  It's OUR ticket!  If they really thought it was such a bad idea, they would be celebrating, not trying to find dirt, writing nasty misleading cover blurbs, and attacking her through the media.  Palin has had more questions and accusations about her children than Obama has had about his relationship to Bill Ayers.  Yeah, the media swears it isn't biased....

So libs - if our choice is so bad, why aren't you celebrating and ignoring us?  Is it because the choice was excellent and you are terrified?
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Miss P on September 07, 2008, 11:31:24 AM
This is exactly how I know the democrat ticket is in real trouble.
When they picked Biden, conservatives mostly laughed because it invalidated much of Obama's campaign (washington outsider, against the iraq war, bi-partisan future efforts, experience doesn't matter - all destroyed with a single decision).  We didn't go on the attack, no personal attacks against Biden were made, and life moved on.
But something about Sara Palin scares liberals so much that they just can't stop talking about her. 
Why should they care who we put on the ticket?  It's OUR ticket!  If they really thought it was such a bad idea, they would be celebrating, not trying to find dirt, writing nasty misleading cover blurbs, and attacking her through the media.  Palin has had more questions and accusations about her children than Obama has had about his relationship to Bill Ayers.  Yeah, the media swears it isn't biased....

So libs - if our choice is so bad, why aren't you celebrating and ignoring us?  Is it because the choice was excellent and you are terrified?


Biden's a career politician - his history is basically an open book by this point.  Palin's as close to a political mystery as a VP candidate could be.  Her vetting is coming through the media.  What is there new to say about Biden that hasn't been said in the past half decade?  Thus, Palin is a MUCH bigger story than Biden so you should expect to see a lot more ink spilled about her that her countermate.  I've found the overwhelming majority of what's written about her to be very positive.  While the news about her daughter was front page, most of the commentary argued that it really doesn't matter at all. I think conservatives are getting very defensive about nothing. 

Indeed.

ETA: And what fodder is there for these phantom personal attacks on Biden that the Republicans so graciously avoided?  His despicable treatment of Anita Hill during the Thomas confirmation?  A few impolitic remarks about Obama or Indian-Americans (which everyone, including the purported targets, seemed to believe had been blown out of proportion)?  A few parroted lines in a primary debate in the 1980s?  Frankly, I don't think the GOP candidates have much of a leg to stand on in any of these areas.  Joe Biden has been more thoroughly vetted over the years than even John McCain.  Let's try to focus on the issues instead of these absurd mise-en-abime arguments about what one side said about what the other side said about what one side said . . .

ETA2: And when is Palin going to appear on the Sunday morning shows?  I would like to hear her answer some questions about her record and plans.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: SwEep on September 07, 2008, 06:27:35 PM
truth be told, i've been a Republican all my life up until recently. I think I reached age of reason fairly late, but it's better than never.

I just can't see how you can be a grown up modern person and still support the Republican party.

It's easy--I want the government to be smaller (not larger); I want the deficit to be smaller (not larger); and I want my paycheck to be larger (not smaller).

I don't want to give 50% of my hard-earned money to people who don't have the desire to do for themselves--because under Obama the government will do for them.  The United States is a government of the people, by the people, & for the people--and I mean everyone--not just those who make less than $75k.

As a fairly conservative (in the libertarian/free market sense) person, I don't feel that the Democrat's policy are worse than the Republicans. 

1) The belief that Republicans are small government is problematic.  Clinton reduced government and balanced the budget.  In the past 30 years, the deficit only became overwhelming troublesome during the 8 years of Reagan and the 8 years of W. Bush.  Unfortunately, recent Republican administrations have shown zero adherence to small market principles.

2) While Republicans still tend to advocate lower taxes and larger pay checks, this hasn't necessarily translated into increased personal financial welfare.  As long as the cost of living increases while consumer confidence diminishes, our slightly greater paychecks do not go as far. 

Therefore viewing this traditional conservative statement: "It's easy--I want the government to be smaller (not larger); I want the deficit to be smaller (not larger); and I want my paycheck to be larger (not smaller)." --> Previous Republican led governments have in actuality promoted larger governments, larger deficits, and diminished standards of living.

I am actually for programs that increase the welfare of the lower-middle to middle class.  The rational is not derived from some bleeding heart ideology, but due to my adherence that the best way to promote large businesses such as an electronics store is NOT to reduce their taxes creating an often times negligible economic stimulus - but to increase the portion of the population that can afford and are willing to buy a television.  Best Buy will be more likely to hire additional employees when they experience a higher volume of costumers - not because they can afford more employees.

So, I believe in small government, lower deficits, and allowing those to rot who refuse to work.  I just don't think modern day conservatives do much to promote this standard.

well said cash.

did u seriously read all that poo? dude time to lay off the internet and make more friends.

"all that"?  You're going to love law school.

uhh reading an entire encyclopedia for a class to get an A is not the same as reading endless political rant written by some schmuck online. and yes i do well in school and will do well in ls as well, thanks.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: bloomlaw on September 07, 2008, 07:00:11 PM

uhh reading an entire encyclopedia for a class to get an A is not the same as reading endless political rant written by some schmuck online. and yes i do well in school and will do well in ls as well, thanks.

Please don't start/incite political discussions if you don't feel like reading a logical argument about the topic. This isn't an argument/discussion that can be had in a series of one liners, which it seems all you are capable of producing.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Holden Caulfield on September 07, 2008, 08:49:43 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjGhy8LVwAo



I'm sure you all have seen this. Do you agree or disagree with Newt?
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: SwEep on September 07, 2008, 09:33:14 PM
Hmmm... How would you know that it is an endless political rant by a schmuck if you didn't read it?

i can observe generally how long the rant is.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: jeffislouie on September 07, 2008, 10:29:14 PM
This is exactly how I know the democrat ticket is in real trouble.
When they picked Biden, conservatives mostly laughed because it invalidated much of Obama's campaign (washington outsider, against the iraq war, bi-partisan future efforts, experience doesn't matter - all destroyed with a single decision).  We didn't go on the attack, no personal attacks against Biden were made, and life moved on.
But something about Sara Palin scares liberals so much that they just can't stop talking about her. 
Why should they care who we put on the ticket?  It's OUR ticket!  If they really thought it was such a bad idea, they would be celebrating, not trying to find dirt, writing nasty misleading cover blurbs, and attacking her through the media.  Palin has had more questions and accusations about her children than Obama has had about his relationship to Bill Ayers.  Yeah, the media swears it isn't biased....

So libs - if our choice is so bad, why aren't you celebrating and ignoring us?  Is it because the choice was excellent and you are terrified?


Biden's a career politician - his history is basically an open book by this point.  Palin's as close to a political mystery as a VP candidate could be.  Her vetting is coming through the media.  What is there new to say about Biden that hasn't been said in the past half decade?  Thus, Palin is a MUCH bigger story than Biden so you should expect to see a lot more ink spilled about her that her countermate.  I've found the overwhelming majority of what's written about her to be very positive.  While the news about her daughter was front page, most of the commentary argued that it really doesn't matter at all.  I think conservatives are getting very defensive about nothing. 

"Palin's as close to a political mystery as a VP candidate could be."

And Obama is as close to a political mystery as a Presidential candidate could be, yet he's still a mystery.  I guess the media only does vetting on VP picks....
Of course, she's not a mystery to anyone, unless you only care about conservatives who have embarrassed themselves....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288722,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/us/19juneau.html?fta=y
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/2007/09/alaska_governor_is_more_than_just_new_face_of_gop.html
http://dwb.adn.com/opinion/comment/story/9076682p-8992663c.html

There are literally thousands on news items about her. 

While the right has been hot to point out the missives and attacks, they haven't been overly defensive - they've been as outraged as feminists should be at the way she's been treated by the media.  NOW came out an embarrassed themselves, proving that they aren't really an organization for women - only for women who agrees 100% with their liberal agenda.

Once again, if she's such a bad pick, why are they giving her the full court press?  She was a great pick for VP and energized the party.  That's a good thing, especially in light of the fact that the campaign is focusing on getting back to the old conservative party - the one that shrinks government, reduces spending, increases efficiency, and puts more money in everyone's pockets.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Miss P on September 07, 2008, 10:51:45 PM
That's a good thing, especially in light of the fact that the campaign is focusing on getting back to the old conservative party - the one that shrinks government, reduces spending, increases efficiency, and puts more money in everyone's pockets.

::snarfs::

Which "conservative party" is that?  The one that had the presidency for twenty of the last thirty years, or the one that was in control of one or both houses of congress for eighteen of the last thirty years? 

Newsflash: your candidates are not running on their party's record these days.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: jeffislouie on September 09, 2008, 03:01:59 PM
Jeffislouie, I know you that you know one cannot favorably compare the level of scrutiny the two have received over the past few years.  You really can't believe the media's going to uncover anything about Obama that hasn't already come to light. I think he was only about 4 years old when the U.S. army was driving swift boats around nam...

I respectfully disagree on this point.  The media has never been interested in investigating Obama's past, often choosing instead to either spin the stuff they do find, ignore it completely, or simply refusing to look into anything at all.

Why haven't they looked into his history as a community organizer?  Why no success stories from those good old days?  Why no features where the media discusses Obama's success as a lecturer for U of C's law school?  Surely at such a prestigious law school there were a few people who were left with a favorable (or unfavorable) impression of him.... Why no investigation from the Chicago Tribune or Sun Times about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge?  Obama ran it and sat on the board, working hand in hand with Bill Ayers?  By all accounts, the Annenberg Challenge was a waste of time, money and effort that resulted in little to no measurable effect on Chicago schools?  Why does a reporter from the New Republic get the scoop when the local rags have the competitive advantage and contacts at the University that oversaw it?  Why no questions about how Obama could be a member of Trinity United for so long without storming out of one of the many, many racist, seperatist, anti-american ravings by Jeramiah Wright?  I know he (finally) distanced himself from that church after much pressure, but why doesn't anyone ask him how the potential leader of the free world could attend such a place with his children and not realize that Wright is a raving nut?  Why hasn't the media truly investigated the connection between Rezko and Obama?

I don't believe that there isn't anything for them to look into - I believe they want Obama in office so badly that they want to ignore anything negative.  My observation of the news cycle has been that right wing media outlets report on an Obama related scandal, which the MSM ignores, glosses over, or spins, until enough right wing news sources make enough of a big deal about it that the MSM is FORCED to investigate, and often do so while making excuses.  The media's job isn't to influence political elections, but to present the material in as unbiased way as possible - a job they are failing at.  For almost 8 years, we've been hearing that the media is not to be trusted from the left.  In a sense, I've agreed with them.  Traditional media tends to be sloppy and underesearched.  But now, I see puff piece after puff piece on Obama and it makes me feel a great sense of sorrow for the state of our media.

There is PLENTY to find.  What we need is someone without an agenda to work hard and find it, then report it in a fair way so the voters can decide.  Otherwise, we allow the media to choose.  That's far too dangerous for either party.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: jeffislouie on September 09, 2008, 03:13:31 PM
That's a good thing, especially in light of the fact that the campaign is focusing on getting back to the old conservative party - the one that shrinks government, reduces spending, increases efficiency, and puts more money in everyone's pockets.

::snarfs::

Which "conservative party" is that?  The one that had the presidency for twenty of the last thirty years, or the one that was in control of one or both houses of congress for eighteen of the last thirty years? 

Newsflash: your candidates are not running on their party's record these days.

Miss P -
The conservative party that came about during the Reagan revolution inspired the greatest period of domestic growth and international change in modern history.  Clinton Co-Opted these conservative ideals when he cut wasteful spending, eliminated governmental waste (to a degree) and shrunk government.  I was in my late teens during Clinton, and democrats were soooo pissed at him for ignoring democrat ideals like growing government and increasing taxes.  The backlash was hilarious.  Clinton was smart enough to realize that his opportunity to lead this nation into prosperity was essential to his legacy.

And you won't find me standing up for the 'neo-con' evolution of conservatism.  The right has excellent ideas, but recent republicans have been enticed by bloat, earmarks, and selfish behavior.  They aren't good republicans and there is a growing number of conservatives who are sick about the way those republicans have squandered opportunity.  Bush made a lot of mistakes, chief in my mind is that he is a big government guy - a liberal concept.  McCain hasn't run his campaign as more business as usual, but rather a return to the ideals that made the reagan revolution so successful.  McCain is a reformer who has worked across party lines to get things done.  There are a host of his sponsored bills that show his ability to work with democrats, even staunch liberals, to acheive positive change.  Meanwhile, Obama has none.  Not one.  His voting record places him as the number one most liberal senator in the senate.  His only bi-partisan bills came during his campaign, at the behest of his advisors, and as a result of a desire to appear bi-partisan. 

Don't confuse the Bush administration with conservatism.  Don't lump all conservatives into one, easy to hate ball.  If I did that to you, I'd compare all of you to the failed Carter administration and we'd sit here yelling at each other instead of sharing ideas and opinions.  But if you really want to know why democrats have had such an awful presidential election record, it's because the left nominates people with mystery in their backgrounds, wimps, weasels, and other undesirables.

Kerry was my guy, but in retrospect he was also a fake.  He talked a big game about glbt issues, but has done nothing about those ideas while in a position of power where he can actually do something for that group of people.  Gore distanced himself from Clinton and ran a lackluster campaign.  Clinton's campaign was brilliant.  Carter was a miserable failure.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Nande on September 09, 2008, 03:40:46 PM

The media has never been interested in investigating Obama's past, often choosing instead to either spin the stuff they do find, ignore it completely, or simply refusing to look into anything at all.

