You were spouting the same lines long before the FISA vote about something else, so no go bro

Sorry your panties are in a wad. Millions of others aren't willing to see a Bush term 3 because they got their panties in a wad over one bill.

It was going to pass anyway, or didn't you read that part?

#56 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-10-13 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

I already said I didn't like him. So did Corky, at the time. So what? I wans't behind him before but I was fully willing to pull the D lever and just feel dirty. THAT is what I was saying before the FISA thing. I know how I've always felt about this. I always said Hillary was better. So did Corky, if you remember. What I said was the FISA thing pushed me over the edge, now I find him to be totally without merit. Difference is Corky is more loyal to the Democrat party then to the ideals it's supposed to represent, so Corky changed allegiances.

Where do you get this magical thing wherein I wasn;t saying what I was saying? I know it makes you feel better to believe that the FISA thing is just an "excuse", but you're just wrong. You are trying to blame it SOLELY on my dislike of the man, whereas I am saying that dislike sure didn't help him, and FISA PUSHED IT OVER THE EDGE. That there is a point with every man you cannot cross, and Obama took a running leap over it.

His FISA vote was not only a direct LIE to his supporters, it was also treachery to the very ideals of a Liberal. And people like you excuse that. I think even if you get the lying sleaze into office, it won't be as bad as McCain but it will sitll be _really bad_. You will find out that a traitor does not change his stripes.

And shame on you for supporting a traitor.

... I don't think either candidate will lift a finger to enforce the laws already on our books, never mind new ones. Immigration isn't mentioned by McCain because his corporate buddies would hate the flow of illegals to stop, and it isn't mentioned by Obama because he's terrified of "losing the Hispanic vote".

Give it a rest. You have zero credibility with me anymore

#49 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-10-13 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your opinion doesn't matter to me. Do you know why? Because you support a dirty candidate who doesn't care to defend our rights. You are more concerned with getting someone with a "D" after their name into office then you are with whether that person is actually worthy of it. I don't care if Obama supporters don't give me credibility.

It's irrelevant what those who support a traitor think of those who refuse to.

How do you know that the constant stream of negative stories about Palin is not causing her current 36 approval, 58 disapproval rating? What matters to you is not necessarily what matters to other voters.

I think Palin's use of her child as a prop matters. It's not one of the big issues of the campaign by any stretch of the imagination, but it's worth noting as we size up her character.

#39 | Posted by rcade at 2008-10-13 09:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Call it a gut feeling, Rogers, if you have to. I just think that a campaign like McCain/Palin shouldn't ever be polling above 20%. To me, that means the media/the democrats are doing something HUGELY, HORRIBLY wrong. Look at the Retort, Rogers. Since the day they announced Sarah, I have never seen less then 4 headlines with her name on them. I trudge into them and check them out dutifully enough, and half of them turn out to be useless crap. You say you think that using her child is an issue to you?

I doubt the people at large care. It looks to me like the kids are having the time of their lives and that's not going to hurt her campaign. Your average parent probably looks at that and goes, "Well, they're on a heck of an adventure, chanc eof a lifetime. They probably have tutors keeping the kids caught up in school." Nobody really seems to give a crap about good parenting these days. For a while there I heard the Republicans crying about how they were sick of Obama's daughters. (Though it turns out there was nowhere near an equal usage of children, and it seems they're just being crazy.)

You know what I think is giving her low numbers? Her lackluster debate performance. Her habit of running off at the mouth and saying ridiculous things. Her inability to handle being interviewed by a spritely sparkly creature of the wood who tossed her softballs. I think THESE things, the real things with actual substance, are what is hurting her.

She actually hit me pretty high when I first heard of her, and the way she was packaged she actually seemed like the one person in this worth having in office, but then she opened her mouth and I found her to be useless. The woman failed to live up to her own hype. However, I also believe that piling onto her with things that don't matter, that have NO substance, are why her numbers are still as good as they are.

I decided that, at least for my vote, you have to try harder. I'm no longer giving the Democrats my vote by default. They have to earn it. Who am I to decide this? Just one voter. Shades of ol' Ronnie here, but I did not leave the Democrat party. The Democrat party left _me_. I have higher standards. I do not want McCain in office. I ALSO do not want Obama in office. Can you people understand that? It's not a matter of my actions helping McCain into office. It's too late to salvage that. If McCain gets into office, you Obama supporters have caused that. You should have thought about this before you raged and frothed for a dirty candidate more interested in his own power then the rights of his constituency. I make fun of Biden but hell, even _he_ woulda got my vote. A quick scan of his politics shows him to not be EVIL. I don't really blame him for the reason I rip on him. I wouldn't turn down a VP nomination either. I wouldn't care that the President candidate was unqualified and dirty. That's the VP, man. That means in 4 or 8 more years I'd be the incumbent.

I find myself looking at Nader's candidacy and his platform makes more and more sense. This guy's a TRUE liberal. We don't agree on all points, and the man himself is an arrogant egomaniacal twit, but he DOESN'T SELL OUT HIS PRINCIPLES JUST FOR MORE POWER and that's very important to me. I'm not so naive to think a perfect politician will ever come along, but Nader is actually closer to it then Obama.

