I wouldn't trust a supposedly Conservative woman who harps about family values, yet whose unmarried daughter is about to bring a bastard child in the world. If she can't convince her own daughter of the sanctity of marriage, how can she convince America?
Oh please,you really want to drag the kids into it...
Biden's Daughter Arrested in Drunken Craze After Throwing Bottle at Police
Sen. Biden's Daughter Arrested
CHICAGO (AP) - The daughter of Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of obstructing a police officer early Saturday, police said.
Ashley Blazer Biden, 21, of Wilmington, Del., was with a group of people on a North Side street where several bars are located when someone else threw a bottle at a police officer, police said.
When offic More..ers went to arrest another person, Biden blocked the officer's path and made intimidating statements, Officer JoAnn Taylor said.
Biden was arrested on suspicion of obstructing a police officer. She was released from custody and is scheduled to appear in court Sept. 20.
Sen. Biden's spokeswoman, Margaret Aitken, declined to comment Saturday,
calling it a private, family matter.
I've already raised 3 teens and still have 3 to go. Their soul purpose in life at times seems to be "how much can we embarrass the parents"...
By the way,I'm still waiting for something factual that show where Barack has pushed through any kind of real changes...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:44 PM
"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"
Exactly, Biden is no better. Just because I pointed something about a Conservative/Republican doesn't mean I cut those liberal hippy democrats any slack. They're just as bad coming from the other direction. My point is that If you can't control your kids, you can't control your country. You're not asking these people to run a hot-dog stand, they've got the future of your country in their hands. How can they manipulate stubborn, combative people (Like that dickhead in Russia) into doing what they want when they can't even get their own kids to obey?
Presidential offspring tend to be problematic. It's part of living with the political spotlight.
I couldn't care less about her daughter getting pregnant or his daughter drunkenly yelling at some cops. However, Palin's supporters probably won't share my lack of concern, as they most likely carry different "values".
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
Personal opinion time:
While I think that not practising what you preach is now a Republican core value (all I need say is look at Bush's terms in any office... 'nuff said), I personally think that you leave your political opponent's the f**k out of politics. No matter how badly your opponent's offspring or relations mess it up, they're not the ones that are looking to get elected. It's a petty cheap-shot to take, and to me it would diminish someone's standing pretty heavily.
This is the kind of thing I'd figure Karl Rove would pull. At least Obama had the balls to just say it: "You don't bring someone's family into it."
Personally, I'd tell her to get her house in order before she starts hitting the abstinence drum too hard.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
i like Palin as working class white malei have come to terms that there are things niether canidate will follow through with
niether are going to stop illegal imigration that destroys my unions ability to broker with City that employees me
niether are going to socialize medicine
niether are going to do anything about gas prices
niether are going to bleed the rich
niether are are going to bring jobs to the states
niether would even spit in my face if i where dying of thirst in the desert
However at least Mccain gives some thing at least i can own a fire arm so when the day comes i have the option to blow my brians out or take some one with me.
at least Palin is cute, she uses Fire arms lives in state that is far away America.
I liked Mitt Romney because thats what a president looks like hes like a attractive Ronald Regan. Ronald Regan looked like scarpy doo but sounded like scooby.
what i dont undestand why didn't obama stay away from the Gun issue he would have been better off
john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:Oh please,you really want to drag the kids into it...
Biden's Daughter Arrested in Drunken Craze After Throwing Bottle at Police
Sen. Biden's Daughter Arrested
CHICAGO (AP) - The daughter of Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of obstructing a police officer early Saturday, police said.
Ashley Blazer Biden, 21, of Wilmington, Del., was with a group of people on a North Side street where several bars are located when someone else threw a bottle at a police officer, police said.
When offic More..ers went to arrest another person, Biden blocked the officer's path and made intimidating statements, Officer JoAnn Taylor said.
Biden was arrested on suspicion of obstructing a police officer. She was released from custody and is scheduled to appear in court Sept. 20.
Sen. Biden's spokeswoman, Margaret Aitken, declined to comment Saturday, calling it a private, family matter.
I've already raised 3 teens and still have 3 to go. Their soul purpose in life at times seems to be "how much can we embarrass the parents"...
By the way,I'm still waiting for something factual that show where Barack has pushed through any kind of real changes...
You DO realize that this arrest happened 6 years ago, right? The Palin thing is a bit more current. But I agree that attacking a politicians family is both tacky and irrelevant. Obama himself has said that if he finds any of his staff talking about his opponents' families - they are fired. End of story.
