SuperJerk

HOCKEY? Please! We're Americans. We play baseball, bitch.

"I'm still on the tax thing...because I don't know the real answer to the actual question."

Whut? Podiums? No table? "Can I call you Joe?" Ah, shit, she's already winning.

Yeah....one lives happily ever after, and the other dies at the end of all 3 movies. Fuck.

VP Debate '08: Ass vs. Hot Piece of Ass

She doesn't give direct answers, because as we have just discussed, that is not her answering style. It wasn't a ploy in the interviews, it was a representation of herself. She can't answer those questions directly because she doesn't have direct answers. You're saying that she wouldn't answer the questions directly because it would open you up to rebuttals on your specifics, but a) she doesn't have those answers, and b) she's received MUCH more criticism for being vague and skipping around the question way more than she would've been criticized had she just answered the questions. You could be right, but how else do you explain someone not being able to name what magazines and newspapers they read except as part as some massively backfiring campaign tactic? I'm at a loss to come up with any other rational explanation (except perhaps she doesn't read ANYTHING and didn't want to admit it and look completely retarded).

McCain brings liberal and conservatives together in their mutual hate for him. Based on footage of her 2006 Alaska gubernatorial debates, I fully expect Palin to "shock the world" tonight. She wasn't exactly playing possum with Couric and Gibson, but probably not wanting to give direct answers to the questions she actually did know the answers to because being specific just opens you up to direct attacks later on. She does that all the time in her speeches, and distracts people with her sarcastic wit. She couldn't play to her strengths during the interviews, though, because she was doing a one-on-one interview with no audience in the room with her. She had no one in the room with her to play against in her answers. She's not a details person at all, and she'll still dance around the question without giving a real answer, but this time she'll deflect attention away from her non-answers by attacking Democrats.

Not as bad as it was made out to be, but I'm very bothered that her criteria for determining a bad decision is that it takes power away from state and local government. By this standard, we'd have never gotten Brown v. Board of Education, Gibbons v. Ogden, McCulloch v. Maryland or a crap-load of other important decisions where states were either exceding their authority or trying to deny equal rights to its people.

I don't know everything about Islamic culture, but I know enough to know that its not uniform. There's the lunatic fringe that we're having problems with, then there's everyday Muslims who don't deserve to die just because they were brought up believing Mohammed was the last prophet of God. Beyond the stereotype of the jihad-crazy terrorist there a very reasonable group of people who probably don't buy into the Quran 100%, follow a more peaceful interpretation of Islam, and have as much a right to life as we do. Ahmadinejad was elected by the Iranian people, and I beleive is up for re-election next year. He is not a dictator like John McCain and Sarah Palin claim. However, Iran is an elected theocracy ultimately controlled by the Supreme Leader (appointed by the Assembly of Experts) and the Assembly of Experts (who are elected). The National Supreme Security Council runs national defense, and it answers to the Supreme Leader, though it has members appointed from the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the government. The Supreme Leader is not always been supportive of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric or polcies. Please note, this source I'm about to cite is not from the Obama campaign: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/Wo...how/1319950.cms Simply put, Ahmadinejad is a loud-mouth jackass that is using the world stage to make himself look like a tough-guy for the hard-line elements in his own country, and to distract attention away from the fact that his domestic policies have been disasterous and he's unfit for office. His travelling circus-show of holocaust denial and tough talk against Israel is popular with a lot of Iranian voters, unfortunately, but ultimately is meaningless because he is out of the loop when it comes to actually making foreign policy. <cocks eyebrow> "An inferior mind?" Really? I honestly don't know who first made up the "B.O. Hussein" joke, but whoever was I exactly don't think is coloring with a full box of crayons.

Screw you guys, I'm goin' home! Explain to me how your constituents are well-served by any socialist program when they're all, well, dead. Fund DARPA to your preference level or die? Are you sure those are the only two choices? Yeah. Everyone hates us just because we're in Iraq. A lot of Iraqis hate us because we're in Iraq. And like I said, neither Iraq's people, nor its new government we helped install, still want us there. Nah... I just call him that to mock him. You're the ones who take it as a serious attack. About whom does that say more? Trust me, no one thinks that's a serious attack. We know it's just a half-ass attempt at wit by an inferior mind.

Are you here to have a discussion or to make jokes? Because nothing you said after your first point made any sense. And I don't understand your McCain-like obsession with centering ALL discussion of Iran on its president instead of the people who are actually in charge. That seems like a diversionary tactic to avoid admitting you don't know what you're talking about. You've been back for like, what, two hours? And I'm already tired of you again. Say what you want about MarvinisaLunatic, at least he tries to have an actual discussion and persuade people instead of just resorting to cliched retorts and insults. I mean, really now... "In the case of the little Obama child, I'd say that's questionable." "Really? I was thinking we could just nuke them." "bwahahahahahahahaha" Is that really the best you can do? Grow up. Also, I googled the name "Sarah Kerrigan" and apparently its a Starcraft character, and not an Air Force Colonel and member of the RNC Steering Committee.

