Continued from http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=538658 as outlined in this post http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8917037&postcount=35

:lol: This is the answer to the "one and only" debate?

I can't stick to the issues or non issues in any given thread, and you mods know it. :)

:lol: This is the answer to the "one and only" debate?

I can't stick to the issues or non issues in any given thread, and you mods know it. :)
A perfect post for the non-issue thread. :up:

How about this for a non-issue: Why do we even care who's president since either way the election goes, the impact upon our lives will be minimal.

How about this for a non-issue: Why do we even care who's president since either way the election goes, the impact upon our lives will be minimal.

Yes, Bush had almost no impact on Americans' lives. -rolleyes-

Yes, Bush had almost no impact on Americans' lives. -rolleyes-
Typical liberal response. -ohbfrank-

;)

Typical liberal response. -ohbfrank-

;)

Save it for the "people with issues" thread. -rolleyes-

:lol: This is the answer to the "one and only" debate?


We're testing the waters to see what happens. The serious/non-serious stuff seemed like the best place to make a break/distinction so that's what we went w/.

"This thread will be an interesting experiment..."

<img src="http://entimg.msn.com/i/ap/11172005/nyet10011172156.jpeg" width=300>

So, do we talk about Palin's vaginal leakage here or in the Palin thread?

eerrrr.... this isn't really how it works. Let people freely start threads as issues come up. This attempt to regulate conversation and force discussions into pre-determined threads seems rather communistic to me.

eerrrr.... this isn't really how it works. Let people freely start threads as issues come up. This attempt to regulate conversation and force discussions into pre-determined threads seems rather communistic to me.

It's an effort to get the Chinese to unblock the site.

Time for me to shut up now. Hopefully we can all agree on that, at least.

"This thread will be an interesting experiment..."

<img src="http://entimg.msn.com/i/ap/11172005/nyet10011172156.jpeg" width=300>"I see thees thread really going places... like me crapping in the back yard."

I keed, I keed. :D

eerrrr.... this isn't really how it works. Let people freely start threads as issues come up. This attempt to regulate conversation and force discussions into pre-determined threads seems rather communistic to me.


Communistic? WTF?

It's an effort to get the Chinese to unblock the site.

:lol:

I really doubt this is going to work.

eerrrr.... this isn't really how it works. Let people freely start threads as issues come up. This attempt to regulate conversation and force discussions into pre-determined threads seems rather communistic to me.
This is not a democracy!

God I finally got the chance to say that. I hated it when my teachers would say that in school. :grunt:

Communistic? WTF?
I believe the term is "communal."

:lol:

I really doubt this is going to work.

Free Tibet! :hippie:

You can have a non-communistic thread when you tell Mike Huckabee's teacher what you have to do to earn it.

Westmoreland calls Obama ‘uppity'
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 09/04/08 03:07 PM [ET]
Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday.

Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama.

"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”

Other Democrats have charged that the Republican campaign to paint the Illinois senator as an “elitist” is racially charged, and accused them of using code words for “uppity” without using the word itself.

In August, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) told reporters, “When I hear the word ‘elitist’ linked with Barack Obama, to me, that is a code word for 'uppity.' I find it extremely offensive and John McCain should know better.”

Political consultant David Gergen, who has worked in both Republican and Democratic White Houses, said on ABC’s "This Week" that “As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'He's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who is from a Southern background.”

The Obama campaign, asked about the quote, did not note any racial context.

“Sounds like Rep. Westmoreland should be careful throwing stones from his candidate's eight glass houses,” said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Campaigning against the first black major-party nominee has already created some problems for Republicans.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name – Hussein – is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, "Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."

At an April 12 event in his district, Kentucky Rep. Geoff Davis (R) said of Obama: “I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button. He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”

Davis sent a letter of apology to Obama in which he described his remark as a “poor choice of words.”

Westmoreland originally supported former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination. He now supports McCain, but missed an August fundraiser for the nominee because he was vacationing with his family.

=========================================

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/westmoreland-calls-obama-uppity-2008-09-04.html

Westmoreland calls Obama ‘uppity'
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 09/04/08 03:07 PM [ET]
Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday.

In response, Obama told him to "sit your cracker ass down!"

Uppity is bad now? The entire english language is turning into one giant black hole.

In response, Obama told him to "sit your cracker ass down!"

Incorrect. Obama said "sit your 4 more years of Bush down" but I'm suspicious that "4 more year of Bush" is a code for "cracker ass."

(You'll have to actually read the article to get this)

Uppity is bad now? The entire english language is turning into one giant black hole.
That's offensive. :grunt:

as someone from the south, i've never heard "uppity" used in a racist way. i didn't realize it has those connotations.

Also, isn't westmorland the guy who made a fool of himself on the colbert report?

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name – Hussein – is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, "Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."

"Declare victory," without them killing anyone? If having some guy with the middle name of Hussein will make them stop, then I think everyone should vote for Obama. Or does that fall under the lines of "negotiating with terrorists"?

as someone from the south, i've never heard "uppity" used in a racist way. i didn't realize it has those connotations.



I believe it was more popular before our time.

Henry Kissinger said in an interview, when questioned about Palin's lack of foreign policy experience, 'Harry Truman had little or no foreign policy experience when he became president. He did a pretty good job.'

George W. Bush had little or no foreign policy experience when he became president. He did a pretty crappy job.

Also, isn't westmorland the guy who made a fool of himself on the colbert report?

You'll have to be a little more specific.

George W. Bush had little or no foreign policy experience when he became president. He did a pretty crappy job.

Clinton had little or no foreign policy experience when he became president, right? Same could probably be said for Reagan, Carter, etc

George W. Bush had little or no foreign policy experience when he became president. He did a pretty crappy job.

What's your point?

as someone from the south, i've never heard "uppity" used in a racist way. i didn't realize it has those connotations.

Also, isn't westmorland the guy who made a fool of himself on the colbert report?

The top dog of West Point for some time and the top dog of Vietnam? He's dead.

What's your point?

hindsight is always 20/20.

but let the record stand, I always thought Bush was an idiot.

That was not Henry Kissinger's point.

hindsight is always 20/20.

Not in this forum.

hindsight is always 20/20.

Personally I've always find hindsight to be a little myopic based on whose doing the talking -ptth-

I'm still not sure what this has to do w/ the election thread though. Are you saying in hindsight we should know whether to vote for Obama or <strike>Palin</strike> McCain :confused:

That was not Henry Kissinger's point.

maybe not, but it might as well be.

maybe not, but it might as well be.

