whitesoxfan101

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 02:09 PM) I think mine and Balta's main points are the fact that people on "the left" (which also includes me by default) don't like being generalized as sexist for the comments and actions of other asshats, and they bristle at it the same way that "the right" does at being called racist. The left isn't sexist at all. My point is moreso that if the right asked the same questions about a woman that some people (I'll be more clear saying that, although by some I do mean a decent amount) on the left are asking about Palin, the right would be blistered as being sexist (and racist for that matter because they are always portrayed that way).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 02:02 PM) Ok, now you've set yourself up, I'm going to ask you to prove it. Who exactly is it on the left who is making a claim like the one Dr. Laura made that I highlighted there? Who has claimed that because of her family issues she won't have the time to govern or that she has more important things to do or anything like that? Well many talking heads have been saying all week now that it's questionable for Palin to take the VP spot considering she has several kids including a very young one with down's, and now a pregnant 17 year old. The only channel I watch much is CNN, but just there I have seen several people such as Campbell Brown, Paul Begala, and James Carville among others say it. Now, putting it into those terms is veiling things a bit admittedly, but you know exactly what they mean by it. There have been a couple interesting links posted in this thread showing such question is coming from the right as well, but my point still stands.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 02:02 PM) McCain's National Co-Chair: Media Coverage Of Palin Is "Completely Fair," Not Sexist I have no problem with the vetting the media has done of Governor Palin on the issues, because there is a lot there to look at and I'm not sure the McCain camp even looked at all of it. It's when you get into the area where some people are asking if Palin can raise a family and be VP that I find the comments a bit over the top, although hell, apparently such ignorance is coming from both sides.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 01:59 PM) And This From Michael Savage: For the record, that is outright mean, wrong, and WAY out of line by any standard. Michael Savage is an idiot, so I don't count what he said. Although to be fair, in retrospect, it was the daily kos who started the rumors that Palin's disabled son was actually Bristol's, so I should have just ignored that too because the people there are idiots.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 01:53 PM) 2 points to make in reply. If it's a bad thing for the Dems to supposedly cower behind every criticism of Obama as a racial attack, then is it equally bad for the other side to cower behind every criticism of Sarah Palin as an attack on women? Secondly, you make that statement quite readily blaming the left for the family-based criticism of Governor Palin. This leaves me an obvious route to undermine your attack...simply find a prominent figure on the right that is attacking Governor Palin for those reasons. Now, frankly, I disagree with those sentiments. But they're posted now...because you want to pretend that all these anti-feminist attacks against her are coming from those evil liberals, and you're simply wrong. I'm sure there are some going after her for those reasons, but you're trying to pretend that one of the major problems the right wing folks might have with her is coming entirely from my side, and that's just incorrect. #1. Yes, it is very bad in both cases. I personally don't think much of the attack on Palin has been gender related though, to be honest, just as most attacks on Obama aren't race related IMO, but some are. Leading me to: #2. I'm not surprised by the link. I'm also not surprised that there would be somebody on the right making these claims and asking these questions about Governor Palin, as there are people on both sides of the aisle with flawed logic. Just as I would guess there are people with silly family-based criticisms of Palin on the right, there are people with silly race-based criticisms of Obama on the left (although everybody, regardless of political party, tries to hide these criticisms more, as hidden racism is a real popular thing in America these days). The point is, the vast majority of the silly family criticism of Palin comes from the left, and the vast majority of the dumb race based criticism of Obama comes from the right (even though it's more veiled than the former). Now obviously the race based criticism is more blatently stupid and wrong, but neither makes much sense to me. And for ANYBODY on the left to ask if Palin can raise a family and be VP is absolute madness, considering how much they claim to look out for women, as well as how much they would JUMP on the right if the situation was reversed and they were asking these questions.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 01:52 PM) ok... willing to work across the aisle when necessary to get things done. Bi-partisan might have not been the right wording to use. Well that I would agree with, and it's one of the few things I like about him. Even with as far to the left as he is, he has generally shown he isn't opposed to reaching across the aisle, and I can respect that.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 01:43 PM) That also doesnt include anything he did while in the Illinois state senate which he was praised as "bi-partisan", even by republicans. I don't know enough about his record in the Illinois senate to comment on it, but "bi-partisan" and Obama will never be confused with his record in the U.S. senate.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 01:41 PM) What exactly has McCain really accomplished in 26 years in office? I mean honestly. This answer to my question (another question, and a silly one at that) tells me all I need to know about Obama's accomplishments. QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 01:23 PM) Can Palin be a mother and a vice president? The left would normally scoff at such a question. This was part of the feminist fight...the liberal fight for women. (Those on the right just wanted them home, pregnant, and in the kitchen.) The opportunity for both a career and a family and not having to chose between the two. That was the goal. So liberals are all for the advancement of women, but only one that fits their mold. Of course. If a woman had run for VP on the left and even a single person on the right asked the question, it would be another case of the right being sexist, elitist pigs with no plans for broadening the horizons of their party. But it's ok for the left to ask the question apparently since Palin isn't experienced, and the left is the exclusive bastion of feminist thought. Hypocrisy is beautiful, and the last sentence of yoru post said it beautifully.