Previous thread HERE (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?p=8918677&posted=1#post8918677)

Prediction: Republicans get a 5 point bounce (on top of the 8 point bounce at start of RNC tying them with Obama) before this upcoming weekend and lead the Dems in polling. Not good for the dems considering all the things Obama should have going for him.

I do think though that it is going to play well with those independents who have always considered voting for Mr. McCain, especially those who may have been wavering as of late.Why?

I hope those bitching about the 'backdrop' aren't the same ones complaining the speech's message lacked 'substance'.

LOL, "liberal logic" is so entertaining.
FOXNews just mentioned how awful the backdrop was.

Was McCain right about Obama's health care plan, what with all those dirty bureaucrats?

part II?

weak
bunch of damn slackers we should be up to part XXXVIII by now :p

FOXNews just mentioned how awful the backdrop was.First Obama on O'Reilly and now this? Liberals!

Has anyone ever heard Palin's husband speak?

Was McCain right about Obama's health care plan, what with all those dirty bureaucrats?
I didn't hear that part. My wife who is a bit of an angry Democrat was too busy yelling at McCain through the TV screen for me to hear. -ohbfrank-

Hah, the pastor is trying to give the closing prayer and all you can hear is people popping balloons. :lol:

Has anyone ever heard Palin's husband speak?

no
I'm sure he's as positive about things as her ;)

FOXNews just mentioned how awful the backdrop was.

Completely missing the point. If you really cared about substance you wouldn't care what the backdrop was.

I didn't hear that part. My wife who is a bit of an angry Democrat was too busy yelling at McCain through the TV screen for me to hear. -ohbfrank-

Ah, the "Angry Left". :)

Mark Sheilds echoed my thoughts in the other thread.

This was a weak speech because it was really awkward and contradictory. On the one hand, McCain was extolling the virtues of Republican ideology - appealing to his base. Then, in the next breath he threatens to change up Washington, to get government working for you again. His ideology matches up with the the last 8 years of Republican policy, yet thematically he acts like some reformist, essentially saying he wants to get rid of people like him and his supporters.

It really makes no sense, and shows me this ticket is really clueless.

Completely missing the point. If you really cared about substance you wouldn't care what the backdrop was.I'm sure the radio audience didn't care.

Why?

I think those people have always viewed Senator McCain as being more of an independent himself, but have worried about the truthfulness of that as of late. I believe he did a very credible job of allaying many of those fears tonight, for example by taking on his own party and characterising himself as an American not a Republican.

Completely missing the point. If you really cared about substance you wouldn't care what the backdrop was.

It's ok, I'm waiting for Ann Coulter's fact filled take on the subject before I form an opinion

Mark Sheilds echoed my thoughts in the other thread.

This was a weak speech because it was really awkward and contradictory. On the one hand, McCain was extolling the virtues of Republican ideology - appealing to his base. Then, in the next breath he threatens to change up Washington, to get government working for you again. His ideology matches up with the the last 8 years of Republican policy, yet thematically he acts like some reformist, essentially saying he wants to get rid of people like him and his supporters.

It really makes no sense, and shows me this ticket is really clueless.

You obviously know little about McCain. Many conservatives view him as a bit of a trader for years of liberal policy and reaching across the isle (appeasing) to the Dems. They are merely settling on him to block a left wing loon (Obama) from stepping into the most powerful position on Earth.

This election it's going to be a tough one to be a Republican. McCain and Palin have their work cut out for them. They are representing the party that has been in power and has caused problems that people want to "change" from. :shrug:

Completely missing the point. If you really cared about substance you wouldn't care what the backdrop was.

:shrug:

It bothered me.

Mark Sheilds echoed my thoughts in the other thread.

This was a weak speech because it was really awkward and contradictory. On the one hand, McCain was extolling the virtues of Republican ideology - appealing to his base. Then, in the next breath he threatens to change up Washington, to get government working for you again. His ideology matches up with the the last 8 years of Republican policy, yet thematically he acts like some reformist, essentially saying he wants to get rid of people like him and his supporters.

It really makes no sense, and shows me this ticket is really clueless.Exactly what was on my mind. When they were violentally cheering the "change" remark, didn't most of them realize that they had voted for the guy, twice, that they need changing from? Silly.

It's ok, I'm waiting for Ann Coulter's fact filled take on the subject before I form an opinion

Will your head explode when Obama loses this election in just a few weeks? I cannot wait. :D

Will your head explode when Obama loses this election in just a few weeks? I cannot wait. :D

no
because he won't :p

:shrug:

It bothered me.

Exactly, so you don't give a crap about the content of the speech, merely the imagery. Its ok, you are in the norm, just don't act all "intellectual" on us when you are merely an average viewer in this.

Many conservatives view him as a bit of a trader I once got a coonskin from him for a sack of coffee.

no
because he won't :p

Boy oh boy someone is due for disappointment. This is going to be more fun than 2000 when the Dems couldn't steal it, and 2004 when they couldn't lose it and got spanked.

2 Presidents in 40 years, ouch.

Exactly, so you don't give a crap about the content of the speech, merely the imagery. Its ok, you are in the norm, just don't act all "intellectual" on us when you are merely an average viewer in this.You're killing me.

If the image doesn't matter, why have a video at all? Why have fake handmade signs and balloons and all that shit? Why televise it? Come on. :lol:

This election it's going to be a tough one to be a Republican. McCain and Palin have their work cut out for them. They are representing the party that has been in power and has caused problems that people want to "change" from. :shrug:



I see it a bit differently. In an election in which a Democratic victory was virtually assured, they chose to propel likely the only two candidates who could blow that certain victory, while the Republicans nominated, contrary to almost all early predictions, the only candidate in their party with a chance to win. Add on top of that a hugely surprising VP pick that has fully energized the base of the Republican party, and you get a Republican optimism previously not thought possible in relations to the upcoming election.

And if the Democrats can not win this election, they really should stop trying.

You're killing me.

If the image doesn't matter, why have a video at all? Why have fake handmade signs and balloons and all that shit? Why televise it? Come on. :lol:

Of course it matters, because people are vain, including those here who pretent not to be. You're makin my point!

I once got a coonskin from him for a sack of coffee.

:lol:

Exactly what was on my mind.

Exactly, so you don't give a crap about the content of the speech, merely the imagery. Its ok, you are in the norm, just don't act all "intellectual" on us when you are merely an average viewer in this.

:up:

Thanks.


But you do realise that it is the view of the 'average' viewer only that matters, don't you?

This election it's going to be a tough one to be a Republican. McCain and Palin have their work cut out for them. They are representing the party that has been in power and has caused problems that people want to "change" from. :shrug:

I too, find it odd, that the current (R) ticket is 'promoting' change, but I'm also smart enough to realize that McCain ≠ Bush. To me, Obama seems to be promising the Moon, Sun and Stars to the outraged masses on the left as his vision of change and I don't buy that either.

I see it a bit differently. In an election in which a Democratic victory was virtually assured, they chose to propel likely the only two candidates who could blow that certain victory, while the Republicans nominated, contrary to almost all early predictions, the only candidate in their party with a chance to win. Add on top of that a hugely surprising VP pick that has fully energized the base of the Republican party, and you get a Republican optimism previously not thought possible in relations to the upcoming election.

And if the Democrats can not win this election, they really should stop trying.

Wow, we agree. Spot on, imo.