Anywho, that longwinded stuff.. THAT is why I can't hold myself personally responsible for a McCain presidency. Every man has a line that can't be crossed. Obama didn't just cross it, but he took a fullblown running leap over it, and then made a sickening excuse for doing it, which was swallowed up whole without question by a party of sycophants. The independants won't elect McCain, the Democrats will. After Bush's performance the polls should be showing about 80/20. The Democrats screwed up. Horribly.

SITDOWN

I couldn't get the point.

SOHEIFOX doesn't want the Republicans to get help, but he's voting 3rd party. I'd hate to venture a guess why, but he lives in ... Montana (you fill in your own reasons. I have mine).

So, he's gonna help the Republicans.

#46 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-10-13 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

I used to think the same way. I used to think that I would be doing the country a favour by voting for the lesser of two evils. I perpetuated the EXACT SAME MYTH that you are. I got angry at people in 2000, saying that Nader "cost us the Presidency". Like I said in another thread, the FISA vote pushed me over the edge. That act of complete party treachery showed me Obama didn't give a shit about anything but ensuring Obama gets more power. He promised us he would filibuster against such a heinous attack on the Constitution. Instead, he voted for it.

I guess it's disingenuous to say that pushed me over the edge. Because it wasn't Obama's treachery that did it. As soon as I heard about it, I thought my party would be up in arms. I thought there would be people darn near rioting. I thought Obama would end up having to hold a press conference explaining his actions. Instead, I heard some people get mildly annoyed, and then nothing about it at all. When it was brought up later, people would give some weak-ass excuse about him voting that way to help him get elected. Mt party, the party of civil rights, the party of privacy, the party of _the Constitution_... had given him a pass, saying it was a "political move".

That divorced me from my ideals. I realized that I could not accept that answer. I can accept irresponsibility (Clinton), I can accept hyperbole (Al Gore), I can even except being downright boring, (Kerry). But I cannot accept someone who will not use his position to defend my Constitutional rights. That shit is supposed to be SOLELY the realm of the Republicans. Obama has proven himself; while still the LESSER of evils.. to be a heinous evil indeed. Finding out about his past dealings, the dirty campaigns he has run in the past? That simply added more weight against him.

And so help me, I have to admit one of the Republican talking points got through as well, but mostly because of Obama's actions. Jeremiah Wright. Rather then be a man and state, "Yes, I know Wright holds these views. But he speaks to my heart the voice of God. Though he is an imperfect man, a sinner, like all of us, his church is the house of worship my family calls home." (Christians help me out here, that woulda been pretty much the right verbiage, correct?) Instead, the weaselly liar claimed to have gone there for 20 years and never have noticed that.. oh but he was leaving the church anyway.

The problem of your frustration comes from the fact that You are the one out of step with the current Democlown Party.

Boob and Ninja are the true face, and true voice, of Liberals today. Petty, nasty, ugly and void of any semblance of decency.

#23 | Posted by vernon at 2008-10-13 12:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

See, that's the thing though. I honestly hope that's not true. I tend to think that allowing someone as dirty as Obama into office was an oversight. Anxiety, overeager. Too eager to prove America isn't racist to actually wait for someone who is qualified and has shown dedication to the ideals of the liberal movement to step up. I want the Democrats to get better, to correct their mistakes. I tend to think they're not so far gone as the Republicans.

(sorry, NOW I'm off to bed)

As for 'sewing' that post was a plant, and you know it. I was trying to see how long it would take for someone to catch it. You illustrate the modern face of Liberalism: Petty, vulgar, humorless and whiny.

So, you will vote for Osama after all

#23 | Posted by vernon at 2008-10-13 12:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Does anyone here actually believe Vern when he says that? Anyone? Honestly.

And for everyone else, night! I promise I'll come back here and fight with ya'all tomorrow afternoon or so. Until then.. have at me.

Sohe, if Obama loses every dead soldier means more blood on your hands.

#20 | Posted by rastaninja at 2008-10-13 12:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Go away, you rightwing sockpuppet. I've said it before, and I'm bored of saying it, everyone with a brain can see right through you. You're boring.

Sorry, Shoe-in-Mouth, but these two statements are inconsistent.

#15 | Posted by vernon at 2008-10-13 12:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hey Vern, why don't you go "sew" your field some more?

Hey, thanks for making my point, Jackass!!

Once more, If an undecided voter gets it into his head that the likes of bOoB or Rastaninja are the face of Obama supporters, they are just going to vote for a Republican out of spite for the mentality they believe his followers have.

McCain's negative campaign is helping the Democrats.

#6 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-10-13 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

And I'll never lift a finger to disapprove of him doing so, either.

Ah c'mon, even if you DID guess the right reason in that giant pile I couldn't give it to you, Nanc.

Weird. Thought I had replaced those "shit"s with "stuff"s. Meh. Anywho, have at me, guys.

"OK folks, who agrees with Mr Cognitive Dissonance?

