I agree. I tune out the unthinking left around here also. I have no
use for conventional wisdom no matter whose it is.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Exactly. I have three family members who work for mainstream media -
> two on the left, one on the right. W
> They've been saying for months the anger and partisanship that Bush
> caused will end with Obama because he's a uniter.
So your issue with these people booing and giving the finger has to do with
the fact that Obama is called a uniter?
Even Jon Steward calls it the fake news.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mo wrote:
>> Exactly. I have three family members who work for mainstream media -
>> two on the left, one on the right. We've banned political discussions
>> at family events becau
> Mo wrote:
> Exactly. I have three family members who work for mainstream media -
> two on the left, one on the right. We've banned political discussions
> at family events because it sucks from both sides of table.
>
All the political news you need is on the daily show. It's the best
research
Exactly. I have three family members who work for mainstream media -
two on the left, one on the right. We've banned political discussions
at family events because it sucks from both sides of table.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I used to sit nex
I'll point it out next time.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find the commentary and spin on DailyKos as repulsive as I find
> Limbaugh and Hannity. Show me one message where I've quoted anything
> from DK, or any other blog that has been opinion or spin,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really man, people in New York are rude as shit, what do you expect?
Only a few.
> Also what did that have to do with Obama?
They seem to be his supporters.
They've been saying for months the anger and partisanship that Bush
ca
I used to sit next to a guy at work that would listen to dr. laura and
then limbaugh every day. Couldn't stand that crap. Then air america
started and I thought, "Great, finally a radio station for me". After
listening to it for one day, I never turned it on again. No matter
what side i
I find the commentary and spin on DailyKos as repulsive as I find
Limbaugh and Hannity. Show me one message where I've quoted anything
from DK, or any other blog that has been opinion or spin, and not
fact. Most of my quotes come from the Constitution or the
Congressional Record. You have proble
Really man, people in New York are rude as shit, what do you expect?
Also what did that have to do with Obama?
Sam wrote:
> So you're mainly blaming the right?
>
> On another note, how about this Obama the Uniter video?
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at
Just saying you sound like the dailykos when you talk about them,
could be a coincidence :)
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am opposed to Bush and Palin based on their actions and their
> positions. Facts. Not propaganda.
>
~~
Beeblebrox said it was both sides
Mo said the repub started it.
I was pointing out how peaceful the McCain marchers were while being
flipped off.
Point is don't blame one side because both sides play the game.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am saying that
I am opposed to Bush and Palin based on their actions and their
positions. Facts. Not propaganda.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You are very polarized against Bush and Palin, I get the impression
> you made a purchase :)
I am saying that you don't seem to have a point. Your post is
analogous to me saying that Sam is a bad person because Pee Wee Herman
got arrested.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you making the point that they are not Obama fans or that if Obama
> was there in
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't blame anyone. I simply posted the history of spin. It's as
> wrong when the left does it as it when the right does it.
You mentioned Limbaugh, talk radio, Rove and McCain.
Then you add "Both sides may have overplayed
I didn't blame anyone. I simply posted the history of spin. It's as
wrong when the left does it as it when the right does it.
Partisan politics and the rhetoric surrounding them are destroying this country.
People who but into the spin and parrot it are allowing themselves to
be tools of the pr
Are you making the point that they are not Obama fans or that if Obama
was there in person they'd all be in a giant group hug?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> um but obama is not IN this video.lol.
>
~~
14, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Beth Fleischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Dana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "cf-community"
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: Palin is SUCH A LIAR!
&g
ROTECTED]>
> To: "cf-community"
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Palin is SUCH A LIAR!
>
>
>> geeez. I lost IQ points watching that.
>>
>> a) I smell editing
>> b) what are all the booths? In other words we don't have a
- Original Message -
From: "Dana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "cf-community"
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Palin is SUCH A LIAR!
> geeez. I lost IQ points watching that.
>
> a) I smell editing
> b) what are all the booths?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> geeez. I lost IQ points watching that.
You can't afford that, don't watch hit again.
> a) I smell editing
You think it was McCain fans booing McCain fans?
