Boston Globe ignored Swift backtrack from charge that Obama compared Palin to a pig
SUMMARY: The Boston Globe reported that former acting Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift "led the Republican charge" that Sen. Barack Obama's "lipstick" comment regarding Sen. John McCain's policies was "an echo of [Gov. Sarah] Palin's joke during her convention speech." But Swift did more than charge that Obama's statement was "an echo" of Palin's joke; she actually accused Obama of calling Palin a pig. Then the next day, she backtracked from that accusation. The Globe reported neither the direct accusation nor the backtrack.
In a September 11 profile of former acting Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift, The Boston Globe reported that Swift "led the Republican charge" that Sen. Barack Obama's statement regarding Sen. John McCain's policies, "[Y]ou can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig," was "an echo of [Gov. Sarah] Palin's joke during her convention speech, naming the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull: 'Lipstick.' " In fact, Swift did more than charge that Obama's statement was "an echo of Palin's joke"; she actually accused Obama of referring to Palin as a pig. But the next day, during an interview with MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell, Swift backtracked, saying that she "can't know" if Obama's comment "was aimed at Governor Palin." The Globe noted neither Swift's original accusation -- reportedly made in a quickly convened conference call with reporters shortly after Obama's comment and subsequently determined to be false by independent fact-checkers -- nor her acknowledgment the next day that she could not actually say whether Obama had been referring to Palin with his remark.
Swift -- who is a national member of the McCain campaign's recently announced "Palin Truth Squad" -- asserted on September 9 that Obama's remarks were "[d]isgraceful comments comparing our vice-presidential nominee, Governor Palin, to a pig." But during a September 10 interview on MSNBC Live, when O'Donnell asked Swift why she was "so sure that it [Obama's remark] was aimed at Governor Palin," Swift said: "I can't know if it was aimed at Governor Palin."
Rather than note Swift's original direct accusation or her backtrack, the Globe quoted her only as saying of Obama's "lipstick" remark: "It was a comment that obviously people in the audience and the press interpreted to be directed at Governor Palin. ... I interpreted it that way. I found it offensive."
From the September 11 Boston Globe article:
Swift spent much of yesterday making media appearances criticizing Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama for describing Republicans' message of change with the adage: "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig." Swift led the Republican charge that it was an echo of Palin's joke during her convention speech, naming the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull: "Lipstick."
"It was a comment that obviously people in the audience and the press interpreted to be directed at Governor Palin," said Swift. "I interpreted it that way. I found it offensive."
What else does Swift consider over the line?
Questions about whether Palin could be effective as a vice president with five children, one of whom has special needs; speculation on blogs that her baby was not her own but her daughter's; the assertion that she attempted to ban books; and reporting about the MySpace page of her daughter's fiancé.
It's a good thing Obama didn't say "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch" afterall, Palin used the word pitbull; but it is beginning to look like she can't run with the big dogs.
"Why doesn't the RNC just give out the list of all the words that are off limits-like Bush, Cheney, Iraq, middle class, veterans, health care, etc"
Words we cant use ya say....how about your guy's middle name!!
Words we cant use ya say....how about your guy's middle name!!
Words POV can't say:
"I'm an idiot."
"I don't know what I'm talking about."
"I only parrot the crap I hear on talk radio."
"As usual, Wzwriter is absolutely correct."
:-)
Wz
Lets do these one at a time.
"I'm an idiot." ......sometimes.......no doubt
"I don't know what I'm talking about." Without my daily dose of the liberal media, who really does know? I need the NYT to tell me how I am supposed to think. I need Keith Olberman to tell me how evil all the repubs are.
"I only parrot the crap I hear on talk radio.".........I dont listen to talk radio
"As usual, Wzwriter is absolutely correct." WZ has never been right on any issue I have ever seen discussed here. Normally you are a one line hit and run artist, with no regard for the truth or fairness. But that is ok. I think VP Palin will soften you up some. And better yet, we are aloud to say her middle name. Life is good.
I think VP Palin will soften you up some.
How? With scripted speeches, sprinkled with sound bites?
Don’t you realize, according to the libs, Obama and Biden are not scripted. They write 100% of their speeches, and of course they would never give a speech off a teleprompter. Obama will have a hard time in the debates. McCain is much better in these situations, and you will see Obama have a much more difficult time when he cannot go straight from a script. His worst performance to date was his interview with the Pastor, and it resulted in the “above my pay grade” line. Of course they are all scripted, but the dems can’t face that fact.
