If you are honest...

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:38 am

Go cling to your gun or read your Bible, 88, you friggin' simpleton.

The media knows what's best for you.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:42 am

Sex sells 88 and Sarah Palin is sexier than Obama. It sells more papers. It's Capitalism.

Bad news and muckraking, hell even the truth about Obama doesn't sell ads on tv or move papers off the stands. It's all about business man.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:09 am

I think it's true that "the left" gets a lot of media play. After all, those folks were communications majors in college, possibly more Dem than the business kids.

However, what does it matter who the media wants to see elected? The people voted Bush 2 into office for a second term, didn't they? That flew in the face of what the media was pushing, right?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:36 am

PSUFAN wrote:I think it's true that "the left" gets a lot of media play. After all, those folks were communications majors in college, possibly more Dem than the business kids.

However, what does it matter who the media wants to see elected? The people voted Bush 2 into office for a second term, didn't they? That flew in the face of what the media was pushing, right?

Yet another reasonable take. Fact is, media has always been biased, whether the motivation is capitalistic, idealogical, or both.

Been guilty of bitching and moaning about it here, but I think I've had a breakthrough.

Baby steps here and there.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:49 am

great quote from John Swinton, pegged around 1880:

There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes

Q, West Coast Style · Post by **Q, West Coast Style** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:27 am

But am radio and fox news is completely in the tank for McCain.

Q, West Coast Style · Post by **Q, West Coast Style** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:39 am

R-Jack wrote:
Q, West Coast Style wrote:But am radio and fox news is completely in the tank for McCain.
AM?

I highly doubt all those beaner music stations and sports talk retards are all pro-McCain.

No, but all the white wanna be tough guys who aren't as hard working as they think they are and who feel their existance and manhood threatened by Obama are all in the tank for McCain.

Ang · Post by **Ang** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:17 am

Another thing you will never see in the press...old time hardcore feminists supporting Palin.

Yeah, right...hearing from old time feminists is EXACTLY what everyone was looking for here :), but I have been amazed and surprised how Palin has been treated by a portion of feminists that has nothing to do with her background or capabilities...they just hate her because she tows the orginal line instead of the new and improved line of everyone has to be the same or not one of us. But a few of the old heavy hitters called foul, and actually stood up and said that they think that the so-called Caribou Barbie is actually a feminist and are showing up to support her. Here's the link to the article, the video of the speech is worth the watch as well.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... rainiac/1/

Plus, a couple of mornings ago, I was up before work watching the news and both CNN and Fox had coverage of a very detailed and forward thinking speech by Palin on energy independance, and...was that on any newspage links? I couldn't find it after I watched it live. I would have thought some one who didn't want to address what she said in the speech would at least cover it just to comment on her outfit, but it was nowhere to be found...probably because the camera never went to her 'stripper shoes'.

The news commentary and opinion bias in the media on this election is probably about the same as any other, but it really seems more weird and skewed this time. My guess is the networks, even the cables, are on the block realizing that no one really needs their news so they have to be 'entertainment' even more than usual to gather viewers. And I get that, but the televangelism for Obama (who I was actually planning to vote for) is making me look harder for things that aren't covered, and question just a bit harder on what is too easy to hear.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:25 am

I've been following presidential election seriously since 1952 and "I Like Ike". Even then the press tried to paint Eisenhower as some sort of doting simpleton. Yeah-right. Still, I have never seen anything like the all out assault on Governor Palin. Like Condi Rice--she is "her own woman" and not in a position because of her husband. I stopped watching all old network TV "news" (NBC, CBS, ABC) as they have become a media wing of the Democrat party and a never ending gossip and propaganda machine.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:33 pm

88 wrote:AM radio is not the Press. The shows are advertised and held out to be conservative talk shows. And the liberals have Air America, which I listen to more than anything else on radio.

But what about the cartoons?

Sincerely,

Whitey Wagon

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:44 pm

They used to spend the time to investigate complicated and difficult issues and bring them to light.

