I'm not implying we should be cutting people's hands off, I'm implying the right wing is being very selective in their outrage. Why haven't Lambs for Christ tried to shutdown Countrywide, with people lying in the streets to block traffic?
Killing journalists for reporting on your corruption is IMO worse than anything that has happened in the USA under Bush.
There was open talk of arresting journalists in the U.S. before the 2006 elections. Like the reporters from the NY Times who broke the warrantless wiretapping story. And then there was the "accidental" bombing by the U.S. of Al Jezzera's office in Baghdad.
Crops cross pollinate, GE or otherwise. And those who complain about GE crops need to Keep It Real - we've been genetically engineering for thousands of years through cross breeding.
Monsanto did that when they found Percy Schmeiser's farm was contaminated with Monsanto's patented genes.
Yes, I know Monsanto are dicks, and I heard about that farmer. What I don't see, however, is how this is Gore's fault - you're sounding very Concerned, falcon. The most a quick Googling brings up is that Clinton's secretary of agriculture was opposed to it while Gore was VP - pretty weak sauce. And not only does the Bush Administration not give a shit about labeling GE food, they're blocking meat packers from checking more than 1% of their cattle because it might put pressure on the rest of the industry to do the same.
I'm amazed at your ability to touch type, since the view of your keyboard from your colon must not be very good. On the other hand, blue, having your head shoved up your ass cuts down on your blathering idiocy to some degree.
Oooooh, touched a nerve, have we? You seem a bit defensive.
No, I'm amazed. I'm amazed that you guys are so full of shit and yet you don't drown on it.
I said that, in comparison, she has more of a particular type of experience - executive branch in a government, than her opponents combined. If she doesn't have enough experience, can you really argue that Obama or Biden do?
Which is a long, rambling rationalization for another double standard invented for a Democratic candidate that will never apply to a Republican. Where was all the concern over "executive branch experience" when McCain was running against Romney in the primaries, when the latter served as governor of Massachusetts? Or when George W. Bush was running against Gore, as TX governor is something like the 5th most powerful politician in the state?
What has Obama done in the senate?
Google. Use it.
As for who is saying what, you haven't been paying attention - the Democrats have gone apeshit regarding her "lack of experience". It's understandable - after McCain has been beating on him, it's good to get a little of one's own back. But for independents and undecideds, it keeps the issue of experience in play, and the longer it is in play, the more Obama has to lose.
WHOOSH. It's the hypocrisy, stupid. Obama has been attacking McCain's lack of judgement on Iraq as McCain has been attacking Obama for having less experience. Now imagine that Obama, after touting his judgment and opposition to the Iraq war suddenly picked Donald Rusmfield as his running mate.
And given the facts that McCain is old, has had 4 bouts with cancer, and that 20% of our presidents were vice presidents who took over when the president died or left office, it is completely appropriate to mention that she has even less experience than Dan Quale.
Palin is a game changer.
Not even in your crack enhanced dreams, my friend. Between the neophyte from Alaska and the hurricane arriving on the anniversary of Katrina, the Republicans are fucked.
Yes, I do. You wingnuts couldn't make an honest, bullshit free argument if your lives depended on it.
No one is saying her experience as mayor qualifies her for the Vice Presidency any more than Obama's experience as a State senator qualifies him for the Presidency. You seem to think it does.
You seem to like drinking Drano with your strawmen. The moronic point being shot down is that she has more experience than Obama, which is laughable.
Yeah, I think it's more important.
Naturally, because you wingnuts are pros at coming up with standards for Democrats on the spot that never apply to Republicans. Like oh, say, John McCain when he was running against Mitt Romney in the primaries, who served as governor of Massachusetts and served in that office twice as long as Palin has in hers. Funny, didn't see any concern trolling over McCain's lack of "executive experience" then.
Additionally, when you have Obama voting "present" 133 times rather than "Yes" or "no"
Which is a strategy in Illinois. And considering how man votes McCain has missed, you're throwing stones in a glass house.
and have the only thing he worked real hard on was government kickbacks to his developer buddies like Rezko
Liar.
Right. Which is why James Carville was wearing Puma sneakers during the convention. You know, because he can afford a $6,000 suit, but can only afford $30 sneakers.