Boy oh boy someone is due for disappointment. This is going to be more fun than 2000 when the Dems couldn't steal it, and 2004 when they couldn't lose it and got spanked.

2 Presidents in 40 years, ouch.

yeah, and 1992-2000 was the strongest economic period in recent history. There was a budget surplus (a concept unknown to the GOP).

And the GOP doesn't want to talk about the 2000 election. Lose the popular vote and bully Florida (with Jeb's doing).

I see it a bit differently. In an election in which a Democratic victory was virtually assured...
Are you serious? Have you seen how the Democratic Party runs Presidential campaigns? It's never assured. :lol:

I have more confidence this time around, but it's guarded confidence. We'll see what the October surprise is and if Obama can hit back. Kerry couldn't but I think Obama can and will. That will make the difference in my mind.

That backdrop sucked. Anyone with eyes knows that. Obama could raise <i>taxes</i> in front of that thing and people would still complain more about the lousy backdrop.

Was McCain right about Obama's health care plan, what with all those dirty bureaucrats?

Well, Obama's wife is one of those bureaucrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama#Career):

In 2002, she began working for the University of Chicago Hospitals, first as executive director for community affairs and, beginning May, 2005, as Vice President for Community and External Affairs. She still holds the position, though she is working part time in order to devote more time to being a mother.

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

yeah, and 1992-2000 was the strongest economic period in recent history. There was a budget surplus (a concept unknown to the GOP).

And the GOP doesn't want to talk about the 2000 election. Lose the popular vote and bully Florida (with Jeb's doing).

Good thing we had a REPUBLICAN congress in those years. Clinton fans forget that. Clinton was in the right place at the right time.

yeah, and 1992-2000 was the strongest economic period in recent history. There was a budget surplus (a concept unknown to the GOP).

And the GOP doesn't want to talk about the 2000 election. Lose the popular vote and bully Florida (with Jeb's doing).


It is time to move on.

Has anyone ever heard Palin's husband speak?

NRO reported that he put in an appearance before a GOP women's group:

This afternoon, a packed ballroom at a Twin Cities Hilton got a glimpse of the answer to the question everyone’s been asking. What is Todd Palin — the First Dude of Alaska — really like?

The husband of Alaska governor and now Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin was introduced as “the future first Second Man” by View host Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and he was continually surrounded by the women who make up the majority of the attendees at this GOP fundraiser.

Palin’s remarks were brief but enthusiastically received. He started making the best of a tumultuous week: “Is it just me or do things move quick around here?” he observed, to empathetic laughs. “It feels like just a few days ago I was working at the North Slope on the night shift.”

“The Palin family has had quite a week,” Palin announced, in a gentle but masculine voice. “You just never know what the future has before you,” he said.

He joked that had he known where his wife’s civic involvement would lead, “I would have had a few more questions when Sarah decided to join the PTA.”

And as if to issue a warning to Joe Biden, the proud husband and father said: “When my wife starts talking about reform and corruption. It’s best to get out of the way.”

Appealing to the snowmobile champion’s competitive spirit, Hasselbeck had announced Palin with praise of his wife: “She knocked the cover off the ball last night. She knocked the wind out of the liberal smear machine,” she said. “America fell in love with your wife last night.”

yeah, and 1992-2000 was the strongest economic period in recent history.

I'm not sure the Dot Com bubble is something we want to tout as a tangible growth of the economy.

It is time to move on.

Dot org.

We need a DVD Talk live chat site. :lol:

Good thing we had a REPUBLICAN congress in those years. Clinton fans forget that. Clinton was in the right place at the right time.

always an excuse to fit your side. Since 1980 the budget deficit has been terrible, other than Clinton's term. He created a surplus that was nearly gone on September 10 (so don't mention 9/11)

I'm not sure the Dot Com bubble is something we want to tout as a tangible growth of the economy.

Didn't you know Al Gore created the internet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpxtKcLSFWw

I once got a coonskin from him for a sack of coffee.

rotfl

I once got a coonskin from him for a sack of coffee.

Aww shucks, those simple minded down home hillbillies!

Good thing guilty white people, bought and paid for labor unions and welfare handout types are confined to the inner city and immediate areas of even the bluest blue states. Over 1 million tax paying, law abiding, English speaking citizens in MASSACHUSETTS voted for Bush in 2004, they must be hillbillies too or they just don't suffer from liberal white guilt like their latte sipping counterparts?

Didn't you know Al Gore created the internet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpxtKcLSFWw

What's sad is that he actually was one of the guys who got the ball rolling. He didn't stick up for himself like he shoud've.

I miss Al Gore and his slicked hair and bright red face from the 2004 campaign, I know he wasn't running but he was giving angry moonbat speeches. How is he doing with his carbon credits these days?

What I found bizarre were the Republican faithful holding "Peace" signs.

I see it a bit differently. In an election in which a Democratic victory was virtually assured, [b]they chose to propel likely the only two candidates who could blow that certain victory,[b] while the Republicans nominated, contrary to almost all early predictions, the only candidate in their party with a chance to win. Add on top of that a hugely surprising VP pick that has fully energized the base of the Republican party, and you get a Republican optimism previously not thought possible in relations to the upcoming election.

And if the Democrats can not win this election, they really should stop trying.

I don't know -- I think maybe Senator Edwards could have blown the certain victory.

Well, Obama's wife is one of those bureaucrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama#Career)

Would it matter if I pointed out that Michelle Obama works for a private-sector, non-governmental, capitalism-is-cool hospital?

Would it matter if I pointed out that Michelle Obama works for a private-sector, non-governmental, capitalism-is-cool hospital?What a hypocrite... -ohbfrank-

I miss Al Gore and his slicked hair and bright red face from the 2004 campaign, I know he wasn't running but he was giving angry moonbat speeches. How is he doing with his carbon credits these days?

He's off winning Nobel Prizes. What a loser!

I miss Al Gore and his slicked hair and bright red face from the 2004 campaign, I know he wasn't running but he was giving angry moonbat speeches. How is he doing with his carbon credits these days?
I believe McCain favors some form of carbon credits.

Is it true that more people watched Palin's speech on television than Obama's speech?

I heard this on television this morning.

I couldn't believe it.

I thought Obama's speech was to announce the second coming.

Is it true that more people watched Palin's speech on television than Obama's speech?No, it's not true.I thought Obama's speech was to announce the second coming.:rolleyes:

Can we stop with this crap already?

McCain better hope that the carbon blobs don't base their votes on oratory ability.

Is it true that more people watched Palin's speech on television than Obama's speech?

I heard this on television this morning.

I couldn't believe it.



Palin's speech 37.2 million. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/09/04/palin-speech-nearly-equals-obamas-in-ratings/)

Obama's speech 38 million. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/08/29/obamas-speech-shatters-nielsen-ratings/)

Although one article noted that Palin's speech was carried by four less TV (I would say cable) networks.

I miss Al Gore and his slicked hair and bright red face from the 2004 campaign, I know he wasn't running but he was giving angry moonbat speeches. How is he doing with his carbon credits these days?

he's working for a silicon valley VC firm making more money in a month than you will ever have

:shrug:

It bothered me.


Me too. I mentioned it yesterday.

I see it a bit differently. In an election in which a Democratic victory was virtually assured, they chose to propel likely the only two candidates who could blow that certain victory, while the Republicans nominated, contrary to almost all early predictions, the only candidate in their party with a chance to win. Add on top of that a hugely surprising VP pick that has fully energized the base of the Republican party, and you get a Republican optimism previously not thought possible in relations to the upcoming election.

