The Gaming Den

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:44 pm**

McCain seems to definitely be fitting into the Nixon persona as time goes on.

I don't know if it's just because I am only spotting it now or if he's slowly getting tired of the long campaign and allowing for some of his personality to come through.

I work as a closed captioner and I see McCain close up every day and each day, he's flustered and he's slipping a little bit, I see more and more of the same tics I saw when I researched the old Frost/Nixon interviews, and the Kennedy/Nixon debates. He is really channeling dead Nixon's white ghost for power these days. It doesn't do him any good and I doubt he knows that he's doing it because Nixon is obviously not one of the most popular names in American names.

If he becomes the president, I'm pretty sure, we'll see a Watergate like phenomenon and a cover-up. He doesn't have the supposed suave, bluster, or even that who-me-isms/who's-going-to-call-me-on-this attitude of Bush. The characterization of him in the media is either of being a "maverick" or of being an "old man."

he doesn't even draw the good "Old man" reference. He isn't Reagan. I hate Reagan but his spin was that he was the 'gipper.' The maverick is only used mostly by himself and his own team and sometimes by the GOP.

Oh, to keep this from just being a slight rant, I'll give you guys a little video of a flustered McCain and a clip of what is supposed to be a good reporter.

Watch for the hand wringing, the rapid blinking of his eyes, his stutters, his accidental slip-ups, the blatant lies, the crazy scary threats at times.

some local station somewhere interviewed McCain and actually did the job of interviewing rather than sitting and asking pretty questions like Charlie Gibson

~
Cynic

EDIT: inverted my url tags. sorry

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:51 pm**

A_Cynic wrote:McCain seems to definitely be fitting into the Nixon persona as time goes on.

I don't know if it's just because I am only spotting it now or if he's slowly getting tired of the long campaign and allowing for some of his personality to come through.

I work as a closed captioner and I see McCain close up every day and each day, he's flustered and he's slipping a little bit, I see more and more of the same tics I saw when I researched the old Frost/Nixon interviews, and the Kennedy/Nixon debates. He is really channeling dead Nixon's white ghost for power these days. It doesn't do him any good and I doubt he knows that he's doing it because Nixon is obviously not one of the most popular names in American names.

If he becomes the president, I'm pretty sure, we'll see a Watergate like phenomenon and a cover-up. He doesn't have the supposed suave, bluster, or even that who-me-isms/who's-going-to-call-me-on-this attitude of Bush. The characterization of him in the media is either of being a "maverick" or of being an "old man."

he doesn't even draw the good "Old man" reference. He isn't Reagan. I hate Reagan but his spin was that he was the 'gipper.' The maverick is only used mostly by himself and his own team and sometimes by the GOP.

Oh, to keep this from just being a slight rant, I'll give you guys a little video of a flustered McCain and a clip of what is supposed to be a good reporter.

Watch for the hand wringing, the rapid blinking of his eyes, his stutters, his accidental slip-ups, the blatant lies, the crazy scary threats at times.

interviewing[/i] rather than sitting and asking pretty questions like Charlie Gibson]http://www.wcsh6.com/video/default.aspx?maven_playerId=immersiveplayer&maven_referralPlaylistId=playlist&maven_referralObject=850878100

~
Cynic

I copy and paste the link, but nothing shows up.

Edit: Nevermind. Wow. McCain's getting ripped.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:30 pm**

A_Cynic wrote:...the blatant lies...

Yeah. I was halfway counting them after a few, and he made at least half a dozen provably false statements.

Would it be possible for you to post a transcript? It would be much easier to dissect.

A_Cynic wrote:...rather than sitting and asking pretty questions like Charlie Gibson

Even so, some of Palin's answers were scary.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:13 pm**

Does Alaska really supply 20% of the nation's energy?

20% of Oil is easy enough for me to buy, but unless they've recently stepped up coal mining operations, I'm thinking that's massively inaccurate.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:06 pm**

Especially when you consider that most Alaskan oil is exported to Japan. But didn't you get the memo that to Republicans, energy=oil?

Also, I love the idea that knowing something about an issue that has an impact on national security makes you an expert on national security as a whole.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:30 pm**

This definitely deserves a WTF because I can't see how you can compare the two.

