Sarah Palin - Oh, Great...

[DiebytheSword]

Uh oh, someone's reality check bounced.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986

 

[Pieter Paul Rubens]

Obama is what America needs. Breath of fresh air through a cesspool of hatred, ignorance and blatant lies.

 

[guest]

Obama is what America needs. Breath of fresh air through a cesspool of hatred, ignorance and blatant lies.

Are you serious? Obama really isn't anything different from the rest. At first he said he'd pull out of Iraq and now he's saying he has "intelligence" indicating there are Al Queda held up in some mountains and he won't stop until they're stopped? And there are a few different bills he's voted on the complete opposite that he said he would. He's just as slimy and ignorant as the next candidate.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Obama is what America needs. Breath of fresh air through a cesspool of hatred, ignorance and blatant lies.

You can have him as the president of your country then . . . not mine.

Edit:

http://www.drudgereport.com/

LOL, GTFO, you bastards can't vote.

 

[Pieter Paul Rubens]

I like how you first state that you don't want personal attacks to be made in this thread.. You then proceed to call me (and others) a bastard even though I never attacked you?

Sure I can't vote, all we foreigners can do is hope it'll be Obama, for the sake of the future.

 

[Almighty_Gir]

why wouldn't you want Obama cuc?

 

[DiebytheSword]

I like how you first state that you don't want personal attacks to be made in this thread.. You then proceed to call me (and others) a bastard even though I never attacked you?

Sure I can't vote, all we foreigners can do is hope it'll be Obama, for the sake of the future.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough, but I didn't intend bastard to be insulting. It was meant playfully. In addition, it wasn't aimed at you at all, it was aimed at the BBC pollsters.

As for Obama, I have a large pile of reasons why I don't want him as president.

173 days in the senate. I couldn't get a job with 173 days experience in any field. If I recall it was at 143 days that he announced his candidacy. He is an elitist prick, and even outright insulted the people of my state during his primary run, saying that we "cling to our guns and religeon", of which I do neither. In his run for state senate, most of his votes were "present", instead of actually picking a side. He promises change with no clear cut plan for that change his entire primary run, then puts up policy that is clearly not a good idea. Tax breaks for "middle income" turn out to be for the elderly which have more liquidity than any other population group. Taxes on companies that will pass those savings on to us (they sure as hell aren't going to foot the bill). I have never had a feeling of genuine care out of him. He is another empty suit pretending to be something he's not. His voting record in the senate is rediculously left, and he claims he will suddenly work across the isle? He vows not to take big money, and then takes a campaign option which allows him to ignore spending caps. He claims he will be anti-establishment and takes the most established dem in the senate next to Ted Kennedy as his running mate. Further, he visits the troops, and wants to hit the hospital, but cancels when he can't bring his PR machine in with him for photo ops. The Pentagon warned him upfront that he is visiting in the capacity of Senator, not candidate hopeful, and h tried anyway! A soldier I know was there and said he just skipped past everyone to shoot his pics, not a single good job son, not a word to them of encouragement. Scum, utter scum.

Most importantly of all, his ideals run couter to mine on almost every issue. And I can't see myself putting my vote for him. Edwards was the only Dem I was willing to vote for, and that was by a long shot. My favorites lost in the primaries on both sides. So now I can vote for a left-left dem, or a left of the center rep. That being said, I'm not happy with either choice, and I think that either side will do enormous damage when they win. I am, as in the past, voting for the lesser of two evils.

We are at war, we do not need a green, slick but empty suit running the country with tensions as high as they are. Sure he's a rock star, but can he do the job? I don't think he can.

 

[Grega]

I say everyone who believes her "task of God" speach should get a serious checkup by a professional psichiatrist.

Cause if they actually believe that BS then they seriously need help.

 

[Pieter Paul Rubens]

Cuc, imho, the first part of your post basically described how -every- politician is.. In the end, all you can do is vote for the stuff the promise to do. Therefore, the second part of your post as good enough for me, as you don't like his points and won't vote for him because of that. But the first part doesn't stand as a valid reason not to vote for someone.

 

[DaRkOwNs]

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough, but I didn't intend bastard to be insulting. It was meant playfully. In addition, it wasn't aimed at you at all, it was aimed at the BBC pollsters.

As for Obama, I have a large pile of reasons why I don't want him as president.

