WilliamK
-
Posts
386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by WilliamK
-
-
That Palin favors the interests of oil companies and evangelicals is not at issue. Nor is the probability that pleasing oil interests and social conservatives were among the reasons McCain chose her. Neither side is likely to disagree with those things.
The claim you need to back up is:
It turns out that big oil and the radical religious right insisted that Palin be the nominee, or they wouldn't support McCain.That implies that oil interests and evangelicals actually pressured and threatened McCain to choose Palin specifically, not merely that McCain chose her in order to gain their favor. If that isn't what you meant to imply, then say so, and we'll just write it off as a case of poor wording. If that is what you meant to imply, then you still need to back it up. The difference between a conspiracy and run-of-the-mill pandering is significant.
-
It turns out that big oil and the radical religious right insisted that Palin be the nominee, or they wouldn't support McCain.
Do you really need me to explain?
Yes. If you're going to make a claim like that, you need to back it up.
-
I've read that after receiving complaints from many families concerning a local library having books on devil worship and satinism, Palin contacted the local mayor and asked him to look into it and see if he could have the books removed. Apparently the library director refused and the mayor took steps to have her removed. Of course, in the loony left world of spin, the story has evolved into Palin being personally involved. (FYI to all Loonies; a Governor doesn't have the authority to fire anyone employed on a local level.)
She was the mayor. And where did you get this information about books on devil worship?
As for satinism, well, it's ok I guess. But I prefer flannel myself.
-
Juvenile name-calling, sexist remarks, and links to defamatory hoax photos will only help the opposing side, Manscape. Perhaps you should consider becoming a Republican.
-
Oh yeah, there's a real objective analysis with family information in the first half-dozen or so spots. It doesn't even mention their educational training, and what it does say about them is spun. Who are you kidding?
Himself, obviously.
-
Your reference material seems to be a bit factually challenged.
According to the site, Palin's executive experience includes 10 years as mayor. She was mayor from 1996 to 2002. This must be that magical Republican math again. Or maybe it made her so happy that she was beside herself for 4 years.
Under "Foreign Policy Experience" in the Palin column, the site lists "Governor of state that borders two foreign countries (Canada and Russia)." Saying that Alaska borders Russia is a bit like saying that Florida borders Cuba. They're pretty close, but "pretty close" is not what "borders" means. And aside from the inaccuracy, this, by itself, does not constitute foreign policy experience. She may or may not have some, but just being near other countries isn't it.
That web site is nothing but right-wing moon-battery, Bern. "Principled and non-violent activists" is what they call themselves. Unprincipled liars is what they are. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting that crap.
-
And what's this biased against Obama nonsense? I see that in many forums, where those who do not swoon over and actually have the temerity to criticize Obama are often called biased and racist.
What does racism have to do with the present discussion? He said you were biased, not racist. And I believe it was a pretty fair accusation. Can you, in complete honesty, say that there isn't some truth to it? I rather think your own stated ire at the Obama "swooning" can legitimately be considered a bias. That it is a reaction to something external doesn't make it any less so.
Bias really isn't such a terrible accusation all by itself. The question is whether it has overwhelmed one's ability to reason.
-
Do really you think the labeling of others as biased or racist, this thuggish behavior by so many Obama supporters, will actually silence or intimidate those who do not support Obama?
It will accomplish about as much as you labeling Palin critics as sexist. Since when is "hairstyle" a uniquely feminine attribute? It was petty and lame, but it wasn't necessarily sexist.
-
He has never had any executive experience, he's never been in charge of anything, never mind a nation.
I've been seeing this "executive experience" trick in right-winger postings in many places over the couple of days since the Palin announcement. The trick is that by putting the word "executive" in front of the word "experience", they can count Palin's experience (well, part of it, anyway) and not Obama's. But this creates a bit of a problem for those using it. If you allow only executive experience, then John McCain doesn't have any either.
There's no question that Obama has much less experience than McCain. But to claim that Obama is less experienced than Palin is ridiculous. Obama is clearly the more experienced of the two, both in quantity and relevance.
-
Her term on the ELECTED council and just under two years as Elected Gov. already quadruples Barry Obamas credentials as an elected official.
