And McCains VP is Palin

[birdlike 0]

Quote

I got it all after your first few posts. You hate a lot of things and a great number of people.

...aaaand you're still not interested at all in reading something that's not hate-filled, but instead explains why it's plausible for the religious right to possibly want to attack the 1st Amendment? I thought I did an OK job of it, actually...

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

This just got funnier. Rhodes Scholar a substitute for experience? Yeah right.

If memory serves, EJC's lack of foreign policy experience wasn't a major focus of attack from the GOP when he was elected in '92.

Palin was picked to SHORE up the conservative base because JSM isn't very popular with it as compared to previous RNC candidates.

Love how you reply and not quote, that way others don't see what you're supposed to be responding to.

You claim Clinton had no foreign experience, I statd that he was a Rhodes Scholar. BTW, Clinton was agreat ambassador, unlike your boy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Palin was picked to SHORE up the conservative base because JSM isn't very popular with it as compared to previous RNC candidates.


Let's see, if I'm McSame, I know I have the neo-cons locked up, even if they don't like him he is the lock-stepped choice, so I want the moderates and swings, so I get someone way more moderate. But no, mental lapse, he gets someone waaaaay more neo-conish that he is.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Love how you reply and not quote, that way others don't see what you're supposed to be responding to.

I wouldn't talk if I were you. The way you do it, you first reproduce the entire post, and then re-reproduce the lines you're addressing as a totally separate thing. Talk about wasting bandwidth!

Now, here's a free hint: Generally he's at least hitting "reply," at least, if not "quote," so you can always whack that little clicky that says "[in reply to]" and it'll take you to what he's replying to. It's a little out of the way, but it works.

Like Magic!

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Royd 0]

The lack of experience thing is killing me too. I think Illinois is a far more diverse and complicated state to represent than Arizona and Alaska combined. Compare

Quote

the population and politics in all these states and I think Obama comes out on top in experience and representing a more diverse population, right?

While he was in the state senate, he only represented his district, which he pandered to, by attending a church with a radical preacher. As a US Senator, how much representing can you do in a 100some days? He be repasentin'

[birdlike 0]

Quote

The lack of experience thing is killing me too. I think Illinois is a far more diverse and complicated state to represent than Arizona and Alaska combined.

Every time someone makes a claim like this, and wants to tout someone's "experience," I want to shake them and say, "Well, HOW FUCKING WELL ARE THINGS BEING RUN WHERE THEY ARE FROM?!"

I mean really, who here comes from a town or city or county or state our country that they feel is just hunky-dory, everything just chipper, everyone has all they need, there are no problems, and the government is doing a fine job?!

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Royd 0]

Quote

It's as if the Republicans have said "Look, we found ourselves a woman... and the right kind, not like that Hillary bitch. This one can shoot a gun fix her hair and pop out lots and lots of babies!"

As opposed to bitching about never getting a fair shake in life, because you are a woman...I'd take Palin over Clinton, any day, and any situation. I'll bet she could even get my ass back to the cabin, in a blizzard.

[Royd 0]

Quote

It's circular, but who started the whole, "lack of experience" idiocy. Just like when Gore ran against your cokehead in 2000, it was all about the military experience. That changed when the same cokehead ran against Kerry in 04, a guy who had been to war in VN, the war chickenshit cockehead ran away from, then the military experience was downplayed.

You really seem to be hung up on the 'cokehead' thing... Does that opinion apply across the board? Or is it just a partisan thing?

[Royd 0]

Quote

one feels that someone is "full of shit" (as in, saying things that are unbelievable and preposterous) is a PA?

Well, if it is, I'll restate, and avoid saying it like that in the first place. I really don't see how that's a PA, though. It's not attacking the person, it's attacking the thing that was said.

I'm not looking to get banned, so if you feel attacked, I'm sorry. I just was going for what you said. Clearly, all I expressed was the emphatic equivalent of, "You guys TALK about wanting 'change,' but when it comes down to it, when change is offered, you don't actually want it, do you."

He's just had an opportunity to throw down the sensitive, PC card that the left seems so deft at.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

You really seem to be hung up on the 'cokehead' thing... Does that opinion apply across the board? Or is it just a partisan thing?

It's gotta be partisan. Since Obama was an admitted "cokehead," it's difficult to tell who exactly Lucky hates. Same with "neo-con." Just another buzzword from CNN. I support McCain-Palin. Therefore, according to Lucky, I'm a neo-con.

So cokehead isn't really a cokehead, it's just a name for somebody he doesn't like.

And neo-con isn't really a neo-con, it's just someone that doesn't agree with Lucky.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[TheAnvil 0]

I should think quoting unnecessary, but here's a couple for you:

TheAnvil: Morons decrying Palin's lack of foreign policy experience who voted for another governor from Arkansas with no foreign policy experience a few years ago.

Lucky...: The other morons crying about Clinton didn't realize he was a Rhodes Scholar, which obviously susbstituted for foreign experience.

Again, that's not the funniest thing you've ever stated - nor even close to being the second funniest thing ever stated in SC - but it's a close SECOND to the funniest thing you've ever said in here.

You clearly don't know much about the RNC base. The Palin pick has done an amazing amount to shore up their support.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[1969912 0]

Quote

I support McCain-Palin. Therefore, according to Lucky, I'm a neo-con.

And a Nazi.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Para_Frog 1]

Just to get this ridiculous thread back on track for a second. Something for the 98% of SC that are liberal...

I wasn't planning on voting at all unless Ron Paul was on the ballot. I dislike Washington down to my core.