173 days in the senate. I couldn't get a job with 173 days experience in any field. If I recall it was at 143 days that he announced his candidacy. He is an elitist prick, and even outright insulted the people of my state during his primary run, saying that we "cling to our guns and religeon", of which I do neither. In his run for state senate, most of his votes were "present", instead of actually picking a side. He promises change with no clear cut plan for that change his entire primary run, then puts up policy that is clearly not a good idea. Tax breaks for "middle income" turn out to be for the elderly which have more liquidity than any other population group. Taxes on companies that will pass those savings on to us (they sure as hell aren't going to foot the bill). I have never had a feeling of genuine care out of him. He is another empty suit pretending to be something he's not. His voting record in the senate is rediculously left, and he claims he will suddenly work across the isle? He vows not to take big money, and then takes a campaign option which allows him to ignore spending caps. He claims he will be anti-establishment and takes the most established dem in the senate next to Ted Kennedy as his running mate. Further, he visits the troops, and wants to hit the hospital, but cancels when he can't bring his PR machine in with him for photo ops. The Pentagon warned him upfront that he is visiting in the capacity of Senator, not candidate hopeful, and h tried anyway! A soldier I know was there and said he just skipped past everyone to shoot his pics, not a single good job son, not a word to them of encouragement. Scum, utter scum.

Most importantly of all, his ideals run couter to mine on almost every issue. And I can't see myself putting my vote for him. Edwards was the only Dem I was willing to vote for, and that was by a long shot. My favorites lost in the primaries on both sides. So now I can vote for a left-left dem, or a left of the center rep. That being said, I'm not happy with either choice, and I think that either side will do enormous damage when they win. I am, as in the past, voting for the lesser of two evils.

We are at war, we do not need a green, slick but empty suit running the country with tensions as high as they are. Sure he's a rock star, but can he do the job? I don't think he can.

do you think the job CAN be done? cause honestly, im pretty sure that time frame passed. continuing the war is not only disrespectful to the soldiers but is just completely childish and irresponsible. a good leader knows when to throw in the towel and save what you have for another day. true, its not like millions of soldiers are being killed, but 1 soldier can always make a difference in the future.

no one will admit that the "war on terror" might take a little more finesse than "going in there and blowing that **** up." and that was 4-7 years ago. as i said before, no one knows why the hell we are there now.

as for the presidential matter, no, i dont really like either candidates. but what i do see is that McCain is old. when i see someone old i see a person that is set in their ways and wont deviate from their own beliefs even if it means the mass discomfort (putting it lightly) of everyone around him. as for obama, i can see him admitting defeat and pulling out. even if its not just yet. i dont see that from mccain.

 

[Chakra-X]

Are you serious? Obama really isn't anything different from the rest. At first he said he'd pull out of Iraq and now he's saying he has "intelligence" indicating there are Al Queda held up in some mountains and he won't stop until they're stopped? And there are a few different bills he's voted on the complete opposite that he said he would. He's just as slimy and ignorant as the next candidate.

Changing your opinion after receiving new information is better than plowing ahead with binders on like we're kinda doing now. And I don't think he's pulling us out of the Middle East, just Iraq, because I personally think going there was a complete derailment.

Obama is not perfect, but I think people are too pessimistic when it comes to deeming politicians as "slimy"

 

[DiebytheSword]

do you think the job CAN be done? cause honestly, im pretty sure that time frame passed. continuing the war is not only disrespectful to the soldiers but is just completely childish and irresponsible. a good leader knows when to throw in the towel and save what you have for another day. true, its not like millions of soldiers are being killed, but 1 soldier can always make a difference in the future.

Ask the real soldiers what they think. I know several who have served and are serving. None of them think the way you are thinking in this paragraph. Sure some of them think the war was mishandled, and many of them think we went about it the wrong way (I think everyone can agree on that), but the job can be done in their eyes, yet the people at home, including senators that are supposed to be on their side, say their sacrifices were for nothing. Tell that to a father that missed his child being born to fight in this war. Tell that to a man who will never come home alive.

Also, more information from the McCain camp about teaching kids sex ed in their "teens". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVLQhRiEXZs

That's a bad voting record stain.

 

[Pieter Paul Rubens]

And why would anyone vote for someone that walks the same road as the guy that made sure fathers couldn't be at the birth of their child.

And why is that a bad voting stain? Making sure kids are aware of the risks of STDs and teen-pregnancies is important. Having a ****load of sick people and teenparents isn't good for the economical health of a country.

Blame my mediocre left-side vision, but I really fail to see the logic behind a lot of those right-wing points.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Sex ed in kindergarten? No thanks I'll pass on that for my daughter. I don't want anyone teaching my kid that in school at that age, even if its to "protect" her from sexual predators. Sex ed should be done in the home, by the parents. That's not something for a public servant to convey, and that's a constant left wing problem. They want to take something away from the parents, and legislate it into a legally controlled situation.

 

[Hishi]

I find it hard to be excited about voting. This is the first time I can vote so I've been paying attention to politics alot more and I find that both sides are filled with liars, hypocrites, and flip floppers.

(ie:
Obama's theme of attacks on McCain - Same old Politics
McCain's theme of attacks on Obama - Not enough experience

Obama's VP pick - generic Washington politician
McCain's VP pick - politician with little experience)

I may sound pessimistic here but I'm gonna cut to the chase, neither side is gonna be great for the country in my opinion. McCain will follow Bush's footsteps despite his current campaigning, agreeing with him 90% of the time then saying you're gonna go a different path? Obama in my opinion is making far too many promises, if the past shows any indication time and time again, when something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

I choose not to vote because, it'll end up being 'buyer's remorse'. In the words of Stephen Colbert, "you think with your gut".

