Forums | MacLife

StaticAge wrote:

Palin is a celebrity because she is a VP candidate.

True, but she is a "celebrity" in a way Joe Biden is not.

Remember, this was a bad thing just a few weeks ago.

bratboy wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

Palin is a celebrity because she is a VP candidate.

True, but she is a "celebrity" in a way Joe Biden is not.

Remember, this was a bad thing just a few weeks ago.

Well, Biden might be more of a "real" politician, while she might be a media sensation in a way that Biden is not. But if you think about it really, Biden has been in public light for quite some time and she is more of a common nobody, so in that way its kind of reversed. She's totally a gimmick, a marketing strategy etc, but if you compare her to Biden, Biden is a celebrity, she isnt. She is often specifically criticized by some because she is more of a commoner or less of a career big-time politician and NOT because of her politics. Like Damon- he could have ripped on her on the abortion issue, pork barrel spending, abuse of power, etc, but no, he goes for the fact that she isnt well known, is not as well known as other politicians, a "Disney script" sort of candidate.

They haven't let her off her short leash. The McCain campaign doesn't trust her yet. She has a major interview or 3 coming up now, and we shall see.

Out of context it does sound bad. What is really not so cool is that she doesn't see the realpolitik surrounding Russia's excursion, nor does she recognize that we don't have the military muscle to do squat about anything involving Russia right now. We don't have a two-front military.

We don't even have the military that could occupy Iraq and Iran, who are we kidding? Take on a first world military at less than parity? Yeah, right.

Tallgeese wrote:

Russia is Second World. Not First World.

You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

She uneqivocally stated that it should be taught and then amended her statement when that comment was scrutinized.

Still, a rather unimportant point considering the other smurf she's lying about.

bratboy wrote:

She uneqivocally stated that it should be taught and then amended her statement when that comment was scrutinized.

Still, a rather unimportant point considering the other smurf she's lying about.

I think its the dems and the media and the blogs that are in fact distorting her positions or fabricating controversies that are not really controversies (in other words, lying). For someone so outraged at how mean the Mcain campaign is being to Obama and runny such a dirty campaign, you might recognize the distortions coming from the left that are baseless.

bratboy wrote:

everlong554 wrote:

I think its the dems and the media and the blogs that are in fact distorting her positions or fabricating controversies that are not really controversies (in other words, lying).

So it's the "dems and the media and the blogs" and not the McCain campaign?

For someone so outraged at how mean the Mcain campaign is being to Obama and runny such a dirty campaign, you might recognize the distortions coming from the left that are baseless.

It has nothing to do with being "mean" to Obama and everything to do with McCain abandoning all integrity to run these sham political ads accusing Obama of being a "celebrity" and wanting to teach sex-ed to small children and being sexist and trying to "destroy" Sarah Palin with lies. 

I find it all terribly pathetic coming from a politician that I once actually used to respect--especially because he's taking cues from the same exact people he once condemned for doing the same exact smurf to him.

Please, Obama's campaign is just as dirty and sleazy. And Obam'a surrogates and supporters are waist deep in the muck slinging out and out falsehoods about Palin and Mccain and are frankly starting to act unhinged.

A few weeks ago we had a dem operative laugh about the hurricane that would hit NO and how it was a blessing from god because it might impact the republican convention, then two weeks later his wife chimes in with the statement that the only reason Palin is apparently qualified is because she didn't have an abortion. THen we have someone else saying that Obama is ccomparable to Jesus and Palin is comparable to Pontius Pilate. Not to mention all the distortions being peddled by Obama's camp and the blogosphere about the various ways Palin is akin to the worst thing ever, and how Mccain is nothing but a third term of bush or suggesting that Mcain doesnt know the meaning of honor. or how about Biden suggesting that Palin is a step back for women. Can you imagine if any republican said Obama was a step back for black people?

Weren't you, in fact, suggesting that she was trying to promote creationism in schools? How come you and various dems are allowed to peddle that, and its perfectly ok, yet Mcain and his camp can't point out the implications of Obama's various policies that they see?

If in fact the blogosphere or the Obama camp are spreading lies or disttortions about Palin, then Mccain has every right to say so.

As far as the sexism of Obama, Mccain is not the first to bring it up. Hillary made a few such statements herself. And this current issue of Obama calling Palin a pig is clearly an issue of his own making. He used the reference of the lipstick on a pig only a week after  Palin's speech at the convention where she described herself as a pit bull who wears lipstick. And he (obama) then followed up his speech with  another reference to an old fish. Cmon. That was CLEARLY an attempt at cleverness on Obama's part where he was referencing his opppenents. Clearly his audience got the hint, considering he hadn't even finished his statement before they were laughing and cheering it. And that was intentional on his part. Just like it was intentional when he gave Hillary the finger on three separate occasions (and got audience approval every time he did it) at the exact asame time in his stump speeches. Obama was trying to be clever and got caught with his own rhetoric. This is not to say that he was literally calling Pailin a pig. However, the lipstick and old fish references were clearly a code to refrence Palin and Mccain. And because he used said codewords and was then so inartful about it, he got caught with some suggesting that he in fact was using sexist language.