I want change, so I was almost willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt by just not voting for McCain, but his choice of Biden was horribly disappointing. Biden defines the status quo of old Washington. As much as I feel McCain does. That pick showed me that Obama had a crisis in personal initiative to do his own thing.

I have studied Sarah Palin's methods in governance in-depth. She is as far from the beltway as you can get. And she's brutal in her drive to reform the angry white guy establishment. I WANT a regular American running the country; that was the original intent of our Democracy. She is the shit...plain and simple.

I am voting. I am voting on the hope that she becomes the President in the near future. She is what we need.

Something for all you Dems to think about. I am only one average American...but I am duplicated throughout the US several million-fold.

You have immdiately defaulted to the primary fatal flaw in any conflict...you have underestimated your adversary (Palin), her power, and her effect on this election.

It would be much more advantageous to your party to improve your plan for change...or actually come up with one. Attacking the most in-touch with regular Americans person in this election will only do your cause harm.

Obama is wise to have avoided that so far, but most of your party won't heed his approach. You'll continue to show the majority of Americans you condecend to your true colors and get your ass handed to you in the best chance you've ever had to win a presidential election.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[quade 3]

Are you familiar with the term innumeracy?

A number of your statements don't add up.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,400]

>It would be much more advantageous to your party . . .

This is a relatively new kind of troll called the "concern troll." Generally it goes like this:

"I was going to vote for X, but now I'm going to vote for Y because of this stupid thing you did. If only you'd do Z, I would vote for X! It would make your party much stronger."

Then, when they do Z, the reply is:

"You know, I was going to vote for X, but I'm going to vote for Y because you did Z, which was a foolish move. If only you did A, I would vote for X! It would make your party much stronger."

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I have studied Sarah Palin's methods in governance in-depth. She is as far from the beltway as you can get. And she's brutal in her drive to reform the angry white guy establishment.

What are her plans for reforming the "angry white guy establishment"?

[Para_Frog 1]

Quade...no, I'm a dumb soldier of the military-industrial complex. That word is too big.

Bill...pull ALL my posts and show me where I ever said I would vote for Obama. Regardless of what he did.

Read slower...I think you inferred something. Honest mistake, but kudos to you green guys for piling on quickly to prove my point.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Love how you reply and not quote, that way others don't see what you're supposed to be responding to.

I wouldn't talk if I were you. The way you do it, you first reproduce the entire post, and then re-reproduce the lines you're addressing as a totally separate thing. Talk about wasting bandwidth!

Now, here's a free hint: Generally he's at least hitting "reply," at least, if not "quote," so you can always whack that little clicky that says "[in reply to]" and it'll take you to what he's replying to. It's a little out of the way, but it works.

Like Magic!

I may waste bandwidth, but there is no ambiguity as to what I'm replying to, as I want people to know, unlike.....

[Para_Frog 1]

Namely the graduated corprate tax and the donor regulations she's emplaced. As well as the more trasparent ethics reviews regarding lobbyists. She's pissed off a LOT of Republicans. But maintained an 80% approval rating...because the GOP lost touch with the constituents. And the people love her.

Do some Google-age. You might be surprised. Or do the vogue thing and just start slinging shit. She's just some dumb cheerleader anyway right?

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[billvon 2,400]

>pull ALL my posts and show me where I ever said I would vote for Obama.

"so I was almost willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt"

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Do some Google-age. You might be surprised.

I've been doing some Yahoo-age, because I do want to learn more about her. Which is also why I asked you the question since you said that you've studied her governance in-depth.

Quote

Or do the vogue thing and just start slinging shit. She's just some dumb cheerleader anyway right?

I don't know why you're responding so negatively when I just asked you a simple question. I haven't slung any shit about her or called her a dumb cheerleader.

[Para_Frog 1]

You're as bad as CNN at omission Bill.

The rest of that statement says "by not voting for McCain"

You inferred that meant I would vote for Obama, but as you will see from the beginning of my post, that meant I would NOT vote.

Nice attempt. But I would expect better quality control in your retorts. Not resorting to assumption.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[billvon 2,400]

>You inferred that meant I would vote for Obama, but as you will see from
>the beginning of my post, that meant I would NOT vote.

Ah, my mistake then.

[Para_Frog 1]

No worries

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[quade 3]

Quote

Quade...no, I'm a dumb soldier of the military-industrial complex. That word is too big.

When you start slinging phrases like; "Something for the 98% of SC that are liberal..." and "I am only one average American...but I am duplicated throughout the US several million-fold." you should expect to be called on it.

Your numbers do not add up.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The lack of experience thing is killing me too. I think Illinois is a far more diverse and complicated state to represent than Arizona and Alaska combined.

Every time someone makes a claim like this, and wants to tout someone's "experience," I want to shake them and say, "Well, HOW FUCKING WELL ARE THINGS BEING RUN WHERE THEY ARE FROM?!"

I mean really, who here comes from a town or city or county or state our country that they feel is just hunky-dory, everything just chipper, everyone has all they need, there are no problems, and the government is doing a fine job?!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Every time someone makes a claim like this, and wants to tout someone's "experience," I want to shake them and say, "Well, HOW FUCKING WELL ARE THINGS BEING RUN WHERE THEY ARE FROM?!"

That's because you don't convince anyone with your spelling rants, followed by denial of the same, then people, virtually everyone disagreeing.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.I mean really, who here comes from a town or city or county or state our country that they feel is just hunky-dory, everything just chipper, everyone has all they need, there are no problems, and the government is doing a fine job?!


How many here live in a country that matches the world in basic military expeditures, yet deprives its people of basic medical care?