 

[MC]

Sex ed should be done in the home, by the parents. That's not something for a public servant to convey, and that's a constant left wing problem. They want to take something away from the parents, and legislate it into a legally controlled situation.

Why? So parents can easily oppress their children?

Oh, and about that ad:

CHICAGO (AP) — Republican John McCain's presidential campaign released a new television ad Tuesday that says Democratic rival Barack Obama is bad for families because he supports sex education for kindergarteners. Obama's campaign called the ad a "shameful" distortion.

The ad says Obama has a weak record on education and that his only accomplishment was legislation to teach sex education to kindergarteners.

"Learning about sex before learning to read?" the ad says. "Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."

But the legislation was not Obama's, it never became law and it would have required age-appropriate information in schools. Obama has said that means warning young children about sexual predators and explaining concepts like "good touch and bad touch."

"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

Burton noted that in a recent interview with Time magazine, McCain refused to define 'honor.' "Now we know why," Burton said.

In response, McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said: "The Obama campaign has not disputed any of the facts in our ad, but if they want to question John McCain's honor and record of service to this country, then that's a debate we welcome."

The McCain campaign released the ad hours after Obama gave a speech on education and offered proposals normally more popular with Republicans. Obama promised to double funding for charter schools, pay teachers based on performance and replace those who aren't up to the job.

As a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted for the sex education bill in committee in 2003, but he was not a sponsor.

The measure said schools offering sex education must include medically accurate information appropriate to the age of the students. The lessons were to cover the consequences of unprotected sex, the effects of various forms of contraception and the option of abstinence.

It also would have allowed parents to pull their children from sex education classes if they wished.

The full state Senate never voted on the bill.

The following year when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, Republican Alan Keyes tried to make an issue of the sex-education vote, but it never gained traction with Illinois voters. Obama defended the idea of giving kindergarten pupils some basic information — that babies aren't brought by a stork, for instance — but said those decisions should be left to local school officials and parents.

McCain's ad is to air in parts of Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri and Wisconsin, as well as on the Discovery channel.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5lQ8Xt2nV-ZIMVgsE4TK63RSyCwD933JR5O0

Cheers.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Why? So parents can easily oppress their children?

You're kidding me right? We're going to let the government take our place and have them teach our children sex ed so we can't oppress them?

You are either indirectly stating that I'm going to oppress my child, or that majority of the people who don't want sex ed taught in kindergarten are child molesters.

Give me a break. I learned about the birds and the bees shortly before puberty.

If there is one thing I have discovered about parenthood its that children will learn things on their own terms. Children tell you when they are ready for certain things. Thats when, as a parent that does their job, you step in and teach.

The problem here is that America is falling apart due to bad parenting (through being absent or otherwise). That is not an excuse to make parenting the mandatory job of the government.

Again, this is left wing vs. right wing, so I'm not going to convince anyone here that we shouldn't have a government intervention every time someone falls short of the mark.

 

[guest]

Changing your opinion after receiving new information is better than plowing ahead with binders on like we're kinda doing now. And I don't think he's pulling us out of the Middle East, just Iraq, because I personally think going there was a complete derailment.

Obama is not perfect, but I think people are too pessimistic when it comes to deeming politicians as "slimy"

Long story short, we (this includes England, thanks to Blair and Labour) never, ever should've entered Iraq. Nothing has come of the illegal invasion but death, and Obama said he would leave Iraq to get people like me on his side. Then he goes contradicting himself for reasons unknown; doubtless outside control, corporate leaders or politicians. I won't be surprised if he never intended to leave Iraq in the first place any way.

To me this is just the same thing as Nixon tricking the world into thinking he would leave Vietnam. I don't love Ron Paul's politics nor am an avid Ron Paul advocate, but if I could I would vote for him purely because he promises to withdraw from Iraq. Far too late for that anyway, though.

Why? So parents can easily oppress their children

What? You think parents are less trust worthy than complete strangers the family doesn't even know?

The only time a child should be taught sex ed by a social servant should be in very special situations, like genuine child abuse or in an orphanage. Child abuse is very rare, and trying to arm children against these strange, rare occurrences only causes fear and paranoia. Not that I'd rather they'd be unprepared for the possibility, but I don't think it makes much of a difference the way it is now anyway. Perhaps some well-disguised educational video about not accepting candy from strange men in trench coats and top hats would be more subtle and still effective, eh?

 

[sub]

I'm going to have to agree with Cuc on this one. Sex Ed should be taught by parents.

On a side note, teaching abstinence as the only form of sex education in school doesn't work.

 

[Pieter Paul Rubens]

A lot of parents don't teach sex ed, that's why it should be taught in school.. As early as it can get tbh.

It's not because you as a parent would teach your kids about it, that everyone else does.