DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on September 12, 2008, 07:37:23 PM
-
Cantor Defends McCain’s Lie By Lying: Palin ‘Rejected The Monies’ For The Bridge To Nowhere
On MSNBC today, Norah O’Donnell asked Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) if Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was misspeaking or distorting the facts when he falsely claimed on “The View” today that Sarah Palin never asked for an earmark as the governor of Alaska. “The proof is in the pudding,” replied Cantor. “And the fact is Sarah Palin, when she was governor of Alaska, rejected the monies that came from Washington to construct the Bridge to Nowhere.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hR35jiRDjg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hR35jiRDjg)
Cantor also claimed that “Palin rejected the earmarking that went on here in Washington,” but, as ThinkProgress noted earlier today, in her two years as governor, Palin “requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation.”
Transcript:
O’DONNELL: Let me ask you about, John McCain was on “The View” today with the ladies of “The View” in New York, also along with his wife, Cindy McCain. McCain said in that interview that Sarah Palin, his running mate, the governor of Alaska, has never asked for lawmakers pet projects as governor. But in fact as governor she requested $200 million in earmarks. Did he misspeak or did he distort?
CANTOR: No, you know, I think the proof, the proof is in the pudding, and the fact is that Sarah Palin, when she was governor of Alaska, rejected the monies that came from Washington to construct the Bridge to Nowhere. She has said repeatedly that Alaska did not need that money, they did not that bridge, and if they ever need that bridge, they will build it themselves.
O’DONNELL: Congressman, are you saying that she sent the money back to Washington? Is that what you’re saying?
CANTOR: No, I think Sarah Palin has said that she does not think it appropriate for federal tax payer dollars to be used to construct a Bridge to Nowhere.
O’DONNELL: I just want to be clear on that because she did initially support the Bridge to Nowhere then she said the bridge was not a good idea. But she did not send the money back to Washington, so I just want to be clear on that.
CANTOR: Well, again, transportation dollars flow to the states and are then allocated according to state formulas, state priorities. I believe and do not know, though, that the Bridge to Nowhere was not a priority for the Alaskan people and therefore I don’t know how Alaska then distributes it’s money. But I think it’s very clear that Governor Palin rejected the earmarking that went on here in Washington, which really did not reflect the will of the Alaskan people.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/12/cantor-palin-bridge/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/12/cantor-palin-bridge/)
On ‘The View,’ McCain Falsely Claims Palin Never Requested Earmarks As Governor Of Alaska»
Appearing on “The View” today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) falsely claimed that Sarah Palin never requested earmarks as the governor of Alaska. “Not as governor she didn’t,” McCain told Barbara Walters after she noted Palin “took some earmarks”:
WALTERS: What is she going to reform specifically, senator?
MCCAIN: Well, first of all, earmark spending, which she vetoed a half a billion dollars worth in the state of Alaska.
WALTERS: She also took some earmarks there.
BEHAR: A lot.
MCCAIN: No, not as governor she didn’t, she vetoed…
WALTERS: As Mayor.
MCCAIN: Well, look, the fact is that she was a reform governor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc10INQmBwQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc10INQmBwQ)
McCain’s claim that Palin never accepted earmarks as the governor of Alaska is divorced from reality. In fact, she actively sought them:
– Though Palin did reduce Alaska’s earmark requests, “in her two years in office, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation.”
– In March 2008, Palin wrote an op-ed in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, saying that her “role at the federal level is simply to submit the most well-conceived earmark requests we can” and that her reduction of requests was a response “to the changing circumstances in Congress.”
– In February 2008, Palin’s office sent Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) “a 70-page memo outlining almost $200 million worth of new funding requests for the state.”
– In her most recent earmark requests, “Palin requested millions of federal dollars for everything from improving recreational halibut fishing to studying the mating habits of crabs and the DNA of harbor seals.”
As ThinkProgress has noted, Palin has requested earmarks of the very type that McCain routinely mocks while on the campaign trail. As Walters pointed out, Palin was also a big fan of congressional pork as the Mayor of Wasilla, even hiring a lobbyist to help secure them.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/12/mccain-palin-view/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/12/mccain-palin-view/)
-
So where is the lie?
The bridge isn't built.
It wasn't built on her watch.
The monies were diverted.
