HelloDollyLlama says:
"Note carefully who did NOT speak at the McCain rally last night: Palin. She didn’t want to be associated in the public eye with McCain’s disaster, even though she helped cause it. Even in October she was already running for 2012, publicly distancing herself from McCain’s stench of failure by squabbling with McCain’s campaign on everything from foreign policy to campaign strategy. "
That or the fact vp candidates don't speak at concession speeches.
Michelle's Afternoon at the Waldorf
I don't care if Obama is an elitist. The only "elites" I don't care for are the financial ones because they pay their way to the top. In the case of Barack Obama, he worked his way to the to become an intellectual and took out student loans and many other programs to attain that education that I myself seek. When did higher ecucation become something bad? It's not. And by the way, Michelle is not using campaign contributions to purchase that stuff. And if she is, show me the proof.
Who's the most powerful political media personality?
Politically wise? Rush Limbaugh. Heck, maybe even Oprah in this election.
It's worth something because the government says it's worth something. And it's much better, despite whatever the Paultards say, that our money can grow and not be held to the weight of gold which there isn't enough to back the money we have. If we do go back to the gold standard, our money will be devalued worse than it has been in the past three years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency
Lolly says:
"Yeah, I heard this but today in my paper they were offering twice the interest I'm getting on my CD's. Isn't this Congress great? I think we need to have their chambers bugged. I would like to know what goes on there off camera. in their secret meetings. Things were fine before Reid and Pelosi took over."
Quit being partisan for a second and realise that the house Republicans are the ones that stalled this deal.
Are Obama and McCain Above the Law? They Think They Are!
Texas Supreme Court rejects Barr request
09/23/2008
Associated Press
The Texas Supreme Court rejected a request Tuesday by Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr to keep Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama off the Texas ballot.
The court denied the request without explanation.
Barr filed a lawsuit last week claiming the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot. He says they weren't formally nominated by their parties before the filing deadline.
The Texas Secretary of State's Office has said repeatedly that the Texas ballot â€' including the names of McCain and Obama â€' was certified properly.
Pat Dixon, chair of the Libertarian Party of Texas, said the decision raises the question of whether parties are bound by the Texas Election Code and whether there is a "grace period" for meeting deadlines.
"We are naturally disappointed that the Supreme Court has refused to enforce the law against Republicans and Democrats in this case, when courts have repeatedly enforced the law against Libertarians, other minor parties, and independents in past cases," Dixon said.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D93CLMO82.html
As much as I would like McCain not to be president. I don't like this disinfranchisement. But regardless, no law was broken, despite what the Libertarian Party says.
Both filed in time.
http://startelegram.typepad.com/politex/2008/08/on-the-texas-ba.html
Paul Offered VP Slot on Libertarian Ticket
I hate Ron Paul's policies. The Guilded Age happened for a reason Ron.
Death of the Reagan Revolution
jackriter says:
"And what of Clinton signing NAFTA?"
Most Democrats were free trade then. Not so much now.
Death of the Reagan Revolution
Reagan, along with Bush and Nixon took it upon themselves to turn back the progress or at least halt it in the 20th century.
Did Sarah plain Fake a pregnancy?
Why should she if this rumor is only in the realms of cyberspace? Why give it a national spotlight? Thats kinda like saying a police officer has probably cause to search the trunk of car when the owner objected to the search. If it's the case and it's apparent, there is no need to test such claims. And I don't advocate such a thing because it will make her look stronger and right now her real lies need the spotlight. Those real lies are ones like the bridge to nowhere killing.
Al Jazeera: US Election Diary: Stupid Season
Ultimately, candidates will talk about issues when people give as shit. Sadly the public has to fight over this crap.
Did Sarah plain Fake a pregnancy?
Again regarding the "baby bum" photo, that picture was taken in 2006. So using it as the proof that it shows Bristol pregnant with Trig is kind of out of the question.
On the 2005 label on the Sarah Palin Flickr photos, I have mentioned that the EXIF data on the camera was wrong because the camera was purchased in 2005 but it was never used. Plus, if that photo was from 2005, it would of kinda been wrong since she was never pregnant during that time.
Did Sarah plain Fake a pregnancy?
