We dodged the bullet of Palin and McCain's bad judgement of picking her.

The truth comes out from McCain's camp.
Palin was embezzling and is really that stupid.

America dodged an ignorant, thieving bullet.

McCain is to blame for his hail-mary pick too. He deserved to lose for showing such poor judgement.

I've heard him say that whenever he makes a decision based on what he thinks is right intead of political reasons, he comes out the winner.

The Palin pick was obviously a political hail-mary. This is probably the first time McCain broke his own rule and because of it he lost the biggest race.
I think he would have won if he chose someone more compatent.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5103014.ece

Quote:

---

Reports yesterday said that the McCain campaign authorised her to buy just six suits for the convention and campaign, but instead she spent a fortune on clothes, luggage, jewellery and other accessories for herself, her husband and her family, and had junior staffers pay some of the bills with their credit cards.

One angry McCain aide told Newsweek magazine that it was “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast”. The New York Times said that there was a “civil war” between Mr McCain’s campaign and hers, and that he seldom spoke to her. Fox News reported that Mrs Palin did not understand that Africa was a continent, not a country, and did not know which countries were in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

---

Cute and stupid, just how I like'em. :afrog:

Politics in world events please.

kthxbai :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

The truth comes out from McCain's camp.
Palin was embezzling and is really that stupid.

America dodged an ignorant, thieving bullet.

---

The mudslinging could go on and on. There's dirt on Obama, Palin, and just about everyone else who makes a stab at politics. Just look at who Obama picked for chief of staff. There's already sources trying to link him with the freddie mac scandal.

So I think this "problem" you have with Palin still comes down to being republican and Christian.

Anyways...

Quote:

---

The Palin pick was obviously a political hail-mary.

---

I don't have anything against Palin and think she would have made a much better VP than Biden, but you are right, the whole thing was a stunt. The two as a pair did not "connect" well. It was almost funny in a way. You have McCain who's face is sagging and falling off and then he picks an attractive 44 y/o female. I guess in the end it really showed. Apparently there's some interpersonal problems going on with the losing group.

Quote:

---

I think he would have won if he chose someone more compatent.

---

I don't think so. Obama ran a brilliant campaign and had so much going for him and there's not much McCain could have done to compete - even if he ran a smarter campaign.

I *think* McCain really wanted Lieberman as a running mate, but I can't see how that would have helped him in any way.

at least Biden has some foreign policy experience (and likely a big reason why he was picked to run as VP anyway)

He may not known squat about the internet, and favors big business like MPAA and RIAA, but he sure knows a lot more about the rest of the world than Palin does...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

The truth comes out

---

Unsubstantiated gossip from unnamed sources now qualifies as "truth?"

You should send your resumè to CBS News. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Palin was embezzling

---

Link plz? Googling "Palin embezzle" only gives me two hits from moonbat sites with no info - just unabashed (and highly entertaining) anger and hatred. I can find no actual news on this at all...

I think McCain would have had a good shot at the presidency if he'd gone with Colin Powell (or a similarly charismatic and respected person). I was a bit gob-smacked at his choice of Palin to be honest.

Colin Powell, the former republican Bush secretary of state that voted for Obama??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

I *think* McCain really wanted Lieberman as a running mate, but I can't see how that would have helped him in any way.

---

Absolutely!! Lieberman and McCain are friends and political allies. If McCain could pick anybody for his number 2, without any other considerations, that's who he would have picked. It would have been utter suicide for his campaign, though. He would have managed to infuriate both sides. He might not even have won Idaho had he made that pick.

Another take on the same story with a Fox clip.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics

It's still just mud slinging, but then again, everything negative can be classified into two categories: Mud or prosecution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Another take on the same story with a Fox clip.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics

It's still just mud slinging, but then again, everything negative can be classified into two categories: Mud or prosecution.

---

Mud slinging sure, but I think it's credible.

Why would Republicans turn on their own without legitamently being angry or slighted?

Lets say you are a middle-tier campaign supervisor to McCain.

How would you feel if the Running Mate bought luxary clothing not only ridiculously over budget, but also with some of the expense charged on the credit cards of the younger volunteers that worked for you?

You would be mad as hell.

I'm glad this has come out. Now Palin won't be elected in 2012, she would be a disaster.

My point with the mudslinging comment was directed at this thought:

Mudslinging is generally assumed to be false statements spread to sully somebodies name. Technically, any negative statement not proven in a court of law can therefore be dismissed as mud slinging by anybody at any time. Therefore, those who want to believe this can believe this, and those who don't want to believe it can disbelieve it. It IS mud, unless it leads to a conviction on specific charges in a court of law. Though actually, Ted Stevens is demonstrating that even a conviction by a jury of your peers can be disputed as a partisan attack, and disputed successfully in the court of public opinion.

The point being that those who support Palin and hope she will run for president in 2012 will dismiss all of these statements as lies, no matter how much evidence is presented. That's life. Everybody argues for truth, yet there is no objective standard of truth. Anything that agrees with your point of view can be accepted as given truth, while anything that disagrees with your point of view can be dismissed as false. This is especially true in the modern world where we are bombarded each day with information that we can't possibly have experienced in person...and let's not get into the perpetual fallacies inherent in our perceptions.