> b) what are all the booths? In other words we don't have a context
> he
I hope you are right but if he is this malleable when he is running
> Well stated, and I agree with you. I have the same beefs with McCain that
> you do, and that's what has me leaning towards Obama. It's also why I think,
> should McCain win, he wouldn't be a disastrous president.
~
geeez. I lost IQ points watching that.
a) I smell editing
b) what are all the booths? In other words we don't have a context
here. If this was billed as an anti-war event, ehat did they expect?
c) last and most important, even if this video were completely
unbiased and factual, OBAMA IS NOT IN IT
So you're mainly blaming the right?
On another note, how about this Obama the Uniter video?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The worst of the spew started with the 1992 election, when the talk
> radio minions began a
The worst of the spew started with the 1992 election, when the talk
radio minions began actively spreading their disinformation and spin.
Limbaugh was particularly influential in 1994 congressional race, so
much so that the Republicans made him an honorary member of congress
when they won.
When
> Cam wrote:
> the headlines and try not to laugh. I dare you.
>
Read this and try to laugh, I dare you:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
[Lt Col] Dramesi, who went on to serve as chief war planner for U.S.
Air Forces in Europe and commander
I miss Hunter Thompson most come Election season...
Judah
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Cam wrote:
>>> the headlines and try not to laugh. I dare you.
>>
>> Read this and
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Cam wrote:
>> the headlines and try not to laugh. I dare you.
>
> Read this and try to laugh, I dare you:
>
> http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
Yes, that's a good articl
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rolling Stone makes the case, with McCain's contemporaries, that's
> he's a whiny baby who's worse then Bush, but better spoken and better
> at building a facade.
Really? Rolling Stone? You have to be kidding... Their pol
--> As I noted earlier, after reading the report (who else has read it?),
all I
> can see that she was called out for is allowing her husband to use a
> conference table in her office. That's it.
I'm wondering if you read the same report I did?
~
> gMoney wrote:
> should McCain win, he wouldn't be a disastrous president.
>
If that's true.
Rolling Stone makes the case, with McCain's contemporaries, that's
he's a whiny baby who's worse then Bush, but better spoken and better
at building a facade.
They go on to offer a similar psychology fo
--
Beth in Alaska
Mom to Monk, Owner of Pirate and Toklat
Philosophical Moms - http://www.philosophicalmoms.com
- Original Message -
From: "Judah McAuley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "cf-community"
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: Palin is SUCH
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Perhaps deep down inside McCain hasn't changed and he is doing this
> out of expediency. Maybe he thinks that the ends justify the means and
> that all he needs to do is win and he'll be able to make up for the
> campaign
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:34 AM, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I disagree. Yes, he's not quite as young and combative as he was the first
> two times he ran for prez, but McCain has NEVER been viewed as "the
> establishment", until he suddenly got the republican nomination. Now,
> suddenly
n Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what makes you think it's going to stop whenever it's over?
Yeah - there will be a lingering venom for a few months after the
election, but then it will simmer down to your standard rhetoric. The
thing that strikes me
> gMoney wrote:
>> But what's happened under Pres Bush is the possible downgrade of the
>> US as a superpower.
>>
> We weren't talking about thatwe were talking about the increased level
> of lunacy surrounding politics since W came on the scene.
>
I'm offering why I think that is.
Politics h
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what's happened under Pres Bush is the possible downgrade of the
> US as a superpower.
>
We weren't talking about thatwe were talking about the increased level
of lunacy surrounding politics since W came on the scene
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:11 AM, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> W, for whatever reason, seems to crystallize that raving political lunatic
> that resides in the deep recesses of our minds.
I would remove the word "political" from that statement.
-Cameron
~~
> gMoney wrote:
> that really jumped to a new level around 2000..yep, I'm talking about
> Mr. George W. Bush.
>
But what's happened under Pres Bush is the possible downgrade of the
US as a superpower.
Under Pres Bush's leadership we've seen:
* The decline of the US military.
Sure, we can sti
Maybe. There seems to be a focal point for all this rancor though, rancor
that really jumped to a new level around 2000..yep, I'm talking about
Mr. George W. Bush.