Now that's not to say Obama lacks discipline or principles, he simply did not receive good coaching and he has not been educated on how to turn his nuanced stances into direct statements of principle. You and I know what Obama meant by his pay grade line. We knew he meant that it's not for man to say when life begins and it certainly is not the role of government to say so either.
We had better hope and pray that Obama has gotten some better input before the debates start.
Col: "I've got nothing of substance to retort with, so once again I'll try to make fun of the poster instead."
Classy. Typical. Hypocritical.
You're darn right.
Your point about Palin's empty repetition of someone else's words being equal to Obama's making sounds while he gives consideration to the issue at hand and formulates a cogent and relevant response deserves much better than you got from the Col.
lol, no. With the Presidential Swearing-in Ceremony of course.
"I'm an idiot." ......sometimes.......no doubt
More often than you realize. Like right now.
"I don't know what I'm talking about." Without my daily dose of the liberal media, who really does know? I need the NYT to tell me how I am supposed to think. I need Keith Olberman to tell me how evil all the repubs are.
You sure need something, POV. Such as a clue.....
"I only parrot the crap I hear on talk radio.".........I dont listen to talk radio
Well, you're sure getting the stupid right-wing talking points from SOMEWHERE - if not talk radio, then probably some cybersewer like Free Republic or World Nut Daily.
"As usual, Wzwriter is absolutely correct." WZ has never been right on any issue I have ever seen discussed here. Normally you are a one line hit and run artist, with no regard for the truth or fairness. But that is ok. I think VP Palin will soften you up some. And better yet, we are aloud to say her middle name. Life is good.
I am right most of the time, POV - you're just too blind to see the truth. Yes, I usually only post one-liners - that's beacuse that's all the worthless crap YOU post deserves in response.
And as far as I'm concerned, your precious Sarah Louise (See? I know how to use middle names.) can go to hell - along with Gramps McCain, KKKarl Rove, and the whole damned RepubliKKKan Party. That would TRULY make life good.
But he does it so well!! WZ is a pro at attacking and making fun of people. On ocassion, he even posts a funny picture or two. Just dont ever expect serious, rational thought from him, and dont ever expect him to say a negative word about the dems........ever.
The Col does the same thing really. Truth be told Dex, the Col is just funnier about it. Think of WZ as the opening act for the Col in a tragic comdey of Democratic Whats My Line.
And think of POV as a contestant on "Are You Smarter Than a Dog Turd?"
In POV's case, the answer is "no."
I think what PointOfHead is talking about is the uneven playing field that you and WZ maintain. You guys refuse to acknowledge the liberal media. You never admit to the smears of republicans. You won't realize that Obama's pig remark was an attack on Palin. You turn a blind eye to O'Really's non-partisanship. You deny McCain's a maverick, and you ignore hannity's research.
You just won't stick to the rules of the game, and it's not fair.
"WZ is a pro at attacking and making fun of people. On ocassion, he even posts a funny picture or two. Just dont ever expect serious, rational thought from him, and dont ever expect him to say a negative word about the dems........ever."
Let's try this...
"Jeff Christie (Sean Hannity, The Detestable One, aka His Vileness, aka Mark Levin) are pros at attacking and making fun of people. On ocassion, they even try to be funny (although they fail with intelligent people). Just dont ever expect serious, rational thought from them, and dont ever expect them to say a negative word about the repubs........ever."
There. Better.
See... not speaking for WZ here, just injecting my 2 for sh*ts and giggles, but it looks like he is merely mirroring your rightwing 'heroes'. You should embrace it, not mock it.
"WZ is a pro at attacking and making fun of people."--POV
Pot meet kettle.
Huge difference
RNC taboos as listed by GG: Bush, Cheney, Iraq, middle class, veterans, health care=Policy discussions the Republicans don't want to have
Obama's middle name usage-cheap fear tactic for the ignorant. How does Obama's name affect day-to-day life in America?
It doesn't of course.
POV if you want to use Barack's middle name, go right ahead. Make sure you use John Sidney McCain. And Sarah Louise Palin as well. And of course Joseph Robinette Biden. But then again, how often do you normally use someone's middle name in every day talking and interacting with other people? I know for myself, my middle name never get used, and only with infrequency when I was much younger with my Mother when I would get into trouble. And that's about it. The only other times I see, or know of common use of someone's middle name is when they use their middle name as their first name. For example, a guy I work with. His common use name is Michael, but that's his middle name.
