If Palin were a democrat

[Rainbow Dash]

Something I'm hearing frequently from my fellow democrats is that if Sarah Palin had her same record but were instead democratic, that she would be torn limb from limb She's got a husband who was part of a party that wanted Alaska to secede from the US and she has a 17 year old pregnant daughter, for example. If she were a democrat that suddenly showed up on the world stage, how do you think WE AS AMERICAN CITIZENS AS WELL AS THE MEDIA AND THE POLITICIANS THEMSELVES FUCK YOU FLY would handle it?

[Chicken Little]

..how do you think the world would handle it?

Why I'm glad you asked how the world would react as opposed to how Americans would act, because you're all such a fickle bunch of chaps. :P

We'd still treat it with contempt since your system is broken and your leaders are frightening.

On a completely unrelated note that should not be discussed since it's got nothing to do with anything this thread actually reminded me that I missed a documentary on Putin.... fuck.

[Rainbow Dash]

Fixed.

[Chicken Little]

Ah touche, jolly good show ol chap!

[Doc Tram]

Ideas like succession and being okay with having a pregnant 17-year-old daughter isn't so conservative either. I still wonder why McCain chose her though.

[Rainbow Dash]

The reason he chose her was to A) attract the less rational Hillary voters and B) energize the base with a young face with extremely conservative values.

And she herself wasn't ever involved with the Independence Party, but one would hope she was involved with her daughter. If it were a democrat with a pregnant daughter or spouse with a history of anti-patriotic values, then Fox news, Karl Rove, and every other republican would probably be on their case. I just want to know why the hell she's immune from this kind of criticism just because she supports the death penalty and opposes abortions.

[Dark Luther]

Something I'm hearing frequently from my fellow democrats is that if Sarah Palin had her same record but were instead democratic, that she would be torn limb from limb She's got a husband who was part of a party that wanted Alaska to secede from the US and she has a 17 year old pregnant daughter, for example. If she were a democrat that suddenly showed up on the world stage, how do you think WE AS AMERICAN CITIZENS AS WELL AS THE MEDIA AND THE POLITICIANS THEMSELVES FUCK YOU FLY would handle it?

I don't know - I think they would attack her in a similar fashion that you used, when you tore her limb from limb and attacked her for things one could also say about Democratic candidates...

[Artemis Clydefrog]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y78/chanceminter/SafeRedirect.jpg

[Rainbow Dash]

So, what, you're going to bring that up every time I try to talk politics now, Luther? That has nothing to do with this issue. I really shouldn't have to avoid criticizing someone in order to keep people from dragging every thread I make off track to get a personal attack off at me.

Especially when I wanted this thread to be a more civilized follow up to the last thread.

[The Deity]

Its good to know that you don't believe in accountability.

Anyway, I really don't see the major issue with everything brought up during this time period. So her daughter is pregnant. Kids are going to have sex.

[Dark Luther]

So, what, you're going to bring that up every time I try to talk politics now, Luther? That has nothing to do with this issue. I really shouldn't have to avoid criticizing someone in order to keep people from dragging every thread I make off track to get a personal attack off at me.

Especially when I wanted this thread to be a more civilized follow up to the last thread.

Wow...settle down Molly..., don't get your panties in a twist...

This is the first time I've brought it up...
and what I did was bring in a relevant issue...

Your bringing up a double standard right here...


Your last thread basicly involved you criticizing Palin for all those things and more - just like a "republican" as you stated, would have done if she was a democrat.
You attacked her for being very republican, and being very conservative on specific issues ( something incredibly stupid that you never replied to ).
You also got on her case for things you could also say about Obama...
My anger and rebuke was essentially accusing you of doing the exact thing that certain disgraceful politicians had done to Obama and other similar candidates...
The exact thing you had been complaining about some months beforehand...


Thus, you ask how Republicans would treat Palin if she were a democrat...
I reply -
probably attacking her in a similar fashion that you did...

[Rainbow Dash]

I was asking a question that I knew the answer to because I wanted to see who else would come to the same conclusion, and instead I get called a ruthless republican again by you. Do you want me to applaud her dictator-like tendencies? Or do you really think that Republicans would do the exact same thing I just did, considering the two qualities about her that I just listed?

I would think it were a rhetorical question, but they'd be attacking her mercilessly on her patriotism. They'd call her a russian spy, a poor mother, a religious lunatic, etc. My real question here is why she is exempt from all of that and instead a noble american just because she subscribes to the Republican ideals. I don't believe she hates america, of course, but you know damn well that that's how they would play her out to be.