Now this is funny though none-the-less because Palin is VERY "abstinence only" for sexual education. So how well is that working out?... LOL. "abstinence only sexual education" is an oxymoron. Its just burying your head in the sand. Her family has nothing to do with my vote - her stance on issues such as sexual education(and her anti-science stance in general) do.
Iraq War and Alaskan natural gas pipeline "
part of God's will"
And
there is this -
time wrote:Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
She also thinks abortion should be banned even in cases of rape and incest. And finally -
Oh and BTW Alaska's government meets for 90 days out of the year. He has been Governor for what, a year and a half? Perhaps you should now say that Sarah Palin has more "executive experience" than McCain too?
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
carnivorous mouse wrote:i like Palin as working class white malei have come to terms that there are things niether canidate will follow through with
niether are going to stop illegal imigration that destroys my unions ability to broker with City that employees me
niether are going to socialize medicine
niether are going to do anything about gas prices
niether are going to bleed the rich
niether are are going to bring jobs to the states
niether would even spit in my face if i where dying of thirst in the desert
However at least Mccain gives some thing at least i can own a fire arm so when the day comes i have the option to blow my brians out or take some one with me.
at least Palin is cute, she uses Fire arms lives in state that is far away America.
I liked Mitt Romney because thats what a president looks like hes like a attractive Ronald Regan. Ronald Regan looked like scarpy doo but sounded like scooby.
what i dont undestand why didn't obama stay away from the Gun issue he would have been better off
You know I'm all about the 2nd amendment, and unlike the most all the GOP in office, I'm all about all the other rights besides that as well - but its sad to me that people would actually cast their vote for who will run the nation day every day, help pass tons of different bills, control so much policy, etc etc etc - and people will actually vote based off of gun ownership of all things instead of all the actually important issues... You might want to re-evaluate your priorities on that one.
Also, Obama does not actually want to "take your guns" blah, blah, blah. And he couldn't if he really wanted too. You are scared over nothing. There is more of a chance of us getting invaded by Australia and THEM taking your guns than the US president doing any such thing.
As far as what you said -
You are probably correct about the first one. McCain(former POW) does only pay the immigration issue lip service to appease his base. But in reality they stand about the same on the immigration issue once the election is over. They want to secure the border and provide a "path to legalization" for those that are here.
Neither will socialize medicine - But Barack wants to put a
voluntary alternative out there. A national scale, affordable plan that will compete with pre-existing and future free-market plans. You choose if you want your current plan, the national plan, or no plan. Hillary wanted to force everyone into it and make everyone get health care. Luckily for people scared of "socialized health care," she lost. The plan from McCain(former POW) is pretty worthless. He is just a lobbyist's tool on this issue.
Gas prices? Big Oil hurts you more than just at the pump. This affects the cost to produce food, plastics(petroleum product), energy costs in general, transportation costs for all goods, and overall production costs. So everything either costs more and/or you get less in a package. Add that to our falling dollar value(oil prices are rated in US dollars) and you see prices rise even more. Fix the economy and you take alot of the sting out of it.
Another large part of it is Oil speculators. Look up how that works and you will wonder why that isn't outlawed yet. Obama intends to put an end to this. Remember that recent gas price plunge? What actually happened(the GOP would tell you it was Bush's executive order on drilling even though it actually changed nothing), it was that a major oil speculator withdrew from the market.
The final part of the higher prices isn't so fixable - massively growing Chinese demand for oil. The only thing here to do is aggressively pursue alternative energy - both candidates agree on as much. But McCain(former POW) is too much into Big Oil's pocketbook to do anything meaningful.
As far as the Rich go - Well McCain(former POW) think that in the face of record deficits in Government spending that we need more corporate tax breaks. Trickle down economics benefits no one except the uber-wealthy. Obama intends to end subsidies to oil companies(we taxpayers PAY oil companies over 20 billion a year), close tax loop-holes, and raise taxes on individuals making more than $250,000 per year(which means he would even raise his own taxes). He intends to lower taxes for lower income people.
As far as jobs go, Obama would end tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs(thank you Bush for rewarding companies who betray American workers) and instead give tax breaks for companies who instead create jobs right here in the USA. I've heard nothing of the sort from John McCain(former POW) and I don't expect I will anytime soon.
I think both candidates are good enough men that they would help you in the desert or... whatever. If it was Ron Paul you might be in trouble - he'd have to check the constitution for any mention of helping dying people in the desert
, and there is no such mention so you'd be on your own. (J/K about Ron Paul)
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Sorry guy's but until you can actually bring something to the table that shows Barack(former Community Organizer
) has ever made any real change and/or can clearly define how he's going to change anything once he's in office I'll see this...
The Dem's threw Hillary under the bus and hung there hopes on an empty suit with nothing to show for his past but words. At least with Hillary you know she could govern (not to my liking but at least she could do something)...