One has to ask - when has thorough investigation and reporting been something that affects presidential elections? Again, there was plenty to grouse over in the days leading up to the 2004 election, but it did not have the effect that this line of reasoning might suggest it would have. Bush 2 got another term.

What is it that major print media is failing to investigate, where Obama's background is concerned? It rather seems to me that we have read and seen a lot on that. Let's not forget, Obama went through the Democratic Primary gauntlet. Early in that process, many of these media outlets were leaning towards Clinton. I seriously doubt that Obama's background was not sorted through at that point, if not before or after.

Here's the issue - it's not as if some concerns about Obama's background haven't made it into the national consciousness. For example, with many folks he is still battling the perception that he's a secret muslim - which is factually inaccurate. The "connection" he has had with Ayers has been fine-tooth combed through for months and months...and nothing of substance has come of it.

Personally, I think that if there were substantive issues remaining about his background, they would have been found and fully explored. Even a flat-out liberal reporter knows an opportunity for a story when he/she sees one. Also, you have to imagine that his many campaign opponents would have brought them to light, shit - he's been campaigning full-time for how long now?

Ultimately, perhaps his background really isn't the fertile ground that George W. Bush's was.

This truly is an interesting election. My own feeling is that Obama will win decisively. He will be lauded like few new presidents have been before...but slowly and surely, many of those who imagine him to walk on water will be faced with the reality that a president can only do so much. All of the starry-eyed 19 year old kids volunteering in his campaign offices and wielding their iphones will NOT be given public policy-oriented jobs in his machine. He'll reach out and tap the seasoned, connected folks. He'll have to compromise in a variety of ways...all of which, in my view, adds up to a startling mid-term turnaround, as it did with Bill Clinton.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:02 pm

I don't think anyone here can accuse me of being a Bushie, conservative, or of claiming the media is in the tank for Obama. But this article supports (correctly or otherwise) 88's claim:

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com <http://snipurl.com/457to> ] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:07 pm

I didn't think that the original post was exploring culpability for the financial crisis...and how major print media outlets are investigating it. Rather, it appeared to be focused on Obama's background. Nonetheless, I agree - that's an excellent piece by Card.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:08 pm

PSUFAN wrote:I didn't think that the original post was exploring culpability for the financial crisis...and how major print media outlets are investigating it. Rather, it appeared to be focused on Obama's background. Nonetheless, I agree - that's an excellent piece by Card.

2nd.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:10 pm

PSUFAN wrote:I didn't think that the original post was exploring culpability for the financial crisis...and how major print media outlets are investigating it. Rather, it appeared to be focused on Obama's background. Nonetheless, I agree - that's an excellent piece by Card.

The original post didn't focus on the financial crisis, but Card's piece isn't really, either. It's simply using it as a glaring example of how the media operates.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:33 pm

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

I'm not with him on those points.

What does he offer as evidence of Obama's ignorance and naivete? Speaking of those things, I thought they were off limits...everyone has softened their criticism of Palin's dramatic ignorance and naivete, so as to not appear to be "harsh".

As for John Edwards...boy, I certainly remember that being a headline for a few weeks. Suggesting it wasn't seems a little misguided.

The coverage of Palin's unmarried pregnant daughter really wasn't what "Borked" her. Palin's staggering ignorance - typified by her awful performances in interview situations - is really more what lost her where many Americans were concerned. Many women of all political descriptions were prepared to embrace her as a modern mother, with a few children that had real-life problems. She lost them again when she proved how little she new about so many important issues when asked.

If Obama's ignorance and naivete can be categorized as anywhere near that of Palin, I have yet to see that case made successfully. He has made some gaffes, as certainly McCain has as well.

As much as I salute Card's overall point, I think many of the specifics he offers are shaky - and driven quite clearly by his own axes that he's grinding.