[Raist No. 2]

I would think it were a rhetorical question, but they'd be attacking her mercilessly on her patriotism. They'd call her a russian spy, a poor mother, a religious lunatic, etc. My real question here is why she is exempt from all of that and instead a noble american just because she subscribes to the Republican ideals. I don't believe she hates america, of course, but you know damn well that that's how they would play her out to be.But instead that's how Democrats play her out to be. What's your point? We all know politics is full of partisan hypocrisy, most of us just aren't deluded enough to act like the road only goes one way.

[Rainbow Dash]

But instead that's how Democrats play her out to be.
Examples? The worst I've heard is what I restated in the first post - that if she were a democrat, the republicans would be all over her for patriotism.

[Zelphiel]

Ah touche, jolly good show ol chap!

I dare you to keep up saying stuff like that to everyone whenever you post. >.>

I might be the only one that laughs at it... but whatever. =/

anyway... she's one of their own so of course they are going to be at least somewhat accepting of her. If she wasn't it would be natural for them to chastise her for everything she does. That's just how things go.

and your leaders are frightening

tell me about it...

[Dark Luther]

I was asking a question that I knew the answer to because I wanted to see who else would come to the same conclusion, and instead I get called a ruthless republican again by you. Do you want me to applaud her dictator-like tendencies? Or do you really think that Republicans would do the exact same thing I just did, considering the two qualities about her that I just listed?

I would think it were a rhetorical question, but they'd be attacking her mercilessly on her patriotism. They'd call her a russian spy, a poor mother, a religious lunatic, etc. My real question here is why she is exempt from all of that and instead a noble american just because she subscribes to the Republican ideals. I don't believe she hates america, of course, but you know damn well that that's how they would play her out to be.

Well, geez, I don't know...
If we count you as a Democrat..., I guess the Democrats have indeed been saying such stuff...

You said she was only picked because she's a woman,
you hinted several times towards her being a "religious lunatic"
You tried to make her out to be a hypocrit - when her daughter had a kid at her age,
Also just now you said she had "dictator" tendencies...


So wait - are you saying republicans would have no problem with someone having dictator tendencies because they aspire for such things...
Wow..., you seriously don't know what the hell your talking about..., I bet you couldn't even state the priciples of being a conservative...


Anyway - Russian Spy...
that's doesn't even make sense...( your talking about the stupid husband thing right...? )
Religious lunatic - apparently to be religious to you - a stated agnostic/atheist is grounds for lunacy...
Anyway - conservatives are very supportive of being religious.
And a bad mother...
I don't agree with her methods..., and I believe she's suffered for those beliefs...
But don't insult the woman because her kid was pregnant,
someone your age should know quite well that it doesn't fall to parents as much as personal responsibility...
What have you raised in your life - a hamster...?


Your saying if she were a democrat she'd be targeted for patriotism...
What grounds do you have in saying this...
She hasn't done or said anything that would make her suspect...?
Under those grounds, if she were a Democrat - the Republicans would probably also say she has ties to Islam and wahabist...


Look, here's what I see from your "Civil" thread...
Palin has all this to be insulted and attacked for - but the Democrats aren't using it.
If she were a Democrat, Republicans would shamelessly attack her with no merit - so screw Republicans.
Luther, your pointing out how my thread asks how Republicans would do exactly what I'm doing to Palin...



...Well, there we go...
Just so everyone else knows...
I don't like Palin as President...
I don't agree with any of her social issues, I think her economic logic if flawed, I think she placed her family in many of their problems because of her beliefs, though I respect her beliefs and she has every choice to stay with them.

I respect her on several issues, and she has shown herself a very good candidate and person, fighting corruption, sticking to her beliefs and not being a hypocrit,
she is the perfect "Republican" candidate...
Not traditional conservative - which I have problems with - but she's a good Republican candidate...
Just because you hate the beliefs of Republicans doesn't make her a horrible candidate.
She's a choice...


And to be honest...
I'm conservative, though I lean Democrat.
And I say to my friends...
I'm afraid if McCain dies in office we would have someone very religious and extremly conservative on social issues running the country.