"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"
That's fair. How is Barrack going to change anything? I'm not too sure. He does have quite a list of ideas, and he will have the support of a Democratic congress most likely.
But how is John McCain going to change anything? Given that he's voted with Bush 90-95% percent of the time? Bush, the guy we're all tired of.
---
That 90% includes everything from the new GI Bill to ordering more paperclips for the DOT mail room. If Obama really wants to be clear, he should say something like "I voted along with Bush 87% of the time while McCain voted 90%", "vote for me if you want change"!
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html
Q: Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?The Obama campaign keeps claiming McCain has voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time. Is this true? Is this significant?
A: Yes, it's true, according to Congressional Quarterly's assessment of McCain's voting record.
Sen. Barack Obama has attempted to use the Arizona senator's voting record against him in statements like this:
Barack Obama (June 3): It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.
The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).
Democrats are, of course, attempting to make the case that a vote for McCain is a vote to continue the policies of Bush, whose approval ratings are, to put it charitably, not a political asset for McCain.
Is 95% "Significant"?
As for whether voting with Bush 95 percent of the time last year is "significant," that's a matter of opinion that we leave to readers to determine for themselves.
When doing so, they may wish to consider that Obama's votes were in line with the president's position 40 percent of the time in 2007. That shouldn't be terribly surprising. Even the Senate's Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, voted with Bush 39 percent of the time last year, according to the way Congressional Quarterly rates the votes.
The McCain campaign points out that
Obama told a local TV interviewer recently that "the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush." Obama was actually wrong about that. In 2006 he voted alongside the president 49 percent of the time, and in 2005, the year before Democrats took control of the Senate, Obama voted with the president only 33 percent of the time.
Also, Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006, according to CQ.
And so . . .
So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 95 percent of the time most recently, but less so in earlier years. And Obama has voted pretty close to 100 percent in line with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career.
I'll get back to you on some specific changes later,right now I have to run a buisness for a few more hours today...
"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629&tab=bills
Bills that Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored in the last 2 years. That's what he's done in the last 2 years while campaigning for DNC nomination.
As far as Palin: I shudder when I hear about someone that wants to ban books. Seriously... Banning books? You have a functional illiteracy rate of over 20%, you have a rate of functional scientific illiteracy of well over 90%, and you're going to waste time, energy and funds banning books?
I don't rightly give a damn about her time as mayor or governor of Alaska... thats about as idiotic an idea as ever I've heard.
If you don't like the language that's used in the book PUT IT DOWN AND DON'T READ IT YOU DAMNED MILQUETOASTY TWIT. Remember guys like Hitler and Stalin? They banned books too, it's a great tyrannical tradition: if you don't like it, ban it.
Your political system disappoints me more and more each day...
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:can clearly define how he's going to change anything once he's in office I'll see this...
Have you listened to any speech all year? I've never heard a candidate outline plans more clearly.
Kind of like banning the Bible from Pulic schools
...
"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"
john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:That 90% includes everything from the new GI Bill to ordering more paperclips for the DOT mail room. If Obama really wants to be clear, he should say something like "I voted along with Bush 87% of the time while McCain voted 90%", "vote for me if you want change"!
Where did you get 87% from? Not from your own quotes. And I can't use all of your links because it is asking me to login.
john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:
As for whether voting with Bush 95 percent of the time last year is "significant," that's a matter of opinion that we leave to readers to determine for themselves.
That's kind of what I just said. People are going to vote as far away as they can from anything resembling "more of the same".
I'm not dissing McCain. Like I said, I've been a fan for a long time. But I don't see him or the Republicans talking about economy, health or anything in a way that satisifies me, and since the ball's in their court right now, I feel they have more of a onus on them than Barrack does. Barrack can simply come out and say "I'm not them" and probably garner 40% of the vote right now by default.
---
john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:Kind of like banning the Bible from Pulic schools...
Where is the Bible banned in a public school? I STUDIED the bible in my high school in a "Bible as Literature" class, and I'm in California!!
---
john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:Kind of like banning the Bible from Pulic schools...
That's funny because:
- The Christian Bible isn't banned from Public Schools.
- The Gnostic tomes aren't banned from Public Schools.
- The Jewish Torrah isn't banned from Public Schools.
- The Muslim Qur'ran isn't banned from Public Schools.
- The Hindu Vedas aren't banned from Public Schools.
- The Shinto Kojiki and the Nihonshoki aren't banned from Public Schools.