Definitely spinning off the stuff they find....

 

But now, I see puff piece after puff piece on Obama and it makes me feel a great sense of sorrow for the state of our media.

Wow....really?  Please direct me to the outlets you watch because I surely haven't seen puff piece after puff piece.  Furthermore, I agree that they shouldn't influence any political decisions, but the truth of the matter is they do, which is why we need it on BOTH SIDES.  Obama isn't the only one who has gotten a "pass", if we can call it that.  I've seen it for BOTH sides.


Why no questions about how Obama could be a member of Trinity United for so long without storming out of one of the many, many racist, seperatist, anti-american ravings by Jeramiah Wright? 

Again, if we are going to continue to focus on Rev. Wright, then let's pull out all the separatist, racist rants of ALL pastors.  John Hagee, anyone?  And since when is it anti-american to criticize?  Sure, his deliverance can be debated, but at the end of the day if people LISTEN to what he said, he was essentially criticizing what America has done in regards to their foreign policies and saying...karma's a...you can finish that. 

In the end, I'm tired of JUST hearing about the past.  It's important, but don't you think it's time to talk about pulling us out of the situations we're in now?  Let's move past being a P.O.W...great, but not a qualification that will make you a great president.  Let's move past the community organizing...great,  but not a qualification that will make you a great president. (and surely not something to mock...especially considering that for me, the Civil Right's Movement started with some "community organizing".)  I want to talk about NOW.  I'm sorry if it's rambling a bit...
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: bloomlaw on September 09, 2008, 06:59:52 PM
Has anyone noticed how Sarah Palin looks kinda like the stripper/teacher from Varsity blues? I kinda searched around the internet for a link, but couldn't find one.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: pig floyd on September 09, 2008, 07:13:00 PM
Has anyone noticed how Sarah Palin looks kinda like the stripper/teacher from Varsity blues? I kinda searched around the internet for a link, but couldn't find one.

Tonie Perensky.

Yes.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Mitchell on September 09, 2008, 07:26:07 PM
Has anyone noticed how Sarah Palin looks kinda like the stripper/teacher from Varsity blues? I kinda searched around the internet for a link, but couldn't find one.

(http://www.leetforlife.com/upload/uploads/id_hit_it1.jpg)
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Miss P on September 09, 2008, 08:56:06 PM
Miss P -
The conservative party that came about during the Reagan revolution inspired the greatest period of domestic growth and international change in modern history.  Clinton Co-Opted these conservative ideals when he cut wasteful spending, eliminated governmental waste (to a degree) and shrunk government.  I was in my late teens during Clinton, and democrats were soooo pissed at him for ignoring democrat ideals like growing government and increasing taxes.  The backlash was hilarious.  Clinton was smart enough to realize that his opportunity to lead this nation into prosperity was essential to his legacy.

And you won't find me standing up for the 'neo-con' evolution of conservatism.  The right has excellent ideas, but recent republicans have been enticed by bloat, earmarks, and selfish behavior.  They aren't good republicans and there is a growing number of conservatives who are sick about the way those republicans have squandered opportunity.  Bush made a lot of mistakes, chief in my mind is that he is a big government guy - a liberal concept.  McCain hasn't run his campaign as more business as usual, but rather a return to the ideals that made the reagan revolution so successful.  McCain is a reformer who has worked across party lines to get things done.  There are a host of his sponsored bills that show his ability to work with democrats, even staunch liberals, to acheive positive change.  Meanwhile, Obama has none.  Not one.  His voting record places him as the number one most liberal senator in the senate.  His only bi-partisan bills came during his campaign, at the behest of his advisors, and as a result of a desire to appear bi-partisan. 

Don't confuse the Bush administration with conservatism.  Don't lump all conservatives into one, easy to hate ball.  If I did that to you, I'd compare all of you to the failed Carter administration and we'd sit here yelling at each other instead of sharing ideas and opinions.  But if you really want to know why democrats have had such an awful presidential election record, it's because the left nominates people with mystery in their backgrounds, wimps, weasels, and other undesirables.

Kerry was my guy, but in retrospect he was also a fake.  He talked a big game about glbt issues, but has done nothing about those ideas while in a position of power where he can actually do something for that group of people.  Gore distanced himself from Clinton and ran a lackluster campaign.  Clinton's campaign was brilliant.  Carter was a miserable failure.

I find it difficult to have a conversation with someone who (a) continually stereotypes people who disagrees with him and fills his rants with bogus accusations about "liberals" and (b) gets his history so wrong.  For starters --


But Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy. . . . [N]o peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E5DE1F31F93BA35755C0A9629C8B63)

Reagan didn't shrink government.  For all of his "trickle-down" talk (and punitive social policies), he was probably the biggest tax-and-spend, neo-Keynesian of all presidents.  He surely didn't "cut wasteful spending."  Yes, there was record growth by some measures during his presidency -- but the national debt tripled, trade deficits began to soar, and the gap between rich and poor widened.  Reaganomics was neither stable nor conservative in any meaningful sense.   

Moreover, since your accusation about Obama's legislative record was drawn directly from Palin's speech, here's what fact-checkers have to say about it:

Palin disparaged Obamaís legislative record, both in Illinois and in Washington:

    Palin: But listening to him speak, itís easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state Senate.

Of course, we canít say what Palin considers ďmajor.Ē But if Palinís own ethics reforms in Alaska were important enough to highlight in her convention address, then itís only fair to credit Obamaís efforts on that topic. In 1998 in the Illinois Senate, Obama cosponsored an ethics overhaul that bars elected officials from using their campaign funds for personal use and and was called the the first major overhaul of Illinois campaign and ethics laws in 25 years. It also bans fundraisers in the state Capitol during legislative sessions. Obamaís Republican cosponsor Kirk Dillard even appeared in an Obama ad last summer describing Obamaís skills working with members of both parties to get legislation passed.

In Washington, Obama was instrumental in helping to craft the 2007 ethics reform law that ended gifts and meals from lobbyists, cut off subsidized jet travel for members of Congress, required lobbyists to disclose contributions they ďbundleĒ to candidates, and put the brakes on other, similar common practices.

In addition, we already noted in a recent article Obamaís efforts with Republican senators to help detect and secure weapons of mass destruction and to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles around the world, and to create a publicly searchable database on federal spending. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html)
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: jeffislouie on September 10, 2008, 12:07:31 PM
Miss P -
The conservative party that came about during the Reagan revolution inspired the greatest period of domestic growth and international change in modern history.  Clinton Co-Opted these conservative ideals when he cut wasteful spending, eliminated governmental waste (to a degree) and shrunk government.  I was in my late teens during Clinton, and democrats were soooo pissed at him for ignoring democrat ideals like growing government and increasing taxes.  The backlash was hilarious.  Clinton was smart enough to realize that his opportunity to lead this nation into prosperity was essential to his legacy.

And you won't find me standing up for the 'neo-con' evolution of conservatism.  The right has excellent ideas, but recent republicans have been enticed by bloat, earmarks, and selfish behavior.  They aren't good republicans and there is a growing number of conservatives who are sick about the way those republicans have squandered opportunity.  Bush made a lot of mistakes, chief in my mind is that he is a big government guy - a liberal concept.  McCain hasn't run his campaign as more business as usual, but rather a return to the ideals that made the reagan revolution so successful.  McCain is a reformer who has worked across party lines to get things done.  There are a host of his sponsored bills that show his ability to work with democrats, even staunch liberals, to acheive positive change.  Meanwhile, Obama has none.  Not one.  His voting record places him as the number one most liberal senator in the senate.  His only bi-partisan bills came during his campaign, at the behest of his advisors, and as a result of a desire to appear bi-partisan. 

Don't confuse the Bush administration with conservatism.  Don't lump all conservatives into one, easy to hate ball.  If I did that to you, I'd compare all of you to the failed Carter administration and we'd sit here yelling at each other instead of sharing ideas and opinions.  But if you really want to know why democrats have had such an awful presidential election record, it's because the left nominates people with mystery in their backgrounds, wimps, weasels, and other undesirables.

Kerry was my guy, but in retrospect he was also a fake.  He talked a big game about glbt issues, but has done nothing about those ideas while in a position of power where he can actually do something for that group of people.  Gore distanced himself from Clinton and ran a lackluster campaign.  Clinton's campaign was brilliant.  Carter was a miserable failure.

I find it difficult to have a conversation with someone who (a) continually stereotypes people who disagrees with him and fills his rants with bogus accusations about "liberals" and (b) gets his history so wrong.  For starters --


But Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy. . . . [N]o peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E5DE1F31F93BA35755C0A9629C8B63)

Reagan didn't shrink government.  For all of his "trickle-down" talk (and punitive social policies), he was probably the biggest tax-and-spend, neo-Keynesian of all presidents.  He surely didn't "cut wasteful spending."  Yes, there was record growth by some measures during his presidency -- but the national debt tripled, trade deficits began to soar, and the gap between rich and poor widened.  Reaganomics was neither stable nor conservative in any meaningful sense.   

Moreover, since your accusation about Obama's legislative record was drawn directly from Palin's speech, here's what fact-checkers have to say about it:

Palin disparaged Obamaís legislative record, both in Illinois and in Washington:

    Palin: But listening to him speak, itís easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state Senate.

Of course, we canít say what Palin considers ďmajor.Ē But if Palinís own ethics reforms in Alaska were important enough to highlight in her convention address, then itís only fair to credit Obamaís efforts on that topic. In 1998 in the Illinois Senate, Obama cosponsored an ethics overhaul that bars elected officials from using their campaign funds for personal use and and was called the the first major overhaul of Illinois campaign and ethics laws in 25 years. It also bans fundraisers in the state Capitol during legislative sessions. Obamaís Republican cosponsor Kirk Dillard even appeared in an Obama ad last summer describing Obamaís skills working with members of both parties to get legislation passed.

In Washington, Obama was instrumental in helping to craft the 2007 ethics reform law that ended gifts and meals from lobbyists, cut off subsidized jet travel for members of Congress, required lobbyists to disclose contributions they ďbundleĒ to candidates, and put the brakes on other, similar common practices.

In addition, we already noted in a recent article Obamaís efforts with Republican senators to help detect and secure weapons of mass destruction and to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles around the world, and to create a publicly searchable database on federal spending. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html)

I love it when people choose to begin their posts by attacking me for this or that, then ignore half of what I say and give a weak contradictory argument, but that's what I'm about to do so all's fair, I guess.

Your point about 'reaganomics' seems to be confusing what I said with what you wish I said.  Reagan increased the number of jobs, grew the economy, ended the cold war, and changed the dynamic of the welfare state that has held so many people back.  The gap between rich and poor widened?  That sounds perfectly fair to me.  In my life I have learned that those that are poor, tend to be poor for a reason.  Hell, the very definition of poor has swung so wildly out of control that being poor simply isn't so bad anymore.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm

Here are some statistics on the 'poor' in america today.  You may decide to ignore this part, as it speaks to the fact that the 'poor' are poor for a reason -mainly because their priorities have changed:

"Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. "

Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: sinkfloridasink on September 10, 2008, 02:24:55 PM
The gap between rich and poor widened?  That sounds perfectly fair to me.  In my life I have learned that those that are poor, tend to be poor for a reason.  Hell, the very definition of poor has swung so wildly out of control that being poor simply isn't so bad anymore.

If I hadn't heard these comments from conservatives many times before, I would be more disgusted. This tired bigotry of "poor people deserve to be poor" is, in my opinion, the most damning legacy of the Reagan era. I can't believe people can say this stuff with a straight face.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: sinkfloridasink on September 10, 2008, 03:52:33 PM
PJC, I also totally agree with your assessments. I've been saying the same kinds of things for quite some time. Poverty is self-perpetuating. Kids grow up in poor neighborhoods with poor schools. With their poor education/skills, they get low-paying jobs. Poverty breeds violence, divorce, and a whole host of other factors that contribute to the next generation remaining below the poverty line. We don't need less government programs, we need more effective ones. Raise the quality of schools in poor areas, and there will be a marked difference in the next generation of those growing up in poverty. Raise the minimum wage to one that people can actually live on, and single mothers will be able to spend more time with their kids because they won't have to work two or three jobs just to put food on the table.

I know that American poverty is all relative, but since when has America looked abroad to make us feel better about our living standards.

I understand if you won't, but I'll go ahead and call jeff a bigot.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Miss P on September 10, 2008, 11:52:30 PM
I love it when people choose to begin their posts by attacking me for this or that, then ignore half of what I say and give a weak contradictory argument, but that's what I'm about to do so all's fair, I guess.

Your point about 'reaganomics' seems to be confusing what I said with what you wish I said.  Reagan increased the number of jobs, grew the economy, ended the cold war, and changed the dynamic of the welfare state that has held so many people back.

