McCain and Palin - Family Values -

On Sep 1, 4:59*pm, Robert Chung wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:33*pm, Bill C wrote:

Looks like the holier than thou, and much more moral than us folks
over at Daily Kos trotted this out.

Yeah, if only it'd happened to a Democrat, the right could've
demonstrated how to handle themselves with tact, sensitivity, and
decorum.


Can you imagine if this had happened to
Chelsea Clinton? There would have been
so much finger pointing, you'd see a sharp
increase in pundits coming down with finger
cancer.

Is there a betting line on Palin being forced into an Eagleton?

I think the Republicans are in too deep to back
out now. Having chosen Palin to appeal to the
mom vote, if they dump her in favor of one of
the other possibilities (nearly all rich white guys)
because of something her kid did, it will alienate
the people they were trying to appeal to. It would
also reinforce the idea that anything that happens
in a family is mom's fault, which would be
unfortunate. Let them have their sudden embrace
of tolerance.

Ben

On Sep 1, 8:35*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill C

wrote:
I'm pro-choice but I'm very concious of what that means. I here a ton
of denial of those things from other pro choice folks.

Bill, one of these days it'd be nice to hear you not diss the many
liberal people who believe in the same policies you do. *It's soo
bizarre to read your positions and then, again and again, read you
throw in a line about how you're more independent or not aligned with
MoveOn or whatever.

JT How many pro-choice folks do you hear justify their position by
insisting that it's not a life, or not viable, etc...? That's what I
was referring to.
I don't see how people can make that case, especially for late term
abortions, but they do.
Bill C

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:39:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
wrote:

On Sep 1, 8:35*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill C

wrote:
I'm pro-choice but I'm very concious of what that means. I here a ton
of denial of those things from other pro choice folks.

Bill, one of these days it'd be nice to hear you not diss the many
liberal people who believe in the same policies you do. *It's soo
bizarre to read your positions and then, again and again, read you
throw in a line about how you're more independent or not aligned with
MoveOn or whatever.

JT How many pro-choice folks do you hear justify their position by
insisting that it's not a life, or not viable, etc...? That's what I
was referring to.


Yeah, yeah, you're more independent, more thoughtful, etc etc. You
also have a perverse need to diss people who vote the same way you do
on issues. If you lived in a state where your vote mattered a lot on
issues like that, it'd seem like you're undermining what you believe
in in terms of the ways elections go.

On Sep 1, 8:39*pm, "
wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:59*pm, Robert Chung wrote:

On Sep 1, 4:33*pm, Bill C wrote:

Looks like the holier than thou, and much more moral than us folks
over at Daily Kos trotted this out.

Yeah, if only it'd happened to a Democrat, the right could've
demonstrated how to handle themselves with tact, sensitivity, and
decorum.

Can you imagine if this had happened to
Chelsea Clinton? *There would have been
so much finger pointing, you'd see a sharp
increase in pundits coming down with finger
cancer.

Is there a betting line on Palin being forced into an Eagleton?

I think the Republicans are in too deep to back
out now. *Having chosen Palin to appeal to the
mom vote, if they dump her in favor of one of
the other possibilities (nearly all rich white guys)
because of something her kid did, it will alienate
the people they were trying to appeal to. *It would
also reinforce the idea that anything that happens
in a family is mom's fault, which would be
unfortunate. *Let them have their sudden embrace
of tolerance.

Ben

They'll keep her and are selling this big time. Dobson has already
embraced this as the "perfect" way for a family to handle this
situation. It's actually looking like a big positive among the
hardcore conservative base.
Bill C

On Sep 1, 5:39*pm, "
wrote:

Is there a betting line on Palin being forced into an Eagleton?

I think the Republicans are in too deep to back
out now. *Having chosen Palin to appeal to the
mom vote, if they dump her in favor of one of
the other possibilities (nearly all rich white guys)
because of something her kid did, it will alienate
the people they were trying to appeal to. *It would
also reinforce the idea that anything that happens
in a family is mom's fault, which would be
unfortunate. *Let them have their sudden embrace
of tolerance.

Oh, no, I wasn't suggesting The Dead Pool because of her kid's
behavior -- I'm thinking more widely about the drip, drip, drip due to
the lack of vetting.

On Sep 1, 5:47*pm, Bill C wrote:

They'll keep her and are selling this big time. Dobson has already
embraced this as the "perfect" way for a family to handle this
situation. It's actually looking like a big positive among the
hardcore conservative base.

