Originally Posted By gadzuux >> This is where, unable to provide facts, you change the subject and try to smear by association, right? << Phil Gramm is one of McCain's best friends. He was also co-chair of his campaign. He got sent to his room after the 'whining' comment, but he's still integral to the McCain campaing - which isn't changing the subject, and the association between McCain and Gramm is laughably undeniable. And I wasn't unable to "provide facts" - I provided several. Do you care to dispute the facts?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It is not a fact that Sen Gramm was "the guy who was arguably most responsible for the sub-prime bubble in the first place" or that he was "most responsible for the deregulation that led to enron's bilking the state of california out of billions of dollars before it collapsed due to it's own corruption". Those are liberal talking points.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<This is just plain false.> <No, it's not.> Yes, it is, and I think you've even tacitly admitted that now. McCain's only defense was quoting PART of the bill in question but not other parts, thus robbing it of context and creating a half-truth... which as my parents always told me, is as bad as a lie. <I'll admit that the McCain campaign distorted Sen Obama's record> Interesting. There's the tacit admission that they did - after you initially denied that they did. <when you guys admit you've been distorting Gov Palin's position on book banning, creationism, abortion, and pork> Personally, I never weighed in about book banning. On creationism, she said "teach 'em both" - she said other things that leaves her position ambiguous, and I said that too. On abortion, her position is clear: abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape and incest. Never said anything else except that that's out of step with the majority of the country, even a good percentage of those who are pro-life in general. On pork, she denied some, and lobbied to get some. She supported the Bridge to Nowhere when running for Governor, and that cannot be denied. It's only an issue because SHE distorted her own record by claiming she said "no thanks" which is intentionally misleading, since she only did so AFTER it became a national symbol of pork. She hired a lobbying firm to bring goodies to Wasilla while mayor (a first for Wasilla AFAIK), and as Governor supported more earmarks per capita for Alaska than any other state. She might be marginally better than her predecessor as Gov. of Alaska, but that's a very low bar. In other words, she's not the biggest pork-lover in the world, but she's hardly the crusader against it she's claiming to be. If they hadn't tried to paint her as something she isn't, it probably wouldn't even be an issue. <and that Sen Obama distorted Sen McCain's statement about staying in Iraq for 100 years."> That I think is a fair cop. McCain's flippant comment didn't mean he wanted our troops there in their current capacity for 100 years, just that they might be there in some capacity. Many Democrats have seized on that comment unfairly, IMO. Having said that, the attempted analogy to Germany, say, doesn't really hold up (we haven't stayed for most of our time there to prevent the rise of the Nazis again, or to control the German populace or to keep them from fighting each other - we were there as a presence against a Russian invasion, so not really an analogous situation with our presence in Iraq, which is primarily to keep warring factions more peaceable.)
Originally Posted By FaMulan Anyone who even thinks of, or hypothetically discusses banning books scares me.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There's the tacit admission that they did - after you initially denied that they did.> I denied that it was a "despicable" lie. I still deny that. What too many here are unable to understand is that reasonable people can look at the evidence and come to a different opinion. The McCain campaign looked at the evidence and drew a reasonable conclusion.