Now...how well has mainstream print media made us aware of the Branchflower Report? There's a LOT of troubling ethical questions still floating out there where that scandal is concerned. So yes, perhaps the investigative fervor of mainstream print media should be questioned. Looking that over, I agree that the media has given at least one candidate a general pass for the duration of the election.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:47 pm

While that's a good zinger, I don't see where it supports his point about media coverage. Whether or not he recognizes the integrity of NOW is completely irrelevant. It actually weakens his overall point, because he's setting aside his main thrust to land a few partisan jabs.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:50 pm

PSUFAN wrote: If Obama's ignorance and naivete can be categorized as anywhere near that of Palin, I have yet to see that case made successfully. He has made some gaffes, as certainly McCain has as well.

Hmmm. When it boils down to Palin vs. Obama it was a matter of being in a positiion to make decisions. Sometimes, tough decisions. There's a difference between being on a board and chiming in vs. being an executive - a point of accountability. As governor Palin was in that hot seat. Obama has always been in positions where he can equivocate, fall back on platitudes, and it's not clear where he stands on many things. That being said .....

As politics go, he can out politic Palin. I mean he "outpolitiked" the Clinton's. I don't think you do that without making decisions and "leading".

As far as executive level experience Palin gets the nod.
As far as leadership, command presence, charisma ,eloquence and overall intellectual agility - Obama gets the nod.

In the end, I think we should be able to elect a vice president independent of the President. And Obama/McCain team would be better alternative in this circumstance. With the two of them at the helm leading the country together, I would feel slightly more comfortable than either of them alone with their current picks for number two.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:57 pm

Tom In VA wrote:As far as executive level experience Palin gets the nod.

Too much weight is given to this. If that's the yardstick, Dubya should be a great prez by now, what with having over 10 yrs of combined state & federal executive experience.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:00 pm

Obama has as much "executive experience" running his campaign for two years as Palin has had as Governor.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:01 pm

88 wrote: The Press I am speaking of are the newspapers.

Don't leave out magazines like Time and Newsweek.

And I suppose it's just coincidence (yeah, right) that CNN is a subsidiary of Time-Warner. Go figure.

And yes, that was an excellent article by Card. I'm quite sure most of the "Bush and the GoP are demons and Obama and Dems are saints" crew can't bear to read such heresy. They'd rather cover their eyes and ears than have to read or listen to it.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:01 pm

Ang wrote:Another thing you will never see in the press...old time hardcore feminists supporting Palin.

Why should they support her? Palin's against everything they stand for.

And she's also not even remotely qualified to be President of the United States.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:02 pm

Wolfman wrote:I have never seen anything like the all out assault on Governor Palin. Like Condi Rice--she is "her own woman" and not in a position because of her husband.

You are one thick-headed fucking tard who should join Whitey Faggon on a swim with concrete boots. Comparing Palin and Rice is almost as idiotic as the latest version of Paul slamming the submit button: Rice is a brilliant woman who has a proven track record of success. Palin, on the other hand, is not only one of the dumbest gashes to ever hold public office, but one of the dumbest people on the face of the fucking earth. Despite what the RNC and the rest of you lock-in-step tards seem to think, having a hot ass and a $150k wardrobe doesn't qualify you to hold office.

Palin would get some slack if she had even one fucking ounce of intelligence. She has none. "Character assassination." Shut the fuck up, you whining fucking bitch.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:03 pm

BSmack wrote: And she's also not even remotely qualified to be President of the United States.

Neither is Obama, so what's your point?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:06 pm

War Wagon wrote:
BSmack wrote: And she's also not even remotely qualified to be President of the United States.
Neither is Obama, so what's your point?

You are wrong about Obama. As you will find out over the next 8 years.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:06 pm

BSmack wrote:And she's also not even remotely qualified to be President of the United States.

And Obama is? please explain.

I know the question , "What has BO done to make him worthy of being the POTUS?" has been asked in here several times. I've yet to see an answer.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:07 pm

Smackie Chan wrote: Too much weight is given to this. If that's the yardstick, Dubya should be a great prez by now, what with having over 10 yrs of combined state & federal executive experience.

Sort of Agree. The perfect example of a man who had both the executive level experience AND the ability to lead and eloquence to get "buy in" from the "stakeholders" was William Jefferson Clinton.

