DISQUS

OMG, did someone just quote Yoda? Yoda from the Phantom Menace?

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

-=T=-

OMG, did someone just quote Yoda? Yoda from the Phantom Menace?

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

-=T=-

beautiful.

-=T=-

beautiful.

-=T=-

Sounds like a pure indictment on those who decided not to agree with you.

For the record, I voted for McCain, and still brought myself to overcome the revulsion and suck the nipples of a person who voted for Obama. They tasted...happy.

Peace unto you. Excorcise what demons you must. There is prejudice that needs to be confronted.

-=T=-

Sounds like a pure indictment on those who decided not to agree with you.

For the record, I voted for McCain, and still brought myself to overcome the revulsion and suck the nipples of a person who voted for Obama. They tasted...happy.

Peace unto you. Excorcise what demons you must. There is prejudice that needs to be confronted.

-=T=-

Ok, I’ll hang my head in shame … at not being able to figure out what Obama’s going to do with the $150,000,000 he raised in September alone. Or where it came from, as he himself knows it didn’t come from grandma’s cookie jar on top of the fridge.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/22/politics/washingtonpost/main4538028.shtml
(Big Donors Drive Obama’s Money Edge)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aRAawQyBBLn0&refer=us
(Obama’s $150 Million May Overwhelm McCain Campaign)

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_fundraising/2008/10/22/143165.html
(McCain Aide: Obama Should Reveal Donors)

-=T=-

Ok, I’ll hang my head in shame … at not being able to figure out what Obama’s going to do with the $150,000,000 he raised in September alone. Or where it came from, as he himself knows it didn’t come from grandma’s cookie jar on top of the fridge.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/22/politics/washingtonpost/main4538028.shtml
(Big Donors Drive Obama’s Money Edge)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aRAawQyBBLn0&refer=us
(Obama’s $150 Million May Overwhelm McCain Campaign)

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_fundraising/2008/10/22/143165.html
(McCain Aide: Obama Should Reveal Donors)

-=T=-

@ Shane,

Thank you for your efforts to "even the playing field." It really is appreciated that, even as an Obama voter, you recognize the ferocity and underhandedness of certain tactics used to play on fear and ignorance of the as-yet unconvinced voting segments.

When some people finally come down to having to say "because he's (or she's) lying", making an unbased and unprovable accusation on a candidate's character, it shows the ultimate limits to which they need to extend their arguements/frustrations/whathaveyou. The problem with doing is is that it goes well beyond the issues.

"The mission in Iraq is becoming a success.", and someone states, "Well, that's a lie." All of the sudden the debate shifts from the merits of what premise has been proposed to a more basic understanding negating the need for the premise.

It's worse when the candidates themselves do this to each other. At least, here, amongst ourselves, we have control over it.

I also appreciate having this forum to conduct our discussions, yet this goes after saying I'd rather not participate if this was a member's only mutual appreciation society, where like-minded people were the rule without exceptions. I can pat my own back, if that were the case.

Furthermore, to Shane again, you implied a perspective coming from the MIC that interests me. I hope you get a chance to draw from that perspective some more, (and perhaps divulge some details none of us can compare to). It is most welcome, and seems kind of balance-oriented.

-=T=-

@ Shane,

Thank you for your efforts to "even the playing field." It really is appreciated that, even as an Obama voter, you recognize the ferocity and underhandedness of certain tactics used to play on fear and ignorance of the as-yet unconvinced voting segments.

When some people finally come down to having to say "because he's (or she's) lying", making an unbased and unprovable accusation on a candidate's character, it shows the ultimate limits to which they need to extend their arguements/frustrations/whathaveyou. The problem with doing is is that it goes well beyond the issues.

"The mission in Iraq is becoming a success.", and someone states, "Well, that's a lie." All of the sudden the debate shifts from the merits of what premise has been proposed to a more basic understanding negating the need for the premise.

It's worse when the candidates themselves do this to each other. At least, here, amongst ourselves, we have control over it.

I also appreciate having this forum to conduct our discussions, yet this goes after saying I'd rather not participate if this was a member's only mutual appreciation society, where like-minded people were the rule without exceptions. I can pat my own back, if that were the case.

Furthermore, to Shane again, you implied a perspective coming from the MIC that interests me. I hope you get a chance to draw from that perspective some more, (and perhaps divulge some details none of us can compare to). It is most welcome, and seems kind of balance-oriented.

-=T=-

We would be mad to completely dedicate our hopes to one candidate or another, wholeheartedly, without reservation.

However, Russia is exactly what it seems to be, an agressive nation.

Recently, Russia went to the aid of an african nation whose arms shipment it had bought from Russia was hijacked by pirates. On the surface, it looks like no one was in the right on this deal. Yet, more evidence that Russia acts when it's in Russia's interests.

Can it be truthfully said that Russia's intentions were wholely benevolent in their "rescue" of two unruley regions within it's neighbor, the sovereign nation of Georgia?