Oh, speaking of double standards, why isn't it a problem for McCain that he only averaged 70% of the vote in Republican primaries after the other candidates dropped out? And McCain has a vastly larger problem with Ron Paul supporters than Obama has with Clinton supporters. You want to talk about PUMA? How about the fact that the founder of that "organization" donated more money to McCain in 2000 than Hillary in 2008? That stinks as bad as the bullshit that dribbles out of your mouth whenever you talk.
Standard Democrat tactic. Revert to ad hominem when hit with the truth of your own corruption.
Standard Republican tactic: claim not to be a Republican (Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough) or when conservatism fails, claim the conservatives in charge aren't "real" conservatives.
Oh, and would you like some cheese with that pathetic whine? Those who take glee in shoving baseless bullshit under other people's noses don't get to complain about "ad hominems".
But unlike you I won't make excuses for their corruption or try to distract from it because I'm not so far up the DNC's ass I can see donkey teeth.
WHOOSH. Complaining about a Democratic molehill while making no mention of Republican mountain ranges marks you as a hack, Republican or not.
Which of the four candidates has the most experience as a government executive?
Answer: the most pathetic talking point in decades. Obama served as head of the Harvard Law Review, taught Constitutional law for ten years, served as a state senator for the 5th largest state from the nation's 3rd largest city before serving in the U.S. Senate. If you really think that's less impressive than being governor for two years and serving as a mayor for 8,000 before that, you really need to see a doctor about your broken sense of proportion.
And Hillary was full of crap in the primary. For all her hooting and hollering on experience, she's only been in the Senate 4 years longer than he has.
He was the head of a professional review journal? what the hell does *that* have to do with running a nation?
Wow. Seriously? Are you this stupid? You have to ask why serving as the head of a law review board at Harvard and then teaching Constitutional law for 10 years is a plus for the president of the United States? How about the bills he'll be signing or vetoing? The budget's he'll submit to Congress? The millions of federal employees under his watch? How about the hundreds of federal judges he'll appoint during his term?
Obama hasn't been talking about experience you incompetent boob, he's been talking about judgment. Imagine he then picked Donald Rumsfield to be his running mate and said "what? he's my VP, it doesn't matter." It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
hey can't argue how little experience the VP candidate has when their PRESIDENTIAL candidate has even less
Every time you repeat that phenomenally stupid Republican talking point (but I repeat myself) a big, steaming piece of horseshit falls out of your mouth along with it. Looking at their resumes for two seconds and then claiming she has a better one makes you a bigger liar than Baghdad Bob.
Bush was a lot easier to beat in 2004 than McCain is in 2008.
No, he's not. He still hovered around 50%, was supported 100% by conservatives, and had the boost from we-hate-homosexuals voter initiatives in states across the country. McCain hasn't broken 45%, is wildly distrusted by his own party, and has no wave of bigotry to ride this year.
The democrats blew it then and they're blowing it now by picking the most liberal politician they could find once again.
Every Democratic nominee is "the most liberal politician" come election time. But if you think Obama is more liberal than Bernie Sanders, a socialist, then you're a fool and a tool.
You haven't. Even with the much ballyhooed Marc Rich pardon, Rich had to pay a fine far greater than the amount he supposedly dodged ($100 million) and would still be open to civil lawsuits.
The tactic might actually have some validity if I were a Republican, but I am not.
If it blathers like a Republican, is ignorant like a Republican, and couldn't make an honest argument to save it's soul just like a Republican, it's probably a Republican.
liberals like to show corruption in the Republican party as if it were some kind of counter, some excuse, for Clinton's corruption.
No, it's asking Republicans to be consistent for two consecutive seconds, a monumental feat they have yet to achieve. Like how military service was vital in 1992 when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, yet irrelevant when W. Bush was running against McCain and Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004. Or how serious lying under oath (which Clinton didn't actually do) was in 1998 vs when Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury by a Republican prosecutor and a Republican judge. Hell, Fred Thompson, who voted to impeach Clinton, gave a speech where he passionately called for the rule of law and passionately called for a pardon for Scooter Libby.
Or more to the point, how experience was vital for the presidency according to McCain up to last week, yet now is completely irrelevant.
Which is about 12 months more experience than Obama had when he started running for President.
If you think the manager of a local Burger King can suddenly be a top executive at a Fortune 100 company because she has "management experience", sure. This "she has more experience" line is a phenomenally stupid Republican talking point, but then I repeat myself.
He had a whole 133 days in the US Senate under his belt.
