BS: The Debates: Members Only

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:37 AM

So, Doug still has his ideological blinders on tight, to avoid, at all costs, actually seeing anything. Are we surprised?

As I predicted, she shook off the Valley Girl rep.

But Biden was much stronger than I had thought he would be--fortunately.

I was afraid he'd just pontificate until his time ran out on a given question. But instead he took the fight to McCain right from the start--and put his opponent on the defense.

Among other things, there's no question who owns the middle-class tax cut issue: Obama/Biden.

And facts are still a foreign concept to dear Sarah. Why deal with them when you can again regurgitate a half-digested talking point?   Biden even pointed out that in addition to having no facts, Gov. Palen had not even tried to answer the question--more than once.



And as the WSJ points out today, quoting Biden:   facts matter.




As for Mr. "She's killing him". So much for his alleged opposition to organized religion. It's fairly obvious that a fundamentalist is fine with him as long as the fundamentalist wears lipstick. I'm sure if Jerry Falwell had known that, he would have worn lipstick too. I suppose we'll have to call Mr. "She's killing him" Mr. Hypocrite from now on.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:57 AM

She kept trying to relate to the middle class, billing herself and husband as on par with regular "hockey moms" etc. As Janie said, her world is really quite small. She said, "And I'll bet you, you're going to hear some fear in that parent's voice, fear regarding the few investments that some of us have in the stock market. Did we just take a major hit with those investments?"

I'd like to know what middle class she is talking about! WE don't have any investments to worry about nor do most of the middle class folks we know.

It's the same thing with the worthless $5,000 tax credit McCain and she would like us to use to buy health insurance. It won't work that way. Folks will get it off their taxes, sure, but they won't have the cash to spend; it will just give them a tiny bit more, maybe, of a refund, to pay down on their already existing bills, forget getting any kind of health care. These two are really narrow and out of touch.

I know it's not a popular thing to say, but I still am appalled at what she is putting her children through. That baby and pregnant teen need their mom more than ever; they don't need to be dragged around and trotted out for every event like this. The baby being passed from hand to hand seems so symbolic, to me, of the exploitation for votes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:17 PM

Tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts!!
They do it over here too. When is the stupid electorate going see through this tax cut crap?
They give you 50 a month more in your wage packet, and take 75 a month back in sales taxes and all the other little things we HAVE to pay to live.
In the UK, Income Tax has gone down, and indirect taxes have soared, but the over all tax take is higher than ever.
I despair for the poor suckers who are taken in by this crap.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CapriUni
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:38 PM

I didn't see any of the Couric interview, so I didn't know exactly how ugly a train wreck the debate might have been for her.

...I got an idea, however, when I heard the pundits saying, afterward, how well she had done, compared to expectations.

That was doing well? Every line was coming out of her mouth was delivered with a head cheerleader's grin -- even when she was discussing war, and families on the brink of poverty. And she flagged the issues she didn't understand, by saying out loud that she didn't want to answer that question, so she wasn't going to. True: Politicians have be not-answering questions since the Ancient Greeks invented voting. But they generally don't say that's what they're doing as if it were a good thing.

Now, to be fair, I do have criticisms of the Obama Campaign's talking points.

I wish they'd drop the "Tax Breaks for 95% of Americans" line. The true statistic is, according to FactCheck.org: 95% of working families with children, which is 81% of America's entire population. That's not a lily that needs gilding, in my not-so humble opinion, and the second number sounds less fiscally reckless.

Biden also repeated the line that McCain voted against alternative energy 20 times. Again, according to FactCheck.org, McCain voted against alternative engery outright 11 times, and for the other 9 votes, he simply voted against making alternative energy mandatory. 20 is a nice, round, number, and it sounds impressive. But the Obama/Biden campaign could, if they chose, make the truth just as impressive, if they word their pitch something like this: "In 20 votes that have come up in front of the Senate, McCain has consistantly voted to allow corporations to continue with status quo in regards to alternative energy..."

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:44 PM

Still beating the dead horse, eh, Ron?

Everything in your post makes good sense until the last paragraph...where you try your usual cheap shot of trying to cast Rig as a "hypocrite" for supporting Palen and McCain (because Rig claims to be anti-religious).

I've already explained to you in great detail, Ron, that Rig's favoring Palen and McCain has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his views on religion one way or another...it has to do with a host of other matters (primarily the fact that he can't stand Obama for some reason...I suppose because Obama took away his dream of seeing Hillary Clinton elected).