Come on!

Pony up!"

Posted by Zatoichi

Anybody?
No?

How surprising.

It's late, off to bed.

#152 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-10-12 11:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

..the AP does. The majority of news outlets do. That's a lot of people.

Of course the denizens of a blog that was threatened with a lawsuit by the AP doesn't like the AP. Yav enlightened me to that one already. I'd be surprised if anyone on this blog DID chime in an agree with me.

Why would you even ask such a question to an echo chamber?

(though I will STILL be happy to go a few more rounds over here with anyone stupid enough to continue to claim the AP is anything less then reputable and has been for a very long time)

Actually, I'm getting way too deeply into this:

I'm gonna go ahead and make a blog post which will likely end up on the back page for a while about why I do the things I do. Follow me on over there in a few minutes and rip on me there if you want.

"I heard them drowned out almost instantly"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaa

You really should get back on your anti-psychotics.

#137 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-10-12 10:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then we swing back around. If you _personally_ believe you heard something different then what I heard, then that means you are also, by necessity, saying everyone who agrees with me is lying. THAT is how we got to the whole Associated Press thing. If I am lying, _so are they_. And since the whole world _really does_ see them as a "gold standard" of factual news reporting....

Are you saying they're throwing away over a hundred years of integrity just to make Palin look good?

Does THAT scenario seem more likely, or does it seem more likely that bloggers with a history of being Anti-Palin whether it makes sense or not, are trying their hardest to hear what they want to hear?

We have to go on what a majority of the world heard. A quick google search for "Palin drops puck" indicates headlines with mixed reactions, and article text that states the boos were at the beginning but drowned out. Most of them, in fact, directly quote the AP article.

If you want to talk about who is delusional here, Zat, I'm thinking we're gonna have to go with the obviously anti-Palin blogger who disagrees with.. well.. the whole rest of the world, it seems.

If a clear majority of news sources say that you're wrong, Zat... you just might be wrong to say everyone else is deluding themselves. You might want to consider your own partisan leaning are influencing you to only hear what you WANT to hear.

honestly, SF, do you not hear the "spirited" boos at the beginning of your link? you must. I'm not sure how we got on the subject of the AP, but let's circle back. was she "heartily booed" or not. forget the press, what do your ears tell you?

#134 | Posted by steamingpile at 2008-10-12 10:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I heard some boos. I never said I didn't. (Neither did the AP story, incidentally) I heard them drowned out almost instantly by cheers. Unless you're alleging that the NHL piped in an applause soundtrack, that means that the "spirited boos" were in a _serious_ minority. They had quicker reaction time, but they were a definite minority.

You think Americans have been burned? Wait until a Democrat and Obama administration gets through with Americans. The GOP and Bush "burn" will seem like nothing in comparison.

#70 | Posted by anamerican at 2008-10-12 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

See, I'm inclined to think Obama is useless and a traitor to liberal ideals, but I'm gonna have to call shenanigans on your statement.

There's no way Obama could make Bush look like a piker. My youngest _cat_ couldn't do as bad as Bush at being the President, and you're seriously trying to tell me you expect someone to exceed him in the "epic fail" category?

No shit. Not only that, but the AP is some "golden standard" of News.

#130 | Posted by YAV at 2008-10-12 10:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

They have been. Since the late 1800's. Really, the _entire world_ recognizes the AP as exactly that, a golden standard of news reporting, right up there with Reuters and that.. French one... I think it;s called French Press.

I am not even _vaguely_ alone in thinking of the AP that way, guys. The world AT LARGE seems to agree with me on this.

pretty easily countered by the presence of some bigwig from the Trib.

#128 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-10-12 10:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or not, turns out said bigwig is not a superliberal himself, but more somewhere in the middle. Had to read a bit longer on Zell.

So that's the statement I'm getting here, that the AP is a tainted source, despite being respected for it's neutrality and integrity nonstop since the late 1800's.

Is anyone here not saying that? Just so I can keep track here.

Unless we are STILL taking the mere _presence_ of Rupert Murdoch,

("In a 2008 interview with Walt Mossberg, Murdoch was asked whether he had "anything to do with the New York Post's endorsement of Barack Obama." Without hesitation, Murdoch replied, "Yeah. He is a rock star. It's fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don't think he will win Florida...but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk.")

as instant proof that the source must be biased.

By the way, chief? Yeah the Chicago Tribune is an overwhelmingly liberal-slanted newspaper. That's why I still subscribe to it in Montana, I like to get a less right-oriented slant on the news. So, even if we are to argue that Rupert Murdoch.. who believes Obama will win.. is a super right winger, it's pretty easily countered by the presence of some bigwig from the Trib.

We all learned about the AP a while back with their lawyers threatening the Retort. You touting the AP isn't going to win you any points.

#123 | Posted by YAV at 2008-10-12 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

The AP threatening someone for allowing mass uncredited portions of their text to appear on a website is not at all relevant to their longstanding history of being a credible news outlet.

It's only relevant to their desire to ensure their work is properly protected.