Listen, you said that Reagan "shrunk government."  He didn't.  Any positive effects of his economic policies were from his profligate spending and expansion of government.  This is why I called it neo-Keynesian.  You can try to tie the GDP growth to his 1981 tax cuts if you want, but right-wing experts before you have already failed.  Moreover, there is a pretty serious question about the extent to which Reagan increased the number of jobs.  For one, the employment growth during the Reagan years looks artificially significant because he began his first term at a post-war nadir in employment.  He also changed employment calculations so that increasing numbers of people who weren't working were excluded from the unemployment rate -- a rate which, of course, also does not measure chronic underemployment and declining wages.  Further, his deregulation, anti-union, and trade policies (not to mention monetary policies -- but I imagine we're both out of our depth on this subject) weakened the position of organized labor and started the process of moving manufacturing and other decent jobs overseas at a rapid pace.  A good number of economists, in fact, attribute both the growth and employment stabilization during this period to cyclical (ah, Keynes again!) rather than policy changes.  In any case, all things being equal, if Reagan had reinvested in the domestic economy instead of wasting money on fruitless foreign excursions, the growth would have been larger and even more sustained.

If the Reagan-era cuts to welfare programs helped people, why were there, as just one example, more children in poverty at the end of his two terms -- a period of rapid economic expansion -- than at the beginning -- during a terrible recession?

Since you and I disagree about the importance of closing the rich-poor gap and you seem uninterested in ending poverty, I am not interested in discussing the rest with you.  I'm sure others have plenty to say.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: maddlibs on September 11, 2008, 12:21:39 AM
Is McCain's VP selection a Disaster? I know when you started this thread you did not know what we know today, September 10th, but by now it should be obvious.

It's a complete disaster!

McCain is beating or tied with Obama in every poll. He's up by 11 points among white women, raising millions in mere hours, has thousands (instead of hundreds) attending his campaign stops, has energized his base beyond all expectations, and is up 10 points among independents. I could have kept going but I got tired. Palin even has her own doll out because some bozo wants to make money off her popularity. Obama doesn't even have his own doll and he is more popular in Germany than David Hasselhoff!

Yes it's a disaster! What a stupid question!

I haven't been this upset since Grey Goose changed their formula- BURP

We'll be back soon enough. Obama won't stand for this. He is gonna push this naughty librarian book banner aside like we did with Hillary.

We taught Hil to sit down and get out of the gentleman's way, Palin will lean to sit as well.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: jeffislouie on September 11, 2008, 12:13:14 PM
I love being called a bigot because I have a sociology based opinion.
For the *ahem* brilliant law students here, this is the definition of bigot:

- a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Well that doesn't apply.  Intolerance isn't the correct description of my opinion.  We may disagree, but I certainly an tolerant about it.

-One strongly loyal to one's own social group, and irrationally intolerant or disdainful of others

That also doesn't apply - I am not loyal to my social group any more than anyone else and I am in no way irrationally intolerant or disdainful

-Narrow minded or prejudice in your beliefs.

Merely offering my opinion doesn't make me narrow minded or prejudiced - I am open to listening to others opinions and discussing them without preconception.  I may challenge an opinion or push for a better explanation, but that's just not the same thing.

So now that I've wasted time dealing with yet another personal attack, I will get to the meat of my argument.

People who are poor are usually poor due to their own decisions.  Naturally, sociological factors also influence relative wealth, but ultimately any person in this great country can achieve.  It may be difficult and there are always hurdles to overcome, but I do not believe that people are poor and it is because of economic policy.  It is because many Americans are unwilling to do the hard work that leads to success.  Way to many of us are content to be lazy.  Way to many of us see education as too difficult and unappealing.  Many of us are content to work 40 hours a week at a job we hate.  Many of us are content to never break sociological barriers and push themselves to get out of their own social class.

So if I blame the poor for anything, it is lack of effort.  It isn't a blanket statement, but find me an example of a person who worked hard in school, got a college degree, got a masters degree, works more than 40 hours a week, and applies the concepts of hard work and dedication that is poor and I'll agree that this is a policy issue.

Then again, you won't be able to find people like that.  The hardest workers get the biggest opportunities.  I've seen it first hand.  I left college when I was 19 and started working in restaurants and bars.  When I was 22 years old, I changed jobs from a chain restaurant and started working at a Chicago bar and restaurant.  I was hired as a doorman/bar back.  I stopped fights, kicked people out, restocked the bar, bussed tables, and helped out in any other way I could.  Inside of 6 months, I was promoted to part time bartender.  6 months later, I was training new staff members.  A month after than I was promoted to assistant manager.  Within 6 months of that promotion, I was tapped to help other restaurants run more efficiently and increase the bottom line.  3 months later, I was a GM in the company and moved to a store they were sure would close.  Inside of 3 months, I had a $15,000 net profit swing and turned one of the worst performing store into one of the best in the company, which had grown to 25 units.

I did it with a high school diploma, hard work, and a desire to succeed.  In terms of money, I was making close to $60k a year (or more, depending on the year) before my 25th birthday, well above poor and firmly inside the middle class.  Yes, this is nothing more than one example.  But it is proof that success is possible with hard work.

I know people who are poor.  In every case it is due to decisions they have made.  Some chose to be artists.  Others chose to drop out of school.  Some never finished high school.  Reaganomics didn't take away opportunity  - it put opportunity squarely in the hands of the American people.  Many grasped it with both hands and made themselves into a success.  Others chose to blame Reagan for their problems and did nothing to elevate themselves.  If a poor half-black kid from a broken home can graduate from law school and eventually run for President, nothing is impossible.  To argue otherwise is a mistake and relies upon stereotypical victimhood.

Hence, most poor people are poor because of their own decisions.  Most people who are facing or have faced foreclosure did so because they agreed to loans they either didn't understand or figured they knew better.  They didn't know better.  While finishing up college, I was THIS CLOSE to buying a home with no money down, an adjustable apy, and a huge balloon payment.  When I brought it to my dad, he laughed and told me that the loan was stupid and I'd be hurt by it in the long run.  He was right and I didn't sign.  I rented.  I pay less in rent than the average mortgage, but no one can foreclose on my apartment.

The point is that you either believe the governments responsibility is to solve everyone's problems or that we are accountable for our own decisions.




Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: jeffislouie on September 11, 2008, 01:09:02 PM
excellent point and well taken.

I agree that other sociological factors come into play (I thought I alluded to that in my post).  It becomes systemic when people stop searching for ways to overcome their obstacles and instead get cozy with victimhood.

A friend of mine grew up in Cabrini.  His parents were on welfare and almost never worked.  When he was a kid, he promised himself that he'd find a way out - a path to a better life.  He worked hard at academics and graduated near the top of his class.  It wasn't cool, so he had few friends.  The cool kids were playing basketball and getting involved with gangs while he was studying at the library, staying after school to get extra help from teachers, and working part time to save money for college.  He got a partial academic scholarship to a state school (UIUC) and worked the whole way through.  He had to take loans, but he made it.  Immediately after college, he went to law school while working part time at a law firm.  Now he works in the state's attorneys office and plans to leave in a few years to form a private practice with some law school friends.

My point is that yes, sociological factors come into play, but individuals have the power to rise above.  Many times the difference between those that excel at life and those who struggle is that those to make it, do so through hard work and dedication.  It would be great if we could undo the damage done by uneducated single parents who never do anything to succeed, but we can't.  All we can do is hope to inspire those who can to actually step outside of what is convenient and easy and see a bigger goal.

The democratic stance on this tends to be: "We are the government and we are here to help." while the republican view is: "We'll help you out, but you are going to have to work hard."  Personally, I believe that democratic policies are part and parcel for why we have these social issues.  You may believe otherwise (and I respect that, believe it or not).
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: Miss P on September 11, 2008, 02:18:28 PM
I love being called a bigot because I have a sociology based opinion.
For the *ahem* brilliant law students here, this is the definition of bigot:
[etc.]

I note that though I did not call you a bigot, you chose to respond to those who came close and not to me. 

...

I left college when I was 19 and started working in restaurants and bars.  When I was 22 years old, I changed jobs from a chain restaurant and started working at a Chicago bar and restaurant.  I was hired as a doorman/bar back.  I stopped fights, kicked people out, restocked the bar, bussed tables, and helped out in any other way I could.  Inside of 6 months, I was promoted to part time bartender.  6 months later, I was training new staff members.  A month after than I was promoted to assistant manager.  Within 6 months of that promotion, I was tapped to help other restaurants run more efficiently and increase the bottom line.  3 months later, I was a GM in the company and moved to a store they were sure would close.  Inside of 3 months, I had a $15,000 net profit swing and turned one of the worst performing store into one of the best in the company, which had grown to 25 units.

I did it with a high school diploma, hard work, and a desire to succeed.  In terms of money, I was making close to $60k a year (or more, depending on the year) before my 25th birthday, well above poor and firmly inside the middle class.

How did you fit your military service in?
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: bloomlaw on September 11, 2008, 07:06:07 PM

People who are poor are usually poor due to their own decisions. 


This makes me laugh out loud, it is so blatantly not true. 95% of people are poor because of social and economic situation they were given at the start of life. I want you to answer these questions honestly. What percentage of rich kids that work hard end up poor? What percentage of poor kids that work equally hard end up poor? I believe the goal of the democratic party is make these numbers even and as close to ZERO as possible. Of course, liberal policies will also help lazy people stay lazy in some aspect, but that is not the point. Reducing these numbers to 0 is the point. Unless your hatred of laziness overrules your desire to reward those who

And the welfare program here isn't anywhere near as bad as some other countries. I'm living in New Zealand now, and the welfare program is unbelievable. I think 17% of the population lives on the doll from the government, which pays the unemployed roughly $200 American a week for doing nothing. And if they have children, this number is added by $100/child. And this country has a higher standard of living on all accounts, so go figure.

I would also like to touch on your idea about wealth and QOL being a result of decisisons. This is true to an extent, but anyone who comes from a middle or upper class family has a buffer zone. I came from a lower middle class family, a son of a teacher and a police officer, and in high school, I didn't know what I was going to do about college. My father, the teacher, never had to pay a dollar for college because he got a college football scholarship. My mom, a police officer, never went to college. Their advice to me in high school was to avoid taking on any kind of debt, because, well, that's how they had lived their life. Their tip for me was, find a way to pay for college, and they suggested the military.
Luckily, I was born athletic enough to get a college scholarship. If that wouldn't have happened, being such a liberal, I wouldn't have joined the military, and I don't know what I would have done. I didn't mind working hard, but the most I had ever had to my name was about $1000, so I couldn't comprehend owing $40,000 for undergrad or $100,000 for law school. This outlook came from a lack of understanding which stemmed from a lack of education, one of the main causes of being poor. These people, myself and my hardworking, intelligent parents included, didn't understand the system, and purely through luck, and NOT HARD WORK, i was able to succeed.




Naturally, sociological factors also influence relative wealth, but ultimately any person in this great country can achieve.   It is because many Americans are unwilling to do the hard work that leads to success.  Way to many of us are content to be lazy.  Way to many of us see education as too difficult and unappealing. 


Please do not say what hard work is. Working 50 hours at a bar/restaurant is not hard work, and apparently you were in the military, so you should know that. You got to where you are, not by working hard, but working (i assume, and hope) long hours, which is difficult in itself, and by working intelligently. And, mostly, by luck. I guess that is the difference, you took a favorable situation, worked it, and succeeded, and you view the cause to be your own hard work and your innate abilities, where most people would see it as a combination of luck, hard work, and your innate abilities.

Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on September 11, 2008, 07:36:26 PM
Her interview today was a complete disaster. Charlie had to explain the Bush doctrine to her.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Harvey Dent on September 11, 2008, 08:34:24 PM
Her interview today was a complete disaster. Charlie had to explain the Bush doctrine to her.

So she's dumber for the experience?
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on September 11, 2008, 08:51:36 PM
Her interview today was a complete disaster. Charlie had to explain the Bush doctrine to her.

So she's dumber for the experience?

No. The mere fact that she tried to answer the question without knowing what Charlie was talking about indicates to me that she's just like Bush - giving opinions and making decisions without complete information.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Harvey Dent on September 11, 2008, 08:55:03 PM
Her interview today was a complete disaster. Charlie had to explain the Bush doctrine to her.

So she's dumber for the experience?

No. The mere fact that she tried to answer the question without knowing what Charlie was talking about indicates to me that she's just like Bush - giving opinions and making decisions without complete information.

...But someone explained something to her that Bush came up with.  You know how usually getting things explained to you makes you smarter?  I would think it was the opposite for stuff Bush came up with.  No?
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: bloomlaw on September 11, 2008, 08:59:59 PM
Her interview today was a complete disaster. Charlie had to explain the Bush doctrine to her.

So she's dumber for the experience?

No. The mere fact that she tried to answer the question without knowing what Charlie was talking about indicates to me that she's just like Bush - giving opinions and making decisions without complete information.

...But someone explained something to her that Bush came up with.  You know how usually getting things explained to you makes you smarter?  I would think it was the opposite for stuff Bush came up with.  No?

I would hope that a woman who is just a John McCain heart attack from the presidency knows enough about presidential policy that members of the media don't need to advise her on issues.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Harvey Dent on September 11, 2008, 09:01:36 PM
I would hope that a woman who is just a John McCain heart attack from the presidency knows enough about presidential policy that members of the media don't need to advise her on issues.

Hope leads to disappointment in much the same way that trying leads to failing.

Moral of the story: never hope and never try.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on September 11, 2008, 09:06:40 PM
Her interview today was a complete disaster. Charlie had to explain the Bush doctrine to her.

So she's dumber for the experience?

No. The mere fact that she tried to answer the question without knowing what Charlie was talking about indicates to me that she's just like Bush - giving opinions and making decisions without complete information.