He could just as well oppose Obama for anti-religious reasons too, Ron. Remember Reverend Wright and all that BS? Obama is also overtly Christian.

Give it up. Stick to REAL stuff and you are on solid ground. Try to cast Rig as a "hypocrite" over this religion BS and you are not. ALL the candidates are overtly religious, as they MUST be if they are going to run for high office in the USA. The American public will not elect an openly declared atheist.

Rig IS an openly declared atheist...and there's nothing hypocritical about it. He hates religion with a pathological hatred which is, in my opinion, completely irrational, but it's not hypocritical. He HAS no officially atheist candidate out there whom he can vote for. Therefore he must either support a religious candidate or support no one at all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:50 PM

Last night Biden said it was 95% of households. We are a household without children and would get a tax break if Obama/Biden were, as Palin would say, so privileged as to be able to serve this great country God willing.

They, Obama and Biden, also say 95% of WORKING People. I suspect that is true looking at income distributions. Certainly the number of working people making less than 150K is closer to 95% than 81%.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:54 PM

Capri, I checked your link and could not find the specific promise.

But, on the whole, as I have heard it phrased, I believe that the promise is in the ball park.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 01:15 PM

Little Hawk, among the many things I read Rig saying since he was in the tank for Hillary and Hillary was defeated, was that he would support MCCain/Palin as a protest against religion in politics, I think it was because She was more open about it than Obama.

I wouldn't call that hypocritical per se. But I might think it unwise. Ron does have a justification to call him on it given Rigs stated position. But hypocrite dies seem a bit strong.

If I may make and observation on Rig's position, I would say that he has been consistently ABO (Anybody But Obama) and was against Obama before the announced support of Faith Based Social Services. That was just one more feature of Obama that he could complain about. Obviously if religiousness influencing Presidential behavior was his primary concern then the logical choice would be anybody but Palin. But his long standing dislike of Obama is somehow over coming that seemingly logical point of view.

Rig,
Outside of your position on Obama, You seem to have a lot in common with Bill Maher.
Are you a fan? Do you plan to see his new movie?

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 01:17 PM

it's only a side issue, but not bothering to learn correct pronunciation of words you may be require to USE in office tyells me something about a candidate.

I am, like McGrath, tired of 'nook-you-ler' and Eye-rack and Eye-ran.
Does she do it on purpose to sound like 'one of us'?

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 01:21 PM

My neighbor is a GOP block captain of sorts. He is Jewish but does not engage in any conversations about his feelings toward Isreal.

He has plenty of McCain stickers and signs. Come to think about it, I bet that he is the one who has annoymously challenged my right to right to vote for the last 3 years. ITs a technique called caging and only requires the appearence of a returned letter fromt he voter's home address.

Isrealis will understand the advantage of intelligence at the helm and will not regret a McCain loss.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 01:26 PM

Ya' know I'd have thought she would have been better "handled" on those words. Plus, it seemed as though the questions were well crafted so she'd use them.

I'm with Bill.........and if it is a part of her "Joe Six-Pack" routine, it seems more shitkicker than Presidential, Someone said Biden looked and sounded "Presidential" and she more "Mayoral."

Works for me............'Course I don't want her as mayor either.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Genie
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 01:44 PM

After Palin's lame attempt to recapture a memorable, endearing soundbite by doing a feeble imitation of a line from the 1984 debate, I was waiting for Biden to channel Lloyd Bentsen from 1988:

"I new Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. Madame, you're no Ronald Reagan."

Of course, I knew he wouldn't go for such low-hanging fruit, but maybe Keith Olberman can do it after the fact.

And, much as I blame Reagan's policies for a lot of the dowslide to disaster we've been on since 1981, Sarah Palin IS no Ronald Reagan. (Thank goodness!)   She's had two major high-visibility chances to come across as "folksy" in a friendly, compassionate, non-divisive way, and both times she's basically drawn a line in the sand and said "Our side good. Their side bad." She comes across as totally dismissive of the opposing party, twisting the facts and lying about them, even while (in the debate) spouting the mantra of "getting beyond politics" and "working across the aisle."    Ronald Reagan - unfortunately for us, I think - had an amazing ability to make people who seriously disagreed with his policies THINK he was their friend. His policies could be stabbing you in the back but it was hard NOT to like him.   I don't see that in Palin. At least not in her snide, divisive, wisecracking performances at the RNC and the debate with Biden.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 02:01 PM

"She comes across as totally dismissive of the opposing party..."