Besides when did you dems get all uppity about earmarks?
Obama voted against anti-earmark legislation.
-
So where is the lie?
Really. If its so "blatant", where the hell is it??
-
You guys are way out there now.
-
You guys are way out there now.
That is a non answer.
-
Now, "57 states" was pretty blatant
-
Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - It garnered big applause in her first speech as Republican John McCain's vice presidential pick, but Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion that she rejected Congressional funds for the so-called "bridge to nowhere" has upset many Alaskans.
During her first speech after being named as McCain's surprise pick as a running mate, Palin said she had told Congress "'thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere."
In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska's Congressional delegation during her run for governor.
The bridge, a span from the city to Gravina Island, home to only a few dozen people, secured a $223 million earmark in 2005. The pricey designation raised a furor and critics, including McCain, used the bridge as an example of wasteful federal spending on politicians' pet projects.
When she was running for governor in 2006, Palin said she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere," according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin's campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city.
"People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting," Weinstein said.
Palin's spokeswoman in Alaska was not immediately available to comment.
National fury over the bridge caused Congress to remove the earmark designation, but Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion.
Last year, Palin announced she was stopping state work on the controversial project, earning her admirers from earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation. The move also thrust her into the spotlight as a reform-minded newcomer.
The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding.
In fact, the Palin administration has spent "tens of millions of dollars" in federal funds to start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said.
"She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money," said Elerding about her applause line.
Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, a Republican who represented the Kenai Peninsula city of Homer, is also critical about Palin's reversal on the bridge issue.
"You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it," said Phillips, who supported Palin's opponent, Democrat Tony Knowles, in the 2006 gubernatorial race.
A press release issued by the governor on September 21, 2007 said she decided to cancel state work on the project because of rising cost estimates.
"It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said in the news release. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here."
(Editing by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Sandra Maler)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN3125537020080901?sp=true (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN3125537020080901?sp=true)
-
You guys are totally in support of Strategy over Substance.
McCain/Palin is blatant lying to your faces and calling bullshit "ice cream" and you guys are polishing your spoons in anticipation of the next bowl.
It's really pathetic.
And every response to this post so far as been a diversion or an attempt to change the subject.
Enough is fucking enough, guys.
-
So we've gone from an accusation of "blatant lie" to an op-ed about some people's anger. We ever going to see this "blatant lie"??
-
Last year, Palin announced she was stopping state work on the controversial project, earning her admirers from earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation.
Stopped the bridge to nowhere. Where's the lie again?
-
Last year, Palin announced she was stopping state work on the controversial project, earning her admirers from earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation.
Stopped the bridge to nowhere. Where's the lie again?
You've all become obsequious caricatures of yourselves.
She "stopped the bridge" but took the money. AK ranks Number One with a bullet in earmarks, some of which Palin herself hired a lobbyist to go and get for her.
She's a liar, so is McCain, so was Bush and so are all of you.
It has gone so far beyond tragic and funny that I'm thinking we need a whole new word for what you guys are now. Pathetic doesn't even touch it anymore. Its like Bush has weened you on lies, dodges and obfuscation so much that you can only feed now on those very things only.
-
So are you saying earmarks are a good or bad thing?
-
So are you saying earmarks are a good or bad thing?
Did Palin support the bridge to nowhere or not?
-
AK ranks Number One with a bullet in earmarks
Alaska ranks number in earmarks per capita. A lot of this is probably due to it having the smallest population of any state, even smaller than Rhode Island, and yet it is by far the largest state in the nation in landmass. Small states don't need as much federal money due to both existing infrastructure and the smaller geographic area, large, rural states such as Alaska are bound to need more. I detest earmarks and am certain that there is a better system out there, but to misrepresent the earmark/federal money issue to make a political point for your chosen candidate is dishonest.
-
AK ranks Number One with a bullet in earmarks
Alaska ranks number in earmarks per capita. A lot of this is probably due to it having the smallest population of any state, even smaller than Rhode Island, and yet it is by far the largest state in the nation in landmass. Small states don't need as much federal money due to both existing infrastructure and the smaller geographic area, large, rural states such as Alaska are bound to need more. I detest earmarks and am certain that there is a better system out there, but to misrepresent the earmark/federal money issue to make a political point for your chosen candidate is dishonest.