Palin:
4 years on city council of Wasilla, AK (population approx. 5500)
6 years as Mayor of Wasilla, AK
2 years as Governor of Alaska
Total time in elected office: 12 years
Obama:
8 years as an Illinois State Senator
2 years as a US Senator
Total time in elected office: 10 years
If we ignore the glaring absurdity of counting her small town city council and mayoral experience the same as Obama's time as state senator, that puts her ahead by 2. But putting the apples-to-oranges issue aside, "Harry Truman" here seems to think that 10 * 4 = 12. Perhaps Harry is using "Republican math" (otherwise known as bald-faced lying). For Palin to have 4X Obama's elected experience, she would have to have held elected office continuously since she was 4 years old.
-
The Obamites soundly criticized Hillary for voting for the 2002 Iraq "war" resolution. Biden, the supposed foreign policy expert, also voted for it, but strangely the criticism all of a sudden absent.
What's so strange about it? It was a differentiating position between Obama and Hillary in the primary. But Biden is not competing against Obama for anything. Nor is he competing against any war opponents in the general election. Since it isn't a differentiating position between opponents, why should it remain a campaign issue? Just because Obama picked Biden as a running mate doesn't mean that Obama has to agree with him on every issue, or that they have to keep bickering about it forever.
-
Nancy Pelosi's democratic congress has been virtually comatose, they have the lowest approval rating in history. They have accomplished nothing. Oh wait, check that...... they approved a bridge to nowhere.
Great example. The infamous "bridge to nowhere" was the pet project of Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, both Republicans.
The name Ted Stevens may sound familiar, as he's recently been in the news for having been indicted on corruption charges . But that hasn't stopped him from winning Alaska's Republican primary by a substantial margin. It seems that corruption and pork-barrel spending are qualities that Republicans admire in their politicians. I suppose that shouldn't be surprising, really.
-
I previously said, in this forum, that I did. But why did feel the need to validate Obama's statement by using Obama's "professor" title?
David Dinkins is a Professor (a real professor with an endowed chair) at Columbia Univ. However, when Professor Dinkins makes statements, which at times are questioned, I don't ever remember seeing his title used to validate his statements. Which is why most don't know he is a Professor (a real one).
I'm resting my case on this one, Bern.
-
You know and I know that the Professor title is constantly used by the Obamites to prop up Obama as a learned constitutional scholar, a Professor of Law. Which is why the likes of you don't use his real title, Senior Lecturer.
The likes of me is perfectly happy to refer to him as Senior Lecturer. It's a fine title, a considerable accomplishment, and a significant bit of experience. But there's nothing wrong with calling him a professor either. Like it or not, "senior lecturer" is a subset of "professor". It's no different from calling an ESD consultant an electrical engineer. In both cases, the more general term will be recognized by more people, making that a good choice for a non-specialized audience.
So, whenever Obama makes a statement that is questioned, the statement can always be followed up with the "fact" that he is a "Professor of Law" and therefore must know what he is doing. Propaganda for the simple.Tell me, Bern, do you believe that Obama doesn't know how many states there are?
Call me "simple" if you like, but I think that Obama's teaching experience, regardless of what words you think should be used to describe it, is entirely sufficient evidence that he would know such a thing. Gross overkill, actually. You'd be hard pressed to find even a preschooler who doesn't know it.
His title is a joke. Maybe where you come from or hang out, his title is taken seriously. I and the faculty members I know, know it is a joke and frankly they are insulted that the title is denigrated.Where I come from and hang out, teaching 3 classes per year for 8 years at a respected law school is a very respectable achievement, and does not in any way joke, insult, or denigrate the word "professor". If you and your faculty member friends are offended by it, that's your failing, not anyone else's.
-
Many Hillary supporters are angry over their darling being snubbed and will vote for McCain. With the polls already in a dead heat, Hillary supporters will put McCain over the top.