Thus, let this mud fly as it will. The only piece of it that will impact the national consciousness is that piece which sticks. If this mud sticks, Palin is finished. If the mud doesn't stick, then it will be as if it never flew in the first place. My money, at the moment, is that it will stick enough to keep her on the perimeter much like Dan Quayle (the last VP pick to be roundly characterized as an idiot). Not down, but definitely out. Only time will tell whether or not my opinion will be bourne out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crptcblade

Cute and stupid, just how I like'em. :afrog:

---

Who are you talking about McCain, Palin or both? :D :rolleyes:

Both, sewn together at the forehead.

oddly enough they are also considering Newt Gingrich as a 2012 candidate. What a joke.

In a contest like this though, the truth is simple: The most money spent gets you the presidency. Mccain's campaign was broke for a long time and his campaign suffered horribly for it. When he picked Palin he picked up a large group of deep-pocketed supporters. However it was too little, too late. If you look at the electoral map and track who campaigned where and how much time they spent there, it's pretty obviously a one to one relationship: The more money they spent in a state campaigning (people going door to door, putting out signs, personal appearances, etc), the larger the share of the electoral votes they got. Obama spent a fortune in the colony states, and carried every single one of them.

One final note on the maverick status of john mccain: Look up the washington dc vote. Nationwide, he received 46.1% of the popular vote compared to Obama's 52.6% yet in Washington he pulled only about 5% of the vote. Sounds to me like he was a pretty big toe-stepper.

Also look at the county-by-county voting map. I think it is pretty obvious who pulled the majority of counties. Obama merely focused his effort on those places that had more votes to give.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._by_County.PNG
Now compare that with the state-by-state map. There are a few states Obama pulled maybe 5% of the counties but he pulled the populated ones.

The fact is: Obama is extremely inexperienced and has never lead anything. His job as a senator was to do the will of the people and follow. Mccain has multiple years of military experience with leadership experience. Obama's own VP said that we're going to get a major incident in the first month or two after election. And i don't know how this plays into it, but for some reason Al Queda endorsed him as president. Is it because they know he's the weaker leader? We'll see.

How about not regurgitating gossip articles capsulecorpjx, don't show your ignorance, do some research before coming to a conclusion. An informed opinion is one thing, jumping on the latest blog headline is another.

VP candidates have long been subject to being skewered whether in victory or defeat. Their job as the candidates "bulldog" does have it's downsides. Palin putting up with this crap will have it's payoff, that's the name of the game. Everyone tapped to put themselves out in front of the national stage gets their payback.

We'll have some giggles when Obama fails to come through on ANY of the promises he made and Palin, or someone equally unlikely, comes in and steps all over his administration. The next four, or even eight years are gonna be ****** no matter who's in the Oval Office. The Bush presidency has a lot to do with it, but it certainly goes further back than that. This powder keg has been brewing for a lot longer than eight years.

Hell, The One even said it himself - winning the election does not equal the change we need, and it may not happen in the next four years, or even eight. LOLOL The silence from the rabid crowd was deafening. I was laughing my ass off. "It will take your time and effort to make the change happen". *crickets chirping* Talk about a victory speech targeted to do nothing but lower expectations, priceless.

Oh well, I'm just waiting for my mortgage and gas to get paid for by the Messiah. Change I can believe in!! *snickers*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

How about not regurgitating gossip articles capsulecorpjx, don't show your ignorance, do some research before coming to a conclusion. An informed opinion is one thing, jumping on the latest blog headline is another.

VP candidates have long been subject to being skewered whether in victory or defeat. Their job as the candidates "bulldog" does have it's downsides. Palin putting up with this crap will have it's payoff, that's the name of the game. Everyone tapped to put themselves out in front of the national stage gets their payback.

We'll have some giggles when Obama fails to come through on ANY of the promises he made and Palin, or someone equally unlikely, comes in and steps all over his administration. The next four, or even eight years are gonna be ****** no matter who's in the Oval Office. The Bush presidency has a lot to do with it, but it certainly goes further back than that. This powder keg has been brewing for a lot longer than eight years.

Hell, The One even said it himself - winning the election does not equal the change we need, and it may not happen in the next four years, or even eight. LOLOL The silence from the rabid crowd was deafening. I was laughing my ass off. "It will take your time and effort to make the change happen". *crickets chirping* Talk about a victory speech targeted to do nothing but lower expectations, priceless.

Oh well, I'm just waiting for my mortgage and gas to get paid for by the Messiah. Change I can believe in!! *snickers*

---

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not some Obama fanatic. I voted more against Palin's incompetence and McCain's campaign (really? Joe the Plumber against tax cuts for Middle Class? Palling around with terrorists?) rather than for Obama.

I never liked Obama's campaign. the "Change we can believe in" and "Yes we can" (from Bob the Builder children's show no less) slogans make me cringe.

I also never liked how he was never specific in his speeches, until the very end. His speeches sounded inspiring, but little substance. A true politician I guess.

But on the other hand, he was good at limiting Lobbyists, because he was so good at being supported by large numbers of individual donors. Plus he seems very secular (my kind of guy) and comes off as actually educated and makes rational/pragmatic decisions (compared to Bush).

