I don't think McCain or Obama can top this

[Peikko 1,575]

If that's all you want from a politician. Personally, I think that's fine for a stand up comedian but it doesn't really qualify one for the roll of VP.

lemme measure her resume against dan quayle. or al gore.

You do that.

The one thing I will say is similar to between Sarah P and Maggie T, the right wing's constant implication that if you don't like the candidate it's because of some aversity to having a woman at the top or some personal dislike. No, I don't like the candidate because her political opinions run polar opposite to my own.

and the same can be said in reverse - because I thought she had a good speech, ONCE - it's because she has women parts (no need to repost the misogynist ####### above)?

####### indeed.

The speach was good because you agreed with the substance of it, or because it was well delivered? Seriously, there was no policy to agree with, so what did you agree with? Her opinions on Obama? Do you agree that Obama's more interested in the human right's of terrorists than preventing future terrorist attacks for example?

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

If that's all you want from a politician. Personally, I think that's fine for a stand up comedian but it doesn't really qualify one for the roll of VP.

Well it does show how important perceptions are to people. I think as a nation we've had our expectations twisted by the campaign marketers to put things like this ahead of our own self-interests.

I mean... you wouldn't buy a car because "it looks nice" without some assurances of what it can do under the hood.

hmmmmm, Obama?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If that's all you want from a politician. Personally, I think that's fine for a stand up comedian but it doesn't really qualify one for the roll of VP.

lemme measure her resume against dan quayle. or al gore.

You do that.

The one thing I will say is similar to between Sarah P and Maggie T, the right wing's constant implication that if you don't like the candidate it's because of some aversity to having a woman at the top or some personal dislike. No, I don't like the candidate because her political opinions run polar opposite to my own.

and the same can be said in reverse - because I thought she had a good speech, ONCE - it's because she has women parts (no need to repost the misogynist ####### above)?

####### indeed.

The speach was good because you agreed with the substance of it, or because it was well delivered? Seriously, there was no policy to agree with, so what did you agree with? Her opinions on Obama? Do you agree that Obama's more interested in the human right's of terrorists than preventing future terrorist attacks for example?

She did seem to spend a lot of time making jibes about Obama. Granted I was only half-listening - but I didn't hear any significant declarations of policy.

Obama's speech resonated because he quite comprehensively covered the bases of what's wrong with the country. Whether he can deliver on his promises is another question entirely.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[no name 1]

If that's all you want from a politician. Personally, I think that's fine for a stand up comedian but it doesn't really qualify one for the roll of VP.

lemme measure her resume against dan quayle. or al gore.

You do that.

The one thing I will say is similar to between Sarah P and Maggie T, the right wing's constant implication that if you don't like the candidate it's because of some aversity to having a woman at the top or some personal dislike. No, I don't like the candidate because her political opinions run polar opposite to my own.

and the same can be said in reverse - because I thought she had a good speech, ONCE - it's because she has women parts (no need to repost the misogynist ####### above)?

####### indeed.

The speach was good because you agreed with the substance of it, or because it was well delivered? Seriously, there was no policy to agree with, so what did you agree with? Her opinions on Obama? Do you agree that Obama's more interested in the human right's of terrorists than preventing future terrorist attacks for example?

She did seem to spend a lot of time making jibes about Obama. Granted I was only half-listening - but I didn't hear any significant declarations of policy.

Obama's speech resonated because he quite comprehensively covered the bases of what's wrong with the country. Whether he can deliver on his promises is another question entirely.

She had a few paragraphs out of many. I suggest you read it before you are going to make wrongful statements about it.

Edited September 4, 2008 by illumine

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If that's all you want from a politician. Personally, I think that's fine for a stand up comedian but it doesn't really qualify one for the roll of VP.

lemme measure her resume against dan quayle. or al gore.

You do that.

The one thing I will say is similar to between Sarah P and Maggie T, the right wing's constant implication that if you don't like the candidate it's because of some aversity to having a woman at the top or some personal dislike. No, I don't like the candidate because her political opinions run polar opposite to my own.

and the same can be said in reverse - because I thought she had a good speech, ONCE - it's because she has women parts (no need to repost the misogynist ####### above)?

####### indeed.

The speach was good because you agreed with the substance of it, or because it was well delivered? Seriously, there was no policy to agree with, so what did you agree with? Her opinions on Obama? Do you agree that Obama's more interested in the human right's of terrorists than preventing future terrorist attacks for example?

She did seem to spend a lot of time making jibes about Obama. Granted I was only half-listening - but I didn't hear any significant declarations of policy.

Obama's speech resonated because he quite comprehensively covered the bases of what's wrong with the country. Whether he can deliver on his promises is another question entirely.

She had one paragraph out of many. I suggest you read it before you are going to make wrongful statements about it.

Dev - the usual condescension doesn't faze me - though its totally in character with what I've come to expect.

Never mind eh

[Saddle Bronc 124]

If that's all you want from a politician. Personally, I think that's fine for a stand up comedian but it doesn't really qualify one for the roll of VP.

Well it does show how important perceptions are to people. I think as a nation we've had our expectations twisted by the campaign marketers to put things like this ahead of our own self-interests.

I mean... you wouldn't buy a car because "it looks nice" without some assurances of what it can do under the hood.

mmmmm, Obama?

Since Paul brought out the car analogy.....