I definitely disagree that its dishonest.
Is Alaska number one in earmarks per capita? Yes. I agree. It is. It is number one.
What is dishonest is how McCain/Palin are painting themselves as the holy rollers of reform when Palin has been nothing but supportive of her earmarks and has actively lobbied for them. If you want to talk about dishonesty. Let's talk about it but at the very least, could you on the right try to have the common courtesy of having a passing acknowledgment of reality?
That'd be a good place to kick things off.
-
So did you say whether earmarks were a good or bad thing?
What is Obama's position on them?
What is McCains voting record on them?
What is Obama's voting record on them
is "earmarks" a buzzword that people scrunch up their faces about but don't understand what they are really about?
If this is the issue, let's look at it.
-
Still waiting patiently for an answer
-
Apparently they were for it.
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/ (http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/)
-
AK ranks Number One with a bullet in earmarks
Alaska ranks number in earmarks per capita. A lot of this is probably due to it having the smallest population of any state, even smaller than Rhode Island, and yet it is by far the largest state in the nation in landmass. Small states don't need as much federal money due to both existing infrastructure and the smaller geographic area, large, rural states such as Alaska are bound to need more. I detest earmarks and am certain that there is a better system out there, but to misrepresent the earmark/federal money issue to make a political point for your chosen candidate is dishonest.
I definitely disagree that its dishonest.
Is Alaska number one in earmarks per capita? Yes. I agree. It is. It is number one.
What is dishonest is how McCain/Palin are painting themselves as the holy rollers of reform when Palin has been nothing but supportive of her earmarks and has actively lobbied for them. If you want to talk about dishonesty. Let's talk about it but at the very least, could you on the right try to have the common courtesy of having a passing acknowledgment of reality?
That'd be a good place to kick things off.
Brass- By now you surely know that the Rwers in here are moral lepers with no shame. They "create their own reality" which means they lie and relish in it. They think its cute to torture the truth . Major sickos. Sadly themasses are frequently suckered by their evil just as the Good Germans were by Hitler.
-
I definitely disagree that its dishonest.
Good, I'm happy that we've established that we're in agreement on the subject.
Is Alaska number one in earmarks per capita? Yes. I agree. It is. It is number one.
Per Capita? Yes, we've established that also, see my previous post.
What is dishonest is how McCain/Palin are painting themselves as the holy rollers of reform when Palin has been nothing but supportive of her earmarks and has actively lobbied for them.
I haven't disputed that either. Then again, those earmarks are what get politicians elected a lot of times. I don't like it but that's how it is. You seem to be hung up on the hypocrisy of McCain/Palin claiming to be for reform, and I agree that it is hypocritical. I also believe that it's hypocritical for Obama to continuously spout about change, and then select a running mate who's been in the Senate since the Nixon Administration. There's more than enough hypocrisy in this campaign on both sides to go around, if you press the issue of hypocrisy then both sides are going to lose that one.
Let's talk about it but at the very least, could you on the right try to have the common courtesy of having a passing acknowledgment of reality?
Okay. Evidently you haven't gotten the memo that I'm not "on the right", in fact if you want to get technical I'm all over the place, depending on the issue. I don't feel that I need to have my political beliefs and the thought processes behind them dictated to me by the RNC or the DNC or whatever. If you haven't caught wind of that then I guess that you're not paying attention (easy to do, I know how work and home life eats into the 3DHS time!). But you want an acknowledgement of reality? As I've tried to explain, AK is the largest state, by far. It also has the smallest population outside of VT (funny how those on the left are saying that Palin has no experience because she ran a state with such a small population, I didn't hear those on the left making that argument against Dean). It also has the least established infrastructure (roads, bridges, power grids, internet networks, community water/sewer, libraries, things of that nature) of any state. Illinois (Obama's state) brought in $386,997,900 in earmarks, ahead of AK's $346,073,350. Alaska might have the most per capita (and I think that I've tried to explain why that is) but there are several states ahead of AK in pulling down total money (see link at bottom for source). Alaska also has the most Federal Land, by total area and as percentage of the state, than any other state. It makes sense to me that lawmakers are going to want earmarks in order for the Fed to pay for itself and its lands (I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it).