Originally Posted By gadzuux No reasonable person could believe that Obama favors comprehensive sex education for five year olds. Just as no reasonable person could believe that Obama was calling Palin a pig.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>No reasonable person could believe that Obama favors comprehensive sex education for five year olds. Just as no reasonable person could believe that Obama was calling Palin a pig.<< But reasonability seems to have left many McCain supporters during the convention. They are entirely caught up in the Palin bounce. So yet again we see, just as we did in 2004 when the war hero was made the coward, and the dodger was made the hero, that up is down and black is white. Palin is experienced, Obama isn't. A "community organizer" is something to deride and mock. Change is needed in Washington, and the party that's been in charge is the one to do it. Bristol Palin deserves her privacy and the right to make her own decision regarding her pregnancy, but other American girls should have that same right taken away from them by the government. Sarah Palin never supported the bridge to nowhere. On and on and on the absurdity goes. If you believe McCain will be the better CiC, it's understandable. If you really think we don't need a timetable in Iraq, fair enough. There are, of course, legitimate disagreements to be had. But these are not the talking points of the Republican party or the McCain campaign right now. It's to turn inside into out, and up into down. And it's a sad commentary on the Republican party that they weren't energized until that started to happen.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The McCain campaign looked at the evidence and drew a reasonable conclusion.> Nope. Gadzuux said it well. Moreover, I think they're well aware it's not a reasonable conclusion, but they're willing to use any little thing that can possibly be misconstrued to raise doubts, muddy the waters, intentionally mislead people about Obama's positions. People on the left do this too, but except for the "100 years" thing, I haven't seen Obama himself do this. He really hasn't gotten down and dirty yet, and it may have hurt him. Left wing bloggers and the like have said some scurrilous things about Palin (and McCain), but Obama has not. Certainly nothing as scurrilous as this "he wants to teach 5-year olds about sex before they learn to read" stuff. Here's an honest question, Doug. I think (hope) you're too smart to really believe that Obama was referring to Palin when he used that well-known expression about a pig and lipstick (that McCain himself has been quoted as saying multiple times). Do you really think he was referring to Palin? If not, do you think it's responsible for the McCain camp to insist that he is? Don't you think they themselves know better?
Originally Posted By ecdc I can't help but wonder how deliberate the timing was on McCain's absurd "sex ed" ad. Did he release it on September 10th in the hopes that Obama wouldn't be able to respond on September 11th without being accused by Republicans of politicizing the day (and talk about your irony)?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No reasonable person could believe that Obama favors comprehensive sex education for five year olds. Just as no reasonable person could believe that Obama was calling Palin a pig.> Perhaps. Or perhaps no reasonable person would make the claims you just made.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Lame attempt at moral equivalence. Nothing gadzuux said in that post was unreasonable. Care to answer my questions at the end of #68? Do YOU really think Obama was calling Palin a pig?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Do you really think he was referring to Palin? If not, do you think it's responsible for the McCain camp to insist that he is?> If you watch the video, it sure seems like his audience thought he was. And since it was a prepared speech, and not an off the cuff remark, it seems unlikely the Senator or his speechwriter would have been unaware of the connotations. But I wish the McCain camp hadn't made such a big deal about this; it smacks of whining, and I'd rather they leave that to the Democrats.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Do you really think he was referring to Palin? If not, do you think it's responsible for the McCain camp to insist that he is?>> <If you watch the video, it sure seems like his audience thought he was.> That's not the same thing, and you know it. Also, the "pig on a lipstick" line is inherently funny. On one of the clips they have of McCain saying it, his audience laughs too, without any such connections, obviously, since it was from a while ago. <And since it was a prepared speech, and not an off the cuff remark, it seems unlikely the Senator or his speechwriter would have been unaware of the connotations.> That's assuming too much. Palin doesn't "own" the word lipstick now. It's a common expression, and said exactly what Obama meant to say, i.e. you can dress something old up and try to make it look new, but it's still that old thing. <But I wish the McCain camp hadn't made such a big deal about this; it smacks of whining, and I'd rather they leave that to the Democrats.> The GOP is doing more of that this year than the Democrats, IMO (I'm sure not IYO).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh - also - I just noticed you didn't actually answer the question: "Do YOU really think Obama was calling Palin a pig?" You evaded it. Is that because you don't want to admit that obviously he wasn't doing that, you know that darn well, and it's a little embarrassing to you that the McCain camp is claiming he did?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Nothing gadzuux said in that post was unreasonable.> And yet, reasonable people disagree with him.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...YkNQlJMM</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMHlIfOTS1c&feature=iv" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=iv</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXokM9TaxeA&feature=iv" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=iv</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And maybe, if ever she is freed from captivity by her handlers and allowed to speak with the press, Sarah Palin can weigh in on this. I'm sure it will be discussed at length in the Charles Gibson interview, as it is the most important issue of our time. (eye roll)