I herd on the news that Paylins $150K shopping spree was not her fault. Before the GOP convention she needed clothes for it and the legal staff stated it was ok to put it on the campaign tab but it had to all be in by some deadline for the entire campaign duration. so thats the reason for the surge of spending. Turned out it wasnt legal as they thought so they were given a wealthy supporters credit card and charged it all. If it wasnt for the legal mistake it would have been more spread out and un-noticed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SurfDemon

I think McCain would have had a good shot at the presidency if he'd gone with Colin Powell (or a similarly charismatic and respected person). I was a bit gob-smacked at his choice of Palin to be honest.

---

Years ago a lot of people said that if Colin Powell was to run for president he would get it. Not sure if that's true now, but if he really wanted to take on a more reputable position, it probably wouldn't be VP.

Besides, hasn't he strongly expressed the fact that he's not interested in being President or VP for that matter?


EDIT - I guess that wasn't your point. I do agree with you. If he had Colin Powell his chances would have definitely increased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

The fact is: Obama is extremely inexperienced and has never lead anything. His job as a senator was to do the will of the people and follow. Mccain has multiple years of military experience with leadership experience. Obama's own VP said that we're going to get a major incident in the first month or two after election. And i don't know how this plays into it, but for some reason Al Queda endorsed him as president. Is it because they know he's the weaker leader? We'll see.

---

True, but nobody is born with leadership experience. At some point, somebody has to go out on a limb and give you a leadership job without you having had the experience for it. I think it's fair to say that there isn't another job that he could do that would adequately prepare for the role of US President, military or big company boss included, so lets forget about the "experience" issue. What matters is whether he can step up to the plate and deliver.
As far as al Qaeda goes though, they have their own agenda and maybe by endorsing Obama they're playing a double bluff so that you vote Republican (who are much more pro-war, keep America unpopular and hated by the Islamic world, and play into their hands). Or maybe that's what they want you to think, and they really do want you to vote Obama....

If you go around listening to terrorists who have their own agenda, you'll just end up in a muddle. Either listen properly, which means getting them around a table and taking them seriously, or don't listen at all. But don't do it in half-hearted fashion so as to spin a political angle out of it. That's what got us in this mess in the first place.

I think Bob's response is pretty good.

http://www.wham1180.com/cc-common/me...obcast11.06.08

-Lou

Let's face it, Palin was given a raw deal by the press anyway. I seriously doubt ANY of the candidates could have answered the questions given her by Katie Couric. That woman's a real piece of work. "So Mrs. Palin, You were given notice yesterday that they want you to be a running mate as VP! Please give us SPECIFIC directions how you are going to destroy Al-Queida. Then Specifically tell us how you will fix the economy, etc etc." The result was she got a bum rap as someone that was not intelligent. And so what if she mistakenly called africa a country and not a continent. Al gore couldn't even spell potato. Does anyone remember the fiasco of asking Bush some questions about foreign countries? But he got elected anyway. The truth is: Sarah Palin is a strong woman with strong leadership skills (as a governor of the largest state) who just happens to have a strong accent and was running for the wrong party. So the press slaughtered her. Every single study done to this effect showed that the press wasn't being unbiased this time. And if 3 out of 4 reports on the news you see about the republican ticket are negative (a proven ratioo) then eventually it's going to brainwash people. The obama ticket had a more even ratio of close to 50/50.
http://www.journalism.org/node/13307
Too late now...

Let's face it, Lord Orwell was given a raw deal.

And so what if he mistakenly said Al Gore spelled potato wrong even though it was Dan Quayle.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kleinma

Colin Powell, the former republican Bush secretary of state that voted for Obama??

---

Yip, but only after Palin had been picked as McCain's VP. I wonder if that had anything to do with him endorsing Obama....

As for the hoopla over Palin's $150k wardrobe. I don't see what all the fuss is about. She's being asked to go on tv and present a serious professional successful image. So, the campaign spent some of it's cash on her wardrobe instead of on flights/party's/drinks receptions/tv adverts/venues etc. It doesn't strike me as wrong, and I certainly don't think it can be classified as embezzlement. If it was tax-payers money, then yes I would understand the fuss, but as it was, it was republican funds being spent on the republican candidate. What's the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

We'll have some giggles when Obama fails to come through on ANY of the promises he made and Palin, or someone equally unlikely, comes in and steps all over his administration.

---

So, you're going to be laughing when your govenrment is full of lobyists and contracts are awarded because of the "ole buddy's" network...?

You'll be giggling yourself senseless if Al-Quaida attacks the US again and kills thousands of people?

You'll be snikering away when the economy continues to tank and destroys the economy?

I find it strange (and quite sad) that you would put your own personal hatred of this individual above the well-being of your country. :ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

The fact is: Obama is extremely inexperienced and has never lead anything. His job as a senator was to do the will of the people and follow. Mccain has multiple years of military experience with leadership experience. Obama's own VP said that we're going to get a major incident in the first month or two after election. And i don't know how this plays into it, but for some reason Al Queda endorsed him as president. Is it because they know he's the weaker leader? We'll see.

---

I think the last thing you needed was another military leader..... look where that's got you so far. But by your definition of a senator (to follow), the only people who are experienced enough to lead the country are soldiers.... that's not a good thing (IMHO).

I also thought that Al-Quidea endorsed John McCain, not Obama....? Do you have any links to support this claim?

Osama did endorse McCain, Quayle was the one who couldn't spell, and Lord Orwell managed to put so much spin into a single post it's fallen into orbit around him. Alsaska is the biggest state? Do moose vote now? Sure, the state is HUGE, but the population is smaller than many mid-sized US cities. It's also unlike the rest of the country in some significant other matters, such as the oil money and oil rebates that fund the economy and are central to the politics there. What other state has anything similar? One massive source of stable revenue is unlike the problems faced by any other governor.