You want to use Obama's middle name as a punch line, and a scare tactic as in, ooh, he has the SAME MIDDLE NAME as a former dead dictator from the middle east. He MUST be a closet Islamist.
So if you use Obama's middle name, make sure you use everyone else's, because otherwise, I'd be concerned that you are just doing it because it sounds scary...
Fried, I encourage the wingnuts to say and write "Hussein" as often as they want to. I keep hearing them whine that they're "not allowed to say Obama's middle name",which seems to make them almost as sad and confused as they are at not being able to use the "N" word, while those lucky rappers get to use it constantly.
I keep asking them who this mysterious force is that's forbidding them from saying "Hussein", but like most wingnut-directed questions, I never get an answer.
Say Hussein all you want, my friends. Then the rest of us will point out how completely bankrupt of ideas you are by having to try to make a connection between Obama and Saddam Hussein via a common name.
Then you can cry that pointing out your emptiness is curtailing your freedom. And the rest of us will all laugh at you some more.
What Giuliani meant at the RNC:
I'm sorry -- I'm sorry that John McCain feels that the press isn't deferential enough. I'm sorry, John, that it's not obsequious enough. Maybe he clings to her instant celebrity.
I suspect that the powers that be in the RNC are afraid that Caribou Barbie will come off like Caitlin Upton, and her famous response at the 2007 Miss Teen USA Pageant if they let her talk to the press.
For those of you who don't recall Caitlin Upton:
As part of a question and answer portion of the 2007 Miss Teen USA pageant, Upton was asked by the questioner Aimee Teegarden, "Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?"
Upton responded: "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future, for our [children]."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlin_Upton
Yes I saw him last night also and was impressed with him. Usually Matthews is a gasbag but even he was sick of the GOP talking points. They will say and do anything to win an election.
Mark my words, Osama Bin Laden will appear on a video before election day . There is more Fear Factor to come from the GOP. They will not answer questions and they nominated the most unqualified person they could to be Vice Presdient.
JLyons wrote: "...and they nominated the most unqualified person they could to be Vice Presdient.[sic]"
Based on your statement above, what does that say about the Democrats Presidential pick? After all, did not they also pick the most unqualified person of all the Democratic hopefuls?
It was a cynical, calculated, totally political choice. Sort of like Karl Rove said Tim Kaine would be.
Obama was elected by the people...
Please correct me if I am mistaken on this - but I believe he was the only choice on the ballot. I don't think they had much of a choice.
You're mistaken.
There were these things through the end of winter and through spring called primary elections and caucuses. They were mentioned on the news a couple of times over that period. There were quite a few options for those voters.
You must have missed it.
AA,
I kindly remind you that you are dealing with a majority of liberals here. To them experience only matters when judging conservatives. Obama's a liberal - it doesn't matter what he has or has not accomplished. It only matters how he makes fellow liberals feel.
W is a statesman of supreme intellect and unerring judgement. He just had one or two bad things happen, that's all...
Last place on the Republican list of possible campaign mottos:
"See? Told ya!"
To them experience only matters when judging conservatives. "
I've got news for you: NO ONE is EXPERIENCED at the job of President in their first term. NO ONE. The only people experienced at that job are the people who have actually DONE it.
Qualified, on the other hand, is a totally different subject.
MMFA's post is good and correct.
That being said, the posts here would be funny if they weren't such "phony lies" (Obama, isn't that kind of a double negative? Does that mean they're really true?)
Palin is being called "The Princess." Yet, you're offended when Obama is called Obamessiah or other names.
Palin "can't take the heat" and "haha there must be suuuch a long list of words that are 'off-limits." Laughable. You and the Obama campaign are so upset that YOU all can't be criticized for your choice of words, but you call the GOP sensitive? And, the only real efforts to officially make words off-limits are the Obama campaign (suing because of the Ayers ad? Please.) and all the "Faiiiiirrness Doctrine" supporters.
You're mad because your rockstar got some light shined off of him. Now you're mad because you're slipping in the polls, because everyone can see that Obama is "change", but he's just change to more of the same ol' lefty/lib stuff that they're getting with the 9%-approved Congress.