I'll save my rebuttal for comments that are actually...coherent. 1. Rezko: Guilt by association isn't a rational argument. Every policitian probably knows some crooks. Bill Ayers never hurt anyone and disavowed the damage he caused years ago....and that happened when Obama was 6 years old and he's never, ever condoned what Ayers did. Wright: It is possible to know someone, even be close with them, and not agree with everything they say. 2. Argumentum ad hominem. 3. We need to talk to Iran. No, not talk to President Ahmadinejad. Yes, he's because he's a nut, but also because he has no authority over foreign policy, the military, or nuclear policy. 4. I don't know what you're referring to. 5. If China's really doing this, it needs to be dealt with by getting Chiuna to stop, instead of adding to the danger. 6. Conservatives have argued for years against just blindly throwing money at things and reducing government spending. Is every dollar being spent in this area really necessary, or is the budget for DARPA another way politicians can add money to the Defense budget in order to look tough for their constiuents? 7. We won't need as big of a defense budget once we get most of our troops out of Iraq. We don't want to be there. The Iraqi people don't want us there. The Iraqi government doesn't want us there. Our presence there in its current form only created the problems we're now trying to fix. 8. Barack Obama's first and last intials are "B" and "O." "B.O." is also an abbreviation for "body odor." Yeah, that's hardly a caliber of wit that rises above 9th grade gym class, I'm afraid. Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. Saddam Hussein's middle name was Hussein. OMG CONSPIRACY~!!!!!111

This interview clip puts Palin in a much better light than previous ones...

Just what we need...more glib comments that offer no factual, persuasive, or actually humorous content. Okay....here comes my obligatory attempt to appeal to Marney's sense of reason.... Other than attacking his parentage, which is irrelevant, is there anything you can to say to back your negative opinion up with? Maybe you could start with explaining why his policies are wrong or why he's isn't capable of handling the job of being president, and sticking to relevant and factual information. Is that too much to ask?

I meant in reference to your reference to me.

I was hoping Marvin might step up, since the last person I heard put the idea forward was Glen Beck.

Are we talking about my opinions, or my methods? If you want to criticize my opinions, that's what I actually want. If your criticism is of my methods is because you don't get where I'm coming from. Its not that I don't want to hear other people's side. I just expect people to be able to defend their side when I dare to question it. The fact that I constantly try to poke holes in every else's arguments is an open invitation for the opposition to elaborate and attempt to disprove me in return. I want my ideas to be scrutinized and challenged, because the only way to know if an idea is any good is it it stands up to scrutiny. I used to be a very staunch Republican, but little by little, my ideas were refuted by someone else's argument or the presentation of more accurate facts, and my views shifted more to the left. I'll give an example: I initially supported Evan Bayh for president, based on the premise he was the most experienced candidate and had the superior chance of winning based on that. Then someone, I think it was Snuffbox, made an argument (on this very thread) that superior experience means nothing if that experience led to bad decisions, like initially supporting the Iraq War. And I thought about it. And I thought about it. And then I decided he was right, and I was wrong. By the time Obama made his official announcement, I was at a point where I was convinced that judgment was more valuable than experience, and it was natural to support him from that point on. But it is possible that if Snuffbox hadn't said we he did, there's a chance I'd have ended up supporting Bill Richardson, or Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton because they had more experience. I know I'm wrong sometimes, I just don't know I'm wrong at the time, otherwise I wouldn't be wrong anymore. So, I throw all my ideas out there in the hopes than someone can either refute me and change my mind, or present a chance for my idea to withstand scrutiny and be reinforced. And I scrutinize other people's opinions with the same goal in mind, that they will present a strong enough case that either their idea will change my mind through their defense, or my idea will be reinforced.

I'll repeat my question... Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Ironically, that made more sense to me than anything else I've ever heard her say.

Given that I've heard this proposal from a few critics of the bailout now, I've been wondering all day how exactly a capital gains tax cut would help the economy. Usually, cutting the capital gains tax (a tax on the profits from the sale of stocks, land, or other property and commodities) would be an incentive to sell stocks and property...but in our current economic climate, there's already too much selling and not enough buying. That's what's driven both real estate and stock prices way down. So why encourage even more selling with a cut in the capital gains tax? I just don't get it. Any ideas?

Surreal.

CNN has picked up on the sneak preview of the McCain presidency we got yesterday. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/bai...ates/index.html

A little like saying "Remember, this isn't actually the end of the world...merely the first of many signs of the apocylpse."

$3.19. Thanks, national economic crisis!