One of the cited pictures was this:
This picture was under suspicion because it looked like Bristol had the "baby bump" and Palin looked thin. Well this picture is from 2006. http://www.adn.com/photos/v-gallery/story/509850.html?/1521/gallery/509852-a509987-t3.html
Further more, since Bristol is pregnant at the moment, it would really rule out that she is the mother since the pregnancy is "supposedly just occured" after Trig was born.
And third, there are pictures of Sarah Palin pregnant during the "supposed non-showings". See below: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30076181@N02/2814199887/sizes/l/in/photostream/
And if you guys bring up the EXIF data that says it was taken in 2005, she was not pregnant in 2005. The camera was purchased in 05 and the date was still in the camera settings.
Why am I defending Palin? I don't like her politics. I think she has no national experience whatsoever. Her ideas regarding the role of government bother me. But I have defended Barack Obama from those stupid rumors that are as similar as this one in terms of evidence. And it would be bad if I defended Obama from those rumors and not Palin from these. Lets stick with policy issues. Not junk about the candidates families.
Obama Bows Out of SNL Appearance
It be somewhat stupid since John McCain hosted an actual episode once.
Did Sarah plain Fake a pregnancy?
No she did not fake her pregnancy. It's her kid. There are picture of her pregnant as well during the time "questioned".
You can question something. But don't run with it and claim it as a fact.
Hondamx21 says:
"I have watched speeches from both candidates. I am an independent. I have watched several of Obama's and McCain's speeches. I clearly understood McCain's stances and plans. I watched Senator Obama switch stances several times on the few issues he clearly brought forward. I do not really know what Obama is trying to "Change". He never says what he will do, just that he's going to "Change" Washington. If there is one thing that I do know, "The one problem with change is you never know not only what is going to change, but what it is going to change to." I don't know what Obama's plans are, and I will never vote for someone who does not tell me what they are planning to do with my country. What does Obama truly stand for. I know he wants to raise taxes and introduce a public health care system. Why would I want to spend even MORE money on my taxes? He wants to increase the fuel tax: So gas will raise even higher? Public health care systems will be exactly like waiting in line the DMV: Long lines and poor service. What are the advantages here, what am I missing? What is your take on this? I am very interested in any responses. I am an independent: Remember, I'm the swing vote! Tell me why I should vote Obama. Prove to me that what I have said is false. Thank you :) "
He plans to change healthcare coverage and wants to make every child in this country covered in some type of healthcare. He wants to change our status in Iraq by removing us out of there. Despite you saying that you don't know what he wants to change you brought up healthcare anyways. Obama's plan is to give people a health plan. Current plans will not change if you already have one.
a) Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems b) Contrary to what you believe, there will be no lines or poorer service. The quality of healthcare will not change. The quality of health insurance will change. Unless you make over $250,000 or are married and make $200,000, your taxes will be reduced. The amount of spending will go down majorly if we pull out of Iraq in 13 months. His energy policy is considerably different from the current.
a) Tighter regulations on oil speculators. b) Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program c) Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices d) Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles
Provide tax incentives to make it easier for new farmers to afford their first farm.
So what do you guys tell yourselves now??
Maybe they meant look at individual swing state polls? Either way, it's nice that you dimiss the reasons for a bounce back. Very nice and convinient for your rant. Tell, me what is the basis for dismissing such a reason?
Libertarian Party=Liberal Republicans
HelloDollyLlama says:
" Anything political concept which you think you can measure on a spectrum, is worthless. Likewise anything you think you can define with one of those four-square graphs -- also worthless. You're just aligning yourself, or your candidate, on a chart designed in accordance with someone else's prejudices. And/or based on someone else's choices for which issues are really important. Politics is an art, not a science. The only thing worth measuring with a number is votes. And poll data, if the polling is done by reliable organizations, and conducted properly, and not cherry-picked, or unduly extrapolated, or otherwise incorrectly interpreted. Also -- most of the terms you're using are meaningless. Libertarian and liberal -- everyone defines them differently. Any argument you make on either subject is going to be, of necessity, circular. And therefore pointless. Republican -- now THAT we can define."
Who says science can't be art? Weird Science everyone? C'mon!
But seriously, the scientific nature of political science is one that employs explenations using the scientific method.