And if the Democrats can not win this election, they really should stop trying.


I agree 100%.

I see it a bit differently. In an election in which a Democratic victory was virtually assured, they chose to propel likely the only two candidates who could blow that certain victory, while the Republicans nominated, contrary to almost all early predictions, the only candidate in their party with a chance to win. Add on top of that a hugely surprising VP pick that has fully energized the base of the Republican party, and you get a Republican optimism previously not thought possible in relations to the upcoming election.

snip ...

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Rather than fight the great fight and nominate the most qualified person with the best ideas out there (Clinton) they said 'let's go with someone easier to get elected'

Rather than Obama continuing his message about changing things up in Washington, Obama goes with Joe Biden, as much a Washington insider as can be found.

Rather than choosing on strength, Obama chose on weakness, someone perceived to be very knowledgeable on foreign affairs. Big mistake. Select on strength, not on weakness. When asked about foreign affairs matter the talking point COULD have been 'country first, country second, foreign affairs third' And Americans across the country would nod their heads in agreement.

People could say that McCain choose from weakness choosing a young, working mother. If fact they did.

Then we meet Sarah Palin and those ideas blow away after 45 minutes. And McCain scores points for those (like myself) wondering about his ability to surround himself with great people.

In the end, I'll vote policy and that favors Obama. But I'm interested in listening more to McCain than I was. Even if he continues to talk about some place named Warshington. ;)

Rather than fight the great fight and nominate the most qualified person with the best ideas out there (Clinton)I don't want to revisit the last nine months of arguments on this forum, but I just need to point out that the above represents your opinion, nothing more, and is probably not shared by the majority of Democrats.

No, it's not true.:rolleyes:

Can we stop with this crap already?

Show me where it's not true.

What 'rule' of the forum of the forum have I violated?

Show me where it's not true.Wait, you want me to provide a link to something I casually read on the internet? That's hilarious!What 'rule' of the forum of the forum have I violated?No rule, just a plea that we try to decrease the juvenalia a bit. Call me Don Quixote, since I can't seem to stop tilting against windmills.

No rule, just a plea that we try to decrease the juvenalia a bit. Call me Don Quixote, since I can't seem to stop tilting against windmills.
:up:

I believe I provided a link, maybe yesterday, to indicate you were wrong about the Republican abortion plank.

Palin's speech 37.2 million. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/09/04/palin-speech-nearly-equals-obamas-in-ratings/)

Obama's speech 38 million. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/08/29/obamas-speech-shatters-nielsen-ratings/)

Although one article noted that Palin's speech was carried by four less TV (I would say cable) networks.

But with cable and satellite penetration at almost 90%, the loss of those outlets is somewhat negligible.

I wonder how many people watched last night? Any figures yet?

He's off winning Nobel Prizes. What a loser!

Remind me again what and why he won a Nobel Prize? Was it for using more energy in a year than 20 average US households or was it his partisan rhetoric (lies) about the "epidemic" of Man-Made Global Warming™? How do people buy into this hypocritical bullshit?

I think those people have always viewed Senator McCain as being more of an independent himself, but have worried about the truthfulness of that as of late. I believe he did a very credible job of allaying many of those fears tonight, for example by taking on his own party and characterising himself as an American not a Republican.

It's really too bad that his speech pretty much contradicted the rest of his party's convention, then.

McCain is trying to have it both ways, and it's not going to work.

Palin's speech 37.2 million. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/09/04/palin-speech-nearly-equals-obamas-in-ratings/)

Obama's speech 38 million. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/08/29/obamas-speech-shatters-nielsen-ratings/)

Although one article noted that Palin's speech was carried by four less TV (I would say cable) networks.


Says over 40 million for Palin counting PBS.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080904/D93079DG4.html

Drudge has a Rasmussen poll saying Palin is more popular than Obama, but no link yet.

Either way I think its possible the initial groans from McCain supporters for his pick for veep may have been premature.

It's really too bad that his speech pretty much contradicted the rest of his party's convention, then.

McCain is trying to have it both ways, and it's not going to work.

Have you ever seen a presidential candidate who didn't try to have it both ways?

I haven't.

Will your head explode when Obama loses this election in just a few weeks? I cannot wait. :D

You sure are an angry guy. I predict a suspension or a stroke for you in the coming weeks.

Try to enjoy this for the theater that it is, instead of some life and death contest over which you really have no effect in the outcome.

I don't want to revisit the last nine months of arguments on this forum, but I just need to point out that the above represents your opinion, nothing more, and is probably not shared by the majority of Democrats.

Well, if my opinion isn't shared by the majority of Democrats that just increases the chance that I'm right. ;)

But I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm an independent and my thoughts are my own, not from some party.

And about my post representing my opinion, isn't that what this forum is about?

Best qualified between Clinton and Obama ... that's a joke. The media swept up Obama and the Democrat party bosses got behind him worried (as they should be) about Clinton's electability.

Tell me, how many presidents have the Democrat party bosses got elected in recent history?

Something that was probably lost in the Palin free-for-all, but deserves to be held up to the light:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LDx80bnFrVs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LDx80bnFrVs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with these people?

A lot of members (both sides) seem to not understand that all (well maybe not all - 90%) is theater - not meaning much in the overall grand scheme of things.

You sure are an angry guy. I predict a suspension or a stroke for you in the coming weeks.

Try to enjoy this for the theater that it is, instead of some life and death contest over which you really have no effect in the outcome.


I'm angry? Just wait until Obama loses. Another defeat for liberals in a major election. This country rejects liberalism at the polls time and time again. Its too bad media, pop culture and the activist judicial system foist it upon us anyway.

But should Obama win, I wouldn't be all that shocked. With the economy in tough shape, the unpopular war (which we are finally winning -don't expect much coverage of that though), the unpopular president Bush, and the media getting tingles up their leg every time they speak of him, Obama ought to be ahead by 20 in tracking polls right now. So if he wins I'll be paying even more of my hard earned money to finance the lives of lazy uneducated people, and I'll be sending illegals and their children off to college. Why would I be mad about that?

But with cable and satellite penetration at almost 90%, the loss of those outlets is somewhat negligible.

I wonder how many people watched last night? Any figures yet?

The funny thing is the viewership breakdown as per network

Fox 9.2 million
NBC 7.7 million
CNN 6.2 million
ABC 5.9 million
CBS 4.9 million
MSNBC 3.4 million
PBS 3.2 million*

I can't wait for MSNBC's new promo, "Hey, at least we beat PBS." :lol:

*This was recently updated and bring's Palin's numbers to 40.2 million. So, developing...



*edit: a quick google search shows that others are saying that Obama's speech also gathered in around 40 million viewers, so I will say that it was a tie, thereby making everyone wrong.

I've been on the fence about who I will cast my vote for, but some of McCain's words rang truer to me. I know that a speech is just a speech, and what one does is more important than what one says, but when he taked about changing the $700 billion (or was it million) that we give to foreign countries that "don't like us very much" I had to nod in agreement.

For me, I just wish that Obama would come out with specific ideas as opposed to the constant "change" message.

After McCain's speech, one of the TV announcers (it was NBC - so maybe Brokaw?) made a comment about how there was no actual plan laid out. I was a bit put off by this. I mean - if McCain (or Obama for that matter) were to lay out every step of every idea they'd have to devote weeks to the conventions.