If it's so much of a positive, why didn't their campaign release the
info earlier?

On Sep 1, 7:59*pm, Robert Chung wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:33*pm, Bill C wrote:

Looks like the holier than thou, and much more moral than us folks
over at Daily Kos trotted this out.

Yeah, if only it'd happened to a Democrat, the right could've
demonstrated how to handle themselves with tact, sensitivity, and
decorum.

Is there a betting line on Palin being forced into an Eagleton?

What's the Palin spread Eagleton?

R

On Sep 1, 8:45*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:39:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill C





wrote:
On Sep 1, 8:35*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill C

wrote:
I'm pro-choice but I'm very concious of what that means. I here a ton
of denial of those things from other pro choice folks.

Bill, one of these days it'd be nice to hear you not diss the many
liberal people who believe in the same policies you do. *It's soo
bizarre to read your positions and then, again and again, read you
throw in a line about how you're more independent or not aligned with
MoveOn or whatever.

JT How many pro-choice folks do you hear justify their position by
insisting that it's not a life, or not viable, etc...? That's what I
was referring to.

Yeah, yeah, you're more independent, more thoughtful, etc etc. You
also have a perverse need to diss people who vote the same way you do
on issues. *If you lived in a state where your vote mattered a lot on
issues like that, it'd seem like you're undermining what you believe
in in terms of the ways elections go.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

JT I wrote a long response and trashed it because it's flogging a
dead horse.
I wish I could get everything from one party. Unfortunately a lot of
things that are important to me are seriously opposed by the hardcore
of each party in turn. In a swing State I'd probably vote for the
party opposite that controlling, or projected to control Congress.
If I was absolutely forced to vote for one of these two I'd vote
Obama at this point and then fight like hell to limit the damage to
things I care about while encouraging him to fix the things I support
in his platform.
I don't think he's crazy enough to unilaterally expand the war into
Pakistan like he keeps insisting he's going to, but if he does I sure
as hell hope he's ready for all hell to break loose, and will fight
that by throwing out the rules, because it's gonna take that, and then
some to go get BinLaden and his supporters, and protectors in
Pakistans intelligence service. I'm betting that's rhetoric.
I'm betting that 95% of his platform is rhetoric too because it is
totally different from just about every vote he's made, and position
he's taken in the past. Even his supporters on the left are getting
anxious about this new "centrist" Obama. I don't think they have
enything to worry about. Maybe I'm just paranoid because GWB turned
out to be a lieing sack of **** and he really has changed his
positions, but things keep coming out that make me doubt it.
Bill C

"Anton Berlin" wrote in message
...
1. Tripled the trade deficit to $800 billion

And how was it that they did that again? Perhaps you'd like to explain to us
what a trade deficit is and how it accumulates?

2. Took a $237 billion dollar surplus budget and ran it down to a
negative $400 billion in just 4 short years.

Funny thing that people talking about Bosco's Billions never seem to be able
to find that positive cash flow in the national debt. Could it be that the
only positive flow was in your imagination and among the tricks played by
the Clinton money launderers when they used a lot of non-reported bills?

3. Ran the national debt up to $9.1 trillion

In case you missed it - conservative Republicans have complained about Bush
almost from the start. The interesting point here is that the Republican
Party is being run by the "conservative" Democrats that ran from the
Democrat Party when the extreme Liberal Clinton's came into power. So we're
really dealing with the Democrats East and the Democrats West instead of
Democrats and Republicans.

4. And managed to take the dollar to post WWII lows against a basket
of world currencies.

No argument there. But tell me this - how would YOU have prevented that?

On Sep 1, 9:19*pm, Robert Chung wrote:
On Sep 1, 5:47*pm, Bill C wrote:

They'll keep her and are selling this big time. Dobson has already
embraced this as the "perfect" way for a family to handle this
situation. It's actually looking like a big positive among the
hardcore conservative base.

If it's so much of a positive, why didn't their campaign release the
info earlier?

This is working out well this way isn't it? Holding it back plays to
"it's none of the governement's business to mess with families"
rhetoric. Of course that only goes for "traditional" families of
course. As long as the kid is going to term, and getting married to
the dad then this can and is being painted as how everyone should deal
with these "unfortunate issues that will happen even in the best
families sometimes."
Has no bearing on the reality a lot of people are living where that
just isn't a possibility in a broken society.
Bill C