As for the Katie Couric interview being so tough: It was a bunch of softballs. Heck, I could answer those questions better than her. Now, with Fox reporting the same issues, why discount it?

I think its nice to see some young blood in power, im sick of seeing old farts on the telly spouting about years of military experience. McCain was a POW in Vietnam. So that means he was captured in a war that the US lost, yeah real leadership skills there.....

He is an ignorant fool, I'm not from the US but watched all the debates and in everyone he gave off the impression that "the black guy" had no chance. I think that Obama got a raw deal as the US is in a lot of trouble and this is not something 1 term will resolve but for once its nice to see the president of the most important country in the world and not think oh god hes and idiot or hes and arrogant git.

I rather like Obama charisma and to be honest its very refreshing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SurfDemon

Yip, but only after Palin had been picked as McCain's VP. I wonder if that had anything to do with him endorsing Obama....

As for the hoopla over Palin's $150k wardrobe. I don't see what all the fuss is about. She's being asked to go on tv and present a serious professional successful image. So, the campaign spent some of it's cash on her wardrobe instead of on flights/party's/drinks receptions/tv adverts/venues etc. It doesn't strike me as wrong, and I certainly don't think it can be classified as embezzlement. If it was tax-payers money, then yes I would understand the fuss, but as it was, it was republican funds being spent on the republican candidate. What's the problem?

---

Palin + less clothes = you see where I'm going with this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crptcblade

Palin + less clothes = you see where I'm going with this...

---

mmmm, capri pants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeanMc

I think its nice to see some young blood in power, im sick of seeing old farts on the telly spouting about years of military experience. McCain was a POW in Vietnam. So that means he was captured in a war that the US lost, yeah real leadership skills there.....

He is an ignorant fool, I'm not from the US but watched all the debates and in everyone he gave off the impression that "the black guy" had no chance. I think that Obama got a raw deal as the US is in a lot of trouble and this is not something 1 term will resolve but for once its nice to see the president of the most important country in the world and not think oh god hes and idiot or hes and arrogant git.

I rather like Obama charisma and to be honest its very refreshing.

---

don't be rude. He hadn't been promoted to levels where he was in charge of anything yet. He was captured as a POW under a democratic president! But enough about that. I watched the debates and i didn't see any such "gave the impression" In fact it seemed to me he did a really poor job of getting his plans out there in a comprehendable way. His "buy up bad mortgages" not only was poorly explained but that was nearly all he talked about. He needs a better debate coach telling him what the nation wants to hear. Obama's was nearly spot-on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

I think it's fair to say that there isn't another job that he could do that would adequately prepare for the role of US President, military or big company boss included, so lets forget about the "experience" issue. What matters is whether he can step up to the plate and deliver.

---

what about Governor? It's the exact same position as president, just at a state level. And Don't forget "commander-in-chief" is one of the presiden'ts duties as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

Let's face it, Palin was given a raw deal by the press anyway. I seriously doubt ANY of the candidates could have answered the questions given her by Katie Couric. That woman's a real piece of work. "So Mrs. Palin, You were given notice yesterday that they want you to be a running mate as VP! Please give us SPECIFIC directions how you are going to destroy Al-Queida. Then Specifically tell us how you will fix the economy, etc etc." The result was she got a bum rap as someone that was not intelligent. And so what if she mistakenly called africa a country and not a continent. Al gore couldn't even spell potato. Does anyone remember the fiasco of asking Bush some questions about foreign countries? But he got elected anyway. The truth is: Sarah Palin is a strong woman with strong leadership skills (as a governor of the largest state) who just happens to have a strong accent and was running for the wrong party. So the press slaughtered her. Every single study done to this effect showed that the press wasn't being unbiased this time. And if 3 out of 4 reports on the news you see about the republican ticket are negative (a proven ratioo) then eventually it's going to brainwash people. The obama ticket had a more even ratio of close to 50/50.
http://www.journalism.org/node/13307
Too late now...

---

You're just making excuses for a Republican.

Also it wasn't Al Gore that couldn't spell potato, it was Dan Quayle.

Not being able to spell potato concerns me less than not being able to name a single newspaper or know that 150k on clothes is excessive, no less some of it were for her family, an obvious breach of ethics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

You're just making excuses for a Republican.

Also it wasn't Al Gore that couldn't spell potato, it was Dan Quayle.

Not being able to spell potato concerns me less than not being able to name a single newspaper or know that 150k on clothes is excessive, no less some of it were for her family, an obvious breach of ethics.

---

you're right of course, since the press won't ever see your husband or children. Hillary clinton was never in the spotlight when Bill was president, so who cares how she's dressed? This stuff matters to some people. Obama's wife made headlines yesterday for "worst dressed spouse at an acceptance speech". Perhaps the democrats could have tossed some money her way. But it wasn't necessary. He was already rich from special interest groups tossing him money. Palin had to borrow money from aides. And who is saying it's "not proper"? It's not like the republican party is a federal body. It's private. But you're right. Let's dress her up in nieman marcus, and dress her husband and kids in flannel next to her. No one will notice...

