lostfan

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 03:30 PM) I have seen plenty of vile stuff like that throughout the blogosphere from BOTH sides of the aisle. Not sure about Kos because I don't hang there much, but overall, I see no great difference between the parties in terms of the venomous extremists. A much less wordy version of what i was trying to say.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 03:25 PM) On this point, you are SO full of it. Go ahead, find a mainstream conservative site that had tons of front page posts and comments wishing death on Kennedy after his recent hospitalization. And I said mainstream, not some whacko fringe site with 20 hits a day. Koz is a mainstream dem site, like it or not. They even have sitting representatives posting on there (Pelosi). Cheney goes in the hospital, they have to cut off comments because it gets so damn vile it even disgusts Koz. Go there and start a post about Bush having been diagnosed with colon cancer and see how long it takes until the first post says somehting so vile it disgust you. I bet you lass than 5. You can say that Obama hasn't said stuff, of his campaign manager hasn't said stuff, but if referring to the left in general, especially blogs, commentators, etc, you are just wrong. The left side is so way over the top in violence, anger and venom that it is just not funny. (sorry for the thread-veer) I've found that in general, people on the internet are stupid. Because they can be, and on the Internet, nobody knows who they are, and they can say what they want with no consequences. Go to somewhere that isn't moderated, like the comments section of Youtube videos, or Yahoo's old message boards before they shut them down because they were so awful. It's pretty bad. That's just the Internet for you. I guarantee you, if I wanted to go somewhere and find Internet comments on somebody wanting to do (insert violent activity) to Obama because of (insert racial or other reason for hatred slur here) it would not take me more than 4-5 minutes. It may be blatant, it may be subtle... I don't have to veer outside of the mainstream, either. This isn't the left, this isn't the right, this is just people in general, not even in just America, but humanity as a whole.

Also, the next poster who makes an inappropriate comment or verbally attacks a fellow poster will receive a warning and/or a suspension. Sarcasm is ok (within reason), arguing is ok (that's why this subforum exists), unconventionally making a point, etc. Name-calling, flaming, and deliberately provoking another poster to get under their skin are not ok. Remember the guidelines everyone should have read and agreed to prior to posting here.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 02:11 PM) The left isn't sexist at all. My point is moreso that if the right asked the same questions about a woman that some people (I'll be more clear saying that, although by some I do mean a decent amount) on the left are asking about Palin, the right would be blistered as being sexist and racist. I would normally tend to agree, but every time I get ready to think something like that I hear another talking head say something like "come on, isn't it pretty sexist to suggest she's not smart enough to ____"?

I think mine and Balta's main points are the fact that people on "the left" (which also includes me by default) don't like being generalized as sexist for the comments and actions of other asshats, and they bristle at it the same way that "the right" does at being called racist.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 02:47 PM) This answer to my question (another question, and a silly one at that) tells me all I need to know about Obama's accomplishments. Of course. If a woman had run for VP on the left and even a single person on the right asked the question, it would be another case of the right being sexist, elitist pigs with no plans for broadening the horizons of their party. But it's ok for the left to ask the question apparently since Palin isn't experienced, and the left is the exclusive bastion of feminist thought. Hypocrisy is beautiful, and the last sentence of yoru post said it beautifully. If we are speaking in sweeping generalizations and talking about hypocrisy, why do I keep seeing "the right" on TV playing the sexist card every 20-30 minutes at the slightest hint of criticism of Palin? Especially after making such a fuss about the race card. That's really been burning my ass lately.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 01:40 PM) What does RSO stand for? I know it means Obama though, and his list of accomplishments is about as long as the line of Chicago Cubs championship banners. Rock Star Obama

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 01:03 PM) McCain is famous for his compromises. The only thing that changed Obama's view on drilling was the polls changed to say that people now supported drilling. I'll bet if gas prices start to fall again, his opposition to drilling will firm up again. Obama did the same dance about getting our troops out of Iraq. McCain did basically the exact same thing didn't he? Wasn't he against drilling before?

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 12:09 PM) McCain/Lieberman would have actually been a ticket I'd have LOVED, right down to the fact that I think Joe would have brought McCain back towards his circa 2000 views on things. Of course, thoughts like that are why I'm not a true republican, and that ticket would have never united the looney right wingers of the GOP, something they can't win without IMO. That's not really your opinion - it's a hard-and-fast fact. That type of ticket would never, ever work unless there was a full-blown 3rd party.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 12:11 PM) That is admittedly a low blow by Lieberman, but every politician does stuff like that. It's why most people don't like them. I concur... this is just a pretty stark contrast from the Lieberman that spoke in front of the Dem convention as the VP nominee in 2000.