He was sworn in to the United States Senate on January 4th, 2005. He announced his candidacy for president on February 10th, 2007. If you think that's 133 days, maybe you should get a kindergardener to tutor you on basic math.
His State Senator days are hardly more significant than Palin's mayorial days
If you think being a mayor of a town of 8,000 is more significant than being a state senator for the 5th largest state and the 3rd largest city in the nation, you really need to see a doctor about your broken sense of proportion.
Obama was gifted almost all of his legislation that has his name on it in the state senate, after OTHER people had crafted it, moved it, built support...Obama came in for the big win, because he was being groomed.
Baseless assertion.
And Obama was given his state Senate seat (or, more accurately, he won it by completely subverting the democratic process by getting all of his Democrat primary opponents thrown off the ballot, including his mentor the incumbent).
Yawn.
it cleaves off a chunk of Hillary voters who are upset at Obama for not picking Hillary as his running mate.
All five of them. The rest of her liberal to moderate, pro-choice supporters will find it quite condescending that McCain thinks that they'll vote for him just because he has a vagina on the ticket.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, his not reading the summary was precious. As is your sig in this story.
Whatever you say, Alanis. In the same way that electric cars became bad the first time a driver ran over someone's dog in a Tesla.
...a boycott helped to end Apartheid.
Except it wasn't the boycott that change the government, but a war. Apples to (holy shit that was stupid) Oranges.
I'm not implying we should be cutting people's hands off, I'm implying the right wing is being very selective in their outrage. Why haven't Lambs for Christ tried to shutdown Countrywide, with people lying in the streets to block traffic?
I support public healthcare, but calling it "free" is disingenuous.
No, it's not - when people say free health care, they mean free to use, like your local library or an interstate highway.
Killing journalists for reporting on your corruption is IMO worse than anything that has happened in the USA under Bush.
There was open talk of arresting journalists in the U.S. before the 2006 elections. Like the reporters from the NY Times who broke the warrantless wiretapping story. And then there was the "accidental" bombing by the U.S. of Al Jezzera's office in Baghdad.
Except Gore would NOT have invaded Iraq over false evidence. So the only tool in your scenario is...you.
Unlike what Monsanto said, and you fell for
[Citation needed]
GE crops do cross pollinate
Crops cross pollinate, GE or otherwise. And those who complain about GE crops need to Keep It Real - we've been genetically engineering for thousands of years through cross breeding.
Monsanto did that when they found Percy Schmeiser's farm was contaminated with Monsanto's patented genes.
Yes, I know Monsanto are dicks, and I heard about that farmer. What I don't see, however, is how this is Gore's fault - you're sounding very Concerned, falcon. The most a quick Googling brings up is that Clinton's secretary of agriculture was opposed to it while Gore was VP - pretty weak sauce. And not only does the Bush Administration not give a shit about labeling GE food, they're blocking meat packers from checking more than 1% of their cattle because it might put pressure on the rest of the industry to do the same.
Sorry, but the definition of a noteworthy accomplishment means people can remember it without using google.
Translation: so because you weren't already aware of Obama's accomplishments, they don't count. Weak sauce.
He is accused of
He's accused of a lot of stuff...by Palin's people, who were pressuring for his termination.
So going by your logic every senator who votes for a bill automatically gets credit for that bill.
It does when they introduce the legislation and sponsor it. Which was the (obvious) point.
Obama has no record of that
So if Obama sponsored a bill in a forest but there wasn't a wingnut around to see it, it didn't happen?
I'm amazed at your ability to touch type, since the view of your keyboard from your colon must not be very good. On the other hand, blue, having your head shoved up your ass cuts down on your blathering idiocy to some degree.
Oooooh, touched a nerve, have we? You seem a bit defensive.
No, I'm amazed. I'm amazed that you guys are so full of shit and yet you don't drown on it.
I said that, in comparison, she has more of a particular type of experience - executive branch in a government, than her opponents combined. If she doesn't have enough experience, can you really argue that Obama or Biden do?
Which is a long, rambling rationalization for another double standard invented for a Democratic candidate that will never apply to a Republican. Where was all the concern over "executive branch experience" when McCain was running against Romney in the primaries, when the latter served as governor of Massachusetts? Or when George W. Bush was running against Gore, as TX governor is something like the 5th most powerful politician in the state?
What has Obama done in the senate?
Google. Use it.