Nixon was a "good old boy" politician ... is this anything like McCain?
Nixon was a drunk ... perhaps I've missed this in the news media but is McCain?
Nixon was paranoid ... can you say that of McCain?

No really ... can you really see him trying to get into the offices of Obama ... knowing that he has the election wrapped up (because he hasn't) and then trying to cover up the investigation? Can you really see Palin being threatened with impeachment because of corruption? Because of all the possible problems we might have with McCain, I'm not seeing this in the least. Nope, it's a snowball's chance in hell of happening.

(Edit: Did you know if you firget to type "l" when typing Palin's name it gives you only pain? What an odd thought.)

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:10 pm**

Josh_Kablack wrote:Does Alaska really supply 20% of the nation's energy?

20% of Oil is easy enough for me to buy, but unless they've recently stepped up coal mining operations, I'm thinking that's massively inaccurate.

14.3% of the oil, about 3.5% of the total energy according to FactCheck.org.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:13 pm**

tzor wrote: Can you really see Palin being threatened with impeachment because of corruption?

Yes. Very easily, actually, seeing as how she's had abuse of power problems in every office she's ever held and, frankly, she doesn't know enough not to be taken advantage of at some point.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:12 am**

Neeeek wrote:14.3% of the oil, about 3.5% of the total energy according to FactCheck.org.

Thank you.

That's not an easy statistic to find. But I don't think I want someone who misrepresents it setting energy policy.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:14 am**

McCain is definitely an old boy. Same with Palin, they're instruments of their fragments of the Party.

McCain may not be a drunk. But how that's relevant, I don't know.

McCain certainly does have anger management issues and is somewhat paranoid. Perhaps his fisticuffs are relatable to the issue.

-Crissa

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:35 am**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/1 ... 25743.html

That picks apart some of the interview.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:02 am**

SphereOfFeetMan wrote:
Would it be possible for you to post a transcript? It would be much easier to dissect.

Sure, I've been meaning to try Avidemux for messing with flv's anyway. This gives me a reason to flex my transcription muscles a bit and give them some exercise. It's under the spoiler tag. Be forewarned, it is pretty late and my grammar might have slipped a bit.