...But someone explained something to her that Bush came up with.  You know how usually getting things explained to you makes you smarter?  I would think it was the opposite for stuff Bush came up with.  No?

hahahahaha. Indeed, Harvey. Indeed.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: bloomlaw on September 11, 2008, 09:09:33 PM
I would hope that a woman who is just a John McCain heart attack from the presidency knows enough about presidential policy that members of the media don't need to advise her on issues.

Hope leads to disappointment in much the same way that trying leads to failing.

Moral of the story: never hope and never try.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Never expect republican vice presidents to konw what they are talking about?
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: servinglife on September 17, 2008, 08:17:30 PM

People who are poor are usually poor due to their own decisions. 


This makes me laugh out loud, it is so blatantly not true. 95% of people are poor because of social and economic situation they were given at the start of life. I want you to answer these questions honestly. What percentage of rich kids that work hard end up poor? What percentage of poor kids that work equally hard end up poor? I believe the goal of the democratic party is make these numbers even and as close to ZERO as possible. Of course, liberal policies will also help lazy people stay lazy in some aspect, but that is not the point. Reducing these numbers to 0 is the point. Unless your hatred of laziness overrules your desire to reward those who

And the welfare program here isn't anywhere near as bad as some other countries. I'm living in New Zealand now, and the welfare program is unbelievable. I think 17% of the population lives on the doll from the government, which pays the unemployed roughly $200 American a week for doing nothing. And if they have children, this number is added by $100/child. And this country has a higher standard of living on all accounts, so go figure.

I would also like to touch on your idea about wealth and QOL being a result of decisisons. This is true to an extent, but anyone who comes from a middle or upper class family has a buffer zone. I came from a lower middle class family, a son of a teacher and a police officer, and in high school, I didn't know what I was going to do about college. My father, the teacher, never had to pay a dollar for college because he got a college football scholarship. My mom, a police officer, never went to college. Their advice to me in high school was to avoid taking on any kind of debt, because, well, that's how they had lived their life. Their tip for me was, find a way to pay for college, and they suggested the military.
Luckily, I was born athletic enough to get a college scholarship. If that wouldn't have happened, being such a liberal, I wouldn't have joined the military, and I don't know what I would have done. I didn't mind working hard, but the most I had ever had to my name was about $1000, so I couldn't comprehend owing $40,000 for undergrad or $100,000 for law school. This outlook came from a lack of understanding which stemmed from a lack of education, one of the main causes of being poor. These people, myself and my hardworking, intelligent parents included, didn't understand the system, and purely through luck, and NOT HARD WORK, i was able to succeed.




Naturally, sociological factors also influence relative wealth, but ultimately any person in this great country can achieve.   It is because many Americans are unwilling to do the hard work that leads to success.  Way to many of us are content to be lazy.  Way to many of us see education as too difficult and unappealing. 


Please do not say what hard work is. Working 50 hours at a bar/restaurant is not hard work, and apparently you were in the military, so you should know that. You got to where you are, not by working hard, but working (i assume, and hope) long hours, which is difficult in itself, and by working intelligently. And, mostly, by luck. I guess that is the difference, you took a favorable situation, worked it, and succeeded, and you view the cause to be your own hard work and your innate abilities, where most people would see it as a combination of luck, hard work, and your innate abilities.


It is reductionistic to boil success down to merely hard work (or sociological advantages, education, wealthy parents, etc). A combination of these certainly helps but we do not live in a meritocracy, despite what politicians or teachers may tell us. In that sense, I agree with what you have said above. I don't know that I would go so far as to say mostly by luck, but conditions are the determining factor in some cases (e.g. a kid that was the firstborn in a family where the father has died and he is compelled to help the mom support the other children or any other number of hypothetical situations which are probably more common than most of us realize).

I think the successful individual works in an industry where he or she has God given talent, works hard (i.e. prepares for future opportunities), has ambition (awaits those opportunities), and takes the opportunities that present themselves.
Title: Re: Is John McCain's VP selection a disaster?
Post by: jeffislouie on September 17, 2008, 10:02:14 PM

Please do not say what hard work is. Working 50 hours at a bar/restaurant is not hard work, and apparently you were in the military, so you should know that. You got to where you are, not by working hard, but working (i assume, and hope) long hours, which is difficult in itself, and by working intelligently. And, mostly, by luck. I guess that is the difference, you took a favorable situation, worked it, and succeeded, and you view the cause to be your own hard work and your innate abilities, where most people would see it as a combination of luck, hard work, and your innate abilities.



First of all, who the heck are you to say that working 50 hours a week in a bar/restaurant is not hard work?  Have you ever worked 50 hours a week at a bar/restaurant? 

I doubt it, or you wouldn't say that (unless, of course, you were terrible at the job, made no money, and/or burned out quickly).

Not that I worked 50 hours a week.  My first job as a bouncer/barback, I worked 4 days a week from 6 pm to 5 am, one day a week from 7 pm to 6 am and once every two weeks, added a shift from 10 am to 5 pm.  When I was the GM, I worked from 60-80 hours a week depending on need.  For about a month, after I had to fire a manager for leaving the doors unlocked overnight, I worked 90-100 hours a week.

But you naturally assumed that what I meant was 50 hours a week.  I wish it was only 50 hours a week.  After I left that job and went to another company, I worked 50-60 hours a week, most of that time on my feet, until I quit to go back to school.  I can't remember the last time when I was employed full time, in a restaurant or otherwise, where I have worked LESS than 50 hours a week.

Luck?  Grow up.  Morons think luck is why people succeed.  Smart people make their own luck.  Smart people know that luck is when preparation meets opportunity.  I spent years learning to be the best server I could be.  I started with zero experience at an Olive Garden and within 2 months, I was outearning everyone else that worked there.  Each time I changed jobs, I worked HARD to go from the new guy to the money guy.  I never left a waiting job that I hadn't outgrown.  Each time I left a place, I left as the number one earner in the store.  When I became a barback/bouncer, I busted my ass to become the best I could be at both jobs.  It didn't take long for management to notice.  It took even less time for upper management to notice.  I was promoted to manager at the direct request of the then only district manager in the company.  He became the VP of operations and the company grew to a $200million + restaurant group.  I was promoted due to hard work, dedication, and a result oriented attitude faster than any manager in the history of the company.  Just before I became GM of my own unit, they started sending me to units with operational and financial issues to fix the problems.  The last place I 'fixed' was where I ended up being asked by the owners and VP personally to take the store over.  When I took it over, the store was on the way out.  The financials were terrible (the first store to lose money since they launched the concept) and the unit was an operational nightmare.  The month I took over, day one, I had the financials on my desk.  I was told to make it work.  That month I managed to shift the P&L numbers drastically.  I kept the financials.  I'm looking at them now:

the month before I took over, the net profit was $ - 4507.  The month after, it was $ 6,290. Each month after that net income grew or stayed consistent.

It wasn't 'luck' that I was able to do that.  It was operational know how developed over a long career where I paid attention and worked my ass off to be better than the next guy.  When I left that company, I had made record high profit percentages at 10.8% while increasing business, decreasing turnover, and resolving virtually every issue that unit had.  Three months after I left, sales had tanked and profit was flat, well below the industry standard 4-6%.  Six months later, they tried a new concept in the same building.  A year later, they paid a penalty to be released from their lease on the property.

This 'luck' you think successful people catch is a load of crap.  Being in the right place isn't a mistake.  Being there at the right time is crap too.  I was where I was because I saw the potential of being there.  Being there at the right time is really being able to step up your game when someone else needs you to.

Losers talk about luck.  Losers think life is bunch of random occurances and if you happen to be where it all goes down when it all goes down, you are just lucky.  I've made my own luck.  I made it by working hard, learning, asking questions, and giving it my best.  Whether you are a lawyer or a waiter, folks like partners and owners look for that sort of thing when they look for the future of their company or firm.  I wasn't lucky.  I was good.

By the way, if you really look at successful people, they aren't 'lucky'.  They just did it right, often when others did it wrong or did just enough to NOT get noticed.

I highly recommend that you try to think about this when you go out and practice.  Go make your own 'luck'.  Try putting in more hours than the next guy, doing better work than he does, and doing what I used to call 'and one'.  'And One' means doing what is asked of you 'and one' more thing.  Take one extra step to get something done that HASN'T been asked of you.  Go ahead, give it a shot.  I guarantee someone will notice.  It will lead to good things.

OR you could be one of those folks who hide from life and do just enough to get by and not get noticed.  Playing it safe works out great, so long as you don't mind a life of mediocrity....
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: pig floyd on September 17, 2008, 10:29:48 PM
Let's start with my luck of being born into an upper middle class family that indoctrinated me into education in general, and higher education specifically, for as long as I can remember.  Then let's move on to my luck of being born into the invisible gender and skin color.  Then, further, let's move on to my luck of being born in a region of the country with a particularly resilient economy so that a much wider range of opportunity was there for me when I went looking.  I could keep going for a while.

Give luck a chance.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: bloomlaw on September 17, 2008, 10:42:01 PM
50 hours working at bar/restaurant is not hard work. IS NOT HARD WORK. I've done it for 6 months, as a bar back, which is often the hardest job in the place because you are busting your butt physically to get everythign where it needs to be, all the time. DO NOT CONFUSE LONG HOURS WITH HARD WORK. Working long hours is difficult, but it doesn't mean the difficulty of the work is high. And do not confuse stress level with difficulty or hard work. Stress is something completely internal.

We have a coal factory in my town, and most people who don't go to college end up there. I've done it. It blows. I can't do it, and I've done nearly every sort of job under the sun. It kills them early. I wish I could have you go down there and tell them working in a bar is hard work. I've worked construction, roofing, 40 hours a week. That is much more difficult than being at a bar. I'm not saying that working at a bar is easy by any means, because its not, but it annoys me that you cite that as a job to illustrate how you have this great ability to work hard and thats why you succeeded. You succeeded because you worked intelligently and intuitively, and probably because you have, outside of online forums, great social skills.

The average successful, rich person, works no harder than the average working class joe. They just understand the system, which is more an indicator of intelligence.

Only lucky people say there's no luck involved with where the are. Well, the ones that are completely out of touch with reality, that is. What about your luck that you were born smart(as you stated, which I am inclined to doubt)? Or somehow you are smart because you worked hard in the womb, right? What about your person of average intelligence from the lower class? Or a person with minimal social skills?

Please don't be ignorant about the great amount of luck in your life. Please.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 18, 2008, 11:12:30 AM
50 hours working at bar/restaurant is not hard work. IS NOT HARD WORK. I've done it for 6 months, as a bar back, which is often the hardest job in the place because you are busting your butt physically to get everythign where it needs to be, all the time. DO NOT CONFUSE LONG HOURS WITH HARD WORK. Working long hours is difficult, but it doesn't mean the difficulty of the work is high. And do not confuse stress level with difficulty or hard work. Stress is something completely internal.

We have a coal factory in my town, and most people who don't go to college end up there. I've done it. It blows. I can't do it, and I've done nearly every sort of job under the sun. It kills them early. I wish I could have you go down there and tell them working in a bar is hard work. I've worked construction, roofing, 40 hours a week. That is much more difficult than being at a bar. I'm not saying that working at a bar is easy by any means, because its not, but it annoys me that you cite that as a job to illustrate how you have this great ability to work hard and thats why you succeeded. You succeeded because you worked intelligently and intuitively, and probably because you have, outside of online forums, great social skills.

The average successful, rich person, works no harder than the average working class joe. They just understand the system, which is more an indicator of intelligence.

Only lucky people say there's no luck involved with where the are. Well, the ones that are completely out of touch with reality, that is. What about your luck that you were born smart(as you stated, which I am inclined to doubt)? Or somehow you are smart because you worked hard in the womb, right? What about your person of average intelligence from the lower class? Or a person with minimal social skills?

Please don't be ignorant about the great amount of luck in your life. Please.

Wow.  A whole 6 months?  I bet you were really involved, which is why you stayed so long.  Managing restaurants and turning them around IS hard work.  Waiting tables IS hard work.  Bartending IS hard work.  The fact that you have no respect for those jobs speaks to your ridiculous elitism.  I work in a law firm as a clerk.  I laugh when the lawyers talk about hard work.  These guys actually work less than 5 or 6 hours a day, and those are the hard days.  Sure they are there long hours.  Sure their job is tough, but I worked much harder to turn a failing restaurant into a successful one than they ever do.

I can't get next to you because you are so skewed and ridiculous.  I am not 'lucky' to have been born smart.  Both of my parents were smart.  It's genetics.  Not luck.  And I know people who I don't think are as smart as me who are extremely successful.  My cousin, who was never particularly bright, busted his ass, started a company after getting an associates degree, and through hard work turned himself into a millionaire who drives a lambo.  I called him the other day and asked him if he thought he was lucky in business.  His answer?  No. f-ing. Way.  He almost lost his business, almost went bankrupt, and almost quit.  Instead, he refused to allow himself to rely on luck and busted his ass to grow his company and earn his money.  If you ask him, he'd tell you that he isn't particularly smart.  He'll tell you that he is stubborn and works hard.  He'll tell you that he tried his best and THAT'S why he succeeded.

Luck is horseshit.  It's loser talk.  It is a word invented so that losers who fail have something to point at when they think about someone who succeeds.  It is also a favorite work for liberals who wish to redistribute income.  Those companies that make people rich?  The guys who created it were just lucky.  They didn't EARN their money, they lucked into it.  They didn't work hard, they were lucky.  So why not take money from those corporations and give it to people who can't be bothered with hard work?

