panthermatt7

As opposed to the other posters on the board, who finish watching Keith Olbermann and try to make sense of his retardation. The last five pages of this thread are HILARIOUS libera-babble. Let's just be honest here -- both Palin and Biden have no idea what they're talking about. Anyone who tries to state otherwise is nothing more than a biased party hack.

How can I interpret this as other than something along the lines of this?: "Democrats today want everyone to have an equal say in matters, until it comes to people whom they disagree with, which they want to shut out entirely." That's wanting to stifle debate. I don't know how he also can say that only Democrats do this. Both parties are somewhat guilty of doing it. Allow me to elaborate: Both parties attempt to stifle debate, but in two very different ways. Republicans stifle it through believing that the "liberal" school of thought is wishful thinking, a Utopian sense of imaginary success for everyone. (Believe me, this is how it's spun... in high school, I was a big listener of Rush Limbaugh.) They also spin "liberals" as Communist haters of free market capitalism, punishers of America's successful, and abortion-loving sodomites. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to be guilty of what I indicated above -- the "if you disagree with me, you clearly don't think as much as me" mentality. I apologize if I didn't lay into Republicans enough to match my level of criticism for Democrats.

This highlights a fundamental issue that I have with Democrats: they have the viewpoint that if people were as smart as them, they'd be Democrats, too. But that's just not true -- everyone has a differing opinion on how society should be. If someone doesn't agree with your opinions on how a government should be run, that does not make them an idiot that is beneath your intellectual level. Democrats today cry for everyone to have an equal voice (i.e. womens' rights with abortion, gay marriage with homosexuality), up until it comes to people that differ from their opinion. Of course, Republicans think they're the "holy" party, which is another issue altogether...

http://movies.msn.com/movies/hitlist/06-24-08_4/?GT1=7701

This show was a BLAST to be at. As predictable as the HHH choice was, the live crowd went apeshit for DX. Observations from the night: --I now have D-Lo Brown's autograph --"HHH Fears Divorce" sign, which officials sprinted to grab as soon as it crossed in front of the live camera --I was briefly on TV, since I had a 4th row seat --Rey Mysterio is very interactive with the crowd. He handed out a mask and other items to various kids in the crowd, and even hugged and gave a "mask-to-mask" greeting to a kid wearing one of his Shopzone masks. Biggest pops: DX Batista CM Punk/Mysterio Biggest heat: JBL Jericho Mike the Miz

The Billary strategy, Republican version. Levistol?

Interesting, thanks for the heads up. I'll have to follow the trend of dismissing others' beliefs in one-sentence, out of context snippets that only serve to degrade the speaker/typer.

And clearly her religious beliefs are strong enough that she thinks that's more important that whatever small gain she might get from the tax break. Does that make her retarded? Especially since to believe this, you have to believe that some invisible wizard in the sky just said the magic words and POOF the earth was built in seven days, and if she's a good girl then after she dies she'll go up and live with the wizard in the sky forever and ever. Once someone's willing to put their faith in that, you wait until they vote Republican to call them naive? To equate the Christian faith to this simplicity is like saying that atheists believe a frog hopped out of the water, stood up on two legs, and walked away. This, of course, would be after the giant explosion that occurred out of nothing. And yes, I know that the Big Bang Theory and evolution are more complex than this; however, so is the Christian faith. So maybe, just maybe, you should stop talking down to people that don't have the same belief structure as you.

THAT is extremely true. And that's essentially the platform that every Republican since Reagan has run on... "Only we will protect you. You should be scared, unless we're elected." I hate both parties... they're both about power as an end itself, not as a means to accomplish a better end.

I guess that I just don't put a lot of stock in Obama's campaign website and Wikipedia. And you're correct that, yes, Obama did co-sponsor bills. But, his voting record does nothing to illustrate 'change,' in my mind. I understand how easy it is to be swept up into the "change, hope" movement (I even donated to his primary campaign), but it's really just another slogan. I wish people could see that.

See also: "Change" aka Barack Obama.

So I'm attending Monday Night Raw next Monday, September 29th, with my dad. I shelled out and scored 4th row tickets. What I'm looking for are any tips or advice: what is a MUST DO at these events? Other than trying to be on TV, of course. Also, I haven't been watching for the past several months (it got boring to me), so any storyline catchups would be much appreciated. (Also, if a moderator believes this should be merged into CTDWAT, feel free.)

Welcome to actual economics, versus those presented in political arenas. The lowering of mortgage requirements led to millions of people committing to huge adjustable-rate mortgages, and when they couldn't afford them any more... welcome to the 'trickle-down effect.' No, not Reagan's. This one was real, not just a silly excuse for giving the rich a tax break.