But that's more to my point that Palin has all of one thing and not enough of the other.

Obama on the other hand has none of the executive experience and maybe too much of the other. In the end though, I think, as appearance and image are highly valued in our society - his "polish" is a more important asset to him and possibily the country than Palin's experience is to her and to the country.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:08 pm

Mikey wrote:Obama has as much "executive experience" running his campaign for two years as Palin has had as Governor.

I acknowledged that Mr. Bitters.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:14 pm

PSUFAN wrote:As for John Edwards...boy, I certainly remember that being a headline for a few weeks. Suggesting it wasn't seems a little misguided.

Yes, it was a headline for about a week or so, but I think Card's insinuation was that it was known for month's prior.

Great read and certainly brings to light what the L.A. Times is doing right now.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:21 pm

We've seen this since Palin was tapped to be the running mate - criticizing her is supposed to be off limits. It certainly shouldn't be.

Personal attacks reached a previously unforeseen high when Hilary Clinton became a national public figure. I would be interested to hear where criticism of Palin stepped past that which was sent Hilary's way since 1991 or so.

George W. Bush has made a career of proving that you can be ignorant and still be in a position of importance. It's not that Palin's obvious ignorance and naivete are a problem for most Americans - they might not be - it's that there is a better alternative, and it's time we got some fucking work done already. There's no time for us to be wrapped up in the vagaries of Palin's on-the-job learning experience, particularly when she's at the point where her foreign policy experience is described by her to consist of "being close to Russia".

My friends, that sort of ignorance goes past the commonplace that we all know and love so much.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:24 pm

And in the end, if Obama treats our foreign enemies with the same "heavy hand" he does his domestic enemies ....

I don't think we're in bad shape - despite his lack of experience.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

Obama spokesman Bill Burton confirms Drudge's report that two right-leaning papers, the Washington Times and the New York Post, have lost their seats on the Obama plane, along with the Dallas Morning News.

"We're trying to reach as many swing voters that we can and unfortunately had to make some tough choices. but we are accommodating these folks in every way possible," he said.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:26 pm

PSUFAN wrote:George W. Bush has made a career of proving that you can be ignorant and still be in a position of importance.

Yeah, its hard to believe W has accomplished so much, especially when the dems throw such stalwarts at him like al gore and john kerry.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:33 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:Obama has as much "executive experience" running his campaign for two years as Palin has had as Governor.
What load of motherfucking bullshit. Go fuck yourself, you retarded douche. You make Wolfman look like William F. Buckley.

Seems like the more legitimate the post the more vitriolic the response from this load of over-intimidated goo.

Thanks for that, Marilyn.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:40 pm

Sirfindafold wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:George W. Bush has made a career of proving that you can be ignorant and still be in a position of importance.

Yeah, its hard to believe W has accomplished so much, especially when the dems throw such stalwarts at him like al gore and john kerry.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. If it is that Kerry and Gore were poor choices for the Dems to run at Bush, then I totally agree.

trev · Post by **trev** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:56 pm

Mikey wrote:Obama has as much "executive experience" running his campaign for two years as Palin has had as Governor.

Does he have an 80% approval rating?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:58 pm

trev wrote:
Mikey wrote:Obama has as much "executive experience" running his campaign for two years as Palin has had as Governor.
Does he have an 80% approval rating?

You could probably provide much more incisive commentary in the American swill thread. Just sayin’.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:03 pm

I'm trying to reconcile the "stop bashing Sarah" routine with the "80% approval rating".

trev · Post by **trev** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:12 pm

PSUFAN wrote:I'm trying to reconcile the "stop bashing Sarah" routine with the "80% approval rating".

Just addressing Mikey's "comparison."

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:15 pm

trev wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:I'm trying to reconcile the "stop bashing Sarah" routine with the "80% approval rating".
Just addressing Mikey's "comparison."

WTF does "approval rating" have to do with executive experience?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:21 pm

Boy, raising taxes on oil companies and redistributing it to the masses is "conservative," for sure.