And how many posts does it take to point out it was Dan Quayle? Whatever. If people don't think Al Gore is an idiot then maybe they should pay attention to his global warming movie.

as for the osama endorsement, a simple google will show you who he endorsed. He not only endorsed Obama, but he said if he was around in 1973 he would have bought mccain from the vietnamese.
http://lifethelove.wordpress.com/200...-allen-hafman/
Of course some people have flipped this around and claimed that osama clearly stating "i want obama as president" (there's a tape that was played on cnn) is reverse psychology because he really wanted mccain. That's totally ridiculous. Any link you find saying so has "humor" as a keyword. But what can you do. I wanted Hillary.

Im not being rude, every goverment of every country, including my own is ran by old farts. I really hope the guy who ran the libertas campaign creates a party in Ireland. And don't give me the experience waffle. The world is at its lowest ebb because all these old farts hate change, lets try something different.

Really? Really you guys? Can't we just come together and support our soon to be ex-President and our President-Elect in these very difficult times? Rehashing the campaigns of both parties is a waste of time.

and don't forget, our current president had a bill passed that makes it a federal crime to publicly talk against the president. So obama-bash all you want now, but it has to stop by law the day he's sworn in.

LOL - That's B.S.

I disagree with Obama.

I disagree with Bush.

Someone come arrest me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VBChick

LOL - That's B.S.

I disagree with Obama.

I disagree with Bush.

Someone come arrest me!

---

merely disagreeing doesn't count. You must actively try to get people to go against his directives in some manner such as stating in a public forum such as this one "don't listen to him". It's considered domestic terrorism and under the applicable law you can have your property seized in the investigation (including but not limited to your computer). At the time it was passed, there was plenty of press on it. I am not sad to see Bush leave office. He's done more to strip the rights of Americans away than any other president with perhaps the exception of Theodore Roosevelt, who was known for a similar law. The difference was Roosevelt's law had a built-in expiration date. But it also allowed no-trial imprisonment as well. http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/teddy/teddyxx.htm

Perhaps the patriot act doesn't ring a bell? It also had a built-in expiration date but parts of it live on, including the warrantless eavesdropping.

I didn't pay any attention to this eletion, mainly because I'm not American and therefore couldn't really give a toss. However, I did encounter one thing which made me laugh - it was a clip of Sarah Palin being asked whom she'd voted for. She refused to answer, and said that the fact it was private was another thing that was "really cool about America". Because, of course, in every other democracy it's compulsory to tell people for whom you voted...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan

I didn't pay any attention to this eletion, mainly because I'm not American and therefore couldn't really give a toss. However, I did encounter one thing which made me laugh - it was a clip of Sarah Palin being asked whom she'd voted for. She refused to answer, and said that the fact it was private was another thing that was "really cool about America". Because, of course, in every other democracy it's compulsory to tell people for whom you voted...

---

We're a republic, not a democracy. Common mistake. You can tell by the electoral votes thing. You know, a lot of people make this error, even though our pledge of allegience states otherwise.

I was under the impression that you were both, in the same way that Canada is both a federation and a democracy. Democracy has a double meaning - it is both a specific form of government (characterised by a lack of protection of the minority against the majority, which doesn't apply to you) and a general type of government (characterised by the use of democratic elections, which does apply to you).

Semantics, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

you're right of course, since the press won't ever see your husband or children. Hillary clinton was never in the spotlight when Bill was president, so who cares how she's dressed? This stuff matters to some people. Obama's wife made headlines yesterday for "worst dressed spouse at an acceptance speech". Perhaps the democrats could have tossed some money her way. But it wasn't necessary. He was already rich from special interest groups tossing him money. Palin had to borrow money from aides. And who is saying it's "not proper"? It's not like the republican party is a federal body. It's private. But you're right. Let's dress her up in nieman marcus, and dress her husband and kids in flannel next to her. No one will notice...

And how many posts does it take to point out it was Dan Quayle? Whatever. If people don't think Al Gore is an idiot then maybe they should pay attention to his global warming movie.

as for the osama endorsement, a simple google will show you who he endorsed. He not only endorsed Obama, but he said if he was around in 1973 he would have bought mccain from the vietnamese.
http://lifethelove.wordpress.com/200...-allen-hafman/
Of course some people have flipped this around and claimed that osama clearly stating "i want obama as president" (there's a tape that was played on cnn) is reverse psychology because he really wanted mccain. That's totally ridiculous. Any link you find saying so has "humor" as a keyword. But what can you do. I wanted Hillary.

---

Go ahead and plug your ears and make excuses. Ignore that McCain's own disgruntled Republican Aides made these allegations, first reported on Fox News no less.

I might buy your argument about "$150k" isn't that bad, if the Republicans haven't been so angry about the 200 or 400 dollar haircuts for Bill Clinton and John Edwards in the past.

I'm on the other side of the coin. I think Global Warming is real, and that Al Gore made a good movie. I believe the vast majority of the World's Climate Scientists more than Conservatives trying to protect business interests or stick to their anti-environmentalist dogma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan

I was under the impression that you were both, in the same way that Canada is both a federation and a democracy. Democracy has a double meaning - it is both a specific form of government (characterised by a lack of protection of the minority against the majority, which doesn't apply to you) and a general type of government (characterised by the use of democratic elections, which does apply to you).

Semantics, eh?