Something that was probably lost in the Palin free-for-all, but deserves to be held up to the light:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LDx80bnFrVs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LDx80bnFrVs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with these people?


I'd like to kick the shit out of keith olbermann.

I'm angry? Just wait until Obama loses. Another defeat for liberals in a major election. This country rejects liberalism at the polls time and time again. Its too bad media, pop culture and the activist judicial system foist it upon us anyway.

But should Obama win, I wouldn't be all that shocked. With the economy in tough shape, the unpopular war (which we are finally winning -don't expect much coverage of that though), the unpopular president Bush, and the media getting tingles up their leg every time they speak of him, Obama ought to be ahead by 20 in tracking polls right now. So if he wins I'll be paying even more of my hard earned money to finance the lives of lazy uneducated people, and I'll be sending illegals and their children off to college. Why would I be mad about that?

No matter who wins or loses, I'll still get up the next day, living in one of the best places on earth, in a nice house, drive my car to work and do the things I love to do. Then I'll come home to my wife and kids, whom I love very much.

My wife is an immigrant from an insanely corrupt country, where her father had to bribe multiple bureacrats and policemen just to run a business. I've studied history, and I pay attention to the fact that today billions of people in other countries struggle every day for existence.

My life is damned good. I enjoy reliable police, fire, and medical service. I have electricity, a comfortable house, even a home theater.

I've lived 40+ years, and I've seen my life get better over the years. I focus on the positive. My actual tax rate is ridiculously low.

I focus on what I have. I don't worry about someone trying to take things away from me. The logical extension of that line of thought puts you in a bunker with 55 gallon drums of water.

Why should you be angry, you ask? I have no idea. Because you want to be? Because you've been taught to be by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, who try to stir up anger so you won't think?

You only get one life.

living in one of the best places on earth.......

Hmm!

I wasn't aware that you lived in the hill country of Texas. ;)

No matter who wins or loses, I'll still get up the next day, living in one of the best places on earth, in a nice house, drive my car to work and do the things I love to do. Then I'll come home to my wife and kids, whom I love very much.

My wife is an immigrant from an insanely corrupt country, where her father had to bribe multiple bureacrats and policeman just to run a business. I've studied history, and I pay attention to the fact that today billions of people in other countries struggle every day for existence.

My life is damned good. I enjoy reliable police, fire, and medical service. I have electricity, a comfortable house, even a home theater.

I've lived 40+ years, and I've seen my life get better over the years. I focus on the positive. My actual tax rate is ridiculously low.

I focus on what I have. I don't worry about someone trying to take things away from me. The logical extension of that line of thought puts you in a bunker with 55 gallon drums of water.

Why should you be angry, you ask? I have no idea. Because you want to be? Because you've been taught to be by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, who try to stir up anger so you won't think?

You only get one life.

I admire your positive outlook, which I do share. I have a great job, a house, and will be starting a family in a few years. However if you do not get angry about illegal immigrants invading this country and taking everything you and I own as their own, and you don't get angry about financing the lives of other able bodied people who are here taking up space, committing crimes and using up resources, than you are a beaten man. That is what makes me angry. Apathy among the educated and law abiding is almost worse than those who are simply bottom feeders.

I've lived 40+ years, and I've seen my life get better over the years. I focus on the positive. My actual tax rate is ridiculously low.


You seem to be one of the rare ones whose life got better over the last eight years.

I can't say the same but totally agree that focusing on the positive is a healthy attitude.

Why should you be angry, you ask? I have no idea. Because you want to be? Because you've been taught to be by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, who try to stir up anger so you won't think?

You only get one life.


Wow, just wow.

I admire your positive outlook, which I do share. I have a great job, a house, and will be starting a family in a few years. However if you do not get angry about illegal immigrants invading this country and taking everything you and I own as their own, and you don't get angry about financing the lives of other able bodied people who are here taking up space and using up resources, than you are a beaten man. That is what makes me angry. Apathy among the educated and law abiding is almost worse than those who are simply bottom feeders.

I'm not a beaten man. I work with the indigent daily, because I provide them with medical care. Their lives are very different than mine. I realize that everybody can't be like me.

The cost of social programs for the poor is a fraction of the GDP of this country. It's not worth worrying about. Especially because those folks aren't going anywhere, and I'd rather take care of them than let them flounder and starve. My reaction to them isn't about them. It's about me. Check out Matthew 25.

You seem to be one of the rare ones whose life got better over the last eight years.

I can't say the same but totally agree that focusing on the positive is a healthy attitude.

Maybe I'm rare in that I realize my life got better. Both my children were born. They're in school and doing well academically. They're very smart, and their health issues are under control. My wife is awesome.

I focus on what I can change, which is me and my family and friends. I stopped worrying too much about politics or the economy, because there's nothing I can do about. I still like to throw out some comments on here, though. ;)


As for the last 8 years, there are ups and downs, but I look long term. I have goals and I'm achieving them. And I'm not talking about money.

But as an aside, living like the Millionaire Next Door can be pretty liberating.

Tell me, how many presidents have the Democrat party bosses got elected in recent history?Democratic party bosses haven't controlled the nomination process since 1968.

How about encouraging the country they came from to fix this own social ills rather than ship them off to us?

Something that was probably lost in the Palin free-for-all, but deserves to be held up to the light:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LDx80bnFrVs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LDx80bnFrVs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with these people?

What is Keith talking about? Every cable news network, along with the History and Discovery Channels have aired 11 September retrospectives for the last six years.

----------------
Now playing: Humphrey/Camardella - Day Of The Triffids "Dead End" (Show 4 of 6) 1968 (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/humphrey+camardella/track/day+of+the+triffids++%22dead+end%22+(show+4+of+6)+1968)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

If the party bosses had controlled the selection of a nominee since 1968 I believe there would have been more than 2 Democrats in the WH.

How about encouraging the country they came from to fix this own social ills rather than ship them off to us?IMO that negates the very idea of America.

IMO that negates the very idea of America.
Send us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.

Nevermind, NO VACANCY! ;)

Obama & McCain have virtually the same idea about immigration - don't they?

That's one are where I agree with both of them.

Obama & McCain have virtually the same idea about immigration - don't they?I doubt either would agree with you, but I think you are pretty much spot on.

I agree with them too.

Send us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.

Nevermind, NO VACANCY! ;)


Oh how cute. And where exactly do you draw the line? Shall we just do away entirely with immigration laws and let the entire disgruntled world in to live off you and I?

LOL at liberals dismissing illegal immigration, do so at your own peril. The average tax paying, law abiding, English speaking citizen who isn't overcome with white guilt cares very much about this issue.

LOL at liberals<i>Mod note: this repetitious placing of blame against one group for all of the problems you seem to have with the world is really not needed here.</i>

Is it inaccurate to describe the mentality that outright dismisses illegal immigration as liberal?

Wonder when you'll make mod notes going after those that rail against conservatives over and over. I won't hold my breath.

For me, I just wish that Obama would come out with specific ideas as opposed to the constant "change" message.

Funny, I thought Obama spent roughly twenty to thirty minutes during his nomination speech, carefully explaining his plans for the presidency. Obama's nomination speech was far more substantive from a policy standpoint than John McCain's. Not to mention, there is an enormous amount of information on Obama's website, especially compared to John McCain, who still hasn't managed to include a foreign policy section. Instead, he has "Iraq". But I guess, foreign policy is just a given for McCain. I mean, he was a POW after all.