Nonsense.  Bill Gates wasn't lucky.  Warren Buffet wasn't lucky.  Find me a successful person who thinks their success is due to luck and I'll show you a moron.  Lucky people win the lottery. 

And I wasn't 'lucky' to be born an American either.  My grandparents escaped the holocaust.  They took their son, my dad who was born in germany during the war while my grandparents were running from nazi's, and found a way to immigrate to the US.  My grandparents had third grade educations and didn't speak english.  They worked alternating 12 hour a day jobs and encouraged their kids to embrace education and hard work.  They produced a lawyer and two doctors.  I was with my uncle last night and he doesn't attribute his success to luck - he almost failed out of med school.  He believes he made it through because he was willing to do whatever it took to do well.

He wasn't lucky.  He was dedicated. 

Hey, if you want to go through life thinking 'luck' is going to make you successful, enjoy being unsuccessful.  Maybe you'll get 'lucky' and things will pay off.  While you are focusing on luck, folks like me will be working hard and succeeding.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on September 18, 2008, 11:32:40 AM
50 hours working at bar/restaurant is not hard work. IS NOT HARD WORK. I've done it for 6 months, as a bar back, which is often the hardest job in the place because you are busting your butt physically to get everythign where it needs to be, all the time. DO NOT CONFUSE LONG HOURS WITH HARD WORK. Working long hours is difficult, but it doesn't mean the difficulty of the work is high. And do not confuse stress level with difficulty or hard work. Stress is something completely internal.

We have a coal factory in my town, and most people who don't go to college end up there. I've done it. It blows. I can't do it, and I've done nearly every sort of job under the sun. It kills them early. I wish I could have you go down there and tell them working in a bar is hard work. I've worked construction, roofing, 40 hours a week. That is much more difficult than being at a bar. I'm not saying that working at a bar is easy by any means, because its not, but it annoys me that you cite that as a job to illustrate how you have this great ability to work hard and thats why you succeeded. You succeeded because you worked intelligently and intuitively, and probably because you have, outside of online forums, great social skills.

The average successful, rich person, works no harder than the average working class joe. They just understand the system, which is more an indicator of intelligence.

Only lucky people say there's no luck involved with where the are. Well, the ones that are completely out of touch with reality, that is. What about your luck that you were born smart(as you stated, which I am inclined to doubt)? Or somehow you are smart because you worked hard in the womb, right? What about your person of average intelligence from the lower class? Or a person with minimal social skills?

Please don't be ignorant about the great amount of luck in your life. Please.

Wow.  A whole 6 months?  I bet you were really involved, which is why you stayed so long.  Managing restaurants and turning them around IS hard work.  Waiting tables IS hard work.  Bartending IS hard work.  The fact that you have no respect for those jobs speaks to your ridiculous elitism.  I work in a law firm as a clerk.  I laugh when the lawyers talk about hard work.  These guys actually work less than 5 or 6 hours a day, and those are the hard days.  Sure they are there long hours.  Sure their job is tough, but I worked much harder to turn a failing restaurant into a successful one than they ever do.

I can't get next to you because you are so skewed and ridiculous. I am not 'lucky' to have been born smart.  Both of my parents were smart.  It's genetics.  Not luck.  And I know people who I don't think are as smart as me who are extremely successful.  My cousin, who was never particularly bright, busted his ass, started a company after getting an associates degree, and through hard work turned himself into a millionaire who drives a lambo.  I called him the other day and asked him if he thought he was lucky in business.  His answer?  No. f-ing. Way.  He almost lost his business, almost went bankrupt, and almost quit.  Instead, he refused to allow himself to rely on luck and busted his ass to grow his company and earn his money.  If you ask him, he'd tell you that he isn't particularly smart.  He'll tell you that he is stubborn and works hard.  He'll tell you that he tried his best and THAT'S why he succeeded.

Luck is horseshit.  It's loser talk.  It is a word invented so that losers who fail have something to point at when they think about someone who succeeds.  It is also a favorite work for liberals who wish to redistribute income.  Those companies that make people rich?  The guys who created it were just lucky.  They didn't EARN their money, they lucked into it.  They didn't work hard, they were lucky.  So why not take money from those corporations and give it to people who can't be bothered with hard work?

Nonsense.  Bill Gates wasn't lucky.  Warren Buffet wasn't lucky.  Find me a successful person who thinks their success is due to luck and I'll show you a moron.  Lucky people win the lottery. 

And I wasn't 'lucky' to be born an American either.  My grandparents escaped the holocaust.  They took their son, my dad who was born in germany during the war while my grandparents were running from nazi's, and found a way to immigrate to the US.  My grandparents had third grade educations and didn't speak english.  They worked alternating 12 hour a day jobs and encouraged their kids to embrace education and hard work.  They produced a lawyer and two doctors.  I was with my uncle last night and he doesn't attribute his success to luck - he almost failed out of med school.  He believes he made it through because he was willing to do whatever it took to do well.

He wasn't lucky.  He was dedicated. 

Hey, if you want to go through life thinking 'luck' is going to make you successful, enjoy being unsuccessful.  Maybe you'll get 'lucky' and things will pay off.  While you are focusing on luck, folks like me will be working hard and succeeding.

LMAO. You're delusional.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 18, 2008, 12:08:15 PM
I'm delusional?

Nice theory.  I'm a realist and not an idealogue.

It isn't my fault that your parents tought you that success is due to luck and not hard work.

It isn't my fault that when you fail you blame someone else and when you succeed you choose to attribute it to luck.

I believe in making my own luck and it has served me quite well.

You believe that life is luck.  I would label THAT belief as delusional.

"A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception."

You are right, hard work is fanciful and derived from deception.  Luck on the other hand, isn't.  Good point.  My how I have been so wrong.

I'm off to buy a rabbits foot.....
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: SCK2008 on September 18, 2008, 12:25:51 PM
Some people get lucky.

Some people work hard.

Skinning cats.

Jeff is delusional.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: bloomlaw on September 18, 2008, 05:35:56 PM
50 hours working at bar/restaurant is not hard work. IS NOT HARD WORK. I've done it for 6 months, as a bar back, which is often the hardest job in the place because you are busting your butt physically to get everythign where it needs to be, all the time. DO NOT CONFUSE LONG HOURS WITH HARD WORK. Working long hours is difficult, but it doesn't mean the difficulty of the work is high. And do not confuse stress level with difficulty or hard work. Stress is something completely internal.

We have a coal factory in my town, and most people who don't go to college end up there. I've done it. It blows. I can't do it, and I've done nearly every sort of job under the sun. It kills them early. I wish I could have you go down there and tell them working in a bar is hard work. I've worked construction, roofing, 40 hours a week. That is much more difficult than being at a bar. I'm not saying that working at a bar is easy by any means, because its not, but it annoys me that you cite that as a job to illustrate how you have this great ability to work hard and thats why you succeeded. You succeeded because you worked intelligently and intuitively, and probably because you have, outside of online forums, great social skills.

The average successful, rich person, works no harder than the average working class joe. They just understand the system, which is more an indicator of intelligence.

Only lucky people say there's no luck involved with where the are. Well, the ones that are completely out of touch with reality, that is. What about your luck that you were born smart(as you stated, which I am inclined to doubt)? Or somehow you are smart because you worked hard in the womb, right? What about your person of average intelligence from the lower class? Or a person with minimal social skills?

Please don't be ignorant about the great amount of luck in your life. Please.

Wow.  A whole 6 months?  I bet you were really involved, which is why you stayed so long.  Managing restaurants and turning them around IS hard work.  Waiting tables IS hard work.  Bartending IS hard work.  The fact that you have no respect for those jobs speaks to your ridiculous elitism.  I work in a law firm as a clerk.  I laugh when the lawyers talk about hard work.  These guys actually work less than 5 or 6 hours a day, and those are the hard days.  Sure they are there long hours.  Sure their job is tough, but I worked much harder to turn a failing restaurant into a successful one than they ever do.

I can't get next to you because you are so skewed and ridiculous.  I am not 'lucky' to have been born smart.  Both of my parents were smart.  It's genetics.  Not luck. 

I left because I moved overseas. But I took that job because I got tired of roofing, my body was worn down. I took the cake job bar backing, and I loved it. Lol. You didn't argue any of my points. You just repeated that waiting tables is hard work (it isn't, comparatively). You repeated that bartending is hard work (it's even easier than waiting tables). I never said I have no respect for those jobs, but please, please don't cite them to indicate your ability to work hard. That isn't hard work. I'VE BARTENDED AS WELL. Here, in New Zealand, I worked 60 hours a week picking apples for two months, busting my butt in the sun all summer long. Then I left for a job working as a waiter. It was like a dream come true. I hated the hassles of waiting tables, don't get me wrong. But there is no comparison between those two lines of work. None.

RUS? Elitism? You are the one with it. Because it's something that you have done, you immediately assume its hard work. ITS NOT. I wish I could type that bigger. It is not easy by any means, but... Sigh. There is nothing to say. You are so lost off the deep end, as proven by the bolded.

What about the luck that you were born with those genetics? Or do you have the pre-ordained for greatness thing going. How about the luck that your ancestor survived the holocaust? Or did they survive that because of your family's innate ability to do the impossible job of bartending so well?
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Miss P on September 18, 2008, 09:13:36 PM
I am not 'lucky' to have been born smart.  Both of my parents were smart.  It's genetics.  Not luck.

I believe you were drawing a connection between your success and your hard work (which I am sure was hard).  People then suggested that there were other factors involved, such as fortune.  Are you seriously now trying to claim that your genetic endowment falls into the "I earned it" category and not the "I got lucky" category? 
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: pig floyd on September 18, 2008, 09:31:12 PM
I am not 'lucky' to have been born smart.  Both of my parents were smart.  It's genetics.  Not luck.

I believe you were drawing a connection between your success and your hard work (which I am sure was hard).  People then suggested that there were other factors involved, such as fortune.  Are you seriously now trying to claim that your genetic endowment falls into the "I earned it" category and not the "I got lucky" category? 

As the son of a computer programmer mother and a computer programmer father (who both made their way as such when there was no particular degree for it; basically you took Math), I find it basically inevitable that I too happened to be good at math.

I excelled in a technical field because...

a)  I worked hard at it.
b)  I intuitively understood the underlying mathematics.
c)  I guessed well on multiple choice exams.
d)  None of the above.

a) is what Jeffis would require of me.

b) is what happened in reality.

c) would be "pure" luck.

b) actually represents how luck (or, perhaps more aptly, fortune, as Miss P puts it) works in real life. 
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: bloomlaw on September 18, 2008, 10:13:13 PM
I am not 'lucky' to have been born smart.  Both of my parents were smart.  It's genetics.  Not luck.

I believe you were drawing a connection between your success and your hard work (which I am sure was hard).  People then suggested that there were other factors involved, such as fortune.  Are you seriously now trying to claim that your genetic endowment falls into the "I earned it" category and not the "I got lucky" category? 

As the son of a computer programmer mother and a computer programmer father (who both made their way as such when there was no particular degree for it; basically you took Math), I find it basically inevitable that I too happened to be good at math.

I excelled in a technical field because...

a)  I worked hard at it.
b)  I intuitively understood the underlying mathematics.
c)  I guessed well on multiple choice exams.
d)  None of the above.

a) is what Jeffis would require of me.

b) is what happened in reality.

c) would be "pure" luck.

b) actually represents how luck (or, perhaps more aptly, fortune, as Miss P puts it) works in real life. 

I understand what you are saying, and I agree. But wouldn't B just be an example of a different kind of luck? I mean, aren't you lucky to have intelligent parents?
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: pig floyd on September 18, 2008, 10:20:18 PM


I understand what you are saying, and I agree. But wouldn't B just be an example of a different kind of luck? I mean, aren't you lucky to have intelligent parents?

Yes.  That's what I meant.  Did I obscure it too much?
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: bloomlaw on September 18, 2008, 10:51:40 PM


I understand what you are saying, and I agree. But wouldn't B just be an example of a different kind of luck? I mean, aren't you lucky to have intelligent parents?

Yes.  That's what I meant.  Did I obscure it too much?

yeah, i guess you are right. You wouldn't define option B as "pure" luck though?
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 19, 2008, 10:53:02 AM
I think you nice folks have missed the point.  "luck" is a silly, humanistic work we use to explain things that we refuse to think through.

I am not 'lucky' to have genes from intelligent parents.  My parents had sex and I was born with the genes I have.  There is no 'luck' involved.

Rather than try to explain it again, I'll quote a wiki article that does a decent job of explaining my view on luck.

"Another view holds that "luck is probability taken personally". A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability, and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck commits the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy, which argues that because two events are connected sequentially, they are connected causally as well:

A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
Therefore, A caused B.

In this particular perspective, probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections. A brick falling on a person walking below, therefore, is not a function of that person's luck, but is instead the result of a collection of understood (or explainable) occurrences. Statistically, every person walking near the building was just as likely to have the brick fall on them.

The gambler's fallacy and inverse gambler's fallacy both explain some reasoning problems in common beliefs in luck. They involve denying the unpredictability of random events: "I haven't rolled a seven all week, so I'll definitely roll one tonight".