But I think that I'm missing your point here, which was the hypocrisy. Frankly, I could give a shit less about it. They're politicians, what do you expect? It's hypocritical for Obama to take an anti-war stance and then to talk about shifting the war to Afghanistan (just how many troops are coming home under that plan, and how many are being reassigned to the Afghani theatre?), if it were a Republican that wanted to do that you'd be howling. It's hypocritical for Obama to talk about change all of the time and yet we hear the same old tired DNC line. And yes, McCain and Palin for the most part are parroting the same old RNC line, but as I said, what do you expect?
I'd prefer to take the other road and talk about the actual issues, the proposed policies and how they'll be paid for, proposed by both sides. Evidently I'm the only one that wants to talk about that, everyone else wants to talk about hypocrisy.
And if you ever have a question Brass on where I stand on an issue, feel free to ask and I'll fill you in. But don't assume that because I stepped into this debate on the side of McCain/Palin that I'm on the right or even that I'll definitely be voting for them in Nov, because you might be surprised.
Earmarks by state, ranked as total and per capita (http://ctchnedge01.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/state_earmarks/)
-
I'd prefer to take the other road and talk about the actual issues, the proposed policies and how they'll be paid for, proposed by both sides. Evidently I'm the only one that wants to talk about that, everyone else wants to talk about hypocrisy.
sirs confesses he's been having more enjoyment in highlighting Democrat dupilicty & hypocrisy, then addressing specific policies. I'll endeavor to talk more policy with you, Fat. Do you favor Obama's plan to increase taxes on most income tax paying citizens, along with raising capital gains taxes & estate taxes?
-
Do you favor Obama's plan to increase taxes on most income tax paying citizens, along with raising capital gains taxes & estate taxes?
I'd prefer whatever is closest to a flat tax. Penalizing someone for the ingenuity of hard work and building a business is not conducive to economic development in the country. I would dump the tax breaks for companies that outsource their workers overseas and I would probably also be in favor in rolling back tax breaks on the petroleum companies. In fact, I'd probably be in favor of rolling back all corporate tax breaks, with the exception of those companies that still utilize American workers and American materials.
To answer your question simply though, I'd say no. I think money earned in income should be taxed once, not 40 times like it currently is. If you're going to deduct money from my paycheck, fine. When I take that money and invest it in the stock market, you don't need to deduct that money again. When I die and leave it to my partner or my non-existent children, you can keep your hands off of it. One thing that really irritates me is that when I work a standard 40 hours a week, I take home a much higher percentage than I do in my current situation where I'm working 60+ hours a week. There should be a tax system that doesn't penalize people for working overtime.
Lastly, I'm not in favor of raising the child tax credit. To be honest, I'm not really in favor of the tax credit at all, though I understand why some think it is a necessity. If you want to have children, I'm supportive of that. I'm not supportive of paying more in tax than you do because you had kids, I understand that kids are expensive but you made that choice when you decided to have one or 12. Taxes should be equitable and distributed evenly, not focused solely on the rich or solely on the poor for that matter. Tax breaks are generally bad in my opinion, get rid of them and you might be able to lower taxes for everyone.
-
Do you favor Obama's plan to increase taxes on most income tax paying citizens, along with raising capital gains taxes & estate taxes?
I'd prefer whatever is closest to a flat tax. Penalizing someone for the ingenuity of hard work and building a business is not conducive to economic development in the country.....To answer your question simply though, I'd say no. I think money earned in income should be taxed once, not 40 times like it currently is. If you're going to deduct money from my paycheck, fine. When I take that money and invest it in the stock market, you don't need to deduct that money again. When I die and leave it to my partner or my non-existent children, you can keep your hands off of it. One thing that really irritates me is that when I work a standard 40 hours a week, I take home a much higher percentage than I do in my current situation where I'm working 60+ hours a week. There should be a tax system that doesn't penalize people for working overtime.
Agreed on each and every front
Lastly, I'm not in favor of raising the child tax credit. To be honest, I'm not really in favor of the tax credit at all, though I understand why some think it is a necessity. If you want to have children, I'm supportive of that. I'm not supportive of paying more in tax than you do because you had kids, I understand that kids are expensive but you made that choice when you decided to have one or 12.