• Obama is like a Ford Escort, a total disaster product
• Palin is like a Geo Prizm (basically, a Corolla except for nametag) capable of performing under abuse

[almaty 19]

A dose of reality.

How about (liberal media) reality?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/rnc...alin/index.html

Of course, it's only a speech. And as we know, a good speech doesn't mean that much to some people.

First prime time speech & she did better than Obama!

Is there anyone with a ####### that you don't like?

just Mrs. Obama

[no name 1]

If that's all you want from a politician. Personally, I think that's fine for a stand up comedian but it doesn't really qualify one for the roll of VP.

lemme measure her resume against dan quayle. or al gore.

You do that.

The one thing I will say is similar to between Sarah P and Maggie T, the right wing's constant implication that if you don't like the candidate it's because of some aversity to having a woman at the top or some personal dislike. No, I don't like the candidate because her political opinions run polar opposite to my own.

and the same can be said in reverse - because I thought she had a good speech, ONCE - it's because she has women parts (no need to repost the misogynist ####### above)?

####### indeed.

The speach was good because you agreed with the substance of it, or because it was well delivered? Seriously, there was no policy to agree with, so what did you agree with? Her opinions on Obama? Do you agree that Obama's more interested in the human right's of terrorists than preventing future terrorist attacks for example?

She did seem to spend a lot of time making jibes about Obama. Granted I was only half-listening - but I didn't hear any significant declarations of policy.

Obama's speech resonated because he quite comprehensively covered the bases of what's wrong with the country. Whether he can deliver on his promises is another question entirely.

She had one paragraph out of many. I suggest you read it before you are going to make wrongful statements about it.

Dev - the usual condescension doesn't faze me - though its totally in character with what I've come to expect.

Never mind eh

Deflection, which you *do* love to practice (a lot), doesn't change the fact that you lied.

Nevermind, eh?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If that's all you want from a politician. Personally, I think that's fine for a stand up comedian but it doesn't really qualify one for the roll of VP.

lemme measure her resume against dan quayle. or al gore.

You do that.

The one thing I will say is similar to between Sarah P and Maggie T, the right wing's constant implication that if you don't like the candidate it's because of some aversity to having a woman at the top or some personal dislike. No, I don't like the candidate because her political opinions run polar opposite to my own.

and the same can be said in reverse - because I thought she had a good speech, ONCE - it's because she has women parts (no need to repost the misogynist ####### above)?

####### indeed.

The speach was good because you agreed with the substance of it, or because it was well delivered? Seriously, there was no policy to agree with, so what did you agree with? Her opinions on Obama? Do you agree that Obama's more interested in the human right's of terrorists than preventing future terrorist attacks for example?

She did seem to spend a lot of time making jibes about Obama. Granted I was only half-listening - but I didn't hear any significant declarations of policy.

Obama's speech resonated because he quite comprehensively covered the bases of what's wrong with the country. Whether he can deliver on his promises is another question entirely.

She had one paragraph out of many. I suggest you read it before you are going to make wrongful statements about it.

Dev - the usual condescension doesn't faze me - though its totally in character with what I've come to expect.

Never mind eh

Deflection, which you *do* love to practice (a lot), doesn't change the fact that you lied.

Nevermind, eh?

I lied?

Must have missed that.

Lets see. Can you say "hysterical". I know you can...

[rebeccajo 14]

A dose of reality.

How about (liberal media) reality?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/rnc...alin/index.html

Of course, it's only a speech. And as we know, a good speech doesn't mean that much to some people.

First prime time speech & she did better than Obama!

Is there anyone with a ####### that you don't like?

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Peikko 1,575]

So, why did you like the speach again Illumine? Was it her 'ear' in Washington for parents of disabled children? A nice phrase, but aren't they going to slash taxes? What exactly is this ear going to hear, and more importantly, what is she proposing that will make the lives of parent's of disabled children better once that ear has heard their cries? Would that be better health care? How's that going to be achieved when the McCain plan certainly doesn't support any changes that would improve things for these people. A comprehensive health care plan, that might just help. Better public education, that might just help. An ear in Washington? Nope, can't see how that would help.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

OK I read the speech verbatim to appease her Dev-ship. My initial conclusion stands.

Family anecdotes, references to your accomplishments and jibes about your opponent do not a policy platform make. Perhaps someone can point out the policy commitments that I seem to have missed.

[Peikko 1,575]

She's committed to paring goverment down to its core in the name of purging Washington of lobbyists and removing dead wood.

I have nothing against the idea in theory, I just know in practice this would mean that the useful government would be pared away with all the waste. You can't lower taxes and actually help people, particuarly if you have an agressive foreign policy agenda, which I think she does...although I am not sure if McCain does.

Plus that ear of hers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

She's committed to paring goverment down to its core in the name of purging Washington of lobbyists and removing dead wood.

I have nothing against the idea in theory, I just know in practice this would mean that the useful government would be pared away with all the waste. You can't lower taxes and actually help people, particuarly if you have an agressive foreign policy agenda, which I think she does...although I am not sure if McCain does.

Plus that ear of hers.

Ah yes - purging Washington. I was as sceptical of that as when Obama made it a centerpiece of his nomination campaign.

What would that mean exactly - isn't it just a case of both parties looking for a MacGuffin to pin the blame on, when they themselves are a core part of the problem.

I mean... they're not offering to do away with themselves are they....

[PlatyPius 5]

VOTE

#######

IN 2008!