Luck is merely an expression noting an extended period of noted outcomes, completely consistent with random walk probability theory. Wishing one "good luck" will not cause such an extended period, but it expresses positive feelings toward the one -- not necessarily wholly undesirable."

The interesting thing is that some of you have called me 'delusional' and attempted to make fun of me for these beliefs.  So just for fun, I thought it might be interesting to list a few names of people you've probably heard of that think similarly:

1)Socrates
2)Plato
3)Descartes
4)Leibniz
5)Kant

They were all called delusional too....
That doesn't make it so.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Miss P on September 19, 2008, 11:07:18 AM
I think you are either misunderstanding us or misunderstanding your wiki article.  None of us here have taken something other than a rationalist view of "luck."  We are not contrasting what you have described (a series of occurrences beyond your control that combine to produce a certain result) to some kind of metaphysical charm that draws in good or bad things.  We are arguing, rather, that the series of occurrences you reference (your parents being smart, their having sex, etc.) and your resulting endowments (intellect) have absolutely nothing to do with your hard work, which you describe as the foundation of success.  To break it down:

1. You claim success is within people's individual control because it results from hard work. 
2. We say, instead, that success has a lot to do with factors beyond individual control -- which some of us have called luck.  You can call it whatever you want.

I'll also note that I haven't personally insulted you during this discussion.  For instance, I didn't insert the word "purported" when referencing your intellect.  So what's your excuse for always ignoring me?
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 19, 2008, 12:12:17 PM
I think you are either misunderstanding us or misunderstanding your wiki article.  None of us here have taken something other than a rationalist view of "luck."  We are not contrasting what you have described (a series of occurrences beyond your control that combine to produce a certain result) to some kind of metaphysical charm that draws in good or bad things.  We are arguing, rather, that the series of occurrences you reference (your parents being smart, their having sex, etc.) and your resulting endowments (intellect) have absolutely nothing to do with your hard work, which you describe as the foundation of success.  To break it down:

1. You claim success is within people's individual control because it results from hard work. 
2. We say, instead, that success has a lot to do with factors beyond individual control -- which some of us have called luck.  You can call it whatever you want.

I'll also note that I haven't personally insulted you during this discussion.  For instance, I didn't insert the word "purported" when referencing your intellect.  So what's your excuse for always ignoring me?

I mean no offense by not responding to some of your queries.  I am busy and tend to simply respond to as many of the arguments as I can.  I have limited time to discuss this stuff.  I applaud you for refraining from personal attacks.  I know it's hard and some simply can't avoid the temptation.

Perhaps we have fallen too far off topic - but all the 'luck' in the world won't equate to success.  Hard work is the foundation for success.  The rest is merely contributive in nature.  I don't have time to respond further.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Thistle on September 19, 2008, 12:34:48 PM
a friend of mine was born to parents that were millionaires.

he never had to work a day in his life, and will never want for anything.


successful?  maybe not as when seen as someone who rose to the top of a "profession" -- but he damn sure has a lot of the things i have worked hard for my entire life, and a whole lot more besides.

is it luck to be born to rich parents?  sure, why not.

as lefty gomez said "i'd rather be lucky than good"




eta:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieYsypPgnpw
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jack24 on September 19, 2008, 01:48:21 PM
For jeffislouie to be conceived, did his mom get lucky or did she get worked?

Your nickname should be "Summer's Eve"

Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 19, 2008, 03:05:26 PM
For jeffislouie to be conceived, did his mom get lucky or did she get worked?

Hey IrrX,

Die in a fire.  People like you are revolting as humans and don't deserve even basic human respect.
Instead of discussing the issues, folks like you find humor and joy in tearing into people's parents.  Seriously, I wish horrible, unspeakable things upon you.  No joke.  IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.
I wonder if your parents would be proud of what you just said?  Perhaps they'd mourn your death until someone informed them what a scumbag they ended up raising.

Way to show just how classy you are.

Don't talk about my mother.  Ever.  You can disrespect me all you want (you are good at it), but even dirtbags like you should have lines they wont cross.......
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: goaliechica on September 19, 2008, 03:07:07 PM
IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.

Ummmm...... Anger management issues much?
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: pig floyd on September 19, 2008, 03:09:49 PM
IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.

Ummmm...... Anger management issues much?

So much for the sanctity of life.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 19, 2008, 03:13:30 PM
IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.

Ummmm...... Anger management issues much?

Yes.  I would say that someone speaking about my mother in an insanely disrespectful way is one method of making me uncontrollably angry.  Maybe you don't mind people asking if your mother got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you, but I actually love my mother.  I also respect her.  And any a-hole who wants to treat her otherwise should expect a violent, angry response.  You know damn well that if anyone said that to you in the real world, you'd blow up too.

I find it ridiculous that you would criticize my anger management without noting the rude, disgusting, and disrespectful comment.  It is interesting that you don't object to that, just my reaction to it.  Go ask your mom if she got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you and make sure to take a picture of the slap mark on your face.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: pig floyd on September 19, 2008, 03:16:24 PM
You know damn well that if anyone said that to you in the real world, you'd blow up too.

No, I wouldn't.


I find it ridiculous that you would criticize my anger management without noting the rude, disgusting, and disrespectful comment.  It is interesting that you don't object to that, just my reaction to it.  Go ask your mom if she got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you and make sure to take a picture of the slap mark on your face.

irrx's comment was clearly in jest.  Note the word play and the connection to the last couple pages of this thread.  It was not in good taste, no argument about that.

Your response, on the other hand, was over the top.  It's even more troubling than irrx's (admittedly) tasteless comment in that you are absolutely dead serious.

Honestly, I advise you to seek counseling.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 19, 2008, 03:16:34 PM
IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.

Ummmm...... Anger management issues much?

So much for the sanctity of life.

Thanks, lib troll.

A defenseless child deserves protection.  A jerkoff who thinks its okay to talk about people's mothers in this way does not.  Interesting that libs jump at the chance to keep people who are convicted of raping children, then killing them, but unborn babies?  Let's kill them.  According to Obama, any who survive botched abortions should simply be left to die in pain untreated.

If you want to discuss my feelings on abortion, I'm happy to do so (I believe it is a state's rights issue fwiw, not that you care).  Tell me, do you find personal joy in applying misinformed labels to people, or just to people you disagree with?
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Matthies on September 19, 2008, 03:19:05 PM
oh how did I miss this gem of a thread!

::popcorns::
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 19, 2008, 03:20:50 PM
You know damn well that if anyone said that to you in the real world, you'd blow up too.

No, I wouldn't.


I find it ridiculous that you would criticize my anger management without noting the rude, disgusting, and disrespectful comment.  It is interesting that you don't object to that, just my reaction to it.  Go ask your mom if she got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you and make sure to take a picture of the slap mark on your face.

irrx's comment was clearly in jest.  Note the word play and the connection to the last couple pages of this thread.  It was not in good taste, no argument about that.

Your response, on the other hand, over the top.  It's even more troubling that irrx's (admittedly) tasteless comment in that you are absolutely dead serious.

Honestly, I advise you to seek counseling.

Oh, he was kidding?  Oh, then that's okay.  Next tell me a joke about how my grandmother was raped by nazi's while fleeing the holocaust.  That'd be funny too, wouldn't it....

Let me be clear.  It.  Isn't.  Funny.

Period.  This isn't a comedy club.  I am not here to laugh about how my mom was 'worked'.  I don't think it is funny or appropriate to make fun of my mother when the discussion is about luck vs. hard work.  It isn't.  Tell you what, let's make jokes about your mother instead.  Sound good?

And you can take your counseling and shove it.  The fact is that you clearly don't have strong feelings about your mother or you are lying when you say that such a comment wouldn't elicit a response.

And I wasn't 'joking', but that doesn't mean I'd ACTUALLY kill that moron.  I might physically harm them, but murder is perhaps a little strong.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 19, 2008, 03:23:11 PM
For jeffislouie to be conceived, did his mom get lucky or did she get worked?

Hey IrrX,

Die in a fire.  People like you are revolting as humans and don't deserve even basic human respect.
Instead of discussing the issues, folks like you find humor and joy in tearing into people's parents.  Seriously, I wish horrible, unspeakable things upon you.  No joke.  IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.
I wonder if your parents would be proud of what you just said?  Perhaps they'd mourn your death until someone informed them what a scumbag they ended up raising.

Way to show just how classy you are.

Don't talk about my mother.  Ever.  You can disrespect me all you want (you are good at it), but even dirtbags like you should have lines they wont cross.......

Alright! Consider that button pushed! And, nice internet tough guy. But I've seen better. Work on it.

IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.

Ummmm...... Anger management issues much?

Yes.  I would say that someone speaking about my mother in an insanely disrespectful way is one method of making me uncontrollably angry.  Maybe you don't mind people asking if your mother got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you, but I actually love my mother.  I also respect her.  And any a-hole who wants to treat her otherwise should expect a violent, angry response.  You know damn well that if anyone said that to you in the real world, you'd blow up too.

I find it ridiculous that you would criticize my anger management without noting the rude, disgusting, and disrespectful comment.  It is interesting that you don't object to that, just my reaction to it.  Go ask your mom if she got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you and make sure to take a picture of the slap mark on your face.


Actually, my mother would be greatly disappointed if I let something so piddling bring me to bring violence against another person, let alone revel in it. So, whose parent did the better job?

Mine.  She taught me to respect women, and mothers.  That's why I haven't stooped to insulting your mother.  She isn't the target.  You are.  Did I commit an act of violence?  Mine would be proud that I would have the guts to stand up to an internet bully with no respect for other people.

Like I said before, I hope bad things happen to you.  Karma has a way of getting back at people like you.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Matthies on September 19, 2008, 03:25:04 PM
For jeffislouie to be conceived, did his mom get lucky or did she get worked?

Hey IrrX,

Die in a fire.  People like you are revolting as humans and don't deserve even basic human respect.
Instead of discussing the issues, folks like you find humor and joy in tearing into people's parents.  Seriously, I wish horrible, unspeakable things upon you.  No joke.  IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.
I wonder if your parents would be proud of what you just said?  Perhaps they'd mourn your death until someone informed them what a scumbag they ended up raising.

Way to show just how classy you are.

Don't talk about my mother.  Ever.  You can disrespect me all you want (you are good at it), but even dirtbags like you should have lines they wont cross.......

Alright! Consider that button pushed! And, nice internet tough guy. But I've seen better. Work on it.

IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.

Ummmm...... Anger management issues much?

Yes.  I would say that someone speaking about my mother in an insanely disrespectful way is one method of making me uncontrollably angry.  Maybe you don't mind people asking if your mother got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you, but I actually love my mother.  I also respect her.  And any a-hole who wants to treat her otherwise should expect a violent, angry response.  You know damn well that if anyone said that to you in the real world, you'd blow up too.

I find it ridiculous that you would criticize my anger management without noting the rude, disgusting, and disrespectful comment.  It is interesting that you don't object to that, just my reaction to it.  Go ask your mom if she got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you and make sure to take a picture of the slap mark on your face.


Actually, my mother would be greatly disappointed if I let something so piddling bring me to bring violence against another person, let alone revel in it. So, whose parent did the better job?

Like I said before, I hope bad things happen to you.  Karma has a way of getting back at people like you.

So waitÖ karma exists, but luck does not? 
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 19, 2008, 03:25:18 PM
Go ahead. Make all the jokes you want about my mom. She's open for business (there's a free one for you). You know what? None of what you say is true, so why should it affect me?

Good.  Then we agree.  You're an a-hole.  Congratulations, you don't even have respect for your mother.

If you believe that respect is earned, you've failed to earn even a little bit.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 19, 2008, 03:27:48 PM
For jeffislouie to be conceived, did his mom get lucky or did she get worked?

Hey IrrX,

Die in a fire.  People like you are revolting as humans and don't deserve even basic human respect.
Instead of discussing the issues, folks like you find humor and joy in tearing into people's parents.  Seriously, I wish horrible, unspeakable things upon you.  No joke.  IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.
I wonder if your parents would be proud of what you just said?  Perhaps they'd mourn your death until someone informed them what a scumbag they ended up raising.

Way to show just how classy you are.

Don't talk about my mother.  Ever.  You can disrespect me all you want (you are good at it), but even dirtbags like you should have lines they wont cross.......

Alright! Consider that button pushed! And, nice internet tough guy. But I've seen better. Work on it.

IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.

Ummmm...... Anger management issues much?

Yes.  I would say that someone speaking about my mother in an insanely disrespectful way is one method of making me uncontrollably angry.  Maybe you don't mind people asking if your mother got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you, but I actually love my mother.  I also respect her.  And any a-hole who wants to treat her otherwise should expect a violent, angry response.  You know damn well that if anyone said that to you in the real world, you'd blow up too.

I find it ridiculous that you would criticize my anger management without noting the rude, disgusting, and disrespectful comment.  It is interesting that you don't object to that, just my reaction to it.  Go ask your mom if she got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you and make sure to take a picture of the slap mark on your face.


Actually, my mother would be greatly disappointed if I let something so piddling bring me to bring violence against another person, let alone revel in it. So, whose parent did the better job?

Like I said before, I hope bad things happen to you.  Karma has a way of getting back at people like you.

So waitÖ karma exists, but luck does not? 

Karma: a belief system that is similar to the saying "what goes around, comes around".