As for who is saying what, you haven't been paying attention - the Democrats have gone apeshit regarding her "lack of experience". It's understandable - after McCain has been beating on him, it's good to get a little of one's own back. But for independents and undecideds, it keeps the issue of experience in play, and the longer it is in play, the more Obama has to lose.
WHOOSH. It's the hypocrisy, stupid. Obama has been attacking McCain's lack of judgement on Iraq as McCain has been attacking Obama for having less experience. Now imagine that Obama, after touting his judgment and opposition to the Iraq war suddenly picked Donald Rusmfield as his running mate.
And given the facts that McCain is old, has had 4 bouts with cancer, and that 20% of our presidents were vice presidents who took over when the president died or left office, it is completely appropriate to mention that she has even less experience than Dan Quale.
Palin is a game changer.
Not even in your crack enhanced dreams, my friend. Between the neophyte from Alaska and the hurricane arriving on the anniversary of Katrina, the Republicans are fucked.
She's already done more good--and been far more effective a public servant--than Black Senator Jesus has been throughout his political career.
Wow. I hope you don't have any sharp object in your home, because you're so full of shit that popping you would have the force of an atomic blast.
But the majority of the court got it right, interpreting the law that is on the books unlike the dissent which would rather create laws in their mind.
No, the interpreted the law so narrowly as to be practically worthless. So much for Robert's promise to honor precedent.
Out of curiosity, while there were a handful of Republicans who voted to end the filibuster, why didn't Harry Reid?
Because he's Bush's butt boy, just like Joe Lieberman.
No troll, you don't repeat yourself.
Yes, I do. You wingnuts couldn't make an honest, bullshit free argument if your lives depended on it.
No one is saying her experience as mayor qualifies her for the Vice Presidency any more than Obama's experience as a State senator qualifies him for the Presidency. You seem to think it does.
You seem to like drinking Drano with your strawmen. The moronic point being shot down is that she has more experience than Obama, which is laughable.
Yeah, I think it's more important.
Naturally, because you wingnuts are pros at coming up with standards for Democrats on the spot that never apply to Republicans. Like oh, say, John McCain when he was running against Mitt Romney in the primaries, who served as governor of Massachusetts and served in that office twice as long as Palin has in hers. Funny, didn't see any concern trolling over McCain's lack of "executive experience" then.
Additionally, when you have Obama voting "present" 133 times rather than "Yes" or "no"
Which is a strategy in Illinois. And considering how man votes McCain has missed, you're throwing stones in a glass house.
and have the only thing he worked real hard on was government kickbacks to his developer buddies like Rezko
Liar.
Right. Which is why James Carville was wearing Puma sneakers during the convention. You know, because he can afford a $6,000 suit, but can only afford $30 sneakers.
Oh, speaking of double standards, why isn't it a problem for McCain that he only averaged 70% of the vote in Republican primaries after the other candidates dropped out? And McCain has a vastly larger problem with Ron Paul supporters than Obama has with Clinton supporters. You want to talk about PUMA? How about the fact that the founder of that "organization" donated more money to McCain in 2000 than Hillary in 2008? That stinks as bad as the bullshit that dribbles out of your mouth whenever you talk.
Standard Democrat tactic. Revert to ad hominem when hit with the truth of your own corruption.
Standard Republican tactic: claim not to be a Republican (Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough) or when conservatism fails, claim the conservatives in charge aren't "real" conservatives.
Oh, and would you like some cheese with that pathetic whine? Those who take glee in shoving baseless bullshit under other people's noses don't get to complain about "ad hominems".
But unlike you I won't make excuses for their corruption or try to distract from it because I'm not so far up the DNC's ass I can see donkey teeth.
WHOOSH. Complaining about a Democratic molehill while making no mention of Republican mountain ranges marks you as a hack, Republican or not.
Which of the four candidates has the most experience as a government executive?
Answer: the most pathetic talking point in decades. Obama served as head of the Harvard Law Review, taught Constitutional law for ten years, served as a state senator for the 5th largest state from the nation's 3rd largest city before serving in the U.S. Senate. If you really think that's less impressive than being governor for two years and serving as a mayor for 8,000 before that, you really need to see a doctor about your broken sense of proportion.
Yes, and 50% 100%. Feel free to retake kindergarden math if you can't understand basic equalities.
Funny, Thats akin to Hillary's line about Obama.
And Hillary was full of crap in the primary. For all her hooting and hollering on experience, she's only been in the Senate 4 years longer than he has.