:lol:

There goes my coffee.

as someone from the south, i've never heard "uppity" used in a racist way. i didn't realize it has those connotations.I'm fairly certain it's a word my admittedly white grandparents who live in rural mississippi would have used. Of course they were desegregationists who helped integrate the public schools in their tiny town and lost business at the general store they owned because my grandfather was more than happy to sell to, and employ black people.

Just for the record, my grandfather also hated every Republican president and my mom was afraid to tell him that she voted for Reagan and Bush I. :)

CBS News poll came out.... Obama 42, McCain 42
The previous poll was 8/31 and was Obama 48, McCain 40

Edit: after Palin pick but before speech: 9/1 - 9/3

It looks like a lot of Obama supporters went from Obama to undecided on this one. I'm willing to bet much of that are Hillary supporters.

Remember how Obama was up by 8 points in the CBS poll last week? Well...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/opinion/polls/main4416798.shtml

(CBS) The presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain is now even at 42 percent, according to a new CBS News poll conducted Monday-Wednesday of this week. Twelve percent are undecided according to the poll, and one percent said they wouldn't vote.

This is in contrast to a poll conducted last weekend, where the Obama-Biden ticket led McCain-Palin by eight points, 48 percent to 40 percent.

Clinton had little or no foreign policy experience when he became president, right? Same could probably be said for Reagan, Carter, etc

Incorrect. All three men were former National Guard commanders.

The top dog of West Point for some time and the top dog of Vietnam? He's dead.

My guess is that Venusian is referring to the Representative Westmoreland who is quoted in the article that he is commenting on, and not the completely irrelevant Vietnam-era general. ;)

Thank God. I was worried that we were going to see zombie William Westmoreland staggering around.

CBS News poll came out.... Obama 42, McCain 42
The previous poll was 8/31 and was Obama 48, McCain 40

Edit: after Palin pick but before speech: 9/1 - 9/3

It looks like a lot of Obama supporters went from Obama to undecided on this one. I'm willing to bet much of that are Hillary supporters.Here's the current electoral vote map: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

298 Obama to 227 McCain as of this morning.

Yeah, the national polls aren't as important as looking at the state-by-state polls.

as someone from the south, i've never heard "uppity" used in a racist way. i didn't realize it has those connotations.



As someone from the South, I've heard it used in my lifetime, more times than I like to think about. And worse - far worse.

I'm not sure of your ethnic background (South Asian? sorry if that's wrong), but I'm white, and I think people have been unguarded around me, where they might not be around you.

Henry Kissinger said in an interview, when questioned about Palin's lack of foreign policy experience, 'Harry Truman had little or no foreign policy experience when he became president. He did a pretty good job.'

Truman made up for his lack of experience with balls.

As for Palin, I hear she once got into a "Who has more balls" contest with Chuck Norris and Lance Armstrong. She won by seven.

----------------
Now playing: Talking Heads - Swamp (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/talking+heads/track/swamp)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

Here's the current electoral vote map: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

298 Obama to 227 McCain as of this morning.

Or you could use RCP:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Obama: 273
McCain: 265

Any Blue State with 2 or more representatives could swing it (and there are several "too close to call" states like that -- NH: Obama +0.3, CO: Obama +0.4, etc.)

Or you could use RCP:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Obama: 273
McCain: 265

Any Blue State with 2 or more representatives could swing it (and there are several "too close to call" states like that -- NH: Obama +0.3, CO: Obama +0.4, etc.)

Likewise, they've given Senator McCain credit for a number of big states (Ohio, Virginia, Florida) that could conceivably swing to Senator Obama. Who knows what November will bring?

My favorite electoral map site is Fivethirtyeight.com (www.fivethirtyeight.com). They take all of the polls and a bunch of demographic data and run it through a regression. Obviously, the results are only as valid as is the regression, but I like that it does more than just take a single poll, or even a straight average of a few polls.

My favorite electoral map site is Fivethirtyeight.com (www.fivethirtyeight.com). They take all of the polls and a bunch of demographic data and run it through a regression. Obviously, the results are only as valid as is the regression, but I like that it does more than just take a single poll, or even a straight average of a few polls.

I haven't looked at the site, but that's not a scientifically viable method of collecting data. Aggregating multiple samples to generate a larger sample can be done, but you can't take a central point of a data sample and then regress it. That ignores all covariance issues entirely.

But, I agree. Obama can blow it open with one large state, McCain can win with one small state, and we've still got 2 months to go. I'm just pointing out that it's not currently a blow out, like Mordred's site suggested.

Before Ped gets on me... you can't regress moments like that without a control sample, and even then you only do it when you inject a change in one or more groups and observe the differences in the control sample. And even then that method is not generally accepted.

The vast majority of the time when I was growing up I heard uppity used in a non-racial sense.

The word was generally used for people who thought they were better than other folks.

Thank God. I was worried that we were going to see <b>zombie William Westmoreland</b> staggering around.


I'd vote for <i>Him</i>.:up:

Michelle Obama announced today that she and Barack are "not having any more kids." She called the campaign their 3rd child.

Could they be planning an abortion as their October surprise?

[standing on stage] "This is our fetus. We didn't want it, and no government should be able to tell us that we have to keep it!"

Could be a game changer. Developing.

Michelle Obama announced today that she and Barack are "not having any more kids." She called the campaign their 3rd child.

Could they be planning an abortion as their October surprise?

[standing on stage] "This is our fetus. We didn't want it, and no government should be able to tell us that we have to keep it!"

Could be a game changer. Developing.


:lol:

I'm glad I didn't say that.

Or you could use RCP:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Obama: 273
McCain: 265

Any Blue State with 2 or more representatives could swing it (and there are several "too close to call" states like that -- NH: Obama +0.3, CO: Obama +0.4, etc.)I do like RCPs site, I hadn't seen that one before. However it looks like they take the average of the last 5 polls to report their results. That's why McCain has a lead in Ohio due to the 8/18 Rasmussen poll, even though the last two polls have Obama in the lead. EV apparently just goes by the last poll held (although I could have sworn that in 2004 they did some averaging for polls very close together). I don't know which would be a more statistically valid method, especially considering the margins of error built in.