---

we don't have democratic elections. Our votes are not used for anything at all except to show a particular member of the electoral college how he should vote. There is in fact nothing in law making this person vote the way the majority voted, and in a few rare cases they have in fact went against it. A sign of a democratic election is every single vote is counted and the popular vote will always come in first. We've had three presidents win an election by electoral vote who actually lost the popular vote. Two are listed here and i believe the other was Bush vs Gore.
When you see on tv "so and so needs 270 electoral votes", what this means is he needs 270 members of the electoral college to vote for him.

This is an asinine system and we are the only country in the world that uses an electoral system to elect a president. The possibility for corruption is strong here. But let's face it, there aren't any poor successful politicians.

It really makes a mockory of the whole "land of the free" thing though doesnt it.

"Sure you can vote, sure we will count it, hell we might even respect your wishes and vote for the candidate you all asked for, but you know voting is hard work and my kids ARE going to college this year and I heard the new Hummer is out....."

I read an article on the math behind the electoral college, or else I would agree with Lord Orwell that this system is perverse. However, the article (which I obviously don't remember in enough detail to provide a reference, but perhaps somebody else can re-create the math) made a strong, if fairly depressing, case in support of the electoral college system.

The argument went something like this: In what scenario will YOUR vote actually tip an election one way or another? The only scenario is one where the election was SO close that it hung on one vote (or maybe you and your buddies got together to form a voting block). This is incredibly rare (it hasn't happened yet), so in any given national election, any one individual never makes a difference. However, if you broke the country into individual voting blocks, then the probability that any one individual would make a difference in their particular voting block goes up quite a bit simply because their probability of swinging the election goes up quite a bit. Of course, by breaking the country into blocks by state, my vote (in ultra-red Idaho) is pretty much a waste of time. However, in the 2000 election, people in FL had much greater influence on the outcome of the overall election than they would have had without the electoral college system. Technically, people in every other state did, too, but a handful of large states can swing an entire election.

In the great majority of cases, the electoral vote reflects the popular vote, so it really makes no difference whether there is an electoral vote or not. It's just that in some rare, close, races, the individual vote of some people is amplified by the electoral college system.

Regardless, I'm opposed to the whole system of one person one vote. People should keep in mind that being an informed voter is important. You should keep abrest of all the issues and keep informed about the candidates. By doing this, you will become an informed voter and have exactly as much impact on the outcome of the election as some drunken imbecile who votes for a person because their name sounds funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I read an article on the math behind the electoral college, or else I would agree with Lord Orwell that this system is perverse. However, the article (which I obviously don't remember in enough detail to provide a reference, but perhaps somebody else can re-create the math) made a strong, if fairly depressing, case in support of the electoral college system.

The argument went something like this: In what scenario will YOUR vote actually tip an election one way or another? The only scenario is one where the election was SO close that it hung on one vote (or maybe you and your buddies got together to form a voting block). This is incredibly rare (it hasn't happened yet), so in any given national election, any one individual never makes a difference. However, if you broke the country into individual voting blocks, then the probability that any one individual would make a difference in their particular voting block goes up quite a bit simply because their probability of swinging the election goes up quite a bit. Of course, by breaking the country into blocks by state, my vote (in ultra-red Idaho) is pretty much a waste of time. However, in the 2000 election, people in FL had much greater influence on the outcome of the overall election than they would have had without the electoral college system. Technically, people in every other state did, too, but a handful of large states can swing an entire election.

In the great majority of cases, the electoral vote reflects the popular vote, so it really makes no difference whether there is an electoral vote or not. It's just that in some rare, close, races, the individual vote of some people is amplified by the electoral college system.

---

who told you it hadn't happened yet?
We've had a president elected because of one vote. But if current laws were in effect, would the result have been the same? Back then, only white people 21 and older who could read got to vote.

And here's a state-level result:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snopes.com

In 1839, Marcus "Landslide" Morton was indeed elected governor of Massachusetts by one vote. Of the 102,066 votes cast by the good people of that state, he received exactly 51,034. Had his count been 51,033, the election would have been thrown into the Legislature, where he probably would not have won.

"Landslide" also made the record books in 1842 when he won the same office again by one vote, this time in the Legislature. (In those days, Massachusetts governors were elected for terms of one year.)
</UL>

---

also i was wrong earlier. History channel's website has stated we have four presidents who lost popular vote, not three. And it's interesting to note that florida's vote count was too close to call in the bush/gore election but the supreme court overruled a recount.

also read this one:
http://www.history.com/minisite.do?c...5&mini_id=1045

Quote:

---

Go ahead and plug your ears and make excuses. Ignore that McCain's own disgruntled Republican Aides made these allegations, first reported on Fox News no less.

---

Actually it wasn’t started by any of McCains own aides as originally pointed out by MSNBC or Fox News. It turns out this was a hoax:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/...v/palin_hoax_1

It doesn’t surprise me that so many people believe this because most people never care to look further into anything and choose to believe everything they are spoon fed on the internet and the main stream media. Then again some people don’t care about the truth anymore, they only choose to believe what they want to believe because it fits into their world view.

Quote:

---

I might buy your argument about "$150k" isn't that bad, if the Republicans haven't been so angry about the 200 or 400 dollar haircuts for Bill Clinton and John Edwards in the past.