He was the head of a professional review journal? what the hell does *that* have to do with running a nation?
Wow. Seriously? Are you this stupid? You have to ask why serving as the head of a law review board at Harvard and then teaching Constitutional law for 10 years is a plus for the president of the United States? How about the bills he'll be signing or vetoing? The budget's he'll submit to Congress? The millions of federal employees under his watch? How about the hundreds of federal judges he'll appoint during his term?
I'm glad to see that some people understand that science doesn't answer ethical questions.
Try being an unethical scientist and see how far you get. Let us know how that works out for you.
Obama hasn't been talking about experience you incompetent boob, he's been talking about judgment. Imagine he then picked Donald Rumsfield to be his running mate and said "what? he's my VP, it doesn't matter." It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
hey can't argue how little experience the VP candidate has when their PRESIDENTIAL candidate has even less
Every time you repeat that phenomenally stupid Republican talking point (but I repeat myself) a big, steaming piece of horseshit falls out of your mouth along with it. Looking at their resumes for two seconds and then claiming she has a better one makes you a bigger liar than Baghdad Bob.
Bush was a lot easier to beat in 2004 than McCain is in 2008.
No, he's not. He still hovered around 50%, was supported 100% by conservatives, and had the boost from we-hate-homosexuals voter initiatives in states across the country. McCain hasn't broken 45%, is wildly distrusted by his own party, and has no wave of bigotry to ride this year.
The democrats blew it then and they're blowing it now by picking the most liberal politician they could find once again.
Every Democratic nominee is "the most liberal politician" come election time. But if you think Obama is more liberal than Bernie Sanders, a socialist, then you're a fool and a tool.
When I show how corrupt Clinton is
You haven't. Even with the much ballyhooed Marc Rich pardon, Rich had to pay a fine far greater than the amount he supposedly dodged ($100 million) and would still be open to civil lawsuits.
The tactic might actually have some validity if I were a Republican, but I am not.
If it blathers like a Republican, is ignorant like a Republican, and couldn't make an honest argument to save it's soul just like a Republican, it's probably a Republican.
liberals like to show corruption in the Republican party as if it were some kind of counter, some excuse, for Clinton's corruption.
No, it's asking Republicans to be consistent for two consecutive seconds, a monumental feat they have yet to achieve. Like how military service was vital in 1992 when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, yet irrelevant when W. Bush was running against McCain and Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004. Or how serious lying under oath (which Clinton didn't actually do) was in 1998 vs when Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury by a Republican prosecutor and a Republican judge. Hell, Fred Thompson, who voted to impeach Clinton, gave a speech where he passionately called for the rule of law and passionately called for a pardon for Scooter Libby.
Or more to the point, how experience was vital for the presidency according to McCain up to last week, yet now is completely irrelevant.
Which is about 12 months more experience than Obama had when he started running for President.
If you think the manager of a local Burger King can suddenly be a top executive at a Fortune 100 company because she has "management experience", sure. This "she has more experience" line is a phenomenally stupid Republican talking point, but then I repeat myself.
He had a whole 133 days in the US Senate under his belt.
He was sworn in to the United States Senate on January 4th, 2005. He announced his candidacy for president on February 10th, 2007. If you think that's 133 days, maybe you should get a kindergardener to tutor you on basic math.
His State Senator days are hardly more significant than Palin's mayorial days
If you think being a mayor of a town of 8,000 is more significant than being a state senator for the 5th largest state and the 3rd largest city in the nation, you really need to see a doctor about your broken sense of proportion.
Obama was gifted almost all of his legislation that has his name on it in the state senate, after OTHER people had crafted it, moved it, built support...Obama came in for the big win, because he was being groomed.
Baseless assertion.
And Obama was given his state Senate seat (or, more accurately, he won it by completely subverting the democratic process by getting all of his Democrat primary opponents thrown off the ballot, including his mentor the incumbent).
Yawn.
it cleaves off a chunk of Hillary voters who are upset at Obama for not picking Hillary as his running mate.
All five of them. The rest of her liberal to moderate, pro-choice supporters will find it quite condescending that McCain thinks that they'll vote for him just because he has a vagina on the ticket.
The fact that she killed Ted "Tubes" Steven's $400 million of your and my money Bridge to Nowhere
Only when it became apparent that Alaska would have to spend money on the project as well.