Obama/Biden are not better people, are not better politicians, are no more "change" than anyone else elected has ever been, save for the policies they support. McCain/Palin are certainly no saints, but you're throwing rocks in your own glass houses.
"Yet, you're offended when Obama is called Obamessiah or other names."
Has anyone been "offended" by this? In reality, if you're a Christian, you SHOULD be offended by this. It's borderline blasphemy, equating Obama with the son of God.
Dex, I'll tell you why I'm mad:
Palin is being called "The Princess." Yet, you're offended when Obama is called Obamessiah or other names.
I'm mad here because all of the Republicans who dissed Obama are reveling in seeing the same qualities in Palin, yet have no problem with it. I'm offended by the "Obamessiah" because of the blasphemous conotations. If someone compared Palin to the Almighty, I would be offended by that too. I'm offended by the lack of scrutiny when she speaks.
Palin "can't take the heat" and "haha there must be suuuch a long list of words that are 'off-limits." Laughable. You and the Obama campaign are so upset that YOU all can't be criticized for your choice of words, but you call the GOP sensitive? And, the only real efforts to officially make words off-limits are the Obama campaign (suing because of the Ayers ad? Please.) and all the "Faiiiiirrness Doctrine" supporters.
Compare the media access to Biden and to Palin. Compare the questioning of both. If you think the Ayers line is appropriate, should anti-McCain ads showing McCain calling G. Gordon Liddy a friend and then bounce to Liddy calling for ATF agents to be shot in the head? Would that be appropriate? Of course not. Neither is the Ayers ad.
You're mad because your rockstar got some light shined off of him. Now you're mad because you're slipping in the polls, because everyone can see that Obama is "change", but he's just change to more of the same ol' lefty/lib stuff that they're getting with the 9%-approved Congress.
When it comes to Congress, I am furious that the media does not report on the record-breaking filibusters used by the Republicans. The same people who clamored for "up and down" votes on judges have blocked more votes than any group in history. I am fed up that the media refuses to report on this in the least. Aren't you?
Friedberg, I think your hypothetical McCain/G Libby ad would be fine, at the very least ridiculous to threaten a lawsuit with. Every other point you've made I think is quite legitimate in principle, although I would probably disagree on the finer points of what is really useful, issue-based debate and what isn't.
I have a personal distaste for most Congressional Repubs to the level that I have a distaste for Dems. I'm just tired of the complaints on here and from other liberal-leaning sources that it's any different (I say there's NO 'change') than the Rovian politics that were so hated in 2000 and 2004.
Again, I'll repeat that the swiftboat attacks on Kerry were despicable and unnecessary. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially if one side is committing the 2nd wrong while still complaining of the first.
"You're mad because your rockstar got some light shined off of him."
On your first point the only people calling Obama a rock star were the right, so the fact that perople are pointing out the genefluncting of hypocritical rightwingers to Caribuo Barbie does seem to counter what you are saying doesn't it.
"Now you're mad because you're slipping in the polls, because everyone can see that Obama is "change", but he's just change to more of the same ol' lefty/lib stuff that they're getting with the 9%-approved Congress."
Hmmmm. Well first McCain got a post convention bounce which is now over
newscred.com/article/show/title/mccain-s-bounce-over-48c8600152566
And as for congress? Well MAYBE if the republicans didn't filibuster everything, something would get done. But that would be too difficult for some to understand.
Palin is being called "The Princess." Yet, you're offended when Obama is called Obamessiah or other names.
Haven't heard anyone offended by it yet. Most think that Obama's popularity being likened to him being the Messiah is stupid and we recognize that it's done by the right to create derison, so you can understand the backlash. Or maybe you can't.
Palin "can't take the heat" and "haha there must be suuuch a long list of words that are 'off-limits." Laughable. You and the Obama campaign are so upset that YOU all can't be criticized for your choice of words, but you call the GOP sensitive? And, the only real efforts to officially make words off-limits are the Obama campaign (suing because of the Ayers ad? Please.) and all the "Faiiiiirrness Doctrine" supporters.
No, as I recall it was Palin who asked about banning books from the library. Words are the enemy of conservatives when they're communicating the truth, but they're allies when they can be used to divert attention or mislead an audience. The fairness doctrine doesn't stop the righty talkers from lying, it just insures that the lies will be pointed out. And that's what scares you about it.
You're mad because your rockstar got some light shined off of him. Now you're mad because you're slipping in the polls, because everyone can see that Obama is "change", but he's just change to more of the same ol' lefty/lib stuff that they're getting with the 9%-approved Congress.