Doesn't he know that perception is reality? Remember when a previous politician got in trouble for calling someone Macaca? Remember when Lott got in trouble for praising Thurmond but was accused of saying he was spromoting segregation. It doesn't matter what he says he meant does it, its the perception. And certainly one could say that in his speech one could assume he was referring to Mcain Palin with his lipstick on a pig and old fish rhetoric.
I personally don't think the conservatives should make such a big deal about it. Palin should follow up with "at least he didn't call me sweetie" or some such, but for someone who is suppposedly such a great speaker and so precise with his words, it must really rankle that he so willingly shoved his foot in his mouth and gave the conservatives ammo.

Who was it that was suggesting that convervatives were going to say that you shouldn't trust Obama because he doens't look like the usual presidents (ie suggesting that republicans were trying to scare people with anti black rhetoric). It was Obama. ANd Mccain,nor any republican was in fact making such arguments about Obama at all. That was a straight out libel and playing of the race card. Now Obama after putting his own foot in his mouth not insinuate things about what he may have said or not said or implied? What a crybaby.

It has nothing to do with being "mean" to Obama and everything to do with McCain abandoning all integrity to run these sham political ads accusing Obama of being a "celebrity" and wanting to teach sex-ed to small children and being sexist and trying to "destroy" Sarah Palin with lies.

To address your points one by one, portraying Obama as a celebrity, are perfectly fair in a campaign. THat is not at all dirty pool. Wanting to teach sex ed to small children was in reference to legislation that Obama signed which had the implication of teaching sex ed to kindergarteners. And you'll not that your last arguments are in fact defensive on Mcains part. Would you deny that in fact the media and the blogosphere and many democrats have not gone out of their way to smear Palin? I've heard dozens of half truths and outright lies on these boards alone being peddled across the internet and by various media organizations. I don't think Mccain said that Obama was himself spreading every single rumor, but certainly Mcain can argue that the other side (meaning Obama, the democrats, the media, the blogosphere) is not treating Palin and is out to destroy her since that has in fact been the case with all of the libelous stories of the past week. And if Obama says somethign that can be construed as sexist, whats wrong with the other side callling him on it if thats what they think he did?

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-09-11 8:56 pm)

everlong554 wrote:

bratboy wrote:

She uneqivocally stated that it should be taught and then amended her statement when that comment was scrutinized.

Still, a rather unimportant point considering the other smurf she's lying about.

I think its the dems and the media and the blogs that are in fact distorting her positions or fabricating controversies that are not really controversies (in other words, lying). For someone so outraged at how mean the Mcain campaign is being to Obama and runny such a dirty campaign, you might recognize the distortions coming from the left that are baseless.

Yeah - the left is being extremely vile towards her.

Given that no one knows anything about her, the only conclusion I can draw is that they are vile by default - and you have to kiss their golden asses to NOT get that vileness from them.

resedit wrote:

everlong554 wrote:

bratboy wrote:

She uneqivocally stated that it should be taught and then amended her statement when that comment was scrutinized.

Still, a rather unimportant point considering the other smurf she's lying about.

I think its the dems and the media and the blogs that are in fact distorting her positions or fabricating controversies that are not really controversies (in other words, lying). For someone so outraged at how mean the Mcain campaign is being to Obama and runny such a dirty campaign, you might recognize the distortions coming from the left that are baseless.

Yeah - the left is being extremely vile towards her.

Given that no one knows anything about her, the only conclusion I can draw is that they are vile by default - and you have to kiss their golden asses to NOT get that vileness from them.

If that's the only conclusion you can draw, you need to sit down and think harder.

sturner wrote:

She was talking tough but I don't feel that she came off better than parroting what she had been told to say. It was a pat answer, and begs the question of what we can do. She didn't mention that we would be staring them in the eyeballs with nukes ready to go. That is a major consideration, because they would be, and are capable of a nuclear response.

Geesie, they were 2nd World last year. This year they made the U.S. blink and hesitate about Georgia. We aren't a credible threat right now.

First World: United States and NATO/allied countries
Second World: USSR and satellites/Warsaw pact countries
Third World: Nonaligned nations

everlong554 wrote:

...And this current issue of Obama calling Palin a pig is clearly an issue of his own making. He used the reference of the lipstick on a pig only a week after  Palin's speech at the convention where she described herself as a pit bull who wears lipstick.

you mean the quote when taken in context is clearly talking about policy using a common phrase that is correctly applied to the situation? the one mccain has used previously as well?

are you that simple minded that you actually bought into that nonsense?