Rob Caldwell: Let me begin by asking you about governor Palin --
Rob Caldwell: It has been nearly two weeks now --
Senator McCain: Sure. [laughs]
Rob Caldwell: since you announced that she would be your running mate.
She has yet to take any serious questions from either reporters or regular voters, why not?
why can't she take some questions?
Senator McCain: actually, I believe it was last week when she had her acceptance speech for the nomination of my party.
But the fact is she is coming out in the next couple of days with interviews with numerous people.
She is very well-versed at that.
She's been a governor.
She is one of the most successful governors in America and the most popular one so she'll be doing a lot of conversations with-- with the media.
But we wanted to touch base with the American people first and the turnout and the enthusiasm of these crowds is just remarkable.
And I am very proud to have a real reformer on the ticket with me.
Rob Caldwell: Let's talk a little bit about the reform issue.
You are, of course, a fierce critic of pork barrel spending.
"The Washington Post" reported yesterday that Governor Palin has billed taxpayers, as governor, for 312 nights spent in her own home, charging her state a "per diem" allowance.
And she charged that while traveling on state business in her own home.
what does that say about her credentials as someone who is going to attack wasteful government spending?
Senator McCain: well, of course, she disclosed that online, transparently, and explained why she had to do that because of the travel back and forth -- why she did it because of the travel back and forth.
But most importantly she sold the executive jet.
She fired the chef.
She -- reform -- she passed ethics and lobbying reform.
she took on the "old bulls" in her party.
she took on an incumbent.
she has given money back to the taxpayers.
This is a real reform governor and it's not an accident that she's the most popular governor in America.
And Senator Obama has never taken on a single -- his party on a single issue.
She's taken them on and she is -- I'm proud of her record on ethics and lobbying reform and good government.
Rob Caldwell: Let's move on to what you say is the number one issue --
Senator McCain: Sure
Rob Caldwell: Facing the United States in our time and that is the challenge of addressing Islamist Extremism.
What credentials does Governor Palin have in national security, diplomacy, foreign policy that qualify her to be your partner in that -- on that issue -- the fight against islamist Extremism?
Senator McCain: Well, obviously, the economy is also the major challenge facing America.
Rob Caldwell: No, I'm using your words, senator McCain.
Senator McCain: Sure, yeah.
Rob Caldwell: You have said, this summer, that the number one --
Senator McCain: No, I said --
Rob Caldwell: Challenge of our time is Islamist extremism.
Senator McCain: I said the great-- I said the greatest challenge of our time is national security threats and i've also said the jobs and the economy are the number one issue facing America so --
But the point is Governor Palin was right on the issues.
She understands energy which is one of the fundamental issues of our nation's security.
her -- she was responsible for a $40 billion pipeline that's going to bring natural gas to the lower 48.
she was right on iraq.
Senator Obama was wrong.
She has more experience than Senator Obama does.
she was right on russia.
He was wrong as he made moral equivalency between Russia and Georgia at a time when Russia attacked.
He said that -- she was right on Iran when he's been wrong on Iran.
She doesn't want to sit down in face-to-face negotiations with Ahmadinejad or -- or the other leader.
She's right on foreign policy.
Senator Obama is wrong and she, I'm sure, has the experience and judgment necessary to lead this country.
And i'm confident that the American people will agree with her as well.
Rob Caldwell: Well, you say that you're sure that she has the experience but, again, I'm just asking for an example.
Senator McCain: Sure.
Rob Caldwell: What experience does she have in the field of national security?
Senator McCain: Energy, she knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.
she represents -- is a governor of a state -- that 20% of our energy supply comes from there.
and we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue.
We have gotta stop sending $700 billion of american money to countries that don't like us very much.
She is very well-versed on that issue.
and she happens to also represent a -- be governor of a state that's right next to Russia.
She understands Russia and their newly aggressive behavior in the world which is also something we have to be very concerned about.
Rob Caldwell: Let me just close on a note about the State of Maine --
Senator McCain: Sure
Rob Caldwell: and New Hampshire.
New Hampshire is a battleground state.
Obviously, that's going to be getting a lot of your attention between now and election day.
How about Maine?
Do you realistically think that you have any chance of winning Maine?
Senator McCain: Oh, I'd like to think so because it's such a wonderful state and rich in -- in so many ways.
We have two great republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, from the State of Maine.
It has a tradition of independence and [laughs] we all know that.
and so I'd love to compete in the State of Maine.
i think it's going to be very difficult -- in a little straight talk.
but I sure would love to come there so i'll -- i'll make an effort.
and I'll certainly want the people of Maine to know that whether they give me a majority of their vote or not, I'm going to be president of all Americans.
Rob Caldwell: Susan Collins has served two terms with you in the United States Senate as a republican.
Olympia Snowe has been in congress even longer than you have.
Some people say that you should have perhaps chosen one of them since they have a lot more experience in the federal government than Sarah Palin does.
How would you answer that?
Senator McCain: Oh, I respect Olympia and Susan enormously.
They're great senators.
They're great people.
They're great reformers.
It -- it just came down to some very close calls on this issue and I think one of the aspects of governor Palin is that, she, having been a governor is one of the impportant aspects.
But I'll tell you, I have the highest admiration, respect, and affection for Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who I've had the honor of serving with and knowing for a long time.
They're great senators.
Rob Caldwell: The issue that you're pushing right now is change.
That you're going to clean up was Washington.
Does it really make sense that after eight years of a Republican administration to send another Republican to the White House if change is what the American people want?
Senator McCain: sure because I've fought for change.
I've taken on my own party.
I've taken on my own president.
I've taken on my own colleagues.
Senator Obama has never taken on his party on any issue -- on any issue.
and I have had -- I've fought for and achieved reform whether it be on campaign finance reform, ethics and lobbying --
if I can achieve what i have achieved in the senate, taking on both parties, I can do a lot more as president.
And I've got a great reformer, who did a great job of reforming the "old bull" and the "old boy" network in Maine -- excuse me, [laughs] Alaska, at my side.
Rob Caldwell: Let me ask you a question that goes to the --
Senator McCain: sure.
Rob Caldwell: issue of taking on your own party.
The Republican platform, from the convention that you just had, calls for a constitutional amendment that would outlaw gay marriage.
Do you support that amendment?
Senator McCain: No, as you know, I've said it's a issue for the states to decide, as you know.
Rob Caldwell: so you do not agree with your own party and your own party's platform that came out of your convention?
Senator McCain: there's -- there's many issues that my party and I have disagreed on.
But we have a fundamental principle of smaller government, less -- lower taxes, don't adopt a government-run healthcare system, a strong America, and a safe and secure America.
The principles of Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Theodore Roosevelt.
That's my party and that's what I'm proud of and I'm proud to be a part of it.
Rob Caldwell: Alright, we're going to let that be the last word.
Senator McCain, thank you very much for your time today, we appreciate it.
Senator McCain: thank you, Rob.