---

The problem with John Edwards getting his expensive hair cuts on his private jet is he put forth this image and rhetoric of being able to relate to the poor and the common man. Most people felt that paying more for a haircut than most people pay for food every month kind of makes it hard for you to relate to the common man. It wasn’t the cost that people cared about, but the perception of this rich guy putting forth this image that was obviously a tad hypocritical. That’s why this made such a good story.

Quote:

---

I'm on the other side of the coin. I think Global Warming is real, and that Al Gore made a good movie. I believe the vast majority of the World's Climate Scientists more than Conservatives trying to protect business interests or stick to their anti-environmentalist dogma.

---

I think its fine to believe in man-made global warming but to totally dismiss opposing view-points from many credible scientists seems to be rather ignorant. Consensus is not science, without definitive proof I see no reason to spend billions of dollars supposedly cleaning up something that isn’t a problem, or imposing billions in new carbon taxes on people on simple consensus. This from the same crowd screaming about the new Ice Age during the 70’s, sorry but just looking at the history of climatologists and scientists and how wrong they have been its very difficult to believe much of anything without definitive proof. I mean after all they have a hard time telling us what the temperature is going to be tomorrow locally, do you really trust them to tell you what the global temperature is going to be 10 years from now?

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

sorry but just looking at the history of climatologists and scientists and how wrong they have been its very difficult to believe much of anything without definitive proof.

---

It's difficult to believe much of anything they say even with so-called "proof."

Interesting how their errors always show more warming, not less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

I think its fine to believe in man-made global warming but to totally dismiss opposing view-points from many credible scientists seems to be rather ignorant. Consensus is not science, without definitive proof I see no reason to spend billions of dollars supposedly cleaning up something that isn’t a problem, or imposing billions in new carbon taxes on people on simple consensus. This from the same crowd screaming about the new Ice Age during the 70’s, sorry but just looking at the history of climatologists and scientists and how wrong they have been its very difficult to believe much of anything without definitive proof. I mean after all they have a hard time telling us what the temperature is going to be tomorrow locally, do you really trust them to tell you what the global temperature is going to be 10 years from now?

X

---

There is almost no error in one day weather forecasting. You don't get errors introduced into the calculations until you go past three days. This is a commonly known threshold for accuracy within three degrees, and there is a very good reason for this. The atmosphere of the earth on average circles the planet every three days. And it's meteorologists that predict temperature tomorrow, not climatologists. Reference
Climatologists don't do day-to-day predictions. They look at data over the course of years and show trends. If you look at the climate average temperature (average over the whole planet), you can see a definite, accelerating average rise.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ure_Record.png
you will notice a couple of drops here and be tempted to ask why. The answer is volcanic eruptions spewing ash into the air.
Now imagine this: How many miles do you need to travel north from where you are right now, to see an average sea temperature drop of one degree?

about a hundred miles by my guess by this map:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.gif
now obviously by common sense you are going to lose that many miles of ice cap because you've raised that many miles of 32 degree water to 33 (although this isn't actually the freezing point of salt water). That's how much ice cap you lose for each degree of temp change. And proof shows that due to the size of the ocean and the amount of heat it's capable of retaining that stabilizing greenhouse gas production right now will not stop the temperature rise (various sources). It is expected to continue a rise of temperature of the next thousand years.

Now on to your ice age: This is in fact caused by rising temperaturs, not lowering ones. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/fo...?topic=16733.0
I hope this helps show you the truth.
Now what's actually up in arms among scientist nowadays is not whether ornot global warming exists, but exactly how much of it is natural and how much caused by us. Google and come to your own decision. But at least keep an open mind. I don't really like the idea of the lower united states turning into mexico's climate. Nevermind the fact that the adjusting temperature of the ocean is adjusting the currents and a side effect of this is a significant increase of category 4 and 5 hurricanes.

http://www.vbforums.com/

http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/gallery/trends.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

Actually it wasn’t started by any of McCains own aides as originally pointed out by MSNBC or Fox News. It turns out this was a hoax:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/...v/palin_hoax_1

It doesn’t surprise me that so many people believe this because most people never care to look further into anything and choose to believe everything they are spoon fed on the internet and the main stream media. Then again some people don’t care about the truth anymore, they only choose to believe what they want to believe because it fits into their world view.
X

---

The link you posted explicitly states that the only item that was debunked was the person who was reported to have leaked the story, not the story itself. They go to great lengths to make it clear that their article doesn't address the veracity of the story, just the identity of the leak. So what was a hoax?

I did go wandering around the internet to see whether I could verify/refute the story. Not surprisingly, all I found were various sources reiterating the same thing. That is neither proof nor refutation of veracity. The best that I can say, not having been there, is that if Fox is reporting something negative about a conservative, then it certainly seems like it is probably true. Of course, they are presenting anecdotes about alleged events, so there are at least three different levels of 'truth' just within that story alone. The facts could be wrong, yet the leak was faithfully reported (Fox accurately represented what was told to them, but they were told something false), the facts were right, but Fox reported them in error, or the whole thing is true. There is also the fourth alternative, that the whole thing is false, but in any of the first three, Fox can claim to be correct, while in the last case, Fox would be clearly incorrect.

So what kind of proof would be sufficient? Probably a time machine coupled to a teleporter, and nothing less.

Homer: The number of pirates in your graph is wildly innaccurate. Piracy is an ENORMOUS business these days. In fact, there may be more pirates today than would show on the left side of your graph.