Except, of course, that this "dead heat" exists with this effect already accounted for. Disgruntled Hillary supporters are not excluded from the polls. And the polls show little change since the Biden announcement. So, the choice of Biden has not had the effect that you claim. Which shouldn't be surprising, as it's been apparent for some time Hillary wasn't going to be the VP choice. I'm pretty sure most Hillary supporters were already resigned to this. Since the outcome was already known (at least, that it would not be Hillary), the Hillary defectors had already defected. It's unlikely that the number will grow. More likely, some will switch back as their disappointment fades so that it can no longer overcome the fact that Barack Obama is the candidate who shares the ideals and will work towards the causes that they admired Hillary Clinton for.
-
You're so excitable and it seems very sensitive.
Again the Hillary to McCain switchers are painted as petty and stupid by the likes of you. Your arrogant and downright nasty "we know best" attitude is not how you win over people.
Such a lovely glass house you have there, Mr. "Obamites", "Obama Messiah infatuation." and "... IQ of a potato".
Could it be that some of them actually look at the issues? Maybe they looked at things, such as this NY times editorial endorsing McCain, and liked what they saw:Possible, but implausible for any significant percentage. Obama and Clinton hold very similar positions on most issues. It may be possible to come up with a set of issue preferences that would favor Clinton over McCain and McCain over Obama, but it would be very contrived.
-
Bern, The Loony Left doesn't deal in fact. Your accurate description of Congression powers doesn't fit well with the "Bush lied us into war" scenario favored by those who drink from the Kool-Aid cup.
It fits just fine. All it means is that the members of Congress who went along with the war are not without blame. It's true that they were misled. But they had both a responsibility and a means to discover the deception. They screwed up. They trusted Bush.
The question of whether Bush lied to justify the war is not even in play any more. The deniers are in the same category as moon landing deniers, flat-earthers, "WTC was really brought down by previously prepared explosives" nuts, Uri Geller believers, and David Icke followers.
-
I'm sorry Bern, let me rephrase that.
"f**k you!"
A bit uncouth, but I can't say it was uncalled for.
-
All serious presidential candidates have speech writers.
Naturally.
I'm not sure whether you meant that to add to what I said or to counter something I said. If the latter, then please understand that I did not bring up McCain's use of a speech writer and book co-author as a criticism against McCain, but just to highlight 2Smart's hypocrisy in making that criticism of Obama. It's really no big deal that writing isn't McCain's forte'. And, there's nothing wrong with enlisting some help in any case.
-
Spare me the professor of Constitutional Law title. Its an insult to real professors, a joke, somewhat disingenuous. I wish the Obamites would stop bringing that up.
A very nice title even though he is really a Senior Lecturer, who has taught three courses. A bit aggrandizement that the University is party to. I guess its done for the politically connected and the powerful.
Ok, then. Replace "Professor" with "Senior Lecturer", and add that it was only three courses (actually three courses per year for 8 years, but feel free to leave that part out since it doesn't suit your purposes). But tell me, does that make the claim that this Harvard Law JD, 8 year Senior Lecturer, 8-year Illinois Senator, 2-year U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate doesn't know how many states there are any less moronic? To believe that was anything more than a run-of-the-mill brain fart is idiocy.
Obama has never done the academic work, research and gone through the credential process to earn the actual title of Professor.Some professors do research and publish. Some do not. But it is not now, nor has it ever been, a necessary part of the definition of "professor". Nor is there a "more than three courses" rule. You apply for the job, you meet the qualifications, you get hired, you're a professor. There's nothing dishonest or insulting about then saying that you're a professor. That's simply what it means.
This Obama-as-professor vs. Obama-as-Senior-Lecturer hubbub is not the great distinction and deception that you pretend it to be. Here's The University of Chicago Law School's official statement on the matter:
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Emphasis mine.
Source: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
Rally, Bern. You accuse others of being disingenuous even as you try to float this "Obama wasn't a real professor" turd?
-
Does that "relative privilege" include the 5 years he spent in the Hanoi Hilton ?
What does that have to do with whether he understands what poor to middle class Americans go through? I don't discount his war experience. But experiencing one kind of hardship, even an extremely harsh one, does not make him experienced in any other kind.
Again, my point is not that McCain's current or prior wealth, in itself, says anything bad about him. It's just that it puts him in a poor position from which to paint Obama as an out of touch elitist. Between the two, it is obviously McCain who leads a life much further removed from that of regular folks. A fact that by itself would have little significance, but now has relevance to John McCain and his supporters' hypocritical finger wagging at Obama.