I could go on. But I need to not do so. You need to see it for yourself. There is no secret beign glossed over by the western media. The cold hard facts stand still fresh to read firsthand from journalists inside the zones. If you can't see it, then call it anti-russian propaganda by a mainstream that has won over both candidates.

I know you were hoping McCain was sooooo effin wrong, so stupid, so freakishly evil that any stance he takes must (or at least might) be hellbent towards some exploitative theme most diabolical and corrupt, but if this shakes your faith in your candidate, perhaps it will shakes you pre-established conviction against the opposition as well.

True, last night's debate showed little headway for either candidate, but most telling was how much their views circled around each other, and some times at certain instances landed on the same side.

-=T=-

-=T=-

We would be mad to completely dedicate our hopes to one candidate or another, wholeheartedly, without reservation.

However, Russia is exactly what it seems to be, an agressive nation.

Recently, Russia went to the aid of an african nation whose arms shipment it had bought from Russia was hijacked by pirates. On the surface, it looks like no one was in the right on this deal. Yet, more evidence that Russia acts when it's in Russia's interests.

Can it be truthfully said that Russia's intentions were wholely benevolent in their "rescue" of two unruley regions within it's neighbor, the sovereign nation of Georgia?

I could go on. But I need to not do so. You need to see it for yourself. There is no secret beign glossed over by the western media. The cold hard facts stand still fresh to read firsthand from journalists inside the zones. If you can't see it, then call it anti-russian propaganda by a mainstream that has won over both candidates.

I know you were hoping McCain was sooooo effin wrong, so stupid, so freakishly evil that any stance he takes must (or at least might) be hellbent towards some exploitative theme most diabolical and corrupt, but if this shakes your faith in your candidate, perhaps it will shakes you pre-established conviction against the opposition as well.

True, last night's debate showed little headway for either candidate, but most telling was how much their views circled around each other, and some times at certain instances landed on the same side.

-=T=-

-=T=-

Dude, I applaud this. Totally, totally, totally.

Expand your inputs. Educate yourself to expert levels on the pro AND cons on each issue from both or multiple perspectives.

I'm a Republican, and I tell people that they should be open to opposing points of view. In doing so they will either validate their own on new points, or old ones, or find that they have better choices simply because they talked about it.

Telling others to be open-minded is much easier that simply being open-minded, and yet to be assured that it's worthwhile, I will occassionally educate the opposition in their own rhetoric, to take the conversation to the next level, and give them more than one thing to think about.

Again, I'm a Republican. It doesn't mean I'm Pro-Life. It doesn't mean I'm Pro-Creationist. And having any party affiliation doesn't mean I must be closed to better options.

Daniel, please continue this line. Thank you.

-=T=-

Dude, I applaud this. Totally, totally, totally.

Expand your inputs. Educate yourself to expert levels on the pro AND cons on each issue from both or multiple perspectives.

I'm a Republican, and I tell people that they should be open to opposing points of view. In doing so they will either validate their own on new points, or old ones, or find that they have better choices simply because they talked about it.

Telling others to be open-minded is much easier that simply being open-minded, and yet to be assured that it's worthwhile, I will occassionally educate the opposition in their own rhetoric, to take the conversation to the next level, and give them more than one thing to think about.

Again, I'm a Republican. It doesn't mean I'm Pro-Life. It doesn't mean I'm Pro-Creationist. And having any party affiliation doesn't mean I must be closed to better options.

Daniel, please continue this line. Thank you.

-=T=-

Carl,

I wouldn't give an affirmative too quickly. It exposes the pretext of this piece, that Obama supporters are capable of engaging in politics via emotional manipulation.

Mr. Miessler,

Hi!

-=T=-

Carl,

I wouldn't give an affirmative too quickly. It exposes the pretext of this piece, that Obama supporters are capable of engaging in politics via emotional manipulation.

Mr. Miessler,

Hi!

-=T=-

"The Republicans Have Deliberately Chosen to Campaign on Emotion Rather Than Issues"

Doesn't that make you angry?

-=T=-

"The Republicans Have Deliberately Chosen to Campaign on Emotion Rather Than Issues"

Doesn't that make you angry?

-=T=-

Daniel,

I'll take that as a no.

However, when you say:

"In short, if both of the above are true you are likely
making a significant portion of your decision based on
race—not consciously, but subconsciously."

the very clear implication is that the beholder of such decision IS a racist, even if so by subconscious means, unaware of who they are, and that you are telling them so, since they have such strong opinions towards Obama.

I've got one better. You DID mention two qualifiers, (1) not wanting your daughter to marry a black under any circumstances, AND (2) "really" not liking Obama.

Since the first qualifier is a defining racist trait, we could leave it at that. A racist to any extent that doesn't like Obama is still a racist. It's like saying a clown who drives a Lexus is still a clown.

Yet, why is this post about people who strongly dislike Obama? To tie the two together, and join those in both categories, making them mutually inclusive, establishing more relation between the two than actually exists.