Can I get an Amen?? 8)
Ok, let's touch on McCain.....do you favor his position on opening offshore drilling excluding ANWR, and his intentions on continuing to prosecute the war on Islamofascism/Militant Islam? Do you think McCain supports whatever version of the Bush Doctrine Charlie Gibson is currently using?
-
do you favor his position on opening offshore drilling excluding ANWR
Yes and no. I tend to think that the oil companies should use the leases they have first (there must be oil there or why would they be paying the lease?) before drilling elsewhere. The potential for an environmental disaster in the Gulf Coast is highlighted by the hurricane seasons of the past couple of years; I think that is an important factor to recognize also. Is the oil worth the risk of depleting the fisheries stocks in the area? But I'm not opposed to more drilling, I'd like to drill and pursue alternatives at the same time, and I think that can be done.
I don't see what the problem with drilling in the ANWR is. The Alaskans want it, it's their state and I'd take their say over some environmental group that wants to shut down everything. True, both sides have a vested interest in whatever the outcome is, but I'll take the local interest over the environmental one on this issue. Part of the problem with this issue is that from the 70's on the Federal Government has orchestrated one land grab after another in Alaska, usually without compensation to Alaskans. Yes, national parks and forests are important and I'll be the first in line to argue that, but you don't need to turn the entire state into a Federal preserve.
and his intentions on continuing to prosecute the war on Islamofascism/Militant Islam
Well, you're aware that you and I have sharp disagreements on the war. I'm generally in favor of leaving Iraq and putting more of a focus on Afghanistan (I think that I'm more aligned with Obama here). That said, personally I think that it's only a matter of time before the Iraqi's kick us out, whether they're ready or not. While I understand your argument that we broke Iraq so it's our job to fix it, I don't necessarily agree with the argument, especially when they're sitting on a multi-billion dollar surplus and we're running a deficit that's in the hundreds of billions. I think personally that Iraq is kind of a moot point in five years, the Iraqi government is under pressure from their populace to rid the nation of its American helpers and I think that is a reality that isn't far away. It looks like the Iraqi's are going to end the war before we do.
I think that it all boils down to how McCain wants to prosecute this war, whether it's going to be an actual war or if it's going to be soundbites and power grabs (via Patriot Act & FISA) as it has been. I'm starting to think that this war on terror, while grounded in some reality is starting to look a hell of a lot like the war on drugs, where it's an excuse to seize power (usually un or extra constitutionally) and fund a lot of stupid expense. Bumfart, IA doesn't need a multimillion dollar terror response vehicle, but places like this are getting these things under Homeland Security grants. To me that's flat wrong. The other side of the coin is the "POW's". Get these people a damned trial, I'm not interested in what we did in WWII or whatever, but when we have people sitting in a prison for 6+ years without any hearing or trial, that looks to me like the government has something to hide. Whether they do or not, I don't know, but it looks really bad. The terrorists of 9/11 wanted to change our way of life, the way that America views things. If we allow that to happen, then I think the terrorists have one, no matter how many of them we kill or how many cells we track down. When they've coerced the US into becoming a tyrant, the game is over. And I think that we're close to that.
If McCain has ideas that will end the issue, I'm all for hearing them, especially if they're not the super secret classified crap that we have going on already. It's a decision that all Americans need to be involved in, secrecy looks bad, whether it is or not.
Do you think McCain supports whatever version of the Bush Doctrine Charlie Gibson is currently using
To be honest, I don't know. I haven't watched the interviews, generally because the questions aren't something that I care a whole lot about and the phrasing is atrocious. I'd have to wait and see McCain's response. I don't like the Bush doctrine at all. I think that it's a bad precedent for the world, if we can do it what's going to stop other nations from doing it too? And what constitutes a threat (I mean this more for other nations than ours, but the question also has some legitimacy here too)?
-
Ideological differences abound, though the practicality of your positions, can't be denied. I'm not at liberty to go into great detail (at this moment) regarding my stances on the offshore drilling, and the desire to lessen our dependence on foreign sources or power, not to mention the whole idea of improving the U.S. dollar by way of improving our own oil exportations. What I will say is that, despite the horrendous initial positions McCain has had regarding immigration and campaign finance, I can only pray that he and Palin will practice what they preached at the GOP convention.....Fiscal responsibility, Government accountability, Fair taxation, Security, and Constitutional protection, all being at the top of that prayer list.