Half of that "9% approved congress" is republican. The same republicans (since NO republican seats were gained in '06) that patted your guy Bush on the head and kissed him on the cheek and sent him on his way. It wasn't the lefty/lib stuff that put this country 9 trillion in debt, or mired us in 2 wars against pissant countries 6 years ago, or eroded civil rights, or tortured prisoners, or resulted in the corporate welfare for Fannie and Freddy, or... That was the republican stuff. The same republican party of which McCain and Palin are members.
Obama/Biden are not better people, are not better politicians, are no more "change" than anyone else elected has ever been, save for the policies they support. McCain/Palin are certainly no saints, but you're throwing rocks in your own glass houses.
They ARE better people. Smarter, more honest, and if nothing else, an alternative to the disastrous policies that have made people realize that they're not only no better off than they were 8 years ago, they've actually fallen behind.
But I'm telling you right now: do NOT change your mind or your party affiliation. Stick with your morons, stand by your honorless principles, defend your inept "leaders". The liberal philosophy requires thought, and that makes you as unqualified as your last presidential candidate.
Neon, everything I don't address below I recognize as a legitimate argument no weaker than my own.
No, as I recall it was Palin who asked about banning books from the library. Words are the enemy of conservatives when they're communicating the truth, but they're allies when they can be used to divert attention or mislead an audience. The fairness doctrine doesn't stop the righty talkers from lying, it just insures that the lies will be pointed out. And that's what scares you about it.
Is that the story on Palin right now? First, it was that she banned books, then it was she tried to ban books, now it's she talked about banning books. Sure the story won't change again? Do you even know what books supposedly she "inquired" about?
The Fairness Doctrine should scare you as well. You can point out all the lies you want now; the Fairness Doctrine would require "equal time", and will really just end it all, because liberal talk radio hosts, for instance, have not been as financially successful as conservative ones. Don't you think that the Fairness Doctrine will apply to internet blogs based in the US as well? Fair time/space on the same server promoting MMfA for NewBusters, for example?
Half of that "9% approved congress" is republican. The same republicans (since NO republican seats were gained in '06) that patted your guy Bush on the head and kissed him on the cheek and sent him on his way. It wasn't the lefty/lib stuff that put this country 9 trillion in debt, or mired us in 2 wars against pissant countries 6 years ago, or eroded civil rights, or tortured prisoners, or resulted in the corporate welfare for Fannie and Freddy, or... That was the republican stuff. The same republican party of which McCain and Palin are members.
I get that "half" (but not really) are republican, and I don't really understand why you think I'm supporting Congressional Repubs. I'm not. They suck.
If we didn't have half the lefty/lib social programs and government waste in bureaucracy, I bet the debt would be much less.
If you really think that the US was so "bad" during the last 8 years, please show me the magic fairy that kept us from being attacked domestically since 9/11/2001. I want to wish upon a star for 8 more, regardless of who's elected.
They ARE better people. Smarter, more honest, and if nothing else, an alternative to the disastrous policies that have made people realize that they're not only no better off than they were 8 years ago, they've actually fallen behind.
I disagree. We can spit adjectives about the other side all day though and not get anywhere.
But I'm telling you right now: do NOT change your mind or your party affiliation. Stick with your morons, stand by your honorless principles, defend your inept "leaders". The liberal philosophy requires thought, and that makes you as unqualified as your last presidential candidate.
I don't think you or most liberals are morons. I think your system works relatively well in homogenous societys with centuries of common heritage to rely on. I don't think it works so well in a 250ish year old country with no common racial/cultural heritage and one that was built on freedom of the individual for self-determination. If liberals (and Repubs) continue to disparage, the label "elitist" will never go away as a legitimate name for either side's leaders.