[Raist No. 2]

Examples? The worst I've heard is what I restated in the first post - that if she were a democrat, the republicans would be all over her for patriotism.I'm not sure I understand why any self-described fan of Rachel Maddow would need me to provide examples of democrats sliming Palin.

[Lancet Jades]

Examples? The worst I've heard is what I restated in the first post - that if she were a democrat, the republicans would be all over her for patriotism.
Since we covered it in our convo, I'll reproduce my argument here.

You're arguing that she gets a "free pass" for being republican, when if she were democrat she'd be shredded. That being a republican makes her patriotic by default.

You're looking at it from a republican POV here. If you were being objective, you'd realize she IS getting torn to pieces, by democrats. Obviously the republicans won't attack her.

Your initial assumption here depends on having a republican bias as objectivity, not subjectivity. You assume that, by default, all republicans get a free pass for being patriotic, and that only democrats have to prove themselves on the subject, when that's simply not true. Because your initial reasoning is flawed, either you understand why it is, or there's no getting through to you.

[Rainbow Dash]

Anyway - Russian Spy...
that's doesn't even make sense...( your talking about the stupid husband thing right...? )
No shit.

Religious lunatic - apparently to be religious to you - a stated agnostic/atheist is grounds for lunacy...
For the record, she's in the same sect of Christianity as my mother is, and that I used to be. I'm not arguing these points, I'm saying Republicans would.

What have you raised in your life - a hamster...?

A parakeet, that I would have voted for over Palin. Or Obama for that matter. That guy was a damn genius.

Just because you hate the beliefs of Republicans doesn't make her a horrible candidate.
She's a choice...


You're misjudging me. I hate her because all she has for her are social issues - no credibility with the economy, no credibility with foreign policy. I couldn't care less about which side you're on as long as you actually care about what's important. I'll still usually vote democratic, but I absolutely hate people who stand on social issues alone, which have, in my experience, usually been republicans.

I'm not sure I understand why any self-described fan of Rachel Maddow would need me to provide examples of democrats sliming Palin.
I have only been able to watch one episode of her show because of work. Is she really hitting Palin?

Anyway, I kinda wound up answering my own question talking to Lades, which wound up pissing me off because it's something that we keep getting beat over the head with in my Poli Sci classes. Republicans tend to see the world from a realist perspective - that nations need power for civilization to survive - while Democrats tend to put the world above the nation, and thus care less about patriotism.

[Lancet Jades]

I'm not arguing these points, I'm saying Republicans would.

Here's the problem. Of course they would, IF SHE WERE A DEMOCRAT. As it is, she's a Republican, THEREFORE THE DEMOCRATS ARGUE THESE POINTS.

Republicans tend to see the world from a realist perspective - that nations need power for civilization to survive - while Democrats tend to put the world above the nation, and thus care less about patriotism. Whether this is true or not is mostly irrelevant. Most politicians, from either party, are preoccupied with getting into office, staying in office and in power, and making lots of money, for themselves and friends. Maybe on lower levels of government the actual party roots and values are more prevalent, but don't kid yourself into thinking at the national level, it's about ANYTHING other than convincing enough voters to get your guy elected and not the other guy.

[Rainbow Dash]

Here's the problem. Of course they would, IF SHE WERE A DEMOCRAT. As it is, she's a Republican, THEREFORE THE DEMOCRATS ARGUE THESE POINTS.
I'll take your word for it, I guess.

Whether this is true or not is mostly irrelevant. Most politicians, from either party, are preoccupied with getting into office, staying in office and in power, and making lots of money, for themselves and friends. Maybe on lower levels of government the actual party roots and values are more prevalent, but don't kid yourself into thinking at the national level, it's about ANYTHING other than convincing enough voters to get your guy elected and not the other guy.
Even if they are, like some would argue, completely the opposite of what they stand for in public, they are still appealing to people who believe that way. Though I have a book or four that I could beat you over the head with to counter your thinking. It's got experience too, having freshly used to beat me over the head.

[Parallax]

I'll take your word for it, I guess.

I'm sorry, but I have to address this. In what universe do you live where you can't have seen the blatant, public and continuous attacks on Sarah Palin by the Democratic party, and the news media?

Also, there's a lot more to her not being attacked by fellow Republicans than simply that she's a flag-waver. She's one of the most popular governors ever to sit in office, and experienced success at rooting out corruption in special interest and lobbying groups in her home state. In other words, not only does she support Republican party ideas, but she does so (historically) in a consistent and ethical manner.