Let's change tact a tad here......(since its easier & quicker to ask pointed questions ;) ).....Is Obama's lack of experience & judgement a concern with you, from someone who wants to be making the command decisions for this country?
and, Is McCain's age & being a long term legislator, with not a whit of executive experience, a concern with you?
Who "concerns" you the most?
-
Do you think McCain supports whatever version of the Bush Doctrine Charlie Gibson is currently using
To be honest, I don't know. I haven't watched the interviews, generally because the questions aren't something that I care a whole lot about and the phrasing is atrocious. I'd have to wait and see McCain's response. I don't like the Bush doctrine at all. I think that it's a bad precedent for the world, if we can do it what's going to stop other nations from doing it too? And what constitutes a threat (I mean this more for other nations than ours, but the question also has some legitimacy here too)?
What was there ever to prevent one nation from invading another?
There is always a reason available.
The justification has to be to the electorate , first and second , rest of the world third,....maybe.
-
Still waiting patiently for an answer
=================================
Wait forever, you duplicitious fool. No one cares one damn about your bogus "questions", not have any answer to any such questions ever pleased you in the least.
Wait until they can be used as epitaphs.
-
Wait forever, you duplicitious fool. No one cares one damn about your bogus "questions", not have any answer to any such questions ever pleased you in the least.
Wait until they can be used as epitaphs
Any reason for the personal insults?
-
This would be that the supposed "patient waiting" for "answers" to "questions" is a constant annoying habit of sirs. He never accepts anyone's answers, and most often changes the supposed meaning of his "questions" whenever anyone calls him on it.
It is simply an emphatic way of reminding everyone to just let him continue to wait, since his "questions" are always just a ruse.
-
This would be that the supposed "patient waiting" for "answers" to "questions" is a constant annoying habit of sirs. He never accepts anyone's answers, and most often changes the supposed meaning of his "questions" whenever anyone calls him on it.
It is simply an emphatic way of reminding everyone to just let him continue to wait, since his "questions" are always just a ruse.
Try to keep the insults out of the body of your replies. Just mumble to yourself.
It makes for a more pleasant board.
-
This would be that the supposed "patient waiting" for "answers" to "questions" is a constant annoying habit of sirs. He never accepts anyone's answers, and most often changes the supposed meaning of his "questions" whenever anyone calls him on it.
It is simply an emphatic way of reminding everyone to just let him continue to wait, since his "questions" are always just a ruse.
Try to keep the insults out of the body of your replies. Just mumble to yourself.
It makes for a more pleasant board.
And for certain a lot more boring mi amigo
-
Still waiting patiently for an answer
=================================
Wait forever, you duplicitious fool. No one cares one damn about your bogus "questions", not have any answer to any such questions ever pleased you in the least. Wait until they can be used as epitaphs.
A) they weren't my questions
B) the lack of them not being answered, speaks volumes
C) Still with the problem with self control. Too bad
-
No one in the entire history of this Forum has ever answered any of your silly questions to your satisfaction.
Answering your silly questions has proven to be a total waste of time.
And yes, they ARE your questions, as evidenced by the fact that you are the one asking them.
The volumes this speaks have written on every page. Bogus questions, waste not your time.
-
No one in the entire history of this Forum has ever answered any of your silly questions to your satisfaction.
Now we can add to the tally how wrong you are. Many questions have been answered to my satisfaction, over all this time in the saloon, not to mention PiC cafe, and its offshoots before that. In fact nearly every question answered is to my satisfaction, since much of the time it actually validates my premise, or the premise being presented by another poster. Trying to see how many times you can be wrong, in some alloted amount of time, perhaps Xo?
Answering your silly questions has proven to be a total waste of time.
LOL...says you. I have a suggestion for you then. Ignore them, don't respond, try something called controlling yourself
And yes, they ARE your questions, as evidenced by the fact that you are the one asking them.
Nope, they were Bt's (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=7481.msg76483#msg76483). That makes you wrong twice, in this 1 post alone.
The volumes this speaks have written on every page. Bogus questions, waste not your time.
And their continued non answeres from not just you, but your whole leftist lunacy branch continues to speak volumes, while you comb your computer for the next best snarky insult to respond with instead. While I do appreciate your effort in validating said premise, if you can't answer the questions, just move on
-
Is Obama's lack of experience & judgement a concern with you, from someone who wants to be making the command decisions for this country?