               That's because the opposing party continues to nominate weak candidates, so it's hard to take them seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: PoppaGator
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 03:05 PM

I was about to thrown in my two cents worth, but now I am reluctant, because I'd be immediately following Rig and might be interpreted as responding to him.

Plus, he's gotten me so angry at his stubborn insistance upon being a dumbass, that I forgot what I wanted to say.

I just said my piece a few minutes ago on that other debate thread ~ VP Debate Entertainment. If you care to read my opinion, look over there.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Michael Harrison
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 03:28 PM

Palin is a "head-in-the-sand," flag waving nin-cum-poop,that, unfortunately Americans just love to elect to office because they won't tell us what is really happening - they tell us what we want to hear. Palin is, I'm afraid, the weapons of mass destruction that we could not find in Iraq - they are right here at home.

Palin will be going back to Alaska in early November; but, it is most unfortunate that in four years she will be returning and next time she will have four more years experience, learning, skills and abilities that will require Obama to absolutely excell in his first term to defeat her for a second. Considering the barrel of shit that
Bush has left for Obama, it is highly unlikely that he will be reelected as the right-winged braying asses are going to be all over him as they were with Uncle Bill Clinton.

I could complain about the whole "debate," but I won't; instead, please know that, for me, the height of insincerity and the insurance of her having a plasticene heart was when Palin came out and nicely asked, "Can I call you Joe?" That was not a move to be friendly, but rather, a method of phoniness to set it up so she could use the phrase, "Say it ain't so, Joe" later in the debate - what bullshit. If I am correct, she didn't refer to Senator Biden as "Joe" except when she used that phrase - which I don't think she even wrote.

It is really time folks, for this country to drop the "American Idol" approach to electing government officials - we need to be electing statesmen who are put in office for the substance of their policies, not their phoney words and plastic smiles. I am sick and tired of the Reagans and Bushs and Palins and I know we can do better than this nonsense. How about a Lincoln, or an Adams or a Jefferson, or a Franklin? No, not Franklin, he's too good as an outside agitator keeping the officials in line and actually doing something; besides, he had a "Clintonesque" reputation, and heck, that just wouldn't work in todays politics, by golly - you betcha!

Cheers,............mwh

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 03:46 PM

Yes, Jack, I agree that Rig's choice in that respect is probably unwise... ;-) But what it is based on, as you pointed out, is merely the fact that his whole position in this election is: Anyone But Obama!

And that's all there is to it.

It wouldn't matter what Obama did now or said...Rig wouldn't like it. He is emotionally charged against Barack Obama in the same way that some people here are emotionally charged against Hillary Clinton or John McCain. He clearly despises Obama and would vote for anyone in any party rather than for Obama. Nothing is likely to change that.

And I don't believe it's based on any race prejudice on his part either. He simply has decided that Barack Obama is a no-good candidate, period, for reasons that make sense to him, whether or not they do to you, me or Ron Davies.

It makes no sense to accuse Rig of hypocrisy regarding his anti-religious views over this. It makes no sense to accuse him of racism either.

But, oh my! Isn't it tempting for those who like to hurl mean personal epithets and character slurs at their political opponents....

Why not argue with him on matters of substance and policy instead? That's what I would suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Genie
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:07 PM

[[[Riginslinger :
"She comes across as totally dismissive of the opposing party..."

         That's because the opposing party continues to nominate weak candidates, so it's hard to take them seriously.]]]
By your take, then, the Republicans should NOT be talking about putting politics aside and "working across the aisle."    If your own party is the only one with candidates worth taking seriously, why should you not be ignoring the opposing party altogether.

Palin and McCain keep making big noises about "bipartisanship," "working across the aisle," and getting beyond political divisiveness -- all the while ridiculing and condemning the entire Democratic party (except for Joe Lieberman) as not having any policies or candidates with any merit.

I'm not sure "bipartisanship" is such a good thing in cases where one party or another is advocating policies that would be harmful to our country and the world.   Personally, I think it's time for the pendulum to swing way back away from the neocon policies of Reagan, Bush 41, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush 43, McCain, etc.   But I do think the Democratic leadership in Congress and Obama and Biden have shown willingness to compromise and work together with the Republicans -- a lot more than I would advocate, on some issues, e.g., the bailout bill. It hasn't been the Democrats in the Senate who've done record numbers of filibusters when they've been in the minority during the past 30 years.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:16 PM

Yes, of course, one wouldn't launch a filibuster if one wasn't the minority party, at least not very often.