We can extend this exercise in another parallel direction. If you (a) strongly dislike Obama AND (b) strongly dislike Muslims, you might find him a convenient person to vent your hatred upon, "…then you should re-evaluate your thoughts/feelings regarding Obama. In short, if both of the above are true you are likely making a significant portion of your decision based on" --religion--"—not consciously, but subconsciously." This is your logic, I understand it very well.

Although I have an adverse reaction to the mentioning of Obama for President, primarily because of his policy proposals, I would not be adverse to having such an influential young man capture my daughter's future affections, and not to spite his dark complection and the fate it "deserves", but because that young man is enterprising, educated, and successful, (even if so by exploitative means, which too often are rewarded these days, especially if they are lawyers). I have no reason to believe that he would mistreat my daughter. Obama is not Othello, and there is no evidence of that concerning Obama, and should such qualities her happy, I would be satisfied. Also, Obama lacks the experience to be President, but inexperience is a worthwhile commodity in the suitors of a father's daughter.

No help needed. I'm just enjoying the conversation.

-=T=-

Daniel,

I'll take that as a no.

However, when you say:

"In short, if both of the above are true you are likely
making a significant portion of your decision based on
race—not consciously, but subconsciously."

the very clear implication is that the beholder of such decision IS a racist, even if so by subconscious means, unaware of who they are, and that you are telling them so, since they have such strong opinions towards Obama.

I've got one better. You DID mention two qualifiers, (1) not wanting your daughter to marry a black under any circumstances, AND (2) "really" not liking Obama.

Since the first qualifier is a defining racist trait, we could leave it at that. A racist to any extent that doesn't like Obama is still a racist. It's like saying a clown who drives a Lexus is still a clown.

Yet, why is this post about people who strongly dislike Obama? To tie the two together, and join those in both categories, making them mutually inclusive, establishing more relation between the two than actually exists.

We can extend this exercise in another parallel direction. If you (a) strongly dislike Obama AND (b) strongly dislike Muslims, you might find him a convenient person to vent your hatred upon, "…then you should re-evaluate your thoughts/feelings regarding Obama. In short, if both of the above are true you are likely making a significant portion of your decision based on" --religion--"—not consciously, but subconsciously." This is your logic, I understand it very well.

Although I have an adverse reaction to the mentioning of Obama for President, primarily because of his policy proposals, I would not be adverse to having such an influential young man capture my daughter's future affections, and not to spite his dark complection and the fate it "deserves", but because that young man is enterprising, educated, and successful, (even if so by exploitative means, which too often are rewarded these days, especially if they are lawyers). I have no reason to believe that he would mistreat my daughter. Obama is not Othello, and there is no evidence of that concerning Obama, and should such qualities her happy, I would be satisfied. Also, Obama lacks the experience to be President, but inexperience is a worthwhile commodity in the suitors of a father's daughter.

No help needed. I'm just enjoying the conversation.

-=T=-

Derek,

For the sake of full disclosure, I presented the article, which informs the best it could without implication, yet also with a conclusion.

There is no list of books to be banned. It was addressed by the article here:

As a parent I would like to hear that president of the Alaska Library Association will adhere to some established level of decency while stocking books, which she answered by stating "The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books." This is sufficient to answer my fears that children may not be exposed to what some may be called "art", but is also graphic child pornography, or other books ranging from how to commit suicide or murder to the ever popular Anarchist's Cookbook, without establishing such a listing for groups like the ACLU to rally around.

A request for resignation was made on the basis that Emmons was a local and vocal supporter of Palin's opposition, which can complicate the relationship as concurrent public servants. However, no further action was take or enforced. Emmons remained in her position without further incidences. (Note, this request was made before Emmons satisfied Palin's question.)

I hope to have answered your interest in this rumor.

-=T=-

Derek,

For the sake of full disclosure, I presented the article, which informs the best it could without implication, yet also with a conclusion.

There is no list of books to be banned. It was addressed by the article here:

As a parent I would like to hear that president of the Alaska Library Association will adhere to some established level of decency while stocking books, which she answered by stating "The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books." This is sufficient to answer my fears that children may not be exposed to what some may be called "art", but is also graphic child pornography, or other books ranging from how to commit suicide or murder to the ever popular Anarchist's Cookbook, without establishing such a listing for groups like the ACLU to rally around.

A request for resignation was made on the basis that Emmons was a local and vocal supporter of Palin's opposition, which can complicate the relationship as concurrent public servants. However, no further action was take or enforced. Emmons remained in her position without further incidences. (Note, this request was made before Emmons satisfied Palin's question.)

I hope to have answered your interest in this rumor.

-=T=-

"Palin apparently has a list of books that she wanted to ban."

gossip/rumor. the chicago tribune investigated it, neither finding proof, nor proving it false.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-palin-book_bdsep07,0,3537053.story

-=T=-

"Palin apparently has a list of books that she wanted to ban."

gossip/rumor. the chicago tribune investigated it, neither finding proof, nor proving it false.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-palin-book_bdsep07,0,3537053.story

-=T=-

this, and "happy fun ball".

"do not taunt happy fun ball."

http://www.happyfunball.com/hfb.html

-=T=-