-
Many Hillary supporters are angry over their darling being snubbed and will vote for McCain. With the polls already in a dead heat, Hillary supporters will put McCain over the top.
Good riddance to them. Those who would vote against the best interests of themselves and their country out of pettiness and sour grapes fully deserve what that will bring them. Unfortunately, the rest of us will also have to suffer the consequences of their idiocy.
With such extraordinary pettiness and stupidity, one has to wonder why the PUMA's weren't Republicans all along. Perhaps they've finally "found themselves". Rejoice, Republicans. Your wayward brethren have joined the fold, even if they're not ready to accept the family name just yet. They may be just what you need to again snatch America's defeat from the gaping jaws of victory.
But don't thank the PUMA's just yet. There remains a good chance that America will not lose to the Republicans this time around. The polls say little other than that it could go either way, and there's still plenty of campaigning time left. And if Obama can drive enthusiasm in the final campaigning days the way he did in the primaries, he could very well do better in the actual election than in the polls leading up to it. This is something we saw over and over in the primaries, and even more in the caucuses, where it takes a bit more gumption to go vote. And this was against Hillary Clinton, a candidate who had much more enthusiastic support than John McCain, but still couldn't match Obama. Turnout advantage can win elections as close as this one.
-
Wrong again. All his words are read off a script that someone else wrote. Keep trying, dummy.
It's true that Obama has a speech writer. A very good one, in fact. And that speech writer now has two people working under him. But it is also true that Obama has written speeches himself, and that the ones he doesn't write himself are written with his direct involvement. Speeches that Obama wrote himself include two of his most famous. The one he delivered at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and his "More Perfect Union" speech on race. Both of those were outstanding, and are recognized as such even by most of his political opponents.
That Obama is as good at writing speeches as he is at delivering them, is something that he's renowned for. Did you really think you could get away with such a blatant lie as that?
Not to mention the over-the-top hypocrisy. Do you think John McCain doesn't have a speech writer? (see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=93473084 ) McCain's speech writer also co-authored five of his books. In fact, there don't seem to be any books for which McCain's is sole author, not even the autobiographical ones. Barack Obama, however, wrote "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" himself.
-
So, it's OK if Obama thinks there is 57 states but it's not OK if McCain can't be sure if he owns 9 or 10 properties? Sounds like more Kool-Aid logic.
Everyone makes a gaffe from time to time. This is why I never read any significance into Dan Quayle's embarrassing "potatoe" incident. I doubt there's anyone here who has never said something stupid out of tiredness, distraction, mishearing what someone said, or just random brain malfunction. It doesn't say anything about their intelligence. It's just part of being human.
But to believe that Barack Obama, graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, former president of the Harvard Law Review, former professor at the University of Chicago Law School, Illinois state Senator for 8 years and U.S. Senator for two, actually doesn't know how many states there are? That, my friend, is no mere brain fart, but genuine and profound stupidity. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were just talking out of your ass and don't actually believe that.
The issue with McCain's uncertainty about the number of properties that he owns is not that he makes mistakes. Nor is it "rich is bad". It's just that it makes McCain's attempts to portray Obama as "elitist" or "out of touch" when McCain has led a life of relative privilege, while Obama, though very accomplished and moderately wealthy now, has seen life from a perspective closer to that of regular folk.
So much for putting the country first
in Kearny
Posted
Both sides may be guilty, but they're far from equal. The right has all but cornered the market on nastiness and lies. Sure, you can cite examples of hateful remarks and lies coming from the left. But you have only to look at the comment sections at the ends of many web news articles, or the debunkings on snopes, or the posts on KOTW to see that the vitriol and lies spewed by the right are an order of magnitude more than from the left in both quantity and nastiness. That doesn't make it ok in either case. And I'm not arguing that "they do it more" is any better excuse than "they do it too". But it does reveal a fundamental difference. On the left, the nastiness and dishonesty represents a fringe element. On the right, it has permeated the mainstream ideology and the basic character of the Republican party.