Obama 'came out' with specific ideas a long time ago. The fact that some people don't know about them, or ignore them in favor of reducing the message to 'change', isn't his fault.

I don't believe liberals are dismissing illegal immigration. I believe most of them understand the problems that brings.

I also believe that most of them are wise enough to understand that you need a comprehensive policy - not just border security - to alleviate the problem.

Oh how cute. And where exactly do you draw the line? Shall we just do away entirely with immigration laws and let the entire disgruntled world in to live off you and I?

It's "you and ME." ;)

(low-skill) immigrants (legal and otherwise) are the engine of our low-wage economy. They clean hotel rooms, pick vegetables, put roofs on houses, resurface roads. Who is going to do those jobs without them?

Don't say white, English speaking people. Because they won't. They don't.

You're kidding right? You can easily fill those jobs with, well, anyone, I guess we can start with those watching Jerry Springer at home right now on my dime.

And complications aren't an excuse to simply allow, willy nilly, streams of illegals into the country to live tax free lives in the shadows. Does their drain on social infrastructure, participation in gangs and crime, etc give you any concern, at all? Why have immigration laws at all if we are simply going to ignore them so we can get cheap lettuce?

I do believe there is an illegal immigration thread where this has all been discussed over and over... Where it has been clearly laid out that a comprehensive plan needs to be put in place to deal with the problem AFTER border security is PROPERLY put in place.

I don't believe liberals are dismissing illegal immigration. I believe most of them understand the problems that brings.

I also believe that most of them are wise enough to understand that you need a comprehensive policy - not just border security - to alleviate the problem.

Are you listening to the same debates I am? Most liberals I discuss the issue with dismiss it outright with arguments similar to Lord Rick. They don't want to do anything to address the problem, in fact they don't view it as a problem at all.

I actually agree with McCain's policy, I have no issue with amnesty, if only for practicality reasons, but lets also stop the bleeding at the borders and lets enforce our laws going forward.

I don't want to revisit the last nine months of arguments on this forum, but I just need to point out that the above represents your opinion, nothing more, and is probably not shared by the majority of Democrats.

The majority of voters in the Democratic primaries, or the majority of Democrats?

;)

The majority of voters in the Democratic primaries, or the majority of Democrats?

;)Oh, stop it. :lol:

You're kidding right? You can easily fill those jobs with, well, anyone, I guess we can start with those watching Jerry Springer at home right now on my dime.


No, I'm not kidding. People who run businesses like to hire people who actually show up for work. I have friends who are contractors, so I hear about this from time to time.

People who grew up in this country have zero desire to pick vegetables in the hot sun.

A female friend of mine used to date a roofer, 15 years ago. He was your stereotypical loser. He would do anything to avoid going to work. Frequently drunk, hungover.

A few years ago I watched 5 guys laying asphalt in an Avis lot. White guy on the grader, asleep, under an umbrella, while 4 mexicans worked their asses off.

All of this is anecdotal, of course. But my experience is that immigrants generally work a hell of a lot harder at the menial jobs than people born here.

You're kidding right? You can easily fill those jobs with, well, anyone, I guess we can start with those watching Jerry Springer at home right now on my dime.

And complications aren't an excuse to simply allow, willy nilly, streams of illegals into the country to live tax free lives in the shadows. Does their drain on social infrastructure, participation in gangs and crime, etc give you any concern, at all? Why have immigration laws at all if we are simply going to ignore them so we can get cheap lettuce?

How much spending do you think welfare programs account for? I'm not sure you have an accurate picture. There have also been studies that seem to indicate when you consider the benefits illegals will never be eligible for, they tend to pay a larger share of taxes than legals with similar wages.

We allowed more chinese, germans, irish and others to enter this country as a % of population than hispanics, just because our government has failed in its responsibility to handle this influx properly doesn't mean the illegal immigrants are evil.

Send us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.

Nevermind, NO VACANCY! ;)

I forget what that's from... Die Hard 3 maybe? Lethal Weapon 4?

I forget what that's from... Die Hard 3 maybe? Lethal Weapon 4?


Class Wars, Episode Cinco

No, I'm thinking LW4 now.

We allowed more chinese, germans, irish and others to enter this country
HUGE mistake, IMO. :down:

How much spending do you think welfare programs account for? I'm not sure you have an accurate picture. There have also been studies that seem to indicate when you consider the benefits illegals will never be eligible for, they tend to pay a larger share of taxes than legals with similar wages.

We allowed more chinese, germans, irish and others to enter this country as a % of population than hispanics, just because our government has failed in its responsibility to handle this influx properly doesn't mean the illegal immigrants are evil.

Studies show illegals pay more taxes than legals do? How do you figure that one? Studies from where, moveon.org? What taxes, besides sales does an illegal immigrant pay? Remember, they don't exist.

As for your second point what are you talking about, and please provide links for these erroneous claims.

I'd also note that the Germans, Irish, and Chinese (among many others) who came here (and built this country) tended to work hard, assimilate into the population -legally and culturally, and learned the English written and spoken language . I don't remember a clamor for bi-lingual education when they were sending their kids through the American school system, special treatment in jobs or housing selection, or government handouts for that matter.

I'd also like to address this specifically:

just because our government has failed in its responsibility to handle this influx properly doesn't mean the illegal immigrants are evil.

Which is why I favor John McCain's position on amnesty for those already here. Partially also because it would also be difficult or impossible to deport all of them and the social issues that would come along with it would be too significant.

No, I'm not kidding. People who run businesses like to hire people who actually show up for work. I have friends who are contractors, so I hear about this from time to time.


They also enjoy having people who they can pay sub-par wages, hold the threat of deportation to inspire overtime, fail to pay overtime wages to, having workers where they can shirk safety requirements, Having employees work as sub contractors to avoid the paying of taxes, and the ability to deport their workforce to avoid paying for work done.

You don't want to get into using contractors. I worked for (and testified against) a contractor who did all thoste things. His defense? "Everyone does it. Why are you going after me?"

They also enjoy having people who they can pay sub-par wages, hold the threat of deportation to inspire overtime, fail to pay overtime wages to, having workers where they can shirk safety requirements, Having employees work as sub contractors to avoid the paying of taxes, and the ability to deport their workforce to avoid paying for work done.

You don't want to get into using contractors. I worked for (and testified against) a contractor who did all thoste things. His defense? "Everyone does it. Why are you going after me?"

I know there are abuses, just like at the chicken processing plant down the road, which appears (from the people walking in in the morning) to be all immigrants.

But again, who is going to take those jobs?

And if you want to follow the exploitation issue, then we can't ever buy anything at the store, because most of that stuff is made in a foreign country with no environmental, occupational safety laws, no benefits, and child labor in some cases.

Studies show illegals pay more taxes than legals do? How do you figure that one?The point is that these illegal immigrants have taxes deducted from their paychecks for benefits they would never be able to receive. So, even though they might be contributing less, per capita, than a legal worker, their potential for receiving money is far less. The problem with this argument, and indeed, arguments countering it, is that they are all based on "fuzzy" numbers, since counting the number of illegals working in this country, let alone how much they pay in taxes, is largely educated guesswork.

This is surprising.

McCain TV Ratings Beat Obama in Preliminary Numbers (http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/09/mccain_tv_ratings_beat_obama_i.php)
Presidential candidate John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention drew more television viewers than his rival Barack Obama attracted at the Democratic party's event last week, according to preliminary ratings from Nielsen Media Research.