Not really. We've seen people with plenty of executive experience come in and not do worth a damn (Bush II and Carter for example), and people with little experience come in and do pretty well (Kennedy comes to mind). I tend to think that the whole experience thing is overblown. I look for A) Someone who has stated firm policy goals that I'm in agreement with, B) Knows what the heck they're talking about and C) has the personality and the collegiality to work with Congress and get it done.
and, Is McCain's age & being a long term legislator, with not a whit of executive experience, a concern with you?
The executive experience, as I mentioned above, isn't something really important to me. It's nice to have, but it's not really an indicator of job performance as POTUS nor do I think that it "qualifies" someone for the job. The age doesn't really bother me either, he's supposedly in sound health and that's enough for me. Anyone elected could die the next day, of a plethora of causes. To focus the attention on McCain because of the age, as a health aspect, is a diversion. The one important part of the age argument is whether or not someone his age is out of touch with America, but frankly I think anyone that gets elected is going to be out of touch with parts of America, from single mothers working two jobs to the union factory worker facing a layoff. Politicians are generally pretty well off from stable backgrounds (I know, there are exceptions, but I'm speaking generally here), I don't find it unfathomable that there would be a disconnect between them and blue collar America. That's one nice thing about Palin, regardless of her views, is that at least she knows how a lot of Americans (we rural ones anyhow) live. She doesn't go hunting as a photo-op or to hobnob, she goes to hunt. And regardless of how much I may dislike some of her views, I respect that and her knowledge of rural issues, which I tend to believe are minimized in comparison to urban ones.
Who "concerns" you the most?
They both do.
Seriously!
As BT mentioned, this is a hold your nose pick any way you look at it. I used to like McCain until he started trying to court the religious right, that kind of put me off of him in a lot of ways. Yes, I understand that he needs them but that doesn't mean that I have to like it. I have high hopes that if he's elected he'll decide to serve one term, and tell that wing of the party where to stuff it. The more that I listen to Obama, the more I'm convinced that he's, as the saying goes, all hat and no cattle. He has policy proposals (and some I like), but he hasn't proposed how to fund them. I've tended to lean toward McCain all along, and Palin didn't do much to influence that as her pluses and minuses (to me) cancel each other out, but I haven't come to a final conclusion and probably won't until the day before I vote.
How about these questions sirs, how would you answer the ones that you've asked me?
-
How about these questions sirs, how would you answer the ones that you've asked me?
Is Obama's lack of experience & judgement a concern with you, from someone who wants to be making the command decisions for this country?
Experience, a little...Judgement, BIG time. As much as the left trys to portray the Community organizer as the next God-like President, and tries to refute Obama's judgement in who he hangs out with, with that of McCain's Keating 5 debacle, are seriously grasping at straws here. Yes, he can make a great speech, and yes, he's very charismatic, but for me, I need a President who doesn't hang around racits, calling them their spiritual mentor, and try to tell us he never heard his Pastor make such vile commentary. Give me a break. Obama, as the left has been trying to perseverate on, is an intelligent fella. He knew what he had to do to move up the political ranks. He had to get down and dirty with Chicago politics, hang out with the right PC crowd, and look to hang pleasant with racists & domestic terrorists. That's piss poor judgement in my book, that he had been continuing, right up intil those associations became Politically Incorrect.
and, Is McCain's age & being a long term legislator, with not a whit of executive experience, a concern with you?
Like you, I have very little issue with his age. My Father-in-law is an avid Golfer, who can almost shoot is age of 86. Smart as a whip, just a little bit hard of hearing. And Obama could have a genetically predisposed to having an Aortic aneurism, which could cause him to die in his sleep, or in the middle of one his great speeches. And has Obama quit smoking? Far worse than old age is smoking, and the effects it has on the body
Lack of executive exp is also a mild problem in my book. Yes, there have been those with executive experience who have done poorly as a President, but I think it's largely due to policy decisions, vs their executive ability. I wish he had more, but glad his veep has plenty
Who "concerns" you the most?
Not so much "who" as much as "what".....the fact that regardless who the President becomes, Government will continue to grow into an ever greater monster, attempting to regulate all walks of a person's life. At least if McCain/Palin practice what they preached during the convention, it should grow slower. Not to mention the greater amounts of money we citizens can keep, from our hard work.