None of them are taught as fact either. And you know... Separation of Church and State being a good idea and all... It sounds fair: There is no state religion, and thus why should there be one tome taught as fact and dismiss all others... like... scientific books or books on the humanities (like Tom Sawyer or Catcher in the Rye?).
I have no problems with teaching Biblical ideology (which is to say: what way you choose to misinterpret the bible) right next to other ideological schools of thought. Teaching one religion's idea of "the truth" is folly. Stick to what you can prove, and let the family decide on what else to teach.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
You know I just considered the Irony that heavy Conservatives don't want the government involved in teaching sexual education, but they want the Government teaching religion instead?
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
On the irony note... McCain can't even lift his hands up far enough to facepalm...
I simply can't trust someone with those credentials.
Plus, like the old guy proved with his own words on John Wayne McCain isn't change, he's more of the same. I mean if you want more of the same, cool. Personally I'm more of a fan of peace and prosperity.
Bad Ace Design wrote:john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:can clearly define how he's going to change anything once he's in office I'll see this...
Have you listened to any speech all year? I've never heard a candidate outline plans more clearly.
You know, I keep coming back to this because it's really stood out in my mind as well. Political candidates always seem to be so cryptic. I certainly don't agree with everything Obama says, but all I've heard from McCain (and I've listened to everything I can find) is military-related, and everything I've heard from his supporters talks only of character traits. I need some substance from his camp. Oh yeah, all his ads are nothing but Barack-bashes, and I can't stand campaigns centered on attacking your opponents rather than building yourself and your cause up beyond said opponent.
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
OHV notec wrote:Bad Ace Design wrote:john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:can clearly define how he's going to change anything once he's in office I'll see this...
Have you listened to any speech all year? I've never heard a candidate outline plans more clearly.
You know, I keep coming back to this because it's really stood out in my mind as well. Political candidates always seem to be so cryptic. I certainly don't agree with everything Obama says, but all I've heard from McCain (and I've listened to everything I can find) is military-related, and everything I've heard from his supporters talks only of character traits. I need some substance from his camp. Oh yeah, all his ads are nothing but Barack-bashes, and I can't stand campaigns centered on attacking your opponents rather than building yourself and your cause up beyond said opponent.
The reason you haven't heard any plans is because he doesn't have any. Even in his speech tonight he outlined nothing. He said a lot of "I wants", but no "here's how I am gonna do it". There is no substance. He doesn't even have any flash.
Thats why the McCain camp selected the little hockey mom for the veep slot. She brings nothing of substance to the table either, except lame jokes generalizing on the temperment of pit bulls, extremist conservative views, and cross chatter on damn near every issue. She says victory in Iraq is in sight, he says 100 more years. Well, which is it?
That's why the McCain camp is damn near modelling their entire campaign after Obama's. He gets it, and McCain is just trying to keep up.
That's why the only campaign ads you see are tearing Obama down. There is nothing to build up John McCain with.
I like John McCain, he is the type of guy I wouldn't mind going to a bar with. But his politics are ludicrous and outdated. I certainly liked him better in 2000, when he actually thought for himself, and truly was a maverick. But those days are gone. Anymore he is just a puppet of the GOP. He sold out. He represents change about as much as GW does.
Speaking of MAVRICK, lolZ, did anyone see that huge sign during the RNC?
LOL
You know you're dealing with top notch people when they don't even know there is a damn E in mavErick.
At least he reminded us 87 separate times that he knows how the military works... good deal, you can lead your own combat battalion then captain war monger.
Sorry guy's. Should have said "trying" to ban the bible.
I'll get back into this this weekend when I have a little more free time.
"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"
Bad Ace Design wrote:OHV notec wrote:Bad Ace Design wrote:john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:can clearly define how he's going to change anything once he's in office I'll see this...
Have you listened to any speech all year? I've never heard a candidate outline plans more clearly.
You know, I keep coming back to this because it's really stood out in my mind as well. Political candidates always seem to be so cryptic. I certainly don't agree with everything Obama says, but all I've heard from McCain (and I've listened to everything I can find) is military-related, and everything I've heard from his supporters talks only of character traits. I need some substance from his camp. Oh yeah, all his ads are nothing but Barack-bashes, and I can't stand campaigns centered on attacking your opponents rather than building yourself and your cause up beyond said opponent.
That's why the only campaign ads you see are tearing Obama down. There is nothing to build up John McCain with.
...
Anymore he is just a puppet of the GOP.
If you think Obama is not going to be a puppet for the Dems, well, I'm not sure if that is reasonable. However, at this point the blue team's advertising department is sending a more defined message.
And let me make sure there's no confusion - I've seen attack ads from Obama as well, which I do not appreciate, but he's put out
other ads as too, unlike McCain.
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