tzor: Sure, somethign does deserve a WTF in this topic. Your reply.

Let me go through your points a bit.

1. "good old boy" - yes, NIxon was a "good old boy"

Is John McCain a patently "good old boy", not a thoroughbred like Nixon, no. But he is one, yes. Compare his election platforms for this season to the one for last season and you'll see a major difference. He has become one of the "good ole boys."

2. Yes, you are correct, McCain is not a drunk. your point? Pointing to a severe character defect that is not connected to subect in hand in a direct way and then using that as a metric to see the buffed shine of your "good ole boy's" head is not at all proper. In fact, that's downright foolish. It's retarded.

3. I think, I did say that McCain is paranoid with my statement that there is going to be something similar to a watergate scandal.

While it might not be a WATERGATE or him going to obama's office. Call me naive but I hope that you don't get a copycat crime. I just think some of that magnitude will take place.

There have already been calls for Palin's impeachment as the governor of Alaska (Bloomberg News, um... last thursday, methinks).

It wasn't that they are giong to do it, In fact, it won't go forward at all, but someone actually had a mic to speak into which was watched by at least a million people and they heard said that Palin should be impeached.
--

Oh, And don't even get me started on Palin, she is a fucking pain. I've done some hardcore research on this woman. Having to go through badly scanned online newspapers from junea alaska for articles is so not a pleasant experience. But, yeah, for some of my research I do for my job, what I've found on Palin just scares me that she might be our president some day.

Although it would be interesting to have the first president also be the first one with a Journalism degree which she completed after switching colleges 5 friggin times.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:06 pm**

He is being fucking spoonfed questions and he is having problems answering them.

It is not like these are hardball questions.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:28 pm**

SunTzuWarmaster wrote:He is being fucking spoonfed questions and he is having problems answering them.

It is not like these are hardball questions.

I disagree. That reporter laid out a pit of burning coals, then sprinkled it for broken glass, then did it his best to drag McCain over it.

Personally, I think McCain was having problems answering them because the real, truthful answers wouldn't have sounded so good, and he wasn't thinking quickly enough on his feet to come up with a good way to put everything. I'm pretty sure has a memorized set of good things he can say about Palin--like "she knows about economy"--and when pressed, he reverts to that list.

I dunno. I feel like McCain is selling out his principles. His record in the military shows he had integrity, and he used to be the 'nice guy' politician. Now his campaign is slinging all kinds of bullshit, like demanding Obama apologize for "calling Palin a pig".

Anyway, I thought some months back, McCain and Obama agreed to run a clean, civil campaign. Obama's kept to that agreement--more or less-but the Republicans seem to have decided WE MUST WIN.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:02 pm**

Maxus wrote:
Anyway, I thought some months back, McCain and Obama agreed to run a clean, civil campaign. Obama's kept to that agreement--more or less-but the Republicans seem to have decided WE MUST WIN.

No, Obama isn't that clear-cut either. Most of the mud-slinging that does happen that supports him happens through affiliated supporters, people from his backroom cabinets.

Richardson mudslings a bit.

Bill Clinton does the same and while he isn't on the spotlight as much anymore now that hillary is out of the race, CSPAN shows a few things every now and then with him cutting jabs at McCain.

These people are definitely on Obama's side. Obama is clever. He doesn't bully people himself. He hires people to do it.