You're mad because your rockstar got some light shined off of him. Now you're mad because you're slipping in the polls, because everyone can see that Obama is "change", but he's just change to more of the same ol' lefty/lib stuff that they're getting with the 9%-approved Congress. Half of that "9% approved congress" is republican. The same republicans (since NO republican seats were gained in '06) that patted your guy Bush on the head and kissed him on the cheek and sent him on his way. It wasn't the lefty/lib stuff that put this country 9 trillion in debt, or mired us in 2 wars against pissant countries 6 years ago, or eroded civil rights, or tortured prisoners, or resulted in the corporate welfare for Fannie and Freddy, or... That was the republican stuff. The same republican party of which McCain and Palin are members. Obama/Biden are not better people, are not better politicians, are no more "change" than anyone else elected has ever been, save for the policies they support. McCain/Palin are certainly no saints, but you're throwing rocks in your own glass houses. They ARE better people. Smarter, more honest, and if nothing else, an alternative to the disastrous policies that have made people realize that they're not only no better off than they were 8 years ago, they've actually fallen behind. But I'm telling you right now: do NOT change your mind or your party affiliation. Stick with your morons, stand by your honorless principles, defend your inept "leaders". The liberal philosophy requires thought, and that makes you as unqualified as your last presidential candidate.
To address your last point, the liberal ideology requires that one deny the rights of the individual and self-determination in favor of a collectivist, socialist welfare society. Liberals don't realize that the wealth that was created and continues to be created in this country will not flourish under a completely socialist society (Even Marx knew that) and that Americans' only allegience and commonality is our Constitution and our rights under it.
To deny that the USA is still the most wealthy, productive, and powerful society to ever exist on this Earth is to be a true moron.
We don't have a free market in this country...we have a mixed economy. If America is so rich an powerful why do we have to borrow money from China to keep from going completely bankrupt?
You want to argue pure ideals (communism vs capitalism) because that is a fight you feel well equiped to win. But here in reality where Americans are talking about what is best for their future...no one is talking about Communism. It's a scapegoat. And I love the little bits you repeat about feeling not thinking....it cracks me up when cultic dumb@sses who know little but feeling try to claim rationality as a friend.
The economic STATUS QUO of America is FAR from a "Free Market."
Specifically, our corporations are delighted to SOCIALIZE their losses, SOCIALIZE their responsibilities (like providing health care for their employees, like NOT providing pensions and leaving it to Social Security, a real profit-saving move). Socialized losses are seen in the many multi-billion dollar BAIL OUTS our large companies expect from taxpayers.
YET, PROFITS are Capitalized, in that even while the companies they run are going down the tubes, the executives are taking huge bonuses for themselves, money that can never be returned, used to help workers.
Further, rightwingers accuse citizens who desire government to help out those in need of being Communist/socialist, yet the big corporations have lobbiests constantly demanding government help them out, give them every advantage, take their side in disputes with labor, and so on. And the millions spend influencing public law and policy to benefit big business WORKS, yet there is no hue and cry from rightwingers that these big businesses are behaving like Communists/Socialists.
So, it's Socialism for a citizen to expect government favor, but it's just grand for Business to demand all government favors. THAT is part of "Capitalism". Go figure.
Dex wrote:
>>To address your last point, the liberal ideology requires that one deny the rights of the individual and self-determination in favor of a collectivist, socialist welfare society.
That is not an argument. That is a rant. If you wanted to make that an argument, you would need a whole book.
So lets play your game. Let's just change a few words:
To address your last point, the conservatie ideology requires that one deny the rights of the individual and self-determination in favor of a national state based on capitalism.
You see how easy rants are?
Dex,
First of all, I want to retract that last insult in my previous. I appreciate your response, and honestly was not expecting one directed at the issues. That was a pre-emptive strike, but unnecessary.
I'd like to respond to all the topics, but I'm patience challenged, though not as much as I am focused on being comprehensive, and without going back and referring to each item, I could hardly be thorough. So for now I'll only address one that stuck out, and is a common talking point:
If you really think that the US was so "bad" during the last 8 years, please show me the magic fairy that kept us from being attacked domestically since 9/11/2001. I want to wish upon a star for 8 more, regardless of who's elected.
We have not been attacked, because everything that was intended with the last attack, while not complete, is going according to plan. If you open your history book to "Afghanistan War", you will find that, surprisingly, we are not the first country to invade that country. We're not even the first superpower to invade that country. Even before Bin Laden (or whoever it was that planned 9/11, since Bush is now saying it wasn't Bin Laden) sent 4 planes to crash into some of our more prominent buildings, the Soviet Union decided to invade Afghanistan. The resulting long, drawn out war there contributed to the collapse of the Soviet economy, and taught the world - excepting George W, apparently - that 4GW (fourth generation warfare, aka guerilla or terrorist tactics) by a hopelessly outmatched "militia" could frustrate an organized military long enough to inflict more harm than the same group with modern weapons.
bin Laden himself said about his goals back in December 2001: "If their economy is destroyed, they will be busy with their own affairs rather than enslaving the weak peoples. It is very important to concentrate on hitting the U.S. economy through all possible means." This was echoed by al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri in September 2002: "We will also aim to continue, by the permission of Allah, the destruction of the American economy."