As I said in another thread, the polls this early obviously don't mean anything other than a general ballpark estimate.

I do like RCPs site, I hadn't seen that one before. However it looks like they take the average of the last 5 polls to report their results. That's why McCain has a lead in Ohio due to the 8/18 Rasmussen poll, even though the last two polls have Obama in the lead. EV apparently just goes by the last poll held (although I could have sworn that in 2004 they did some averaging for polls very close together). I don't know which would be a more statistically valid method, especially considering the margins of error built in.

As I said in another thread, the polls this early obviously don't mean anything other than a general ballpark estimate.www.pollster.com is the most reliable. It's run by two guys, one of whom, Mark Blumenthal, is a professional pollster and the other, Charles Franklin, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on polling methodology.

www.pollster.com is the most reliable. It's run by two guys, one of whom, Mark Blumenthal, is a professional pollster and the other, Charles Franklin, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on polling methodology.Looks like Pollster.com uses a regression based trendline as opposed to an average. Unfortunately their site is laid out rather poorly and they refuse to assign "toss up" states to either side. I understand why they do this, but I'd prefer to just go with whoever is on top currently.

Looks like Pollster.com uses a regression based trendline as opposed to an average.Yes, they use LOWESS.Unfortunately their site is laid out rather poorly and they refuse to assign "toss up" states to either side. I understand why they do this, but I'd prefer to just go with whoever is on top currently.I agree the layout isn't ideal, but once you familiarize yourself with the site you can navigate through it fairly easily. I prefer that they leave the toss-up states that way. It's more "honest" if you get my meaning.

I think both methods are appropriate...

"Who would win if the election was held today" v "What needs to happen for the candidates to win in November"

Granted, there is a margin of error that is hard to factor in for the former.

I don't know which would be a more statistically valid method, especially considering the margins of error built in.

In the academic literature, the averaging of polls has been shown to be the better method, despite temporal effects of a lengthened sampling period. The regression of polls has been shown to be bunk.

The party that champions property rights has once again gotten in trouble for stealing intellectual property -- Heart apparently sent a cease & desist letter in reaction to the GOP playing their song "Barracuda" at the convention last night.

Better stick to the John Rich original compositions, guys.

The party that champions property rights has once again gotten in trouble for stealing intellectual property -- Heart apparently sent a cease & desist letter in reaction to the GOP playing their song "Barracuda" at the convention last night.

Better stick to the John Rich original compositions, guys.

They're just being Bitches. :lol:

It's nothing new of course. Jackson Browne (http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/08/jackson-browne.html) sued McCain over use of one of his songs.

Chrissy Hynde of The Pretenders was on Adam Carrola's show and they asked her about Rush Limbaugh using her song for his theme music. She said people are always saying that she should sue him or demand that he stop but she said she didn't care. :lol:

The party that champions property rights has once again gotten in trouble for stealing intellectual property -- Heart apparently sent a cease & desist letter in reaction to the GOP playing their song "Barracuda" at the convention last night.

Better stick to the John Rich original compositions, guys.

However, Roger Fisher, the band's former guitarist who co-wrote the song, was "thrilled" by the songs use and the song is also licensed for use in public performances under a blanket fee paid to ASCAP by the convention's venue.


Whoops!

link (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0451966120080905)

The party that champions property rights has once again gotten in trouble for stealing intellectual property -- Heart apparently sent a cease & desist letter in reaction to the GOP playing their song "Barracuda" at the convention last night.


If only the Republican party really held that view, and was trying to reform copyright back to it's original 28 year limit, I'd cut the party a check right now.

----------------
Now playing: CNET.com - Buzz Out Loud 803: Limp-wristed robot handshakes (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/cnet.com/track/buzz+out+loud+803%3a+limp-wristed+robot+handshakes)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

the archfiends thoughts on the election:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ukYHJT_pFxQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ukYHJT_pFxQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

the archfiends thoughts on the election:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ukYHJT_pFxQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ukYHJT_pFxQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That has to be one of the biggest piles of non-coherent thought that I have ever heard. Of course, I don't spend much time around youtube videoblogs, particularly political ones involving college students.

Well, McCain/Palin is up by around 4 in the latest Zogby polls:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548

I'm trying to figure out what to make of Obama's recent comment:
“Who is it that he’s going to tell that change is coming? I mean come on, they must think you’re stupid!”

Seems a tad... insulting?

I like this one even better:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MGMQ5DpVVTM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MGMQ5DpVVTM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Well, McCain/Palin is up by around 4 in the latest Zogby polls:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548

McCain/Palin +10 in the USA Today/Gallup poll

RealClearPolitics now has McCain/Palin +1 on average.

Obama still seems to be leading in the EC

Not many polls since the convention, though.

edit: actually no state polls on RCP since the convention. The last state poll they show is Colorado on 8/26.

edit: edit: there's an Ohio on 9/2 up. That's the actual last one (though it's out of chronological order on their site).

McCain/Palin +10 in the USA Today/Gallup poll

RealClearPolitics now has McCain/Palin +1 on average.

I was about to post that; but, I thought, surely my ears failed me when I heard that this morning.

On 9/11, Obama will sit down for a private lunch with Bill Clinton. What are the odds on Hillary preparing and serving that meal?

I like this one even better:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MGMQ5DpVVTM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MGMQ5DpVVTM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
saw an article talking about that...it doesn't even seem like a mistake. he meant to say that mccain hasn't talked about the rumors of his alleged muslim faith. i get what obama was saying. people who try to play this as a slip of admisison or something are stupid

Truman made up for his lack of experience with balls.

As for Palin, I hear she once got into a "Who has more balls" contest with Chuck Norris and Lance Armstrong. She won by seven.
I really hope someone has created a website around this idea.

as someone from the south, i've never heard "uppity" used in a racist way. i didn't realize it has those connotations.


I grew up in the south and have heard it used in a racist way. The full phrase is "Uppity N...." .

I've never heard it in any way other than with racist intent.

uppity

1880, from up (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/up); originally used by blacks of other blacks felt to be too self-assertive (first recorded use is in "Uncle Remus"). The parallel British variant uppish (1678) originally meant "lavish;" the sense of "conceited, arrogant" being first recorded 1734.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uppity

Discussion on the American Dialect Society email list (48 uppity (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0809a&L=ads-l#42)).

I think I have heard it used as LiquidSky mentions as well.