McCain hires people and does it himself. Whether that makes him a more honorable man or a stupid man, I dont' know. I don't care. It's more to the point that it sickens me on both fronts.

Obama's mudslinging is as vilifying as McCain's. But, my non-citizen "vote" is behind Obama for what it can count in a two-party system.

Posted: **Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:02 am**

A_Cynic wrote:
Maxus wrote:
Anyway, I thought some months back, McCain and Obama agreed to run a clean, civil campaign. Obama's kept to that agreement--more or less-but the Republicans seem to have decided WE MUST WIN.
No, Obama isn't that clear-cut either. Most of the mud-slinging that does happen that supports him happens through affiliated supporters, people from his backroom cabinets.

Richardson mudslings a bit.

Bill Clinton does the same and while he isn't on the spotlight as much anymore now that hillary is out of the race, CSPAN shows a few things every now and then with him cutting jabs at McCain.

These people are definitely on Obama's side. Obama is clever. He doesn't bully people himself. He hires people to do it.

McCain hires people and does it himself. Whether that makes him a more honorable man or a stupid man, I dont' know. I don't care. It's more to the point that it sickens me on both fronts.

Obama's mudslinging is as vilifying as McCain's. But, my non-citizen "vote" is behind Obama for what it can count in a two-party system.

Well, part of my point is that the Democratic mudslinging hasn't been vicious enough to draw the media attention that the Republican has.

Also, I can grit my teeth and endure mudslinging when it happens to be arguably true. But when a campaign is practically pulling shit out of their ass and putting it on TV...

Posted: **Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:16 am**

Maxus wrote:Well, part of my point is that the Democratic mudslinging hasn't been vicious enough to draw the media attention that the Republican has.

Right, tell me another story.

McCain, according to the Obama mudslinging is Bush, only he's just an old Bush, an out of touch with reality Bush, a neanderthal who can't even use the internet much less even know how to type on a keyboard.

Palin, according to the same Obama mudslinging is an ignorant and inexperienced Alaskan Yahoo who used her power for personal revenge, believes in God and owns a gun. OH THE HORROR!

Trust me, I read this shit on Gather all the time where the liberal morons repeat this line as many times as they can.

Posted: **Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:20 am**

His record in the military shows he had integrity,

No it doesn't. It shows that when faced with adversity, he'll sing like a bitch to save his own skin, and sacrifice American lives to save his own.

Seriously, look it up. His actions while being detained in Viet Nam do not show any definition of the word "integrity" to me.

Posted: **Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:25 am**

tzor wrote:
Trust me, I read this shit on Gather all the time where the liberal morons repeat this line as many times as they can.

That's a real shame. Because Palin has done enough fucked up shit that they can actually be mad at things she did, rather than act as if they weren't real people, but a caricature of liberals as portrayed by a conservative.

Palin is a criminal. She deserves to be thrown in prison.

Posted: **Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:29 am**

tzor wrote:
Maxus wrote:Well, part of my point is that the Democratic mudslinging hasn't been vicious enough to draw the media attention that the Republican has.
Right, tell me another story.

McCain, according to the Obama mudslinging is Bush, only he's just an old Bush, an out of touch with reality Bush, a neanderthal who can't even use the internet much less even know how to type on a keyboard.

Palin, according to the same Obama mudslinging is an ignorant and inexperienced Alaskan Yahoo who used her power for personal revenge, believes in God and owns a gun. OH THE HORROR!

Trust me, I read this shit on Gather all the time where the liberal morons repeat this line as many times as they can.

Heh. You should see the stuff both sides trot out on message boards. There are some quite vocal, quite idiotic people out there. Sadly, we have to let them vote.

I'll grant that using a computer would be problematic for McCain, since he can only raise his arms to a certain height, but they've really been playing fast and loose with what they use in attack ads. I saw an ad quoting FactCheck.org and didn't think of anything of it until I heard FactCheck was up in arms about it. Go there and see for yourself.

One of my concerns with McCain is whether he'll actually live out a term, much less two. He's aged pretty well, but being the President is a high-stress job. He could pop his clogs in two years, and then we'd have Palin trying to be all Aggressive-Cutesy at us for another two years.