Across all broadcast networks Thursday, Sen. McCain’s speech ended the night with a 4.8 rating/7 share, compared to Sen. Obama’s 4.3/7 average, according to overnight numbers from metered households in 55 U.S. markets measured by Nielsen. These ratings are preliminary, however, and are subject to change.

NBC’s coverage of Sen. McCain’s speech started directly at the tail end of the opening game of NFL season, with the speech pulling in a 6.3 rating/10 share, topping Sen. Obama’s speech last week by 26%. That lead-in may have boosted audiences who last night turned out in droves to watch Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin introduce herself to the country.

ABC’s showing of the McCain speech averaged a 4.5/7, down 2% from the same night of the Democratic convention last week, while CBS’ coverage took in a 3.4/5, an increase of 3%

It'll be interesting to see if this carries over to the cable news channels and PBS.

The point is that these illegal immigrants have taxes deducted from their paychecks for benefits they would never be able to receive. So, even though they might be contributing less, per capita, than a legal worker, their potential for receiving money is far less. The problem with this argument, and indeed, arguments countering it, is that they are all based on "fuzzy" numbers, since counting the number of illegals working in this country, let alone how much they pay in taxes, is largely educated guesswork.

I don't get that. Aren't they getting paid cash? Since when did undocumented people who don't exist start getting taxes taken out of their paychecks?

I know there are abuses, just like at the chicken processing plant down the road, which appears (from the people walking in in the morning) to be all immigrants.

But again, who is going to take those jobs?

And if you want to follow the exploitation issue, then we can't ever buy anything at the store, because most of that stuff is made in a foreign country with no environmental, occupational safety laws, no benefits, and child labor in some cases.

Last point first, There are these laws in the United States. Employers abuse them by hiring illegal workers. As part of a comprehensive immigration plan, the violators of these laws should be doing the perp walk. They are essentially abusing a slave class and depressing wages for their own benefit. After prosecuting abusers and after increasing border security it can be proven the need of an increase in unskilled and illiterate work class, relax the requirements for immigration. This class can then be provided the protection of federal and state wage and safety laws.

That's a comprehensive immigration plan. It has to be done in steps.

I don't get that. Aren't they getting paid cash? Since when did undocumented people who don't exist start getting taxes taken out of their paychecks?They aren't always paid in cash. Some illegals get fake social security cards/numbers and get paychecks just like everyone else. Nobody minds too much because the government gets their cut, and, as I stated above, it's not like one of these workers is going to apply to collect unemployment or anything.

Last point first, There are these laws in the United States. Employers abuse them by hiring illegal workers. As part of a comprehensive immigration plan, the violators of these laws should be doing the perp walk. They are essentially abusing a slave class and depressing wages for their own benefit. After prosecuting abusers and after increasing border security it can be proven the need of an increase in unskilled and illiterate work class, relax the requirements for immigration. This class can then be provided the protection of federal and state wage and safety laws.

That's a comprehensive immigration plan. It has to be done in steps.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think there will always be this underground economy. We should still try to enforce the law, but you can't eliminate all abuses, and there are diminishing returns.

They aren't always paid in cash. Some illegals get fake social security cards/numbers and get paychecks just like everyone else. Nobody minds too much because the government gets their cut, and, as I stated above, it's not like one of these workers is going to apply to collect unemployment or anything.

Yet they don't kick in a dime for healthcare, which they get for free by walking into any Emergency room (or better yet calling the local FD for a ride, which they cannot refuse by law). I don't need to tell you how much health care is costing your company and you each year. How about the millions who don't try to trick the system with fake IDs? They aren't getting taxed a penny. Either way its a broken "system". Are we a land of laws or not?

<i>Mod note: this repetitious placing of blame against one group for all of the problems you seem to have with the world is really not needed here.</i>

LOL at liberals dismissing illegal immigration, do so at your own peril. The average tax paying, law abiding, English speaking citizen who isn't overcome with white guilt cares very much about this issue.

Reducing his quote to "LOL at liberals" is a cheap and easy trick to pull on someone to work one's agenda. We should be better than that, moderators included. While I don't agree with the O.P. his opinion should be welcomed as long as he doesn't engage in personal attacks and the like.

Moving on:

The immigration issue has no perfect solution. I personally see value of allowing hard working and determined families into the USA as the country will be the better for it. On the other hand, I'm truly concerned about the cost of immigrants on everything from overcrowded schools, highways, hospitals, airports and other elements of infrastructure that take decades to change.

Are we a land of laws or not?
Only the rich are expected to follow them.

Only the rich are expected to follow them.

Or get good lawyers. :shrug:

They aren't always paid in cash. Some illegals get fake social security cards/numbers and get paychecks just like everyone else. Nobody minds too much because the government gets their cut, and, as I stated above, it's not like one of these workers is going to apply to collect unemployment or anything.


There are probably more people on Social Security who are paid in cash than there are illegals. ;)

Hmm!

I wasn't aware that you lived in the hill country of Texas. ;):wave: :D

Yet they don't kick in a dime for healthcare, which they get for free by walking into any Emergency room (or better yet calling the local FD for a ride, which they cannot refuse by law). how are those funded?

Don't illegal immigrants pay property tax and sales tax?

:wave: :D

You live pretty close to God's Country, don't you? ;)

This will make MACD23's head explode*... today's current electoral vote map!

<img src="http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Icons/evmap.png"> (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)


Most recent polling is from Sept 2nd so this doesn't reflect the RNC yet.

*EV polling at this early date obviously means very little.

You live pretty close to God's Country, don't you? ;)I could throw rocks at the Hill Country. Those rocks would fall about 15 miles short though. It's pretty flat (and 80% Republican) in Williamson County where I live :)

This thread is more interesting than anything said at the RNC.

Carry on.

I know there are abuses, just like at the chicken processing plant down the road, which appears (from the people walking in in the morning) to be all immigrants.

But again, who is going to take those jobs?
People who need jobs. What, they don't want to work for $2 a day?

Hmm. Isn't the argument of fiscal conservatives that the market decides what a job is worth? If you can't find someone to pick lettuce in a field for $3 an hour, then I guess that means that the job is worth more than that. Will it take $10 an hour to pick lettuce? Fine, that is the going rate.

Circumventing the system by hiring illegal immigrants is just wanting to have it both ways and proves that their "what the market will bear" is just a convenient excuse that they don't really believe.


I don't believe liberals are dismissing illegal immigration. I believe most of them understand the problems that brings.

I also believe that most of them are wise enough to understand that you need a comprehensive policy - not just border security - to alleviate the problem.
Please. No one is saying that the solution to illegal immigration stops at border security. And amnesty is NOT part of the answer. Allowing the illegals that are already here to stay undermines whatever efforts are taken to address the issue.

Both liberals AND conservatives are dismissing illegal immigration. Both for different reasons.

It's "you and ME." ;)

(low-skill) immigrants (legal and otherwise) are the engine of our low-wage economy. They clean hotel rooms, pick vegetables, put roofs on houses, resurface roads. Who is going to do those jobs without them?

Don't say white, English speaking people. Because they won't. They don't.

You're right! Why would white people work when you can just sit in your trailer collecting the money the government took from "you and me", collect food stamps, get free taxi rides, and free health care?