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 01:33 PM) Not to totally derail the thread, but exactly what ARE RSO's accomplishments? What does RSO stand for? I know it means Obama though, and his list of accomplishments is about as long as the line of Chicago Cubs championship banners. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 01:27 PM) At the end of the day I just hope 60 days is enough time to hammer on the fact that Obama clearly isn't fit to run this country. The problem is he's such a tremendous speaker that many Americans will ignore his record. Plus McCain isn't exactly someone that wows you so some people that are intelligent enough to recognize Obama's complete joke of accomplishments, policies, and voting record, will still vote for him because they at least like the guy (sadly that plays a huge part at the end of the day). You should post here more often.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 12:25 PM) So why do conservatives allow such liberal media bias? THAT is a great question. The only thing I can ever think of when I wonder about that is the higher education system in America. The university system in this country, especially at the bigger and more prominent schools is VERY liberal, far moreso than even the media is. I would guess there is a connection.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 12:25 PM) yea, umm..... I work for a church. I dont make a lot of money. Step 1 might be a problem. Yeah, and if you work for a church, I'm guessing there is a chance you have a distinct set of morals and values. That's an even bigger detriment to your change of becoming president.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 12:15 PM) That's not really your opinion - it's a hard-and-fast fact. That type of ticket would never, ever work unless there was a full-blown 3rd party. I'd LOVE to see a full blown 3rd party, and I think it will happen one day. But sadly, that day won't be for a very long time IMO.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 12:13 PM) I concur... this is just a pretty stark contrast from the Lieberman that spoke in front of the Dem convention as the VP nominee in 2000. They can only go so long before resorting to the lies. It's really sad, and one of the main reasons I think I'll always be a man without a party. I'll always lean my ways on certain issues, and generally will lean to the right, but that's about it.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 09:00 AM) That would almost be the death of the Track and Field is one of those was Bolt. It's already as close to dead as it could be in America compared to what it used to be here, and stuff like this is why.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 12:09 PM) Oh, I watched pieces of Lieberman's speech last night by the way. Lieberman praised Obama's eloquence but said that doesn't qualify him to lead. All right, fair enough. But then he pulled out the old "Obama voted against the troops" line. Well let's examine this. Did Obama vote against a bill to provide funding for the troops? Yes, yes he did. He did so for the reason that most Democrats did at the time, because he wanted the timetable in the bill. Now, on the flip side, Lieberman - and also McCain - voted against a bill to provide funding also, because it had the timetable in it, and they wanted it out. Based off Lieberman's shallow definition, doesn't this mean that he voted against the troops as well? If anyone wondered why people hate Lieberman this is why. It's about as close as you can be to a bald-faced lie without actually being one... the fact that he did this in front of the GOP convention notwithstanding. That is admittedly a low blow by Lieberman, but every politician does stuff like that. It's why most people don't like them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 12:08 PM) I think that he was told by a number of people last week, including the God of Darkness (Karl) that if he actually announced a pro-choice running mate, there would be a floor fight over that nomination and his VP nominee would probably be rejected. McCain/Lieberman would have actually been a ticket I'd have LOVED, right down to the fact that I think Joe would have brought McCain back towards his circa 2000 views on things. Of course, thoughts like that are why I'm not a true republican, and that ticket would have never united the looney right wingers of the GOP, something they can't win without IMO.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:59 AM) That would have been an EXCELLENT move in my opinion. It would have come across as authentic and caring. It wouldn't have been the typical "oops he made a mistake with the VP and now needs to choose another" thing. The problem is that as was pointed out by BigSqwert in the Dem thread, McCain had a 3 months head start. He largely squandered it in every possible way. Whether it be fund raising, gaining political / media "favor", ripping Obama / Clinton down or vetting his VP. He did very little. he was "the other guy" while Clinton and Obama went toe to toe. McCain had 3 months to do a VERY thorough search of tons of people. He clearly wanted Lieberman but buckled at the last moment, so he had to scramble to find someone else. The moment the "7 houses" issue came up, Romney was out. If the innuendo is to believed, Pawlenty had a skeleton. Any pro-abortion" VP was out. Who now? Well, let's go for the little known and hope we can frame her image before the other side does. That's the problem IMO, the bolded text. I think he wanted Lieberman all along, was convinced that was who he would pick, but buckled at the last second for whatever the reason might have been (too "liberal" of a ticket, no good/young speaker to balance out McCain, couldn't beat Obama with that ticket, etc). I don't think McCain was moving slowly or didn't take advantage of his head start, I just think he buckled and didn't take his guy (Joe Lieberman) at the last second and was left scrambling to find somebody else.