I'm all for both sides being grilled like McCain was in the above video. I'd love to see Obama face a similar level of difficult, unexpected questions...

Posted: **Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:55 am**

tzor wrote:
Maxus wrote:Well, part of my point is that the Democratic mudslinging hasn't been vicious enough to draw the media attention that the Republican has.
Right, tell me another story.

McCain, according to the Obama mudslinging is Bush, only he's just an old Bush, an out of touch with reality Bush, a neanderthal who can't even use the internet much less even know how to type on a keyboard.

See, the problem with your side is that ALL of that is true. And easily provable. McCain of 8, or even 4 years ago wasn't all that much like Bush, but he's since reversed himself on almost every meaningful issue where he and Bush differed (I think he still disagrees with Bush on global warming still, I'd have to check). It's not Obama's fault that McCain is a liar, a hypocrite and has a horrible temper. It will be all of our problem if he gets elected.

Palin, according to the same Obama mudslinging is an ignorant and inexperienced Alaskan Yahoo who used her power for personal revenge, believes in God and owns a gun. OH THE HORROR!

Again, she has a terrible record of abuse of power. This is an objective fact. She is ignorant and inexperienced. I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp of most policy issues than she does. While I could care less whether or not she believes in god, her particular sect is one of the more scary ones, and she actively works to force her religion upon other people, which is fucked up.

There's a reason they won't let anyone but the most partisan hacks interview her. It's because any serious investigation into her thoughts on policy would quickly show that the Empress has no clothes.

The problem with you and your (and the GOP's as a whole) way of thinking tzor is that the truth doesn't seem to matter to you. McCain and Palin have been spouting lie after lie after lie. And there is no way to claim they haven't because it's all a matter of public record. It's pathetic and sad, and it's not something the Democrats do too. There is nothing in Obama's stump speech that's objectively false. There are several false statement in McCain's and Palin's.

Your party attacks people for nothing and bitches when they are called on it. They plan attacks in binary form - when their opponent has 2 choices, they plan an attack for both. They attack people for doing good deeds. WTF is with making fun of someone for taking a 100K a year pay cut to work for a charity? You're Catholic, how do you feel about the GOP openly mocking working for a Catholic charity multiple times during their convention?

See, the GOP has to attack, because they utterly suck at governance. If the election is decided on the issues, Obama wins in a 70+% landslide. If the election is decided on character, Obama should win in a landslide.

Posted: **Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:47 am**

Neeek said it very well but I want to add some more.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with mudslinging as long as it is based on actual fact.

If Obama ACTUALLY ate babies and had an actual "everyone must eat a baby for dinner on Fridays" policy. Pointing that out isn't just OK it would be ,you know, IMPORTANT.

The fact that McCain is LIEING about who will tax more people less is actually important and he should be attacked about it, and about all those other things which are legitimate and real concerns.

Palin has very direct links to very scary cults. That is a valid attack, it can be demonstrated and proven and matches with her actions and her statements, she is REALLY a pentacostal and those folks are fucking NUTS, and she really has ties with even nuttier sub groups.

Obama has highly questionable links to a vaguely broad religion that isn't christianity. That is not a valid attack, it can't be demonstrated or proven and his actions and his own statements do not match and associating him simply with "islam" in general is not nearly as concerning as Pentacostals in particular.

But there is something even more important than the truth/lies gap between Republican and Democrat mud slinging.

The democrats are holding back. Being polite, not slinging the REALLY smelly ugly entirely factual and provable mud they COULD be slinging.

Seriously Bush, McCain, the entire republican party has blood on their hands, lots and lots of it. From the executions to the torture to the lies about war, the slaughter of civilians, the corrupt sponsorship of violent coupes against democratically elected leaders of other nations (within THIS presidency).

If they wanted to the Democrat's supposed mouthpieces and attack dogs could be (and should be) howling day and night "Obama inexperienced? Bush and McCain Torture innocents. Literally. To death. In secret fucking death camps!"

So seriously Republicans have no room to whine about Democrats being mean. Because the Democrats are being, literally insanely, nice and gentle.