His pappy lost favor with everyone when the economy tanked in the early
90's, and while Clinton could surely ruffle the feathers o
> Gel wrote:
> A criminal act may not have been committed.
> But, it seems that Palin's supporters don't care about Ethics in the
> people that lead their country.
>
That's exactly it. As Judah pointed out, you can break the law and be
sanctioned without any criminal charges such as a traffic vio
what makes you think it's going to stop whenever it's over? Seems to
me that we've been bashing each other since 2000. You've had your
sides that have thought bush could do no wrong and the other side that
thought he could do no right. I imagine whomever gets in this time
will spark the
yup
done with it all.
I read some of what I wrote over the last few days and snapped out of it.
I'm in the "it doesn't matter" club now.
I will work, or I wont.
I'll make my bills or I wont.
I fell like when you do a super long fast forced march, with gear on.
You walk, often job, the first
I CAN'T WAIT for this election to be over. It turns normal folks into
toxic venomous propaganda machines. There are people I can't even
talk to right now around me. I don't even want to talk politics with
them. They just can't *NOT* spew hate filled venom they were spoon
fed by their political
Ok,
I'm no longer voting for them (jesus I'm schitso)
That being said. I don't want a douche bag like wooten working in law
enforcement, if she had first hand knowledge of his messing around I
think she was totally right to tell homie to fire him, and to fire the
other dude when he didn't fol
Her supporters don't care about the truth.
So she tells them exactly what she wants them to think.
And they believe it.
A bi-partisan panel found that she violated Ethics and abused her power.
A criminal act may not have been committed.
But, it seems that Palin's supporters don't care about Eth
Why aren't they charging her?
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> cHat wrote:
>> Bothers me as much as the lies that Biden and Obama and McCain have
>> told in this race for the oval office.
>>
>
> This is on a different level. Those are subjective characterizations
> or, at worse, lies of omission.
>
> In
by that I mean threat of retaliation from any superior in the state
government.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
threats of relatiation by the Governor
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8
Let's get a little more specific about why I think this issue is not nearly
as cut and dry as the report contends. Factors:
1. Mike Wooten's history and character
2. The timing of the original complaint
3. The legitimate interest of any citizen in questioning the state allowing
a person's of Mike
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Judah wrote:
>
>>
>> Did it not occur to McCain that he might have a problem having a VP
>> embroiled in an ethics investigation right before the election?
>>
>
> McCain looked at the issue
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Judah wrote:
>
> Did it not occur to McCain that he might have a problem having a VP
> embroiled in an ethics investigation right before the election?
>
McCain looked at the issue and was satisfied.
~~
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, they specifically decided to kill it when Hollis French uttered his
> "October Surprise" statement. Get your facts straight.
The report was scheduled for release, from the start, for right before
election time. Of cou
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Judah wrote:
>
> The Republicans tried to kill the investigation because it became
> inconvenient for the national party. John McCain tainted it with
> presidential politics. Did he somehow think that selecting a VP
> candidate with an active ethics investigation
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now you are dissembling. Those Republican lawmakers you cite tried to have
> the investigation killed or at least postponed until after the election
> because it had become tainted by Presidential politics when that moron
>
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
> Right, so isn't that what the State personnel board is investigating
> right now? Isn't it only them and the legislature that have the power
> to take action?
Oh the irony. Palin is the one who asked the state personnel board to look
into the m
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Judah wrote:
>
> Robert can rail all he wants about brain-dead Obama supporters, but
> the investigation was put together by a Republican State Congress and
> oversaw by an independent investigator. Believe it, don't believe it,
> that's each individual's choice.
> RoMunn wrote:
> The "evidence" consists of an email
> As I also noted previously, she says that she told Todd
> As I also noted previously, she says Wooten and another person
> As I also noted previously, the Palins' frustration of the matter
> their legitimate concerns about a state trooper.
> A
And the Attorney General I believe.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Judah wrote:
>> As for the statute the investigator believes she violated, punishment
>> can work in a variety of ways including impeachment proceedings, civil
>> fines up to $5,000 per v
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So if you want to talk about being fair and having a full exploration of the
> facts in the case, well, this report is just a piece of shit.
>
I agree!
Wait. We are talking about Ken Starr, right?