To properly display the pirate statistics, though, you'd need the Arrr axis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2008/11/1.png

---

Lord Orwell, it's all very well to present a graph in support of your argument, but what does this graph mean? I can see how it would back up your argument if the y-axis were labelled 'Global Average Temperature" (although I'd be worried about the accuracy of the figures!) but it is labelled "Temperature Anomaly". In my understanding, the word 'anomaly' means 'deviation from the norm', and I cannot see the correlation between this and the theory of global warming. Can you explain to a person who knows nothing of the fields of climatology and meteorology exactly what this plot represents?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Homer: The number of pirates in your graph is wildly innaccurate. Piracy is an ENORMOUS business these days. In fact, there may be more pirates today than would show on the left side of your graph.

---

That's why I added the second graph which clearly shows the recent pirate-related cooling. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

The link you posted explicitly states that the only item that was debunked was the person who was reported to have leaked the story, not the story itself. They go to great lengths to make it clear that their article doesn't address the veracity of the story, just the identity of the leak. So what was a hoax?

I did go wandering around the internet to see whether I could verify/refute the story. Not surprisingly, all I found were various sources reiterating the same thing. That is neither proof nor refutation of veracity. The best that I can say, not having been there, is that if Fox is reporting something negative about a conservative, then it certainly seems like it is probably true. Of course, they are presenting anecdotes about alleged events, so there are at least three different levels of 'truth' just within that story alone. The facts could be wrong, yet the leak was faithfully reported (Fox accurately represented what was told to them, but they were told something false), the facts were right, but Fox reported them in error, or the whole thing is true. There is also the fourth alternative, that the whole thing is false, but in any of the first three, Fox can claim to be correct, while in the last case, Fox would be clearly incorrect.

So what kind of proof would be sufficient? Probably a time machine coupled to a teleporter, and nothing less.

---

To me this said it all, "Eisenstadt's "work" had been quoted and debunked before. The Huffington Post said it had cited Eisenstadt in July on a story regarding the Hilton family and McCain."

If the guy made stuff up before it is likely he is making it up again. You might be inclined to believe liars, I am not.

Also saying that just because Fox reported it against a conservative it has to be true is about the weakest argument I have ever seen you put forth, even you must realize that.

X

There are some interesting graphs found at:

http://www.asinglevoice.us/Environme...balWarming.htm

these definetely do support we've been growing warmer for the past century or two, since 1800!

:eek2:

Before you know it, we'll be as warm as it was in 1180 or so!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

Lord Orwell, it's all very well to present a graph in support of your argument, but what does this graph mean? I can see how it would back up your argument if the y-axis were labelled 'Global Average Temperature" (although I'd be worried about the accuracy of the figures!) but it is labelled "Temperature Anomaly". In my understanding, the word 'anomaly' means 'deviation from the norm', and I cannot see the correlation between this and the theory of global warming. Can you explain to a person who knows nothing of the fields of climatology and meteorology exactly what this plot represents?

---

why yes, yes i can.
It's considered an anomaly if it's not exactly on the average for a time span. The time span in question here is 140 years. I may not be the best person to explain it so here's a better description of it showing the same data.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar...s/figspm-1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

The link you posted explicitly states that the only item that was debunked was the person who was reported to have leaked the story, not the story itself. They go to great lengths to make it clear that their article doesn't address the veracity of the story, just the identity of the leak. So what was a hoax?

I did go wandering around the internet to see whether I could verify/refute the story. Not surprisingly, all I found were various sources reiterating the same thing. That is neither proof nor refutation of veracity. The best that I can say, not having been there, is that if Fox is reporting something negative about a conservative, then it certainly seems like it is probably true. Of course, they are presenting anecdotes about alleged events, so there are at least three different levels of 'truth' just within that story alone. The facts could be wrong, yet the leak was faithfully reported (Fox accurately represented what was told to them, but they were told something false), the facts were right, but Fox reported them in error, or the whole thing is true. There is also the fourth alternative, that the whole thing is false, but in any of the first three, Fox can claim to be correct, while in the last case, Fox would be clearly incorrect.

So what kind of proof would be sufficient? Probably a time machine coupled to a teleporter, and nothing less.

---

They clearly stated that their source was a blog, and the blogger is not only a known liar but was shown to have actually made this story up. Fox gave a retraction mere minutes after the story was shown. Plus Sarah Palin has clearly stated that she never made the mistake. She would never state that when public record could be used to show her a liar as that would be counterproductive. Weighing all the evidence together, i would say it shows that the entire story was made up, and people like this guy are the exact reason the better candidate lost the election.

Quote:

---

Consensus is not science

---

Actually, yes it is. It's been the basis of science for hundreds of years. A scientist proposes a hypothesis which is subsequently tested by their peers. If the peers find the hypothesis to be robust a consensus devlops and the hypothesis becomes accepted as the basis for further research and action.

What consensus isn't is conclusive proof of a hypothesis. But when you have such a huge consensus across the scientific community as exists over man-made climate change you'd have to be seriously stubborn to continue to advocate the opposing view without some sort of conclusive evidence (particularly as the opposing view could result in catastrophic changes to our planet should it prove to be wrong). There is currently no conclusive evidence to prove either side of the debate and it would therefore seem sensible to adhere to the view that man is responsible for global warming on the basis that such a huge consensus has been borne out of a very robust hypothesis.