|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
McCain and Palin - Family Values -
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
McCain and Palin - Family Values -
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
McCain and Palin - Family Values -
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
McCain and Palin - Family Values -
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
McCain and Palin - Family Values -
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? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
McCain and Palin - Family Values -
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
McCain and Palin - Family Values -
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
McCain and Palin - Family Values -
"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? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
McCain and Palin - Family Values -
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OBAMA McCain or HILLARY '08? | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | March 26th 08 02:41 AM |
TdF OPPOSED TO FAMILY VALUES | datakoll | Racing | 1 | July 24th 07 12:45 AM |
Blood Values | [email protected] | General | 9 | June 11th 07 02:49 AM |
Blood Values | [email protected] | Racing | 10 | June 11th 07 02:49 AM |
A question of values. | Ken C. M. | Recumbent Biking | 31 | June 2nd 06 03:53 PM |