Oh, I watched pieces of Lieberman's speech last night by the way. Lieberman praised Obama's eloquence but said that doesn't qualify him to lead. All right, fair enough. But then he pulled out the old "Obama voted against the troops" line. Well let's examine this. Did Obama vote against a bill to provide funding for the troops? Yes, yes he did. He did so for the reason that most Democrats did at the time, because he wanted the timetable in the bill. Now, on the flip side, Lieberman - and also McCain - voted against a bill to provide funding also, because it had the timetable in it, and they wanted it out. Based off Lieberman's shallow definition, doesn't this mean that he voted against the troops as well? If anyone wondered why people hate Lieberman this is why. It's about as close as you can be to a bald-faced lie without actually being one... the fact that he did this in front of the GOP convention notwithstanding.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 12:02 PM) Sure. Think of the ratings THAT would get! Moonbat libs turnign in to see thier hero lay one on the Repubs, moonbat Repubs turning in to see the media bias posterboy in action, the women's groups waiting to see how long until he makes a sexist comment about Palin and the FCC waiting to fine them for his inevitable meltdown when he finally tells someone on air to f*** off. Oh, and yeah, he wold probably have a stroke or something.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:52 AM) His Bush-bashing doesn't bother me, Bush deserves every bit of bashing he gets. My problem with him is his agenda for Barack Obama. Even when comparing him to fellow democrat Hillary Clinton, he was COMPLETELY unfair and biased in favor of Obama. I've said before that instead of wearing a suit and tie he should wear a skirt and tank top/sweater with "Obama '08" across the front.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) He's a personality when he does his little shtick every evening. If you put him at the politican convention of either of the two major parties, an event which is historic and has million upon millions of viewers, and make him a host rather than an admittedly biased commentator, that is something else. I don't watch much MSNBC (or Fox News) because both channels are a joke, but I think the host of the coverage of a major political convention shouldn't have an agenda to favor one specific party. Bias is something I can live with even if it annoys me, but flat out agenda isn't fair to the viewers. Just my opinion. I watch him sometimes mostly for comedic value. He's really, really over the top with his Bush-bashing, even by my standards.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:44 AM) I don't want Olbermann doing any sort of political convention. I can live with bias in my news coverage, but Olbermann flat out has an agenda. He is going to never say a negative word about the left, or a positive word about the right. I have no respect for his "news" reporting because he tries to make his own opinion the news. Most reporters have a bias, but at least try to give you the news in a fair manner. He doesn't. He's not a reporter though. He's a personality.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:38 AM) The best thing to me is the democratic rallying cry that McCain is "another 4 years of George W. Bush". It's a pretty sound campaign strategy if you ask me, it would be crazy of them not to do it. It'd be like the Republicans deciding to stop talking about lowering taxes.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 09:30 AM) Thanks, you just made my point. Now, onto another question. I wonder why MSNBC decided not to have Olbermann do the republican convention? Didn't he do a great job with the Democratic convention? I wonder what they were afraid he would say? Or do? Do you actually want Olbermann doing the RNC though? Plus he would have a stroke or something.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) So wait, help me understand this...are you saying he's become a worse leader since 2007 started and was never a good manager? He came out of the gate strong with his response to 9-11, and had unity at his back, and then it all came apart with the way the leading up to and invasion of Iraq was handled. Then during that time he had a GOP-controlled Congress, and he was walking and talking like a tough guy, his tone was always "yeah, and what are you going to do about it, you can't stop me?" Nothing was there to balance him out, and he got really cocky. Then in the 2006 mid-term elections the nation sent him a loud and clear message that he was going about it all wrong. Since 2007 he's been a lot more subdued, careful, and willing to compromise because he has no choice. I would say that ordinarily he'd have been a decent manager, but he had a lot of trash in his first administration that weighed him down.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:26 AM) I think the Palin debate about motherhood and whether you can have it all (in terms of a family and a prestigious career) is pretty interesting. You have a woman that returned to work 3 days after giving birth and has 4 (I think) minor children. It's been interesting to follow reaction to that on both sides of the aisle. Of course the most interesting question is if those types of questions would be asked if she was a man. You know, even my wife asked that, and then admitted it was kind of sexist. I think a lot of it has to do with peoples' perceptions of a woman's role in the family. My response to her was that it was her choice whether she thought she could handle it or not, and if she figured she could, she made plenty enough money to make sure her family was taken care of, even though she might be too busy to be around her youngest all the time.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 11:15 AM) Like I said, some of this stuff is over the top and is just part of the download data dump on all of us. But the Trooper-gate stuff will stick around unless she and McCain prevail in getting it shutdown until after the election. Some of her "god's will" stuff will get some fodder, but that will only rally the GOP base. Her lack of experience will stick around for a long time as well. The net effect of her "lack of experience" is moot... there is some blatant hypocrisy on the far sides of both ends on that one. From the parts of the GOP convention I saw, they were still hitting Obama on that.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 12:13 PM) Please forgive me for opening this thread. It was a mistake. I was thinking the same thing.

I'm curious to know how much of this stuff will blow over in a couple weeks and ultimately not matter.

I thought Bush was a really good leader at first and then he completely blew it. He's been 2 different presidents since he's had to deal with a Democratic majority.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 08:20 AM) I agree. He more closely aligns to what I think a president should be. But for whatever reason, he had his head up his ass for the whole campaign. He ran a half-assed campaign. He seemed to think he could get by on popularity.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 08:21 AM) I quit reading when the guys very first point wasn't true. The article was dripping with sarcasm, its factual basis wasn't really the point.