Now, while not going bankrupt yet, we're seeing the effects of Bush's wars on our economy right now. The debt, foreign borrowing, the drop of the dollar, and now the attrition and fatigue in the military are all results of Bush's foolish decision. These are the goals of Bin Laden, and we're proving to him that he was right.
So, haven't been attacked? Why should they bother? We're carrying out their plans ourselves. Keep that in mind as the stock market and the dollar drop, oil rises, and we "surge" in Afghanistan.
...he liberal ideology requires that one deny the rights of the individual and self-determination in favor of a collectivist, socialist welfare society.
See, Dex, this is where you lose people here, You may be used to having people speak to you this way, starting off their argument by stating a complete fantasy as fact, but it just makes liberals laugh. You don't like being laughed at, do you?
This is also why you find that everything you post here doesn't get a long, labor-intensive response. It's not because those awful libs can't do anything but throw out one-liners and insults. It's because you're not bringing anything to the table that hasn't already beat itself.
"Is that the story on Palin right now? First, it was that she banned books, then it was she tried to ban books, now it's she talked about banning books. Sure the story won't change again? Do you even know what books supposedly she "inquired" about?"
She talked to the librarian about it, then she fired the librarian. Why? Is that a coincidence? And then the librarian was reinstated. Again, why? If she was fired for a valid reason, then why didn't she stay fired? If she was fired wrongly, that suggests her refusal to remove books is the reason behind it. Otherwise there's some other motivation that came up at the same time, which is sort of hard to believe. I don't see any rational scenario that doesn't involve Palin trying to ban books, do you?
"The Fairness Doctrine should scare you as well. You can point out all the lies you want now; the Fairness Doctrine would require "equal time", and will really just end it all, because liberal talk radio hosts, for instance, have not been as financially successful as conservative ones. Don't you think that the Fairness Doctrine will apply to internet blogs based in the US as well? Fair time/space on the same server promoting MMfA for NewBusters, for example?"
The FD doesn't apply to blogs. How on earth could that be enforced?
Caribou Barbie isn't a Pig...... just an Evangelical Troglodyte Nutbag.
It looks like Caribou Barbie's supporters just don't get it. Look at the picture they have posted on CNN's Political Ticker - it was taken today in Alaska, where Caribou Barbie was making a rare public appearance:
Actually, that picture looks like a gathering of Steven Tyler's illegitimate children.....
:-)
WZ
Ok...that was funny........see.....i said before you post a funny pic on ocassion. See.....I was correct.
Dex: To address your last point, the liberal ideology requires that one deny the rights of the individual and self-determination in favor of a collectivist, socialist welfare society. Liberals don't realize that the wealth that was created and continues to be created in this country will not flourish under a completely socialist society (Even Marx knew that) and that Americans' only allegience and commonality is our Constitution and our rights under it.
The entire above statement is one big strawman, but the bolded part is what really gave me a chuckle. Modern-day liberals do not favor a 'complete' socialist society or the abolition of capitalism. We simply reject free-market fundamentalism and the blind belief that unregulated capitalism can self-manage itself in all situations (i.e. what's good for business is always good for the public.
As someone earlier said, the U.S. economy today is a mixed economy, where both the public sector and private sector (privately owned businesses) have a role. Liberals like Obama merely want to expand the role of govt. after years of neo-cons trying to dismantle much of the commons. History has proven that neither extremes work well.
Developed European nations like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, France, etc. practice social democracy, which tries to bring harmony between a democratic welfare state and laissez faire capitalism . Think of it as "third way" between the two. The Wiki article (with footnotes) on democratic socialism does a better job of defining
Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist movement.[1] Modern social democracy advocates the formation of a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.[2] This is unlike socialism in the traditional sense, which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense, which aims to replace it entirely. Instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices they see in the capitalist market system.
So you see, liberals do believe in individual liberty and freedom from constraint (negative rights). But we equally desire a govt. that can have a positive role on the lifes of its people (positive rights). Than includes access to education and healthcare, protection for the poor and disabled, combating social injustice against women and minorities, etc. What we favor is a balance.