You can argue any point of that you like, but you do it from a liberal standpoint. If you were a Republican, you wouldn't find anything to complain about with Sarah Palin really.

Even if they are, like some would argue, completely the opposite of what they stand for in public, they are still appealing to people who believe that way. Though I have a book or four that I could beat you over the head with to counter your thinking. It's got experience too, having freshly used to beat me over the head.

In what way is the ignorance of voters the fault of Sarah Palin? It's the personal responsibility of every voter stepping up to cast a vote and exercise civic authority to become informed on the issues involved. Adopting a cynical view of what politicians say and establishing your own ideas about how the country ought to be run isn't difficult - it's just more difficult than casting a vote for either D or R without considering it.

[Lancet Jades]

Even if they are, like some would argue, completely the opposite of what they stand for in public, they are still appealing to people who believe that way.

As Parallax said, it's ultimately the responsibility of people to make informed choices, and even when ignorant, it's still THEIR choice to make. Even if some republican from the bible belt is gonna vote for McCain "because Obama is a secret muslim and Palin is doing God's work," that's still their own choice, and their vote is their own, to be case for whichever candidate they choose.

That doesn't give the politicians a free pass to lie and say whatever it takes to get elected (whether or not they do anyways, which they almost certainly do), but even if a voter is going to vote McCain/Palin because "she said she's working for God," that's their choice to make, ignorance and all.

[Rainbow Dash]

In what way is the ignorance of voters the fault of Sarah Palin?
That wasn't what I was getting at. I was referring to some people who are so distrustful of politicians in general that they don't even believe that the politicians believe in the issues that they stand for.

I'm sorry, but I have to address this. In what universe do you live where you can't have seen the blatant, public and continuous attacks on Sarah Palin by the Democratic party, and the news media?
A very busy one. Or maybe one that doesn't see pointing out facts like "She supported the bridge to nowhere" as attacks. Or maybe I'm asking for the more severe attacks, like "Obama's a terrorist" for this argument.

If you were a Republican, you wouldn't find anything to complain about with Sarah Palin really.
I've heard from a number of republicans that feel that she either has no credibility on serious issues or was a chauvinistic pick by McCain to pick up Hillary supporters. Quite a great deal more than republicans who think she's a good choice, in fact, but again, this is my personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt.

And I personally would hate her just as much, if not more, if I were a republican, since my #1 issue is to keep social politics the hell out of the national government (In before I advocate a liberal social position without realizing it falls into that category.)

[Raist No. 2]

You're misjudging me. I hate her because all she has for her are social issues - no credibility with the economy, no credibility with foreign policy. I couldn't care less about which side you're on as long as you actually care about what's important. I'll still usually vote democratic, but I absolutely hate people who stand on social issues alone, which have, in my experience, usually been republicans.She has stated opinions on social issues, but they've never been the focus of her campaign nor has she ever made any significant attempt to enforce them. She ran, both in Alaska as governor and now as the VP, primarily on the issue of government reform. The social issues are likely why many Republicans like her, and they're one of several reasons why McCain needs her, but they're not really her schtick.

I have only been able to watch one episode of her show because of work. Is she really hitting Palin?The entire first week of her show was pretty much dedicated to discrediting Palin in one way or another, yes. But even before she got the show, when she was just a hired political hack analyst, I lost track of just how many times she repeated the claim that Palin was a secessionist that didn't love America.

my Poli Sci classesFirst mistake.

[Rainbow Dash]

She has stated opinions on social issues, but they've never been the focus of her campaign nor has she ever made any significant attempt to enforce them. She ran, both in Alaska as governor and now as the VP, primarily on the issue of government reform.
I'm not seeing that reform. All I see about her are seriously social issues and lies. The bridge to nowhere - a lie. The firing of her personal chef - another half-truth. Her apparent emphasis in loyalty? That's anything but reform, but rather a manifestation of egocentrism that clouds so many politicans' judgment. The only reason she was so popular in office was because in the short time that she was there, she gave out a rather large financial aid package. There's no way that she will, or would have held on to that 80% approval rating for a reasonable length of time.

First mistake.
Right, because we all know that higher education is a organization set up by "the man" to give us faulty information and control our thoughts.

[Chicken Little]

Right, because we all know that higher education is a organization set up by "the man" to give us faulty information and control our thoughts.