I've never heard it in any way other than with racist intent.
Same here.

I've never heard it in any way other than with racist intent.

And I've never heard used it in a racist way at all. :shrug:

I've only ever heard the word "uppity" used in one context.

I was about to post that; but, I thought, surely my ears failed me when I heard that this morning.

As you probably know, it's rather unprudent to take any "stock" into what polls and surveys say between now and November. One day McCain will be up, the other down, the day after he'll be up, and so on.

I've never heard it in any way other than with racist intent.

I've heard the word uppity used on several occasions without racist intent. Never with racist intent.

In my case, it was used to describe a blonde woman on a date. On another occasion, it was used to describe a CEO (he was white, non-Black) who didn't know what the fuck he was doing with the company.

Like using the word color in a sentence, the word does not necessarily mean its racist.

Uppity normally means self-arrogant, narcissistic. In the South, it may mean something totally different, but we have to remember, everything from the South is a little different.

As you probably know, it's rather unprudent to take any "stock" into what polls and surveys say between now and November. One day McCain will be up, the other down, the day after he'll be up, and so on.

classicman2 likes polls when they favor his candidate. :lol:

I've never heard it in any way other than with racist intent.

I have seldom heard it used with racist intent.

MSNBC is reporting that Hillary Clinton has told the Obama campaign that she will campaign for the ticket; but, she will not attack McCain or Palin.

I wonder if Bill will tell Barack the same thing when they sit for supper?

I've heard the word uppity used on several occasions without racist intent. Never with racist intent.

In my case, it was used to describe a blonde woman on a date. On another occasion, it was used to describe a CEO (he was white, non-Black) who didn't know what the fuck he was doing with the company.

Like using the word color in a sentence, the word does not necessarily mean its racist.

Uppity normally means self-arrogant, narcissistic. In the South, it may mean something totally different, but we have to remember, everything from the South is a little different.
I like that you clarified that white means not black :lol: I personally think that people get a little hung up on politicians using "loaded" words to reveal that they are secretly racist.

MSNBC is reporting that Hillary Clinton has told the Obama campaign that she will campaign for the ticket; but, she will not attack McCain or Palin.

I wonder if Bill will tell Barack the same thing when they sit for supper?
I can't imagine Clinton not attacking McCain while campaigning for Obama.

Posted at foxnews.com just a few minutes ago:

"Keith Olbermann may be the “voice” of MSNBC, but network executives have decided to yank the talkmeister off its politican anchor desk after the cable channel finishing dead last in the Nielsen rankings of all news coverage during the two weeks of political conventions.

The network announced Monday that Olbermann and Chris Matthews have both been booted as co-hosts on political night coverage in favor of David Gregory, whose White House press corps experience may make him better suited to deliver sober and less opinion-driven assessments of the news.

All summer, MSNBC executives have fought off complaints that Olbermann and Matthews, the network’s top commentators, could serve in the role of impartial newsmen. Those complaints reached a crescendo last week when Olbermann, reporting on the Republican National Convention from New York rather than St. Paul, apologized to the audience after the channel aired a Sept. 11 video tribute crafted by the RNC.

“We would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead, and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize,” Olbermann said.

The network’s weak ratings during the conventions may have given MSNBC executives the cover they needed to boot Olbermann and Matthews. FOX News Channel topped all broadcast and cable networks with 9.2 million viewers on each of the last two nights of the convention. MSNBC got barely more than a quarter of Fox’s total –2.5 million viewers.

MSNBC also ranked last among the three cable channels during primetime coverage of the last two nights of the Democratic convention.

Olbermann’s hard left views and his catfights with other MSNBC hosts have been the talk of gossip pages all summer. Olbermann sarcastically dismissed Republican pundit Pat Buchanan on the air after Buchanan said the GOP had been enlivened by Sarah Palin’s vice presidential nomination.

“Those reading Us Weekly with the picture of her and her youngest daughter with the word ’scandal’ written across it won’t be so happy,” Olbermann said.

He also expressed no regard for the GOP’s push back against rumors about Palin’s personal life.

“We’ll see if people feel sorry for unfounded rumors on the Internet,” he said. “If that’s the case, Senator Obama’s probably standing up and cheering and waiting for people to feel sorry for him.”

Olbermann’s brash style may also have earned him enemies within his own organization. He was caught on microphones mocking another MSNBC host, Joe Scarborough, when Scarborough was discussing positive developments in McCain’s campaign.

“Jesus, Joe, why don’t you get a shovel?” he asked.

At another time, Matthews snapped at Olbermann on-air when it appeared Olbermann was criticizing him for talking too much. Matthews told TVNewser last week that he and Olbermann get along fine. It’s not clear when Matthews was informed of the decision to bounce him from the anchor spot along with Olbermann.

Asked about the internal fighting at MSNBC, NBC anchor Brian Williams tried to smooth ruffled feathers during an appearance on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” last week.

“Is there no control?” asked host Jon Stewart. “Is it ‘Lord of the Flies’?”

Williams replied that every family has a dynamic of its own.

“But does MSNBC have to be the Lohans?” Stewart said.

As a result of the internal turmoil, Gregory will now anchor MSNBC’s coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates, as well as on election night, said network spokesman Jeremy Gaines.

Olbermann did score an interview with Barack Obama on his “Countdown” show. That is set to air Monday and will go up against Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Obama on FOX News. A portion of the O’Reilly interview with Obama aired last Thursday and earned O’Reilly his second highest rating ever, with more than 6.6 million viewers."


I'll take David Gregory over Keith Olbermann any day of the year...

Which Clinton?

I've heard the word uppity used on several occasions without racist intent. Never with racist intent.

I've heard the word without racist intent as well. Heck, I've heard black people use the word in regards to rich white people also. Now, that said, most of the time I've heard it it has been used towards blacks, in a racist way. As mentioned before, "uppity n____".

As for the Obama video above, yes, of course it's stupid of anyone to play that clip and go "see, see, he's admitting he's a Muslim!" is retarded. However, it's stupid for Obama to let something like that even come close to slipping out of his mouth, misspeaking or not.

I’ve heard that Joe Biden, when asked during an interview of he or Obama would have town hall meetings with McCain/Palin, responded with something like “to use the words of someone else, that’s above my pay grade”. That can’t possibly be true is it? Did he really say that in a joking way? Seems to me like he would want people to forget Obama said it, considering the backlash from it.