Yes.  Karma exists.  Luck is still horseshit.  If you don't think your actions influence what happens to you, get back to me just before you die.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 19, 2008, 03:28:56 PM
Go ahead. Make all the jokes you want about my mom. She's open for business (there's a free one for you). You know what? None of what you say is true, so why should it affect me?

Good.  Then we agree.  You're an a-hole.  Congratulations, you don't even have respect for your mother.

If you believe that respect is earned, you've failed to earn even a little bit.

No, I have more respect for her than to accept as true something that is totally baseless, and react with violence.

Just not enough respect for her to not imply she's a whore.  Very intelligent argument.  By the way, explain how I reacted with violence....

Weak.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: pig floyd on September 19, 2008, 03:30:05 PM

Karma: a belief system that is similar to the saying "what goes around, comes around".

Yes.  Karma exists.  Luck is still horseshit.  If you don't think your actions influence what happens to you, get back to me just before you die.

Similarly, "luck" is shorthand for saying I believe there are things in this world not under my control.

Nuance, boy.  It goes around and comes around.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Matthies on September 19, 2008, 03:36:05 PM
For jeffislouie to be conceived, did his mom get lucky or did she get worked?

Hey IrrX,

Die in a fire.  People like you are revolting as humans and don't deserve even basic human respect.
Instead of discussing the issues, folks like you find humor and joy in tearing into people's parents.  Seriously, I wish horrible, unspeakable things upon you.  No joke.  IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.
I wonder if your parents would be proud of what you just said?  Perhaps they'd mourn your death until someone informed them what a scumbag they ended up raising.

Way to show just how classy you are.

Don't talk about my mother.  Ever.  You can disrespect me all you want (you are good at it), but even dirtbags like you should have lines they wont cross.......

Alright! Consider that button pushed! And, nice internet tough guy. But I've seen better. Work on it.

IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.

Ummmm...... Anger management issues much?

Yes.  I would say that someone speaking about my mother in an insanely disrespectful way is one method of making me uncontrollably angry.  Maybe you don't mind people asking if your mother got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you, but I actually love my mother.  I also respect her.  And any a-hole who wants to treat her otherwise should expect a violent, angry response.  You know damn well that if anyone said that to you in the real world, you'd blow up too.

I find it ridiculous that you would criticize my anger management without noting the rude, disgusting, and disrespectful comment.  It is interesting that you don't object to that, just my reaction to it.  Go ask your mom if she got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you and make sure to take a picture of the slap mark on your face.


Actually, my mother would be greatly disappointed if I let something so piddling bring me to bring violence against another person, let alone revel in it. So, whose parent did the better job?

Like I said before, I hope bad things happen to you.  Karma has a way of getting back at people like you.

So waitÖ karma exists, but luck does not? 

Karma: a belief system that is similar to the saying "what goes around, comes around".

Yes.  Karma exists.  Luck is still horseshit.  If you don't think your actions influence what happens to you, get back to me just before you die.

But how can what comes around go around, if you saying bad things will happen to Irxx because he posted something anonymously on the internet about your mom, saying that something bad will happen to him because of that seems no more illogical than saying it was luck that saved you from getting hit by the brick they fell from the roof. You canít prove that something bad happening to irxx has anything to do with your ill will towards him or his deeds towards you. Sure your direct actions affect what happens around you, if I drive 80 miles an hour on a wet road around a corner and slide off the road and hit a tree, thatís physics, not karma because I gave some kid a wegy in grade school. Saying something happens bad or good to you because of karma is that same thing as saying something good or bad happened to you because of luck.   
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Defender of Freedom on September 19, 2008, 04:02:20 PM
I fail to see what the last few pages of this thread have to do with President-soon-to-be-elect McCain's choice of running mate.

Not the right way to engage the opposition, in my opinion.  Once you allow emotion to rule your responses, the enemy has you right where he wants you; even if the defense of your mother's honor is justified and your anger righteous.

Hearts and minds, Jeff, hearts and minds!
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Matthies on September 19, 2008, 04:08:36 PM
I fail to see what the last few pages of this thread have to do with President-soon-to-be-elect McCain's choice of running mate.


Let me see if I can tie it all together for you: Sarah Palin is a religious women, her child is pregnant out of wedlock, thatís is a sin in the eyes of god, making her a crappy mother whom Irxx would likely insult thus karma is going to keep her out of the white house which is a lucky break for the country.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: SwEep on September 19, 2008, 04:31:06 PM
I fail to see what the last few pages of this thread have to do with President-soon-to-be-elect McCain's choice of running mate.

Not the right way to engage the opposition, in my opinion.  Once you allow emotion to rule your responses, the enemy has you right where he wants you; even if the defense of your mother's honor is justified and your anger righteous.

Hearts and minds, Jeff, hearts and minds!

OMG!! the enemy's got us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Defender of Freedom on September 19, 2008, 04:34:54 PM
I fail to see what the last few pages of this thread have to do with President-soon-to-be-elect McCain's choice of running mate.

Not the right way to engage the opposition, in my opinion.  Once you allow emotion to rule your responses, the enemy has you right where he wants you; even if the defense of your mother's honor is justified and your anger righteous.

Hearts and minds, Jeff, hearts and minds!

OMG!! the enemy's got us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Sweep, please tell me that in your avatar that isn't a man publicly having sex with another man?
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Matthies on September 19, 2008, 04:48:38 PM
I fail to see what the last few pages of this thread have to do with President-soon-to-be-elect McCain's choice of running mate.

Not the right way to engage the opposition, in my opinion.  Once you allow emotion to rule your responses, the enemy has you right where he wants you; even if the defense of your mother's honor is justified and your anger righteous.

Hearts and minds, Jeff, hearts and minds!

OMG!! the enemy's got us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Sweep, please tell me that in your avatar that isn't a man publicly having sex with another man?

Its a pic of Congressman Mark Foley and Senator Larry Craig fighting over a nubile young page boy in the Republican Senate chambers.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Defender of Freedom on September 19, 2008, 04:59:48 PM
Really?  Looks more like Barney Frank and Mel Reynolds fighting over a teenager.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Matthies on September 19, 2008, 05:11:54 PM
Really?  Looks more like Barney Frank and Mel Reynolds fighting over a teenager.

no, no they just exchange pot for sex
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: bloomlaw on September 19, 2008, 05:51:29 PM


Oh, he was kidding?  Oh, then that's okay.  Next tell me a joke about how my grandmother was raped by nazi's while fleeing the holocaust.  That'd be funny too, wouldn't it....



If she was raped by Nazis, under your logic, its because she didn't work hard enough to get away. Correct? Not attacking your grandmother, so don't throw a hissy fit. But raped women are only raped because they don't try hard enough to not be raped, under your logic.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 19, 2008, 06:46:45 PM


Oh, he was kidding?  Oh, then that's okay.  Next tell me a joke about how my grandmother was raped by nazi's while fleeing the holocaust.  That'd be funny too, wouldn't it....



If she was raped by Nazis, under your logic, its because she didn't work hard enough to get away. Correct? Not attacking your grandmother, so don't throw a hissy fit. But raped women are only raped because they don't try hard enough to not be raped, under your logic.

Interesting logical fallacy you present there....
Moron.
Your logical riddle is a joke on itself.  There are many reasons women are raped, chief among them is that they are either overpowered or otherwise incapacitated.  Your fallacy displays your intellect, me thinks.  By YOUR logic, women get raped because of BAD LUCK.

Classic.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: pig floyd on September 19, 2008, 07:06:26 PM
Moving on...

Aristotle is still proud.  Piggy, however, is rolling in his future grave.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: bloomlaw on September 19, 2008, 07:27:38 PM


Oh, he was kidding?  Oh, then that's okay.  Next tell me a joke about how my grandmother was raped by nazi's while fleeing the holocaust.  That'd be funny too, wouldn't it....



If she was raped by Nazis, under your logic, its because she didn't work hard enough to get away. Correct? Not attacking your grandmother, so don't throw a hissy fit. But raped women are only raped because they don't try hard enough to not be raped, under your logic.

Interesting logical fallacy you present there....
Moron.
Your logical riddle is a joke on itself.  There are many reasons women are raped, chief among them is that they are either overpowered or otherwise incapacitated.  Your fallacy displays your intellect, me thinks.  By YOUR logic, women get raped because of BAD LUCK.

Classic.


LOL. LOL. Can you please understand the question. I'm not asking why guys rape women. My question, simplified for you, is: Why does one woman get raped and the other does not?

So what is the reaon that woman A, a typical average person in the United States per say, gets raped, and woman B, an equal average American, of equal looks, equal strength, and equal money, does not?

Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: pig floyd on September 19, 2008, 07:30:23 PM

So what is the reaon that woman A, a typical average person in the United States per say, gets raped, and woman B, an equal average American, of equal looks, equal strength, and equal money, does not?

Karma.  Clearly.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: jeffislouie on September 19, 2008, 07:40:14 PM


Oh, he was kidding?  Oh, then that's okay.  Next tell me a joke about how my grandmother was raped by nazi's while fleeing the holocaust.  That'd be funny too, wouldn't it....



If she was raped by Nazis, under your logic, its because she didn't work hard enough to get away. Correct? Not attacking your grandmother, so don't throw a hissy fit. But raped women are only raped because they don't try hard enough to not be raped, under your logic.

Interesting logical fallacy you present there....
Moron.
Your logical riddle is a joke on itself.  There are many reasons women are raped, chief among them is that they are either overpowered or otherwise incapacitated.  Your fallacy displays your intellect, me thinks.  By YOUR logic, women get raped because of BAD LUCK.

Classic.


LOL. LOL. Can you please understand the question. I'm not asking why guys rape women. My question, simplified for you, is: Why does one woman get raped and the other does not?

So what is the reaon that woman A, a typical average person in the United States per say, gets raped, and woman B, an equal average American, of equal looks, equal strength, and equal money, does not?



It must be dumb luck.  If we eliminate the predatory nature of rape, let's also be sure to note that in no way do I place the blame on women who are raped.  It couldn't have anything to do with the decision each woman makes or the environment they are in.  It's because some women are just lucky.  It has nothing to do with the company the women keep, the activities they engage in, the places they go, or the people around them.  It is pure luck that most women never get raped.  Great argument.  Do you KNOW any women?  I do.  Lots of them.  Some make sure that every time they are out late, they stay in groups and are careful about their own safety.  Statistically speaking, a woman who walks home late at night while highly intoxicated alone has a higher risk for rape.  It's not because they aren't 'lucky'.

Dumbest attempted theory proof ever.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: pig floyd on September 19, 2008, 07:44:20 PM
This is the dumbest derail ever.   >:(

So...

::pulls rail switching lever::

...who's paying for the rape kit?
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: bloomlaw on September 19, 2008, 08:40:29 PM


Oh, he was kidding?  Oh, then that's okay.  Next tell me a joke about how my grandmother was raped by nazi's while fleeing the holocaust.  That'd be funny too, wouldn't it....



If she was raped by Nazis, under your logic, its because she didn't work hard enough to get away. Correct? Not attacking your grandmother, so don't throw a hissy fit. But raped women are only raped because they don't try hard enough to not be raped, under your logic.

Interesting logical fallacy you present there....
Moron.
Your logical riddle is a joke on itself.  There are many reasons women are raped, chief among them is that they are either overpowered or otherwise incapacitated.  Your fallacy displays your intellect, me thinks.  By YOUR logic, women get raped because of BAD LUCK.

Classic.


LOL. LOL. Can you please understand the question. I'm not asking why guys rape women. My question, simplified for you, is: Why does one woman get raped and the other does not?

So what is the reaon that woman A, a typical average person in the United States per say, gets raped, and woman B, an equal average American, of equal looks, equal strength, and equal money, does not?



It must be dumb luck.  If we eliminate the predatory nature of rape, let's also be sure to note that in no way do I place the blame on women who are raped.  It couldn't have anything to do with the decision each woman makes or the environment they are in.  It's because some women are just lucky.  It has nothing to do with the company the women keep, the activities they engage in, the places they go, or the people around them.  It is pure luck that most women never get raped.  Great argument.  Do you KNOW any women?  I do.  Lots of them.  Some make sure that every time they are out late, they stay in groups and are careful about their own safety.  Statistically speaking, a woman who walks home late at night while highly intoxicated alone has a higher risk for rape.  It's not because they aren't 'lucky'.

Dumbest attempted theory proof ever.

I thought I clearly explained that all environmental factors were equal, but I guess I wasn't specific enough. If you don't want to answer the question because you don't have one, fine, say so.

Why does one drunk, solo woman get raped and another woman, her twin in all aspects, leaves the same bar and doesn't get raped. They are both equally ill prepared. They both take equally safe/dangerous (you choose) routes home. Why does one get raped by some drunk thug on the street and the other one walks peacefully home to wake up with only a bad hangover the next day?

Or switch the situation. They both take all cares, and are home and tucked in by their mommies well before dark. They are equals in every aspect, they both have security systems. Why does one get their house broken into and raped while the other just sleeps?

Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Defender of Freedom on September 19, 2008, 09:24:40 PM
I blame the democrats.  Obviously, if there were more funds for law enforcement instead of mollycoddling said drunken thugs to begin with, there would be a lot less rapists around.

Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Thistle on September 20, 2008, 07:25:56 AM
what if you get raped without asking?  does it not count? 

::likes the word "mollycoddle"::

::dislikes new poster::
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Defender of Freedom on September 20, 2008, 08:02:20 AM
what if you get raped without asking?  does it not count? 