You're right! Why would white people work when you can just sit in your trailer collecting the money the government took from "you and me", collect food stamps, get free taxi rides, and free health care?

but they're legal, so it's okay. ;)

Far be it from me to interrupt the illegal immigartion thread with convention talk ...

I watched Senator McCain's speech last night. I thought it was somewhat unfocused, but it wasn't too bad a speech. I think the ending was great. I still won't vote for the guy, but I really liked the last 5-10 minutes of his speech.

Also, at one point they had a large mansion-looking building on the screen behind him. This was apparently a picture of Walter Reed Middle School in North Holllywood, California. I haven't seen any official word from the campaign, but the theory is that somebody was told to get a picture of Walter Reed to put behind the Senator when he spoke, and this is what they came up with.

It's tough to take things back once you give them which is why we should think hard about giving anything to begin with. But if we took away all the gov't handouts, then those who were doing nothing would be more motivated to do the jobs that illegals do now. The big problem with making that happen is most of those people (the lazy whites) would rather rob you at gunpoint than work. Crime would be rampant.

But the RNC went well for the Republicans. I believe they'll win. I'm still going to watch LOTR back to back to back though. But if I do get motivated to get out of the house I'll still trip the Libertarian switch.

I watched Senator McCain's speech last night. it wasn't too bad a speech. I think the ending was great. I really liked the last 5-10 minutes of his speech.

Who hacked your account? ;)

Kudos for judging it for what it was and not what party is was from.

but they're legal, so it's okay. ;)

No its not ok. The Democrats and liberals constructed the welfare state as well. Great job!

Maybe we could kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Get rid of the illegals and put the fat welfare mama to work.

I agree with JasonF, McCain really needs to sell the folks on himself. I thought the end was very good. We all knew he would pull the "POW" trick out, but I was surprised at how real he sounded (not so political about it).

Either one will be miles ahead of Bush...

We all knew he would pull the "POW" trick out, but I was surprised at how real he sounded (not so political aboutt it).
I'm surprised so many people see this as a trick yet when Kerry did his "reporting for duty" crap every 5 minutes and went on an on about his purple heart all the Democrats ate it up like the greatest thing ever. So what is it about McCain using his experience to his advantage that bothers people so much and when Kerry did it - it was ok?

I'm surprised so many people see this as a trick yet when Kerry did his "reporting for duty" crap every 5 minutes and went on an on about his purple heart all the Democrats ate it up like the greatest thing ever. So what is it about McCain using his experience to his advantage that bothers people so much and when Kerry did it - it was ok?Simple - McCain's not running against a deserter who started a war.

Easy, Dan. Go do your HDNet news show.

Easy, Dan. Go do your HDNet news show.:lol:

(I've never even been to Texas.)

I'm surprised so many people see this as a trick yet when Kerry did his "reporting for duty" crap every 5 minutes and went on an on about his purple heart all the Democrats ate it up like the greatest thing ever. So what is it about McCain using his experience to his advantage that bothers people so much and when Kerry did it - it was ok?


Nope, it bothered me with Kerry too. But once the Swift Boat guys came around, I wish he had brought it up more and been better about telling his stories.

Now Rudy and his 9/11 shit? GOD, DROP IT ALREADY "AMERICA'S MAYOR" lol

I watched the first 20 minutes of McCain's speech, got a little bored in the middle and came back for the rousing last 5 minutes.

I could listen to McCain talk about his time being a POW all night long. I don't think it qualifies him to be president, but it's a great story and he's a hell of a man for surviving it.

I was a little saddened by the speech though. At times he brought back that great feeling I used to have about McCain. I wanted to vote for him in 2000 and have been hoping he'd run again ever since. He was my kind of politician, one I thought was above all the BS and different. Someone who put America and his personal beliefs above partisan politics. Unfortunately his behavior this last year has shown he's willing to compromise (flip-flop if you're so inclined) any of his values to get elected. That's not the kind of guy I wanted to vote for. I don't have a clue what he'll be like as president either because I can't tell if he's going to toe the party line or if he's just paying lip-service. In his speech he said all the things I expected and wanted him to say. I just don't think I believe him anymore. His credibility is gone for me.

The funniest part of all this is that I got made fun of in here for saying I was a huge McCain supporter back around '04. Now this place is filled with gung-ho McCain backers... and I'm not one of them.

I still have no idea how I'll vote in November.

The funniest part of all this is that I got made fun of in here for saying I was a huge McCain supporter back around '04. Now this place is filled with gung-ho McCain backers... and I'm not one of them.

I still have no idea how I'll vote in November.
There's a big different between a McCain supporter and a McCain backer in my opinion. I think a supporter is someone who supports the ideals and direction the candidate wants to take us, and a backer is someone who wants the candidate to win for a variety of reasons. For me, I back McCain because I prefer him to the alternative and that's about it. I'm far from a supporter.

There's a big different between a McCain supporter and a McCain backer in my opinion. I think a supporter is someone who supports the ideals and direction the candidate wants to take us, and a backer is someone who wants the candidate to win for a variety of reasons. For me, I back McCain because I prefer him to the alternative and that's about it. I'm far from a supporter.There's lots of people in here who don't like McCain but will vote for him. Many of those people were the same people giving me crap for liking McCain. I'm fairly certain some said they would never vote for him, but don't quote me on that :) (mosquitobite is apparently keeping her word too)

However, there are plenty of people around here who are at least "acting" excited.

I watched Senator McCain's speech last night. I thought it was somewhat unfocused, but it wasn't too bad a speech. I think the ending was great. I still won't vote for the guy, but I really liked the last 5-10 minutes of his speech.I thought Sen McCain did fairly well, especially with his candid reflection on his own reckless "asshat" sense of self in the Navy and how his POW experience has put him on a road to service. His speech was uneven but like you said he did have a great ending.

Given the decorum of the presidential candidates' speeches whichever president is elected we should have a president that will reach across the aisle to make for a better country... *hopefully. :)

* if Old Washington Republicans and Democrats don't stand in the way

I agree with JasonF, McCain really needs to sell the folks on himself. I thought the end was very good. We all knew he would pull the "POW" trick out, but I was surprised at how real he sounded (not so political about it).

Either one will be miles ahead of Bush...

The POW story was well-delivered, but what I really liked was the way he used that to deliver a message of service and of working and fighting to make a great country even greater.

I've asked this question before, but I don't remember anyone answering it.

Does the mere fact a person was a POW make him/her a hero?

Again - wouldn't it preferable to elect a president who flew combat missions in Vietnam, and didn't get shot down?

Wouldn't that demonstrate that he is more 'capable?'

I'm not poking fun at McCain's service to the country - just asking questions.

I was a little saddened by the speech though. At times he brought back that great feeling I used to have about McCain. I wanted to vote for him in 2000 and have been hoping he'd run again ever since. He was my kind of politician, one I thought was above all the BS and different. Someone who put America and his personal beliefs above partisan politics. Unfortunately his behavior this last year has shown he's willing to compromise (flip-flop if you're so inclined) any of his values to get elected. That's not the kind of guy I wanted to vote for. I don't have a clue what he'll be like as president either because I can't tell if he's going to toe the party line or if he's just paying lip-service. In his speech he said all the things I expected and wanted him to say. I just don't think I believe him anymore. His credibility is gone for me
Aww, is someone disillusioned to find out that the man he held up on a pedestal as being a transcendent figure of integrity able to bridge the partisan divide is in fact just a garden-variety politi

Wait, did you say McCain?