Judah
No, wait, that
> Judah wrote:
> As for the statute the investigator believes she violated, punishment
> can work in a variety of ways including impeachment proceedings, civil
> fines up to $5,000 per violation and censure.
>
Right, so isn't that what the State personnel board is investigating
right now? Isn't i
I read it. The "evidence" consists of an email she sent asking about Wooten,
and a single conversation she had with Monegan, where he said "leave it to
Todd", and she said, "OK".
As I also noted previously, she says that she told Todd to drop it. That's
not in this report.
As I also noted previou
There is a difference between criminal misconduct and breaking a law.
You can break a law without it being criminal (see parking tickets as
an example). I did not suggest that she was found to have violated a
criminal statute.
As for the statute the investigator believes she violated, punishment
c
The paragraph you quoted says this:
[and there is evidence of her active participation].
Did you not read that part? Did the [] make it invisible?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And you believe whatever brain-dead Obama supporters tell you to believe.
And you believe whatever brain-dead Obama supporters tell you to believe.
Pages 65-66 of the report detail the actual finding:
--
The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least,
engaged in "official action" by her inaction if not her active participation
or assistance t
> Judah wrote:
> Violating a Statute is breaking the law. That is the opposite of
> clearing of legal wrong doing.
Because I believe state law limits the legal action that can be taken
against a sitting Gov.
Very similar to the president and criminal activity.
~~~
> cHat wrote:
> the "abuse of power" came from her trying to get her former
> brother-in-law fired. In addition, no legal charges can stem from the
> findings of the probe so she has been cleared of any legal
> wrong-doing.
>
So she violated state law, then, and is thus objectively lying when
she
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:44 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read the actual findings somewhat differently. She *was* justified
> at her firing of Monegan (the head of the AK state police) but that
> the "abuse of power" came from her trying to get her former
> brother-in-law
>> Bothers me as much as the lies that Biden and Obama and McCain have
>> told in this race for the oval office.
>
> This is on a different level. Those are subjective characterizations
> or, at worse, lies of omission.
Lies of omission? There are some whoppers that have come out of
everyone's m
> RoMunn wrote:
> And here I thought we agreed no more mud-slinging.
>
Liar Palin has found her audience! The willingly lied to.
So I'm going to warn you about what's below.
When you read it, don't believe your lying eyes. Also it's raining
out and THAT'S the reason your leg is damp. Apparent
You are welcome to disagree Robert. I read a fair bit of the report
and substantially disagree with you. The report was not politically
motivated, the investigation had bipartisan support, the investigator
was independent and the behavior documented in it was unethical and
shameful. The report lays
And here I thought we agreed no more mud-slinging.
As I noted earlier, after reading the report (who else has read it?), all I
can see that she was called out for is allowing her husband to use a
conference table in her office. That's it.
As I also noted, the conclusions of this highly politicize
It's actually closer to the wonderful Bush spokesperson tactic of
denying the objectively true.
Ari Fleischer was the master of it. Unflappable, gave the press corp fits.
"So Ari, you said blah blah blah"
"No I didn't"
"Um..yes, you did. On this day and time"
"No I didn't"
"We have video footage
> cHat wrote:
> Bothers me as much as the lies that Biden and Obama and McCain have
> told in this race for the oval office.
>
This is on a different level. Those are subjective characterizations
or, at worse, lies of omission.
In this case an investigative body found her in direct violation of
It actually bothers me more.
I always assumed that it was somewhat the length of time in Washington that
taught them to lie so baldly.
She seems to have the skill, and the absolute lack of morals, I normally
associate with a long-time politician.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:06 AM, C. Hatton Hump
> Does it not bother anyone else that a VP candidate looks into the
> camera and shamelessly lies?
>
> It's like bizarro world.
Bothers me as much as the lies that Biden and Obama and McCain have
told in this race for the oval office.
Hatton
~~
The lady is pathological.
She looks right into the camera and says she was "cleared of
wrongdoing and unethical behavior".
It's the exact opposite in fact: she was found in direct violation of
the state ethics act.
Her lie is based on the line that says that a hypothetical gov - not
her - could
76 matches
Mail list logo
