Posts by sagenz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
God, this is like going around in circles, playing Simon says: Simon says..gets rather badly shot down; Simon says again..gets rather badly shot down and so on. I'm not sure why you bother, but bother you do.
what palin really said about Russia.
Go back through the link to see the bits that were cut to make Palin sound like a buffoon. This has been linked but ignored on this thread previously so chunk post you getGIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
so she was only referring to how it is a small world then expressing an attitude that Obama would be completely comfortable with. Shame those bits were dropped by a media deadly keen to present her in a bad light.
-
Paulsen has handled things pretty well. With the shareholders in Bear Stearns and Lehman completely screwed and those of Merrill Lynch mostly screwed whilst freddiefannie assets/liabilities have been protected so the average homeowner is protected this kind of makes a mockery of the capitalise the profits and socialise the losses meme.
-
check out sullivan having an emo
-
did you see the impact sarah palin is touted as having on Obama donations, from the Times no less
Barack Obama pulled in $66 million last month, smashing his previous fundraising record amid clear signs that Sarah Palin has mobilised many grassroots Democrats against her as much as she has energised the Republican Party.
-
McCully says it best:
But one thing we must give her: If Helen Clark is prepared to mention the word “trust”, after Owen Glenn’s revelations about her and her party president this week, she clearly still has a sense of humour.
-
interviews with celebrities??? to question Palins qualifications to hold office?
Oh give me a fucking break
-
Craig - thats fucked up at the trollfarm.
But yeah it is quite the irony that helen is a farmers daughter. I think it is a liberal guilt thing ;)
Coming from the wrong side of the tracks gives John Key a hunger, as it did early farm generations. Helen faced a life of thankless rural toil or the prospect of joining the educated urban elite. difficult choice.
Cindy McCain seems to be an interesting one. To look at she leaves me cold, but when you read a little more about what she actually does for charitable purposes it goes a long way beyond society hostess. Not saying it warrants votes but there does seem to be a depth there that is not much recognised.
This is a ridiculous myth. As of last month, Obama had a huge lead among the poorest Americans,
What? Do you mean BEFORE Palin entered the race?
The Berlusconi comparison is interesting. I always thought Italians voted for him because he had enough money and they did not think he would need to embezzle more. Frankly his approach is more symapthetic than the socialists who are simply trying to bolster their european credentials, as Clark is with the ETS.
"And I'm going to call bullshit on the whole "metropolitan elitist" poo-argument. "
So you reiterate that Bush & McCain are firmly establishment. Gee whiz.
Nobody has addressed Crooks argument. which seems essentially to be that liberals are incapable of introspection. I have had no evidence to the contrary presented here.Joe Wylie - your wit, your humour, your perspicacity. I truly admire you.
-
And Craig/Simon/Sullivan - McCain is cynical. By giving the voters what they want. Which is someone they can identify with and will vote for. Like Palin.
This is.., you know.., like.., a democracy.., like.
Isn't that what the whole purpose of the exercise is? For somebody who can appeal to voters to run so they can lead the people who vote for them.
Or should elections be limited to those who appeal to the metropolitan liberal elite?
Take a pill Craig, take a pill. :)
-
ah simon that comment posted whole was just to wind you up. I know you missed me. The original crook FT post was the one making the real point well. Its a fine comment on self awareness or lack thereof. You might find it applicable. Probably not.
I have no doubt you will again be able to find a few statements that you think rebut the whole. They don't. That link you said I did not read was a fine example. I was not praising the conclusion, I was praising his description of the reason for the choice. Stop jumping on the wrong high horse.
On the religious point the warming science is not actually settled. Stephen Hawking has made his view known that there is nothing to explain the "before" and it is entirely possible there is a deity. If a man of his intellect is no atheist that is good enough for me. Not making him out to be a believer mind, simply agnostic. So for cynical guy I will allow that conflation.
and the cynic is not running for president so he does not have to prove anything. You do not rebut his point, simply attack the man. There seems to be a pattern forming there.
Over to you chaps, you have had some days rest from me but my wife has gone away again, so I have nothing to do in the evenings.... :^)
-
This is my favourite comment. Since we seem to have formed the habit of posting whole.
The essence of the issue lies here and there’s nothing ‘curious’ about it: “the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral. Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything.”
This is at the heart of the liberal media’s total inability to understand the claims of bias, no matter how often it’s pointed out to them. They believe that the Democrats are right in the same way, to the same degree, that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and the Earth revolves around the sun. They take the ‘rightness’ of liberal and Democratic views as such a given, that they are not even able to think within any other framework.
Conservatives, and I am one, understand that some people disagree with us and it’s up to us to sell our ideas and get their vote. Liberals think that their correctness is self-evident and that those who don’t agree are uninformed, stupid or evil. They should be lectured and if that doesn’t work, mocked or ignored. They’re the bullies in the schoolyard, only now they get a salary for it.
Those seem to be the only weapons in the liberal armory. If a liberal female columnist is snarky, that shows she’s clever and merits a Pulitzer. If a female Republican conservative is sarcastic, that’s being mean spirited. And so forth.
If a liberal believes in something no human has yet been able to prove or disprove definitively (man-made global warming) he’s a hero. But if a conservative believes in something that no one’s yet been able to prove or disprove definitively (the ultimate origins of life on Earth), they’re slobbering morons who’d cast us back into the Dark Ages. And so forth.
If a liberal black man running for president is mocked in an ad for his celebrity status, it’s all phallic columns, the fear of the ‘other’ and coded racism. If a conservative black woman in a position of more power and responsibility than the black male candidate has ever had, is portrayed by a white male liberal editorial cartoonist, it’s likely to be overtly as a slave. And so forth.
And even more interesting, this is the same crowd that on the one hand believes George Bush is a virtual moron while on the other asserting that he’s managed to manipulate everything from the collapse of the WTC to the voting machines in Ohio without so much as leaving a trace. Can you say ‘cognitive dissonance’?
But what I find the most astonishing is how so many people in the Democratic Party who are of such supposedly superior intelligence, with their fancy degrees, can’t learn from experience. Isn’t that the most basic part of learning?
As a conservative, I hope they continue to fail to learn and fail to win. And as a voter, I’m not buying what they’re trying to sell this time around.
I’m being presented with a guy who’s nearly 50, engaging enough, but with no record of any accomplishment anywhere and positions (such that I can identify them on any given day before he rethinks things) that I find unacceptable. He’s been able to spend his life talking his way up. That’s just the blunt truth of who and what Barack Obama is: a guy who’s written two memoirs before doing anything worth writing about. If he has any other record to stand on, it’s long past the time to show it.
And to add insult to injury, I am repeatedly told that if I don’t buy into this near-deification of a middle-aged underachiever, I am a racist.
Like they say, that dog won’t hunt.
Posted by: Cynical Observer | September 8th, 2008 at 7:12 am | Report this comment