I've asked this question before, but I don't remember anyone answering it.

Does the mere fact a person was a POW make him/her a hero?

Again - wouldn't it preferable to elect a president who flew combat missions in Vietnam, and didn't get shot down?

Wouldn't that demonstrate that he is more 'capable?'

I'm not poking fun at McCain's service to the country - just asking questions.


Wow, I'm glad you asked this because I've been thinking about this POW thing for a looong time.

It depends, but just because a person was a POW, does not make them a hero. If this was the case, then we should call any military person a hero, because who are we to say POWs are only heroes. And if we do this, the word "hero" is rather ordinary in definition.

Ever since 9/11, the US has formed a really bad behavior of calling just about anyone who gets off their ass, a hero. Fox News especially makes a habit of naming heroes just about every goddamn day. And if Ollie is on, get ready for every other word to be HERO.

I've asked this question before, but I don't remember anyone answering it.

Does the mere fact a person was a POW make him/her a hero?

Again - wouldn't it preferable to elect a president who flew combat missions in Vietnam, and didn't get shot down?

Wouldn't that demonstrate that he is more 'capable?'

I'm not poking fun at McCain's service to the country - just asking questions.None of it really matters to me, but it is ironic that McCain is considered a war hero even though he was apparently a pretty lousy pilot.

There's a big different between a McCain supporter and a McCain backer in my opinion. I think a supporter is someone who supports the ideals and direction the candidate wants to take us, and a backer is someone who wants the candidate to win for a variety of reasons. For me, I back McCain because I prefer him to the alternative and that's about it. I'm far from a supporter.

Well said.

I think when we approach an election year we look for the candidate who best represents our own ideals. But what do you do when none does? Based on what I've read in this forum most people turn to the candidate who represents the party which most closely represents those ideals. Never a perfect fit, but the best compromise. Democrats begin convincing themselves Obama is qualified. Republicans begin convincing themselves that McCain is conservative enough. No one is really happy with the candidate, but they "back" them.

I was a Ron Paul guy. The problem is I'm pro-choice, and I support the war. So why would I back Ron Paul? I think we would have a better future with smaller government, and I believe in individual liberties. So Paul was my compromise.

I've asked this question before, but I don't remember anyone answering it.

Does the mere fact a person was a POW make him/her a hero?

Again - wouldn't it preferable to elect a president who flew combat missions in Vietnam, and didn't get shot down?

Wouldn't that demonstrate that he is more 'capable?'

I'm not poking fun at McCain's service to the country - just asking questions.I don't think Sen McCain has reflected on himself as a hero -- he has paid tribute to those he served with, those he survived with, and especially those that did not come home."I cherish the memory of something my grandson said to me the other day. He asked me, 'Grandpa, where you a hero in the war?' Grandpa said no. 'But I served in a company of heroes.'"

- Major Dick Winters

I've asked this question before, but I don't remember anyone answering it.

Does the mere fact a person was a POW make him/her a hero?

Again - wouldn't it preferable to elect a president who flew combat missions in Vietnam, and didn't get shot down?

Wouldn't that demonstrate that he is more 'capable?'

I'm not poking fun at McCain's service to the country - just asking questions.
McCain did some heroic or at least very patriotic things in prison. :shrug:

It depends, but just because a person was a POW, does not make them a hero. If this was the case, then we should call any military person a hero.

And that is how it should be, regardless. If you have served this country (and weren't given a dishonorable discharge) then, to me, you are a hero.

Didn't he also (by his own admission) violate the UCMJ?

I've asked this question before, but I don't remember anyone answering it.

Does the mere fact a person was a POW make him/her a hero?

Again - wouldn't it preferable to elect a president who flew combat missions in Vietnam, and didn't get shot down?

Wouldn't that demonstrate that he is more 'capable?'

I'm not poking fun at McCain's service to the country - just asking questions.

Well, if we ONLY elect presidents by selecting those NOT downed by enemy fire ... there goes JFK.

Happy?

Now, are all POWs automatically heroes? Not in the classic sense. But give me one that takes another four more years of captivity allowing others to be freed before him .... I have no problem with that being called heroic.

also George H. W. Bush

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dmsJe1S0z8w&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dmsJe1S0z8w&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Here is the guy who held up the signs yesterday. Like his politics or not, he's a good speaker. McCain should take notes ;)

Yeah, McCain, at the least, deserves props for opting out of release, and having them release other POWs in his stead.

And that is how it should be, regardless. If you have served this country (and weren't given a dishonorable discharge) then, to me, you are a hero.

What? Not given a DoD? That doesn't make sense at all. How do you justify saying a person is not a hero who served this country, but yet got a DoD?

You see, this is what I'm talking about. When you people throw out the word HERO, it becomes meaningless and conflicting.

How about police officers being heroes? Firefighters? How about the person who delivers food to the elderly in bad weather conditions?

Eventually, you'll come to the conclusion we are all heroes.

venusian ... youtube link not working for me

And that is how it should be, regardless. If you have served this country (and weren't given a dishonorable discharge) then, to me, you are a hero.I prefer a more limited definition. You have to do something truly above and beyond to be considered a hero. I don't consider every soldier, fire fighter, police officer, etc. a hero. My dad served honorably in the US Army (never got sent to Vietnam), but his service wasn't especially heroic. He did his job well, period. He doesn't need to be a hero.

McCain's time as a POW and refusal to be released early (did any soldier ever accept early release out of order?) was certainly heroic in my opinion though.

hmm..works for me. dvd polizei, i think you read his post wrong

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dmsJe1S0z8w&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dmsJe1S0z8w&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Here is the guy who held up the signs yesterday. Like his politics or not, he's a good speaker. McCain should take notes ;)I heard his teleprompter wasn't working either! ;)

Was he actually yelling something or just holding signs. I couldn't tell yesterday.

Eventually, you'll come to the conclusion we are all heroes....if just for one day.

What if you was awarded The Congressional Medal of Honor but later received a dishonorable discharge? Isn't that person still a hero?

i'm guessing he was yelling because the crowd kept changing USA to drown him out.

hmm..works for me. dvd polizei, i think you read his post wrong

It's possible. I'm a little tipsy at the moment.

It's possible. I'm a little tipsy at the moment."My friends..."

Take a drink. ;)

Perhaps I need to clarify my idea of a "hero" - I consider ANY person that willingly (or drafted as may be the case) puts themselves into a position that protects or serves their community or country. Does that mean (to me) there are a lot of heroes? Certainly - police, teachers, soldiers, doctors, etc. These are the ones I consider to exemplify the term "hero".

For a soldier to turn down his ticket to freedom in order to allow his fellow soldiers their freedom puts him on a level reserved for few.

Yeah, I wish McCain could get a handle on the "my friends" opening...if only to save the lives of some DVDTalkers from the drinking game. I imagine some were pretty well sloshed by the end of the speech last night.

Regarding the heroics, I think it's been pretty well covered in the last few posts. It wasn't getting shot down or captured that was heroic, it was the stubborn defiance in the face of his captors, along with his refusal to trade cooperation with the enemy for early release. His other POWs who did the same are equally heroic. If anybody here says they would have done exactly the same under the same circumstances, you have more self-knowledge than I can claim.

What I found most compelling about his account were the admissions that he learned a lot about his personal limitations...also, that he learned what it means to truly love his country as opposed to taking his freedom & privileges of citizenship for granted. That part moved me more