I've only ever heard the word "uppity" used in one context.

Was it when a black person failed to put their yard flag at half mast?

a little anecdotal evidence: I heard my mother use the word 'uppity' a whole bunch of tmes. I never heard her use it in a racial sense.

Generally she used it to describe one of her sister-in-laws. ;)

Which Clinton?
The one with the metaphorical balls.

a little anecdotal evidence: I heard my mother use the word 'uppity' a whole bunch of tmes. I never heard her use it in a racial sense.

Generally she used it to describe one of her sister-in-laws. ;)

Maybe there's a family secret you aren't aware of.

If neither Clinton attacks McCain are Palin would that be a help to Obama or to McCain?

If neither Clinton attacks McCain are Palin would that be a help to Obama or to McCain?
I think Obama would be best served by others beating the crap out of McCain/Palin and him not saying a word about them. I am not an expert though, so what do I know.

Obama still seems to be leading in the EC

How up-to-date are the polls used to determine the EC projections?


----------------
Now playing: Leo Laporte and the TWiTs - TWiT 159: That’s Not My Churro (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/leo+laporte+and+the+twits/track/twit+159%3a+that%e2%80%99s+not+my+churro)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

Hillary cannot afford to attack Palin if she wants to run in 2012.

As usual, she's done her homework. Some of her supporters will go to the other side, but are easily retrieved in 4 years.

Additionally, I haven't been able to find this anywhere on the MSNBC web site. :confused:

How up-to-date are the polls used to determine the EC projections?

As mentioned, not that up-to-date in many states. Many are pre-Palin pick and most are pre-convention.

On a related note, the new national polls today:

USA Today/Gallup: McCain/Palin +10
Hotline/FD Tracking: Tie
Rasmussen Tracking: McCain/Palin +1

On an unrelated note, that music signature thing you have is really annoying. It's not an actual signature, so people who reply to you have to manually delete it. Meanwhile, no one cares what you're listening to.

Hillary cannot afford to attack Palin if she wants to run in 2012.

As usual, she's done her homework. Some of her supporters will go to the other side, but are easily retrieved in 4 years.

Additionally, I haven't been able to find this anywhere on the MSNBC web site. :confused:
Yeah, Hillary will do enough to look like she's helping, but she's looking and hoping for 2012.

Hillary cannot afford to attack Palin if she wants to run in 2012.

As usual, she's done her homework. Some of her supporters will go to the other side, but are easily retrieved in 4 years.

Additionally, I haven't been able to find this anywhere on the MSNBC web site. :confused:
Sources from her entourage have said she'll concentrate on attacking McCain but not Palin. Don't know where MSNBC-man got the bit about not attacking McCain.

----------------
Now playing: Matta and the Whiners - Waah Waah (Come Home Tonite) (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8925423&postcount=106)
via FoxyMatta (http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x237/oddpal/waahmbulance.png)

I believe Hillary's value to the Obama campaign signficantly decreased with the selection of Palin.

I believe Hillary's value to the Obama campaign signficantly decreased with the selection of Palin.

Sources from her entourage have said she'll concentrate on attacking McCain but not Palin. Don't know where MSNBC-man got the bit about not attacking McCain.


I think it sounds like they are going to act like Palin doesn't exist. Probably a good move.

Well, if I can't find it on the internet, it's probably not true. ;) (although c-man's report of Romney being "out" proved correct.


----------------
Now playing: Whatsa Matta Baby - Missing You (And You Can See It In My Pants) (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8925423&postcount=106)
via FoxyMatta (http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x237/oddpal/waahmbulance.png)

Newsflash: Everything that's on MSNBC television doesn't necessarily appear on their website.

Did Chuck Todd's analysis of the electoral map this morning on MSNBC television appear on MSNBC's website?

It seems as if a few of our Ron Paul supporters are under the illusion that he's another Ross Perot - or even another Ralph Nader.

He ain't!!

Did Chuck Todd's analysis of the electoral map this morning on MSNBC television appear on MSNBC's website?

Yes. It's on their home page.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/08/1360524.aspx

Yeah, Hillary will do enough to look like she's helping, but she's looking and hoping for 2012.

Hillary's husband read a book and talked to guy named Harry Dent who is big into economic and demographics research. predicted a lot of trends going back almost 20 years.

According to him it really doesn't matter who the president is next year because the way the economic winds are blowing he will most likely be a 1 term president. if she believes him as well all she has to do is wait until 2012

According to him it really doesn't matter who the president is next year because the way the economic winds are blowing he will most likely be a 1 term president. if she believes him as well all she has to do is wait until 2012

This is probably true.

Obama will win in November but lose reelection.

I think it sounds like they are going to act like Palin doesn't exist. Probably a good move.

Yes, this is what I've been thinking as well. The old "Sarah who?"

Judging by the sharp rebuttal of any criticism by many parties, it is a wise move.

This is probably true.

Obama will win in November but lose reelection.

brave words since we haven't seen Obama in a debate against McCain yet. Primary season is not like the general election. you only have to pander to the base of your party, in this case the loony left. this is why McCain lost the 2000 primary, evangelicals hated him. and this is why he picked Palin.

brave words since we haven't seen Obama in a debate against McCain yet. Primary season is not like the general election. you only have to pander to the base of your party, in this case the loony left. this is why McCain lost the 2000 primary, evangelicals hated him. and this is why he picked Palin.

:shrug: It's just my prediction. I could be wrong.

if she believes him as well all she has to do is wait until 2012

So the Democrats can vote her second again? Why does everyone assume HC is a shoe-in for the nomination in 2012?

Nobody is assuming she is a shoe-in. Everyone is assuming she wants to run again.

Yes, this is what I've been thinking as well. The old "Sarah who?"

Judging by the sharp rebuttal of any criticism by many parties, it is a wise move.

So McCain should start ignoring Obama?

Seriously, though, people aren't saying Palin is above criticism. They're saying she's above stupid and slanderous criticism, which is 90% of what's been reported so far.

The New York Post has endorsed John McCain for President.

Are you as shocked about this as I am? ;)

When will The New York Times endorse Barack Obama?

Probably just a tad sooner than The Washinton Post's endorsement of Barack Obama.

I noticed this morning that the "People of the World" officially endorsed Obama at the MTV Movie Awards last night.

Has MSNBC endorsed Obama yet?