               But I didn't say there were no qualified candidates in the other party, it's just that because of the caucus system, and the way they run the nominating contests, the best candidates rarely get the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: heric
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:21 PM

I didn't hear her say can I call you Joe, and I don't know if she used it only the one time, but:

The other reason to do that was to contrast Obama's perhaps/arguably presumptuous use of "John."

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Genie
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:22 PM

C'mon, Rig,

This current Republican minority in the Senate has set all-time records for filibusters - staging more of them in their first year after the 2006 elections than in any previous 2-year congressional session.    That means they outdid both the Democrats and their own Republican party when it comes to being obstructionist while in the minority.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:23 PM

"the best candidates rarely get the nomination"

No kidding! I would have nominated Dennis Kucinich and/or Ron Paul.

The candidates who get the nomination are the ones who play ball most effectively and cooperatively with the established Big Money interests at the top of the "food chain".

By definition, those are not the best candidates. In fact, they may be among the worst candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Genie
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:28 PM

Heric,
Barack Obama and John McCain have known each other for several years in the senate. I imagine most Senators are on a first-name basis with each other after serving together that long.   (And I'd say calling a 4-year colleage "John" or "Barack" is a sight more respectful than refusing to even look at him or acknowledge him as an equal.)
Sarah Palin had never met Joe Biden before last night, I believe. They wouldn't be expected to be on a first-name basis without first asking permission.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: heric
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:53 PM

I didn't mean it WAS disrespectful, but I'd bet that telling Palin to ask first was to draw the contrast (unless it was also to set-up that uninspired quip.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CapriUni
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:53 PM

Jack the Sailor --

Sorry. I linked only to the home page; you have to dig a little deeper to see their analysis of individual claims.

The tax statistics were cited in

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:05 PM

Mr. Hypocrite has been pathetically whining for months, if not years, about the alleged terrible evils wrought by organized religion, especially in public life.

Anybody for whom organized religion is truly a deep-dyed villain would be a strong opponent of the McCain/Palen ticket. There is no question who is the only fundamentalist of the 4 presidential/VP candidates. And it ain't Obama or Biden. Clue: which one looks forward to the "End Times"?

Mr. Hypocrite is welcome to rebut this--if possible.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:14 PM

Oh, come now. Why would he waste his time on a complete non-sequitor like that? Just to make you happy? ;-) I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:29 PM

She reminds me of a muscian who only has a few songs down... Lucky for her that she isn't going to hjave to do this again soon because if it took a month to teach her the few songs she sang last night she would be in trouble, big time...

The interesting thing tho is that with the 12 or so dongs she learned very well that she had a hard time choosing which one to do in response to the question... And that is not a good thing... It does not invoke confidence in the voter that she can actually, ahhhhh, think or is knowledgeable...

Me thinks that "buyer's remorse" is beginning to take a toll on the McCain/Palin ticket...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Michael Harrison
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:31 PM

Heric: I do believe, nay, I know, that between the time that Biden and Palin emerged from backstage and the time that the first question
was asked - Palin looked at Biden and asked, "Can I call you Joe?"
That is a fact, all you have to do is review the "debate" film. My contention is that she was being pretentious in that she was not asking him if she could call him, "Joe" out of respect, but rather, the question was asked so that she could use the phrase, "Say it ain't so, Joe," which is a very well known line from the life of "Shoeless" Joe Jackson who was accused of cheating in the 1908 Black Sox Scandal (movie: Eight Men Out).

I believe she asked Biden's permission so to give forth a sense of respect, but, she never called him "Joe" until three-quarters of the way through the "debate" when she throws out her quip from "Eight Men Out." Sorry folks, but: McCain/Palin - thanks; but, no thanks. Cheers,.....mwh

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:41 PM

I believe it and it's a good one - I just said I don't know because I only saw part of it. No way I'm watching all of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 07:34 PM

As soon as she said can I call you Joe he should have said you can call me Joe Sixpack. mg

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 07:41 PM

Sarah Palin has the most irritating voice that I've heard in a long time. She is like a wind-up doll pull-string toy spouting the usual parrot-like Republican platitudes. She is being
given credit for not falling on her behind in the debates but she had nothing of substance to add to it and I hope that we can keep her from being anywhere near the presidential role.
It would be worse than Bush in a dress. She is an issuance from John McClone.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 07:48 PM

Genie for cartoon purposes I will go for low hanging fruit, hell I'll go for that rotten apple down in the dirt.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 07:55 PM

Yeah, Strings, rememeber that woman from "Laugh In" who was a grade school teacher??? She would try to get her class controlled by first saying, "Class" and end up screaming at the top of her lungs before saying "Thank you" after the class was scared to death that this woman was about to get out the Glock and pop a few of them...