::likes the word "mollycoddle"::

::dislikes new poster::


I'm fairly certain that YOU will not have to worry about that.  Ever.

I don't care much for you, either.  Your lack of a substantive post history plus your overly large post count indicates that:

a.  You have no real-life friends
b.  You aren't really smart enough to post here, let alone attend law school
c.  Are probably ugly

Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Matthies on September 20, 2008, 08:59:07 AM
what if you get raped without asking?  does it not count? 

::likes the word "mollycoddle"::

::dislikes new poster::


b.  You aren't really smart enough to post here, let alone attend law school


First LOL at this response, second if LSD proves anything its that you don't have to be smart to go to law school, read any of the studnet side threads to have that made plainly clear.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Defender of Freedom on September 20, 2008, 10:47:08 AM
what if you get raped without asking?  does it not count? 

::likes the word "mollycoddle"::

::dislikes new poster::


b.  You aren't really smart enough to post here, let alone attend law school


First LOL at this response, second if LSD proves anything its that you don't have to be smart to go to law school, read any of the studnet side threads to have that made plainly clear.


If you can believe her sig, she made it to 3L year, which proves your point admirably.


The talking cup's lips move, but no actual words come out.  Odd.

Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Matthies on September 20, 2008, 11:07:14 AM
what if you get raped without asking?  does it not count? 

::likes the word "mollycoddle"::

::dislikes new poster::


b.  You aren't really smart enough to post here, let alone attend law school


First LOL at this response, second if LSD proves anything its that you don't have to be smart to go to law school, read any of the studnet side threads to have that made plainly clear.


If you can believe her sig, she made it to 3L year, which proves your point admirably.



She is one of the smartest posters on this board and is in the running for federal clerkships, like it or not she's been pretty damn sucessful facing odds you can't imagine. I know nothing of you, but Tasha I respect deeply, she has erned it. And that's saying alot for me since I hate everything.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Thistle on September 20, 2008, 11:17:35 AM
what if you get raped without asking?  does it not count? 

::likes the word "mollycoddle"::

::dislikes new poster::


b.  You aren't really smart enough to post here, let alone attend law school


First LOL at this response, second if LSD proves anything its that you don't have to be smart to go to law school, read any of the studnet side threads to have that made plainly clear.


If you can believe her sig, she made it to 3L year, which proves your point admirably.



She is one of the smartest posters on this board and is in the running for federal clerkships, like it or not she's been pretty damn sucessful facing odds you can't imagine. I know nothing of you, but Tasha I respect deeply, she has erned it. And that's saying alot for me since I hate everything.


omg that is SO SWEET of you!  awwwwwww!   :-*




defender of freetos:  go @#!* yourself

Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: SwEep on September 20, 2008, 12:07:24 PM
what if you get raped without asking?  does it not count? 

::likes the word "mollycoddle"::

::dislikes new poster::


I'm fairly certain that YOU will not have to worry about that.  Ever.

I don't care much for you, either.  Your lack of a substantive post history plus your overly large post count indicates that:

a.  You have no real-life friends
b.  You aren't really smart enough to post here, let alone attend law school
c.  Are probably ugly



LSD deserves a better troll with some wit and humor.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Matthies on September 20, 2008, 01:17:37 PM
Back on topic here for a bit. The thing with me and McCain is that I used to have the upmost respect for the man. I even worked for his senatorial campaign when I lived in AZ. Back when he ran against GWB I thought he was the right choice for the party. I admired the guy for standing up for what he believes in, even to his own party. I used to think John McCain was his own man and that he was seriously in it for the good of the country and public service. This yearís election changed all that. McCain changed.

He started bowing to groups that he used to oppose. I was pretty pissed when he reached out to the religious right (who I feel have almost single handily destroyed the republican party for nothing more than pressing their single-minded social agenda at the expense of what the party used to stand for.) McCain gave in, he started pandering, he is not longer a maverick, he is and will do and say anything to get elected at this point. Iím starting to think he would seriously sell his soul to the devil to be POTUS.

He wants it too bad now, that he has let, in my eyes, what made him great pass by for a chance to grab the brass ring. Heís the girl who tries to hard at the party to impress everyone that no one real likes her in the end. Sarah Palin was the breaking point for me. It was such a politicalcally based move that it made me want to heave. That was the last straw. That women scares me, I donít want her in the white house or leading my party.

It pains me to no end to say I really donít think I can vote for MCain in November. Heís lost his touch, and he seems desperate, too desperate to stick to his morals that once made him such an idol to me. I certainly canít vote for Obama, Iím not a scab, Iím the last of my friends who did not defect in disgust by what the republican party has become. I was a republican before it was cool to be a republican, have been one since my 18th birthday and will remain one all my life. They will take the signed photograph of Ronald Regan off my wall when I die. But McCain is no longer my candidate, he chose the presincdecy over sticking to his core values. He let me down, and I believe our party down.

My only choice now is to vote Ron Paul or write in Pat Buchanan, and thatís a shame, McCain did not have to pander to the fringes of the party to win this, he needed only bring back those in the middle who, like me, are dissatisfied with the scandals, and the big government, and the offensive wars that have taken the party in the wrong direction. But it seems he has given up on us, and his values for any slight advantage he can get to win, that is a disappointing character flaw I never saw till now. Thatís sad for the party and I think in the end it will come back to haunt him and cost him what he has given up so much to try and win. The power has corputed him in my view, its sad when great men fall.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: MahlerGrooves on September 20, 2008, 05:01:33 PM
Back on topic here for a bit. The thing with me and McCain is that I used to have the upmost respect for the man. I even worked for his senatorial campaign when I lived in AZ. Back when he ran against GWB I thought he was the right choice for the party. I admired the guy for standing up for what he believes in, even to his own party. I used to think John McCain was his own man and that he was seriously in it for the good of the country and public service. This yearís election changed all that. McCain changed.

He started bowing to groups that he used to oppose. I was pretty pissed when he reached out to the religious right (who I feel have almost single handily destroyed the republican party for nothing more than pressing their single-minded social agenda at the expense of what the party used to stand for.) McCain gave in, he started pandering, he is not longer a maverick, he is and will do and say anything to get elected at this point. Iím starting to think he would seriously sell his soul to the devil to be POTUS.

He wants it too bad now, that he has let, in my eyes, what made him great pass by for a chance to grab the brass ring. Heís the girl who tries to hard at the party to impress everyone that no one real likes her in the end. Sarah Palin was the breaking point for me. It was such a politicalcally based move that it made me want to heave. That was the last straw. That women scares me, I donít want her in the white house or leading my party.

It pains me to no end to say I really donít think I can vote for MCain in November. Heís lost his touch, and he seems desperate, too desperate to stick to his morals that once made him such an idol to me. I certainly canít vote for Obama, Iím not a scab, Iím the last of my friends who did not defect in disgust by what the republican party has become. I was a republican before it was cool to be a republican, have been one since my 18th birthday and will remain one all my life. They will take the signed photograph of Ronald Regan off my wall when I die. But McCain is no longer my candidate, he chose the presincdecy over sticking to his core values. He let me down, and I believe our party down.

My only choice now is to vote Ron Paul or write in Pat Buchanan, and thatís a shame, McCain did not have to pander to the fringes of the party to win this, he needed only bring back those in the middle who, like me, are dissatisfied with the scandals, and the big government, and the offensive wars that have taken the party in the wrong direction. But it seems he has given up on us, and his values for any slight advantage he can get to win, that is a disappointing character flaw I never saw till now. Thatís sad for the party and I think in the end it will come back to haunt him and cost him what he has given up so much to try and win. The power has corputed him in my view, its sad when great men fall.


That pretty much sums it up, actually.  Agree totally.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on September 20, 2008, 05:06:40 PM
what if you get raped without asking?  does it not count? 

::likes the word "mollycoddle"::

::dislikes new poster::


b.  You aren't really smart enough to post here, let alone attend law school


First LOL at this response, second if LSD proves anything its that you don't have to be smart to go to law school, read any of the studnet side threads to have that made plainly clear.

That's cold, Matthies. Very cold.  Accurate, but cold. lol :D

Oh, and good substantive post on McCain as well. Although, he has to pander a bit to actually win this thing. He's a politician. Even the sincere and great ones have to pander to get the support they need to win.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: pig floyd on September 20, 2008, 05:24:21 PM
Oh, and good substantive post on McCain as well. Although, he has to pander a bit to actually win this thing. He's a politician. Even the sincere and great ones have to pander to get the support they need to win.

Matthies would rather have him pander to the anti-pandering demographic.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Matthies on September 20, 2008, 05:43:59 PM
what if you get raped without asking?  does it not count? 

::likes the word "mollycoddle"::

::dislikes new poster::


b.  You aren't really smart enough to post here, let alone attend law school


First LOL at this response, second if LSD proves anything its that you don't have to be smart to go to law school, read any of the studnet side threads to have that made plainly clear.

That's cold, Matthies. Very cold.  Accurate, but cold. lol :D

Oh, and good substantive post on McCain as well. Although, he has to pander a bit to actually win this thing. He's a politician. Even the sincere and great ones have to pander to get the support they need to win.

I honestly donít think he had to pander to get elected. I think he could have won this thing with orginal straight talk approach. The republican strategists are replaying 2004, and I donít think they really have their heads around the fact that the electorate has changed since then. You canít win this thing on the backs of the religious right anymore. They are a fickle group, they will only come out in droves this time in the few states where there are abortion or gay rights issues on the ballot, thatís not the majority of states like it was in 2004. They are one shot ponies and have shot their wad.
 
McCain could have rallied the moderates, the true republicans, he could have said he was going to take the party back, he could have distanced himself from Bush and from the current state of affairs and won, easily. Instead he shat upon us and pandered. He HAD the moderate vote, he had conservative democrats, he had the thing in his hand, and he gave it up, they are trying to re-create what worked in 2004, those days are gone, and they just canít see it. There is a reason both sides are talking about change, the replucians in charge just donít see that their own constituents wanted change hence why MCain got the nomination in the first place. Roven tactics are going to lose this election, because they are so out of touch with the pulse of the mainstream members of the party. The party is fighting the last war and becuase of that we will lose the white house, and likley any chance in either house.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: maddlibs on September 20, 2008, 11:22:49 PM
what if you get raped without asking?  does it not count? 

::likes the word "mollycoddle"::

::dislikes new poster::


I'm fairly certain that YOU will not have to worry about that.  Ever.

I don't care much for you, either.  Your lack of a substantive post history plus your overly large post count indicates that:

a.  You have no real-life friends
b.  You aren't really smart enough to post here, let alone attend law school
c.  Are probably ugly



Actually- hic

I met Tasha (or someone named Tasha) at a fundraiser for potential law student scholarships'ses or somtheing er other.....burp

at first, youre right... she wuz ugly, but then as the night wore on and the Goose began to flow....I dont kno...something happended, something romantic....she started to grow on me and I frautered her or tried to at least. What a woman! Nights like that make me feel lucky (good karmatized) to be a Senator.

Then as the night wore on I offered to give her a ride home and it was all down hill from there. SHe was scared as hell of my car for some reason.

women. hic
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: SCK2008 on May 14, 2009, 12:29:14 PM
Bump.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Julie Fern on May 14, 2009, 01:04:38 PM
such fond memories.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 18, 2009, 11:10:27 PM
what if you get raped without asking?  does it not count? 

::likes the word "mollycoddle"::

::dislikes new poster::


b.  You aren't really smart enough to post here, let alone attend law school


First LOL at this response, second if LSD proves anything its that you don't have to be smart to go to law school, read any of the studnet side threads to have that made plainly clear.

That's cold, Matthies. Very cold.  Accurate, but cold. lol :D

Oh, and good substantive post on McCain as well. Although, he has to pander a bit to actually win this thing. He's a politician. Even the sincere and great ones have to pander to get the support they need to win.

I honestly donít think he had to pander to get elected. I think he could have won this thing with orginal straight talk approach. The republican strategists are replaying 2004, and I donít think they really have their heads around the fact that the electorate has changed since then. You canít win this thing on the backs of the religious right anymore. They are a fickle group, they will only come out in droves this time in the few states where there are abortion or gay rights issues on the ballot, thatís not the majority of states like it was in 2004. They are one shot ponies and have shot their wad.
 
McCain could have rallied the moderates, the true republicans, he could have said he was going to take the party back, he could have distanced himself from Bush and from the current state of affairs and won, easily. Instead he shat upon us and pandered. He HAD the moderate vote, he had conservative democrats, he had the thing in his hand, and he gave it up, they are trying to re-create what worked in 2004, those days are gone, and they just canít see it. There is a reason both sides are talking about change, the replucians in charge just donít see that their own constituents wanted change hence why MCain got the nomination in the first place. Roven tactics are going to lose this election, because they are so out of touch with the pulse of the mainstream members of the party. The party is fighting the last war and becuase of that we will lose the white house, and likley any chance in either house.



many pubs are now in the democrat party...hillibrand was elected in ny...hint hint... ;)
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: Julie Fern on May 20, 2009, 11:16:02 AM
yes.  repubicans bad, democrats slightly less worse.

we screwed.
Title: Re: John McCain's VP Selection is a Complete Disaster For The Republicans
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 20, 2009, 09:10:49 PM
yes.  repubicans bad, democrats slightly less worse.

we screwed.

your thinking screwed.  :D :D :D...pubs are dems...left wing dems r screwed.