This is certainly interesting...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110137/McCain-Now-Winning-Majority-Independents.aspx

Majority of independents now prefer him (McCain) over Obama, 52% to 37%

PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain's 6 percentage-point bounce in voter support spanning the Republican National Convention is largely explained by political independents shifting to him in fairly big numbers, from 40% pre-convention to 52% post-convention in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

Nobody is assuming she is a shoe-in. Everyone is assuming she wants to run again.


"Assuming she wants to run again"??

Uh...no oddsmaker is his/her right mind would take a bet that she doesn't was to run. It's a close to a sure thing that you can find in this life.

Clinton would pull a Vince Foster rather than contemplate NOT running. She might decide not to run for a variety of reasons, but she WANTS to run...and WIN...like a chimp wants a banana plantation.

Does John McCain support child molestation?

Maybe a silly question, but he's running a new ad attacking Senator Obama for wanting to teach "comprehensive sex education to kindergartners." The only problem is that the bill in question (which Obama supported but did not sponsor, and which did not pass) would not have taight comprehensive sex education to kindergartners. Instead, it would have put in place a comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education program for kindergartern through 12th grade. Kindergartners would have been taught that if someone touches you in your bathing suit areas, you should tell a grown-up.

Now, I don't think Senator McCain really wants kindergartners to be molested. However, I do think that by running an ad like this, he raises the political costs of introducing legislation to fight child molestation. Which in turn makes it less likely that such laws would be passed. Thanks a lot, Senator!

Does John McCain support child molestation?

Maybe a silly question, but he's running a new ad attacking Senator Obama for wanting to teach "comprehensive sex education to kindergartners." The only problem is that the bill in question (which Obama supported but did not sponsor, and which did not pass) would not have taight comprehensive sex education to kindergartners. Instead, it would have put in place a comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education program for kindergartern through 12th grade. Kindergartners would have been taught that if someone touches you in your bathing suit areas, you should tell a grown-up.



what is the differance between "comprehensive sex education" and "comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education" ???

I don't see how you can argue that this bill did not propose to teach sex education to kindergartners.

Sure, teaching kids about inapropriate touching is good. Answering some simple questions about where babies come from probably won't harm the kids. But once you start this, you know there will be kids who ask and bring up other topics and where do you draw the line.

If the true purpose of this was to teach kids about inapropriate touching then it probably really doesn't even need to be called "sex" education, as it is really more of a safety issue and could be taught the same way they tell kids not to talk to strangers, make sure they know their phone number/address, etc.

tcoursen, here's what happened when it was brough up during the 2004 Illinois Senate debate:

KEYES: Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be "age-appropriate" sex education.

But then on another vote, when they wanted to put internet filters on computers for the schools and in the libraries, you voted to oppose that, which made me wonder just exactly what you think is "age-appropriate."

For instance, do you think that, in the first and second grade, we ought to be teaching from books like Heather Has Two Mommies, where we will be presenting, whether or not parents agree with it, a lifestyle that many folks in the state of Illinois believe is not advisable? Is that the kind of sex education you mean?

OBAMA: Actually, that wasn't what I had in mind.

We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate.

Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean.

And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.

Now, if Senator McCain wants to borrow a page from the Keyes camapign, as an Obama supporter, that's OK with me. It's scummy, dishonest, and exploitative, but that seems to be the sort of campaign Senator McCain wants to run.

Now, if Senator McCain wants to borrow a page from the Keyes camapign, as an Obama supporter, that's OK with me. It's scummy, dishonest, and exploitative, but that seems to be the sort of campaign Senator McCain wants to run.

What was scummy about what you posted about Keyes question? That seemed like a resonable question to ask Obama, and Obama's answer was very appropriate. Nothing there seemed scummy or dishonest.

Bottom line is sex education is sex education, and whether you agree with it or not there are probably a lot of people in this country that wouldn't even want what Obama is proposing in that quote to be taught at that age. Even if McCain put in his add "age appropriate sex education" I don't think it would make much of a differance to the audience he is trying to reach with that add. The only words they see in that add is "sex" and "education" and that is enough for them to be opposed to it.

If you don't want kids to be taught how to avoid being molested -- or you want to politicize efforts to teach that to kids -- I would call that scummy.

The EVP is apparently tied at 250 each for McCain and Obama:

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

Also, McCain leads in the average of the polls, 47.4% to 45.2%.

The EVP is apparently tied at 250 each for McCain and Obama:

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

Also, McCain leads in the average of the polls, 47.4% to 45.2%.That dashboard doesn't make any sense because they have states (such as Maryland) in the no EV category. Plus it looks like it's being pulled from RCP. All of this is being discussed in the one and only EV/Polls thread anyway.

If you don't want kids to be taught how to avoid being molested -- or you want to politicize efforts to teach that to kids -- I would call that scummy.

There was more to that bill than just teaching kids how to possibly be molested.

And just because you disagree with Keyes' and others view point on that issue, doesn't make it scummy. makes it differant.

Nothing is stopping parents from being parents and teaching this stuff to their own kids, if that is what they want them to learn.

Whoa. McCain passed Obama on Intrade. That's the first time I've seen that since the Iowa Caucuses:

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=409933

I think the election is moving in a definite direction, and I still don't think the 'experts' have picked up on it yet.

Neither the polls nor the prognosticators.

I think the election is moving in a definite direction, and I still don't think the 'experts' have picked up on it yet.

Neither the polls nor the prognosticators.

It appears, to this observer at least, that Senator Obama has a limit to his support and that he has already maxed out, or come very close to it.

However, there is still plenty of time for Senator McCain to screw up.

Let me add, Mr. Obama does possess many of the organisational advantages that President Bush had in his two electoral victories.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html

"Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."


Don't go around and say you're not the most qualified (even though you're not). It doesn't soundbite well

Nice, Joe. rotfl

When will The New York Times endorse Barack Obama?

Probably just a tad sooner than The Washinton Post's endorsement of Barack Obama.I'm more interested as to when my hometown newspaper will endorse McCain. The last Democratic presidential nominee they endorsed was Wilson. :lol:

When was the last time The New York Times endorsed a Republican candidate for President?

When was the last time The Washington Post endorsed a Republican candidate for President?

trivia

you forgot your signature ;) in that post

do newspaper endorsements really change anyone's vote?

do newspaper endorsements really change anyone's vote?