Or is the plan to attack democrats with transparent lies and trivialities while whining about meanies to prevent them from howling "torturers!" and then escalating the whining to prevent them from politely pointing out "incompetent corrupt history of governance" and then ultimately whining so much that democrats aren't even allowed to stand in front of a microphone and state their own good points lest it make the republican loons look bad?

Posted: **Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:04 am**

Unfortunately, the lies work. What percentage of people believe Obama is a Muslim? I forget the exact number, but it is unbelievably high. Most people don't pay attention, so spam (all forms) works. Some people think "Hmmm, I heard a lot of bad stuff about Obama, like x, y, z. I don't remember where I heard it though. Eh, I'm sure some of it is true. He's not getting my vote." The problem is, they are almost all lies.

But even that isn't the worst of it. McCain's plan is just to throw so much shit at the wall that Obama doesn't get to address the issues. He has to spend his time denying the allegations. The "Lipstick on a Pig" fiasco lasted how many days? All those days were lost for Obama to debate McCain on the issues: Economy, Iraq, taxes, judgement, voting record/flip-flops, etc. All of which Obama wins, hands down.

Posted: **Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:48 am**

You know I want to clarify. Palin isn't scary just because "ooh she believes in god" its the dangerous apocalyptic insano cult she associates with that is scary.

When I said Pentacostals are fucking nuts I meant it.

But Palin's spooky cult ties aren't just to Pentacostals, they are to a sub group of heretical Pentacostals/now cross denominational cultists that the crazy fucking Pentacostals think are fucking crazy. The name you are looking for here is "Third Wave" and "Wasilla Assembly of God".

And the wacko group her wacko group (regarded as wacko by already far from main stream wacko group) is associated with is even more wacko again. In this case you are looking for "Morning Star Ministries".

This article covers a lot of the crazy involved in the movement. Watch the video these people are fucking insane in the fucking brain, if they didn't repeat the word "jeeebus" constantly we'd lock them them up in padded rooms for societies safety.

I mean "Cell Phone Anointing?" "Third Floor Portal to God?" "Destroy their nations, tear down their alters, show no mercy?"

And most of that material is compiled apparently by this lot which appear to be a bunch of left wing religious types and who seem to be well on top of the fucking insano cult issue with all the details you could ever need to feel sickened and insecure about the potential for this lot to get closer to the big red nuke button.

But it is important to note that that video of crazy, including a graphic of HOLY (suspiciously nuclear) FIRE ENGULFING THE ENTIRE EARTH LIKE THAT WAS A GOOD THING is compiled from promotional materials that the subjects of the mini documentary actually believe makes them look good. I mean fuck? What do they keep behind closed doors?

Also, the video has already been censored from google, wonder who whined enough to get it removed? Hmmmm?

Oh and the crazy lady talking about how Iraq is a holy war. That's Palin.

Posted: **Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:51 am**

Let's talk about Palin.

They trot her out as a reformer. The McCain group's word, not mine.

The above video, and numerous others including her acceptance speech and the introduction have used two major explosively splashy supposedly pork-barrel waste expenditures that she got rid of.

Number 1 would be The Executive Jet that is (or was) the right of the Alaskan Governor to use.

Number 2 would be the chef.

Let us go to Number 1.

Alaska is a state of 655k+ miles in square miles and it ranks as the 47th state in population. This tells us that it is a not a relatively but an absolutely large area that is sparsely populated with people. I think it barely has more than half a million people in it. But if you need to go places, a jet is somewhat necessary. I use this knowing that this is somewhat facetious and can be construed as hyperbole but I'll roll with it.

The prior administration of Frank Murkowski purchased the Jet at $2.7 million in 2005 on some state expense account. When Palin ran against him, she made the campaign promise that she would sell the jet off as it was Pork-barrel spending, in essence it was implied that if anything the lost money needs to be remade on this wasteful expenditure of a jet. Let me just interject a fairly random fact in at this point, a businessman named Larry Reynolds from some place (these places, I don't keep track of their names, sue me, I'm not at work, I don't have my notes) in Alaska contributes to the budding gubernatorial ambitions of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin unseats the incumbent Murkowski and immediately sets to selling the plane. That is somewhat admirable, I suppose.