The media bias, overall, is VERY real and, for the most part, very to the left. I'm not sure how anybody could or would ever even argue that to be honest. The question is, how much of an affect does the obvious and real bias have on the American people? That one I'm not sure the answer to. I think it has to have SOME affect, but it doesn't seem like it has much of an affect. Then again, there are a lot of stupid people out there, so it's certainly possible media bias affects them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:41 AM) But there's a huge flaw in that thinking...and it's thinking that the John McCain of 2008 is the same John McCain as we were sold in 2000. Considering that they oppose each other on so many different issues...basically everything related to domestic policy, tax plans, immigration, social security, abortion, torture, you name it...about the only thing that seems constant between the early 2000 McCain and the 2008 McCain is an incredibly aggressive militaristic foreign policy platform. A great summary I read the other day that describes this current candidate...the 2008 version of John McCain is the man George W. Bush has been trying to be for the last 8 years, right down to the flight suit. I can't really argue with any of this. MY HOPE is McCain has been pandering to the far right loonies to get where he is now, and that if he wins the White House, he'll go back moreso to what John McCain was in 2000. That's right, I am HOPING for a lying/flip flopping candidate in that sense, go figure. I am hoping I am right, but of course, it's possible I'm not.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:51 AM) I watch him sometimes mostly for comedic value. He's really, really over the top with his Bush-bashing, even by my standards. His Bush-bashing doesn't bother me, Bush deserves every bit of bashing he gets. My problem with him is his agenda for Barack Obama. Even when comparing him to fellow democrat Hillary Clinton, he was COMPLETELY unfair and biased in favor of Obama.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:36 AM) I would argue it's really neither. It hasnt destroyed McCain yet. But it hasnt been a boom yet. Give it one week. We'll know then. let her talk. Let the Obama camp push back on her. See how it sits next Wednesday. If nothing has changed by next Wednesday, McCain may be sunk. Obama got too big of a bounce out of the convention. Obama didn't actually get as big of a bounce as I expected for such a well executed speech, but your point is well taken. As for your point, it is 110 percent accurate. That is why I think they should have announced Palin a few weeks to a month ago if this is their strategy, see if it works or not. If they really knew all this was going to come out, i'd have been better to announce her, see how it goes, and if it doesn't work, you always have the "she has changed her mind and wants to drop out to support everything going on with her family back in Alaska" excuse.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:45 AM) He's not a reporter though. He's a personality. He's a personality when he does his little shtick every evening. If you put him at the politican convention of either of the two major parties, an event which is historic and has million upon millions of viewers, and make him a host rather than an admittedly biased commentator, that is something else. I don't watch much MSNBC (or Fox News) because both channels are a joke, but I think the host of the coverage of a major political convention shouldn't have an agenda to favor one specific party. Bias is something I can live with even if it annoys me, but flat out agenda isn't fair to the viewers. Just my opinion.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:39 AM) Do you actually want Olbermann doing the RNC though? Plus he would have a stroke or something. I don't want Olbermann doing any sort of political convention. I can live with bias in my news coverage, but Olbermann flat out has an agenda. He is going to never say a negative word about the left, or a positive word about the right. I have no respect for his "news" reporting because he tries to make his own opinion the news. Most reporters have a bias, but at least TRY to give you the news in a fair manner (although it doesn't always work well, but their heart is in it). He doesn't.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 08:46 PM) Another race card from the liberal side of things. Philly columnist promises full-fledged class and race war if McCain wins. If you aren't sure your guy is gonna win, threaten whitey. http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20...eorge_Bush.html This columnist is an idiot, as is anybody else who thinks anything like it. I will not say anything beyond that, because I don't think more than a handful of people are this dumb. The best thing to me is the democratic rallying cry that McCain is "another 4 years of George W. Bush". Look I don't like McCain's pandering to the right that has gone on in the last several months, but to me that is all it is, pandering, not him changing who he is. If you like Obama, well that's fine, and if you don't like McCain, that's just fine too. But McCain is not the same thing as George W. Bush, it's a myth that I am shocked continues to spread. People seem to forget the 2000 GOP battle for president, and just assume they are the same person when they aren't. McCain is closer to W. than Obama (in part because Obama is an uber, uber liberal, even by democrat standards), but he and W. aren't the same thing at all.

Well I'm going to stay out of saying all of my thoughts, because it's pretty clear people here can't discuss Palin without crossing the lines of decency. But I will say that I thought the moment this selection was made that it be either boom or bust, with no in between. It SEEMS like bust right now, but athomeboy made the good point that the fact all of this has hit us at once in a 4 day span, rather than be spread out like it is with most politicians, doesn't help her cause. The GOP would have been better announcing this a few weeks or a month ago and seeing what happened, as it would have given them the option of changing the ticket if Palin didn't work well. But it's too late for that now, and they must just live in the bed which they made and hope it works out.