Probably not the NYT or WP but I could see a local paper endorsement in a swing jurisdiction making a difference to some undecided carbon blobs.

people still read newspapers?

people still read newspapers?Yes. I'd be willing to bet that every single person in my office subscribes to at least one newspaper, and actually reads them.

Yes. I'd be willing to bet that every single person in my office subscribes to at least one newspaper, and actually reads them.

You work at a University right? That's a tad different.

Then again I remember that when I was in college, many classes (mostly Poli Sci and Int'l Relations ones that I took) required you to have a subscription to the NYT, WSJ or WP. After the first semester of subscribing, I said the hell with that and would grab one of the dozens (fresh and unread) sitting in the recycling bins. ;)

You work at a University right? That's a tad different.If other people around here are allowed to make completely invalid, unscientific observations based on anecdotal evidence, then why can't I?

I also predict that Senator Obama will win the election by a margin that would make Robert Mugabe envious.

;)

You work at a University right? That's a tad different.

I would say that at least half my office reads a newspaper. Granted, it's usually the Post or the Daily News, but hey.

I would say that at least half my office reads a newspaper. Granted, it's usually the Post or the Daily News, but hey.

Those were probably my favorite papers in my pre-web college days. They had comprehensive betting lines/odds in the sports section. ;)

I just saw an interesting poll on MSNBC - I believe the polling organization was the one that begings with a Q.

24% of Hillary voters in FL said they will vote for McCain.

28% of Hillary voters in OH said they will vote for McCain.

I might have the percentage figures reversed - they're still interesting figures.

Maybe Bill can turn the tide at his luncheon with Obama today.

I also predict that Senator Obama will win the election by a margin that would make Robert Mugabe envious.


:lol:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html

"Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."


Don't go around and say you're not the most qualified (even though you're not). It doesn't soundbite well


Yep, for an election cycle with a lot of firsts and a lot of crazy stuff, this was a real jaw-dropper for me. This wasn't some disputable statistic, some hazy accusation, some half-truth, somebody saying something he didn't really mean, a quote being taken out of context, etc----that's what he said, and that's what he meant. :shrug:

Maybe Bill can turn the tide at his luncheon with Obama today.

It was Obama's Don Corleone moment.

Yep, for an election cycle with a lot of firsts and a lot of crazy stuff, this was a real jaw-dropper for me. This wasn't some disputable statistic, some hazy accusation, some half-truth, somebody saying something he didn't really mean, a quote being taken out of context, etc----that's what he said, and that's what he meant. :shrug:

he said it to a questioner at a fundraiser who admitted he was glad Hillary wasn't picked. any sort of approval of such a comment would've looked really, really bad. it shows he has humility, and will in no way affect this election.

he said it to a questioner at a fundraiser who admitted he was glad Hillary wasn't picked. any sort of approval of such a comment would've looked really, really bad. it shows he has humility, and will in no way affect this election.

I think he went overboard and didn't know when to quit. He should have said she was qualified and left it at that. When he did was probably induce the Obama people into thinking about dropping him. :lol:

Even at the height of all the viscious rumers flying about Palin, I thought there was a better chance that Biden would be the one dropped from the ticket rather than Palin.

I think he went overboard and didn't know when to quit. He should have said she was qualified and left it at that. When he did was probably induce the Obama people into thinking about dropping him. :lol:

Even at the height of all the viscious rumers flying about Palin, I thought there was a better chance that Biden would be the one dropped from the ticket rather than Palin.

if you think this will be an issue, you are mistaken.

I think he went overboard and didn't know when to quit. He should have said she was qualified and left it at that.



I agree. If anything, it makes it look like he thinks what he did in the Senate for 20-something years prior to Hillary's arrival was inconsequential.

he said it to a questioner at a fundraiser who admitted he was glad Hillary wasn't picked. any sort of approval of such a comment would've looked really, really bad. it shows he has humility, and will in no way affect this election.


I would suggest there would be a more politically astute way to communicate that than to actually say "...she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me." a few weeks before the election.

I would suggest there would be a more politically astute way to communicate that than to actually say "...she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me." a few weeks before the election.

:rolleyes: you're reaching, and have short hands.

I'm not saying it's going to be a determining factor in the election, I just think it's quite a gaffe.

Kind of reminds me of that Simpsons episode where they flashed back to one of Homer's job interviews:

Interviewer: "What would you say are some of your weaknesses?"

The other applicants: "I'm a perfectionist. "I'm a workaholic." I push myself too hard."

Homer: "Well, I'm kind of lazy, I like to goof off a lot, it takes me a really long time to learn things......."

:lol:

This is the 'non-issue' thread, thus it's not an issue ;), but I agree with Ky-Fi: it's a nonsensical gaffe.

And I love that Simpsons scene. :lol:

if you think this will be an issue, you are mistaken.

I never said it was an issue. Just some evidence that Biden is a gaffe-a-minute machine.

Craig Ferguson for the win:

pdRVQ4xwwmQ

s1good-Ifdg

I never said it was an issue. Just some evidence that Biden is a gaffe-a-minute machine.

Stand up, Chuck Graham!

(Actually, I thought he recovered from the Graham comment quite nicely)

Stand up, Chuck Graham!

(Actually, I thought he recovered from the Graham comment quite nicely)


He did recover about as well as possible on that one. But kind of like asking a woman when she's due, and having her say "I'm not pregnant"---there's really no chance for a COMPLETE recovery. :lol:

He did recover about as well as possible on that one. But kind of like asking a woman when she's due, and having her say "I'm not pregnant"---there's really no chance for a COMPLETE recovery. :lol:Yeah, good recovery. "OK, everyone who can stand up, stand up! The guy who's still sitting down is Chuck Graham!"

Before Biden was annouced Rush Limbaugh was praying that it would be him exactly for this reason.

Yeah, good recovery. "OK, everyone who can stand up, stand up! The guy who's still sitting down is Chuck Graham!"

All right, I stand corrected. :lol:

This is the 'non-issue' thread, thus it's not an issue ;), but I agree with Ky-Fi: it's a nonsensical gaffe.

And I love that Simpsons scene. :lol:"... a little stuff starts disappearing from the workplace..." :lol:

Does John McCain support child molestation?

Maybe a silly question

Wow. I'm literally stunned.

Wow. I'm literally stunned.