-
The presidency seems to age people like few other experiences. Look at pictures of Olebush in 1988 and 1992, Clinton in 1992 and 2000, Juniorbush in 2000 and 2008. Each seems to have aged twice as fast as people that have not been president. It is possible that McCain would manage to last for four years in the WH and still function normally, but I would say the odds of this are no better than 50-50.
If you have someone who is dependent on a bunch of pills to function, this presents another problem, because then the person that supplies the pills can control the president with ease. I take three Rx drugs to function, and the doctor tells me that I need another two OTC pills to stay healthy. But then, no one needs to control me.
Dick Cheney was supposedly this rational genius back in the Olebush days, but since he had his heart attack, I don't think anyone can make a case for him behaving rationally. I'd say that one reason might well be that his many medications have caused him to adpopt a split personality: something like a hermit crab (always scurrying to his undisclosed locations) and a wolverine (attacking people and countries irrationally).
-
You have enough of a hard time controlling yourself Xo. So, you planning on presetning this laundry list of medications McCain (& Cheney) are taking? Or is this just another one of your "obvious" proclaimations?
-
I have already presented the theory. I don't think it is necessary to prove that drugs can cause people to act in strange ways, and I fail to see what any list would have to do with laundry.
It does not have to be proven that the person who controls what McCain takes as medication has the potential to control McCain.
Believe it or don't.
-
I have already presented the theory. I don't think it is necessary to prove that drugs can cause people to act in strange ways, and I fail to see what any list would have to do with laundry.
And again, with the false premise. No one is claiming that a laundry list of drugs can't cause people to "act in stragne ways". Your proclaimation was that McCain (& and apparently Cheney) are taking gobs of drugs. So, what is this laundry list?? What is your source?? Who's controlling McCain's meds??
-
You appear to have an obsession with laundry.
Should you read what I have written c a r e f u l l y, you will see that this is speculation. Cheney is pretty obviously in some sort of altered state. It should be obvious to you and any sane person that his medications, and medications that even he may not be aware that he is taking, are not public knowledge.
It is the nature of trickery and manipulation that the tricksters and manipulators do not reveal themselves.
You may believe this or not. Suit yourself. If you make a laundry list, remember to consider the specifications for desired amounts of starch, although I still am unaware why drugs would be on a "laundry list".
"Three men's white shirts, extra starch", would be a proper element of a laundry list.
"500 mg. Oxy-Contin, three times daily" might appear on a list of prescription drugs.
-
You appear to have an obsession with laundry.
And now we move from false premise to deflection.
Should you read what I have written carefully, you will see that this is speculation.
At least Xo has conceded that his proclaimation was mere speculation. That'd be a theme consistent with the vast majority of his "obvious" claims. Please get back to us, when you're ready to back up your latest "obviously" meritless accusations
-
It is not mere speculation, it is reasonable speculation.
And what is it with you and laundry? Did someone stuff you in the Maytag and turn on the spin cycle in your infancy?
The latter was "mere speculation".
And I shall get back to you whenever I please. It's not up to you.
-
It is not mere speculation, it is reasonable speculation.
That McCain (& Cheney) are not functioning coherently, due to being overmedicated is completely unreasonable, and more importantly, unfounded........unless of course you're willing to put some facts to your mere unreasonable speculation. Again, the issue is NOT that it's possible for folks to be overmedicated and have side effects of not functioning properly. The issue is your direct inferrence that messers McCain & Cheney are somehow over medicated, creating what YOU SPECULATE as not acting rationally or properly
And what is it with you and laundry? Did someone stuff you in the Maytag and turn on the spin cycle in your infancy?
Still with the deflection I see. So who's hung up with laundry now?? :D
And I shall get back to you whenever I please.
Yea, you're right. Credibility is so overrated, when making asanine accusations. Simply spewing them should be sufficient
-
Note that I can spell tough words like "asinine", so even those who disagree with me can learn something useful.
You still have not explained your obsession with laundry.
-
Still deflecting I see. For someone who doesn't think much of my posts, you sure are spending an insidious amount of time perseverating on it. Is there some unconscious "dirty laundry" you're just itching to share with the rest of us??