Thank you for displaying common sense. I appreciate it.

If I recall correctly (and I do), we didn't have the "bad" mortgage issues prior to President Clinton lowering the standards to obtain them. So that's somewhat of a valid point, but McCain had nominal responsibility in that case. But you did bring up a point that irks me: I hate when candidates run as "I'm goinG to change Washington, and do what's right for the middle class!" No, you're going to get caught up in the same heirarchical games and folly that everyone else has.

I'd be a little more inclined to agree with you if McCain didn't spend yesterday at a plant talking about solar panels and then all of a sudden, today, it's the end of the world and we need to delay everything and go to Washington. It would also be a little more believable if his poll numbers weren't going down the toilet. I'm sure it is political ploy, too, but I'm just saying it might not be. For example: Obama voted with the Democratic party over 90% of the time during his time in the US Senate, but says he wants to work across party lines; do I trust his sentiment, or view it as a political ploy?

I think your affiliation comes from a thirst for cut and dry, easily digested platitudes rather than the nuances that are necessary for something like the Presidency of the United States. This is not to say that you're dumb, but you lack patience. To summarize: Pointing out that some whites support McCain due to racism is an intelligent, well thought-out point; however, bringing up African Americans' far more tilted support of Obama as potential racism is "lacking patience." So anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint simply isn't as smart? Interesting. What a totalitarian view of things. No, all the talk of racism in voting is worthless in the first place. Your verve for something that's only two-sided to hop onto as a talking point when there are actual issues is sad. I expect some people to not vote for Obama because he's black, and to claim it's some kind of story is pathetic. Democrats who follow that pattern are pieces of shit that I'd rather were voting for someone else anyway. Non-story. Cute use of "totalitarian" too. Is there anything the Right can talk about without using hyperbole? I'm not a member of the Right; I'm a member of the Middle. Every political quiz I've ever taken has put me in the middle of things. I'm a fiscal liberal (example: I favor high taxes for the wealthy to help the poor, and at least some degree of public health care), but a moral conservative (example: I think abortion should be outlawed, except in cases of rape or incest). So, good try, but not quite. I work in the financial industry. Since I come to work every day expecting the market to wildly fluctuate and panic our customers, it's clearly a non-story? That's obviously not a great comparison, but still -- do you honestly disregard all news as non-news if you think it's expected? Or is it just a convenient way to sidestep the discussion?

Is this a stunt, or a senator merely desiring to do his job? Realistically, both of them should have been back in D.C. weeks ago to help deal with this. I'm pretty sure the public would've understood, given the scenario. ***waits to be ripped for disagreeing***

I think your affiliation comes from a thirst for cut and dry, easily digested platitudes rather than the nuances that are necessary for something like the Presidency of the United States. This is not to say that you're dumb, but you lack patience. To summarize: Pointing out that some whites support McCain due to racism is an intelligent, well thought-out point; however, bringing up African Americans' far more tilted support of Obama as potential racism is "lacking patience." So anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint simply isn't as smart? Interesting. What a totalitarian view of things.

Not Jesse Ventura, please... Me? haha I realize you have no idea what you're typing about. I also realize that getting an actual small-govt conservative elected president will be extremely dificult. Just not a big fan of a guy who believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy, that's all.

Not Jesse Ventura, please... Me? haha

Why did you end your question with a period, instead of a question mark?

Obama has a PDF and just the other week published an entire book of policy ideas. What are you talking about? So you're saying that Obama is running on an extensive and specific platform of what he wants to accomplish as president? How is that "change," exactly? Every candidate does (and has done) that. I remember covering Bush/Kerry in 2004 for my college's newspaper, and that's where I went to quote platform specifics -- their campaign website. It was great fodder for 'comparison tables' that ate up page space. My concern isn't Obama's future plans. They look like what any not-so-moderate Democrat would do if given the Oval Office. I was taking issue with what he's already accomplished. From what I've seen, 'Change' and 'Hope' are just empty campaign slogans, with no depth of underlying belief.

Fact check on this, please. This has got to be bullshit. Looks like a quick google search reveals not zero, but 152 bills authored or co-authored. If I'm incorrect about his bill-writing stats, I apologize... I had read that in an article, which I thought was on msn.com. I read a lot of news throughout the day in my cubicled job, and I'm sure at least part of it is inaccurate.

Yeah, but it wasn't their job to pass legislation, either. Reagan was a governor, Eisenhower a general. Are you really trying to compare a senator's legislative accomplishments to two people that weren't senators? I know you were only trying to draw an illustration, but it failed.