Thanks for cutting out the part of my post where I said that no, I don't think Senator McCain supports child molestation. That's classy! Not as classy as making it look like your opponent supports teaching 5-year-olds how to fuck when he really supports teaching them how to avoid being molested, but classy nonetheless.

Wow. I'm literally stunned.

Really? McCain supports child molestation, Obama supports the murder of babies, and Biden thinks God is a terrorist.

Where have you been?

Not as classy as making it look like your opponent supports teaching 5-year-olds how to fuck when he really supports teaching them how to avoid being molested, but classy nonetheless.

Has anyone done that? McCain said that Obama supported teaching sexual education to kindergartners. Obama specifically voted for teaching "age-appropriate" sexual education to kindergartners.

Has anyone done that? McCain said that Obama supported teaching sexual education to kindergartners. Obama specifically voted for teaching "age-appropriate" sexual education to kindergartners.

The ad has been roundly condemned by fact-check organizations as a gross distortion. You would have to be willfully blind not to see it for what it is. The ad says that Senator Obama passed "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." That's a flat-out lie intended to put the image of Senator Obama teaching 5-year-olds about sex into people's heads. It's a disgusting smear attempt, and I'm shocked that anyone is defending it.

Love the Ferguson clips. Keep forgetting to put his show on my DVR list, but definitely will remember to now.

The ad has been roundly condemned by fact-check organizations as a gross distortion. You would have to be willfully blind not to see it for what it is. The ad says that Senator Obama passed "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." That's a flat-out lie intended to put the image of Senator Obama teaching 5-year-olds about sex into people's heads. It's a disgusting smear attempt, and I'm shocked that anyone is defending it.At this point are you honestly really shocked? :)

Why does foxnews have the stupid scrolling text at the bottom of the screen. It is driving me crazy. Lucky for me cspan will have the video I want watch up sooner or later.

Read the actual text of the bill that Obama signed.

Full Text of SB0099
093_SB0099 LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b

AN ACT concerning education.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The School Code is amended by changing Sections 27-9.1 and 27-9.2 as follows:

(105 ILCS 5/27-9.1) (from Ch. 122, par. 27-9.1) Sec. 27-9.1. Sex Education.

(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil’s his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology. (b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior intercourse shall emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when transmitted sexually.


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-voted-for-sex-ed-for-kindergartners


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2846411032_148544b539_o.jpg

Note that the crossed out language was dropped from the bill and the underlined words were added.

So this bill specifically amended the school code to change sex education from including sixth grade through twelfth grade — to including kindergartners.

And no, I'm not shocked at the length Obama devotees go to to try to cover for their leader.

And if any non-devotees needed more proof:
Wr8GW7bCyMQ

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=

The above is the bill in question that Obama did vote for.

1 AN ACT concerning education.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The School Code is amended by changing
5 Sections 27-9.1 and 27-9.2 as follows:

6 (105 ILCS 5/27-9.1) (from Ch. 122, par. 27-9.1)
7 Sec. 27-9.1. Sex Education.
8 (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

When amended the "6" in line 14 is crossed out so the bill indeed does call for sex education for kids in grade "K through 12". McCain's ad is correct.

And if any non-devotees needed more proof:
Wr8GW7bCyMQ


That's one of my favorite bits I've seen so far in terms of biting someone in the ass. There he is with a big smile on his face, mocking McCain for saying he wants to do it, all the while the crowd laughs about it. Then, just a few seconds later, the smile is gone and he's dead serious, no laughing, and goes..."but it's the right thing to do".

That needs to go in a McCain ad, like, now. :lol:

If you ask me, the Obama camp isn't anywhere near as solid as getting ads made:

<embed src="http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1185304443" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1789003018&playerId=1185304443&viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://console.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&domain=embed&autoStart=false&" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>

It wouldn't shock me to see this one pop up in an ad:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5BnLozS-TnM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5BnLozS-TnM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I think it would totally be fair to take him saying that, and then simply question what he has done in the past four years that now qualifies him to be president. He says that in order to run he would have to start back then, four years ago, so that wouldn't leave him with a lot of time to get anything more done now than he had done back then. If push comes to shove and they mention Sarah Palin, you could then point out what Palin has been doing for the past four years, including almost two years of being governor of Alaska, and all the while all Obama was doing was running for president.

There's a million ways to go with it all. Go back to the comments of the various dems and commentators pointing out that Obama isn't ready to be president, just this year, including Chris Matthews:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jj4VK9wVAi0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jj4VK9wVAi0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This is almost too easy.

Craig Ferguson for the win:

pdRVQ4xwwmQ

s1good-Ifdg
:lol: Those were great. Thanks for posting them.

He wasn't mocking McCain in that Planned Parenthood video, he was mocking Alan Keyes.

Shocking poll numbrs:

AP/GFK: Seniors: McCain - 52; Obama - 39

Newsweek: White women: McCain-52; Obama-39

Shocking poll numbrs:

AP/GFK: Seniors: McCain - 52; Obama - 39

Newsweek: White women: McCain-52; Obama-39

Yes, if by shocking you mean "not shocking".

You are shocked by those numbers.

Do you believe Obama can win if those numbers reflect what happens in November?

I'll give you a hint - he can't.

You are shocked by those numbers.

Thanks for telling me what I think :lol:

You need help - obvious by your post #189.

Shocking poll numbrs:

AP/GFK: Seniors: McCain - 52; Obama - 39

Newsweek: White women: McCain-52; Obama-39meh.
It's still a wash.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/election2008_HP_1.gif

You can take this to the bank - if those 2 figures hold up, President John McCain will be sworn in on January 20th, 2009.

I am not shocked

And now there is a major push by the Obama campaign to alienate older voters by attacking McCain for being too old. Not very Messiah like.

If Obama wants to win over senior citizens, he should come out hard for denture subsidies

meh.
It's still a wash.


If one candidate is relying on younger voters and the other is relying on older voters, it is not a wash.

The senior vote is becoming more important every election, because it is growing and because of seniors' high turnout rates. The Kiplinger Retirement Report notes, for example, that "In the 2000 elections, people age 65 and older cast 25% of the votes although they made up only 12% of the U.S. population."

slop101

Still believe it's a wash?

You can take this to the bank - if those 2 figures hold up, President John McCain will be sworn in on January 20th, 2009.

You can take this to the bank - if John McCain has more electoral votes than Barack Obama, he will be the next POTUS.

What's your point?

The senior vote is becoming more important every election, because it is growing and b