This is Sarah...

It's really too bad 'cause she is as cute as cute can be... Until she opens her mouht and then it's like "The Nanny"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 08:13 PM

mg, that would have been hilarious if he had answered that way!

THIS is what all people should be focussing on, from the debate, imo. She went from asking what the VP does to this:

"Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are...

"... our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation."

Keep her the eff OUT of Washington!!

I also heard on NPR this morning that she is done with the media. She will no longer answer to any of the media; she will be available to "talk directly with the voters." She will be in CO this weekend at a "private fundraiser."

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 08:13 PM

Back when she was training for the Beauty Queen contest, someone drilled into her--"Smile, smile, smile, smile!"

And she learned her lesson thoroughly. She smiles and smiles, but it's not real.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 08:48 PM

No one's motives are pure, everbody lies


JOHN McCAIN IN THE HOSPITAL

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Beer
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 08:51 PM

Todd Palin seems to be a very quiet guy. I wonder why?
Bobert,
Wasn't that scene also in the album "Up in Smoke" by Cheech and Chong when the Nun (sister) is trying to introduce Sergeant Steatenko(sp.) to the class?
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 08:56 PM

I liked Joe Biden for the first time watching the VP debate.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 09:28 PM

Was anyone besides me totally distracted by that bit of her bangs that kept wiggling every time she blinked her eyes? I had to stop looking at her if I wanted to hear anything she said.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: John O'L
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 09:30 PM

Carol -

Don't think for a moment it wasn't planned.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 09:31 PM

LOLOL!

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 09:53 PM

Well, here's the funny thing...I'd actually rather see Sarah Palin as president than John McCain. Why? Well, I don't agree with her in general...but I also don't think she is demented. She appears to be intelligent and mentally fit. I consider McCain to be mentally unstable and simply not fit for the job.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: John O'L
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 10:06 PM

McCain or Palin, What a choice. I find it hard to believe that this pair is seriously in contention for the White House.

But then again, I guess that's just me. I find it hard to believe that Kissinger is still regarded with some kind of credibility. Palin drops his name as if it's a badge.
Has everyone forgotten what he & Nixon did to Cambodia?

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 10:08 PM

Most people in the US never learned about what Kissinger did to Laos and Cambodia in the first place. They can't forget because they never knew.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 10:08 PM

I'm sure that a great many have forgotten it...if they ever acknowledged it in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:48 PM

Carol, I would love it if someone would take a pair of scissors to her bangs/fringe! I am sure it was planned, as well as leaving ehr hair down in back instead of swooped up.

My Rog finally put his finger on who she reminds him of...the religious neighbour on the Simpsons, I think his name is Ned.**bg** The same kind of fluffy, smiley rhetoric and disconnect with what anyone else has said.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:58 PM

I think Palin is a much more calculating person than Ned Flanders is supposed to be. But I see the same similarity in mannerisms. It looks to me like an act on Palin's part, though. It also reminds me of how some people talk to pre-school age children.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: DougR
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 01:42 AM

She must have done pretty good. Otherwise you folks wouldn't find it so necessary to attack her en mass.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 01:58 AM

Wow, if that's the case, I guess that means Jimmy Carter was the greatest president in the history of the US, if the amount of attacks the person is subjected to is the indication of how good a job they've done.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 01:59 AM

She did do pretty well, Doug, and so did Biden, but that's not why "they" are attacking her en masse. ;-) They are attacking her en masse because she is running for the Republicans, and they would be attacking her en masse whether she had done well, badly, splendidly, or was a complete disaster. Any which way.

That's how it works. The attacks on Palin here are as inevitable as is your enthusiastic support of her, and have little or nothing to do with how well she did the debate.

Like I've said before, if I could predict the weather as accurately as I can predict people's political reactions to things on this forum, I'd have a lucrative job over at Channel 5, I'm sure. ;-D