Except she went and put the plane on ebay. She boasts about this every single time. When they talk about her achievements and accomplishments, they mention that she sold a plane on ebay. Wait a minute, I said she put the plane on ebay, did i mention anywhere in there that she had sold the plane on ebay? No, because she didn't.

There were maybe two bids on the plane (maybe one, maybe three, can't remember exactly) and all of them were joke bids. Seriously, there are better ways to sell your Executive Jet than putting it on the local auction block. So, she didn't sell it on ebay. Man, what a bummer. I was totally sure that she would. It's like one of those Tom Clancy novels, where Jack Ryan or whoever is about to do something monumental, and I expected that seeing she was supposed to be a reformer and a maverick, and all. But she didn't, oh well. She did sell the plane though. I'll give her that.

The plane was sold eight months later, I'm not sure if she used it in those eight months or not, but it was finally sold to -- wait for it, wait for it, Larry Reynolds. Oh, man, that guy came back into the picture. It was totally not a random factoid I threw at ya. Did I fool ya? No, aww, sorry. It's okay, I'll live. So she sold her plane to someone who contributed to her campaign. Did I mention that this is unethical? Did I mention that one of the ways she was supposed to be a reformer was by passing ethics bills in Alaska? Did I mention that she sold the plane to Mr. Reynolds for $2.1 million rather than the $2.7 million that it's worth. I'm not a big economics guy but I doubt the plane's value depreciated that much in a matter of a year or two.

So, yes, she did sell that Executive Jet. Did she do it for a profit? No. Did she do it quickly? No. Did she do it ethically? No. It would have been ethical, if she'd at least tell people that the person she sold it to contributed to her campaign. But she doesn't.
~~

That's Number 1 -- the executive Plane.

Shall we go to Number 2? The Executive chef. Ok, he's just the Chef who works in the governor's mansion. But Execuitve Chef sounds so much cooler. So he's the Executive Chef from now on, capiche?

A little bit of background.

Juneau is the state capital of Alaska and Wasilla is the home town of Sarah Palin. As governor, she is allowed to choose what her "official station" is. That is, where she works from. The main place of business as is. David Patterson, the New York Governor, chose Harlem as his official station as that is where he is from.

But, Sarah Palin chose Juneau as her "official station" rather than Wasilla. Ok, fair's fair. She is the governor, she expects to be in the center of where most of the business is, and not some rinky-dinky town of 9k or something. Wait, she spent 310-ish days out of the year in Wasilla and used that as her reasoning for firing the Executive Chef. She isn't there at the Governor's mansion. Why should there be an Executive Chef? Ok, sounds reasonable, I suppose. Poor guy/girl lost his job but this is money. I can live with it. I've made similar decisions (somewhat) before.

So we're in the clear now, right? Maybe. Except there's a few small things to clear up. Instead of the Executive Chef, she charges the state something along $16k for herself in allowance expenditure while living in Wasilla and something around $30k or $40k in expenditure for the rest of her family while they were with her in Wasilla. Man, she really didn't actually just free up some money, did she? She just changed the way it worked. From going into one person's pocket who could use it to pay their bills to her pockets to feed herself or at least she claims. I mean that's what the $100k salary is for, correct?

So she fired the Executive Chef? Yes. Did she charge the state money for an allowance to feed herself and her family while staying at her own home in her home town and used this as the reasoning to fire the executive chef? Yes.
Did the state pay her money aside from this for a salary? Yes. Are salaries used to often feed oneselves and your loved ones? Yes.

~~

That's number 2.

Now, dont' even get me started on the "per diem" expenditure spending that she charged the state while staying at Wasilla in her own home. Utterly ridiculous. The David Patterson example above is a prime one of it. The state comptroller of NY was asked a question on CSPAN2 recently about the above question and asked what would happen if "Patterson set his "official station" as Albany (NY state capital) and lived 312 days in Harlem?" Do you know what the comptroller (the guy who pays these people answered? he said it would be atrocious and he would rectify it by resetting Patterson's "official status" from Albany to Harlem.

The Gaming Den

I hate drawin the Nixon reference but...

I hate drawin the Nixon reference but...

Re: I hate drawin the Nixon reference but...