Discussions revolving around the US Education system:
"Fucking marines taking over my fucking gym glass"
"I got laid at 13!"
"man college <insert sport here> sucked balls"

When education can be paid in full because you can kick, equates to problem with system.

I'ma gonna break it
It'sa breaking
It's a broken
mama mia!

I dare you to keep up saying stuff like that to everyone whenever you post. >.>

I might be the only one that laughs at it... but whatever.

I have retired to mine chambers to ponder this quandary, coming to the conclusion that it would be a smashing idea to undertake. You should be commended for such an astute opinion kind sir.

[Parallax]

I'm not seeing that reform. All I see about her are seriously social issues and lies. The bridge to nowhere - a lie. The firing of her personal chef - another half-truth. Her apparent emphasis in loyalty? That's anything but reform, but rather a manifestation of egocentrism that clouds so many politicans' judgment.

This isn't true. I know you don't like her, and I can appreciate that - it's your right. However, the fact is, she experienced success in Alaska reforming a government which was completely dominated by a good ole boys system of special interest lobbyists.

That's why her approval rating is high.

The only reason she was so popular in office was because in the short time that she was there, she gave out a rather large financial aid package. There's no way that she will, or would have held on to that 80% approval rating for a reasonable length of time.

You can't assert this. You're not a citizen of Alaska, and honestly, if you're too busy to notice the attacks on Sarah Palin which are EVERYWHERE then you're too busy to research her entire history as Governor of Alaska in the detail it deserves.

Right, because we all know that higher education is a organization set up by "the man" to give us faulty information and control our thoughts.

It's absolutely not.

However, higher education is almost completely dominated by liberal ideas and thought. You're not getting a balanced viewpoint, and thus, you should not try to project the ideas of college professors onto others.

[Rainbow Dash]

However, higher education is almost completely dominated by liberal ideas and thought. You're not getting a balanced viewpoint, and thus, you should not try to project the ideas of college professors onto others.
So... uh... the idea that there are some people who care about their country more than they care about the world and vice versa is an evil liberal idea? Not to mention my school has a no-bias policy.

However, the fact is, she experienced success in Alaska reforming a government which was completely dominated by a good ole boys system of special interest lobbyists.


You're not a citizen of Alaska, and honestly, if you're too busy to notice the attacks on Sarah Palin which are EVERYWHERE then you're too busy to research her entire history as Governor of Alaska in the detail it deserves.
Can you link me to stuff that shows this? I obviously have a very limited perspective of this since in the past couple weeks all I've been able to watch is about an hour of the Situation Room a day, if that, which is why I was hoping this wouldnt turn into the same EF-politics (AKA jump on Yvl) thread. I have seen a general overview of the kinds of things she's done, and either I or they must have missed something in those sources. Or maybe Palin should stop repeating all the things that have been debunked in her damn stump speeches so that she has a ounce of credibility left when she says something true.

[Lancet Jades]

So... uh... the idea that there are some people who care about their country more than they care about the world and vice versa is an evil liberal idea?

No, but trying to define things in terms of "care more about country vs. care more about world," and putting oneself on the "world" side certainly lends itself to the "enlightened liberal" stereotype. Not to mention, as I've said, at the national level, few politicians really DO follow such beliefs, instead going for whatever they can do to get elected. Even your "Obamessiah" (sarcasm) is banking more on appealing to people to get elected instead of truly honest change (based at least partially on that big talk we had).

Not to mention my school has a no-bias policy.
Not only is that a rather ludicrous policy in and of iteself, but I'd bet it's nigh-enforcable. Even if occasionally someone is stung with it, it's such a hard thing to objectively prove.

which is why I was hoping this wouldnt turn into the same EF-politics (AKA jump on Yvl) thread.
People jump on you because you display cognitive dissonance and have shown and proven you let your biases blind you to things, like how you apparently didn't notice that you're not the only one to be "ripping apart" Palin.

[Parallax]

So... uh... the idea that there are some people who care about their country more than they care about the world and vice versa is an evil liberal idea?

I don't understand how you extrapolated this from anything I said. I think I mostly concur with Lancet Jades here.

Not to mention my school has a no-bias policy.

Every human being on earth has a bias, even if they're capable of rising above it to have an intelligent conversation. This is illogical, and impossible to enforce. I'm happy to hear that your school wants to be progressive in this area, and keep professors from feeding their students biased ideas, but I accept it with a grain of salt as to its effectiveness.

I have spent years in college, and my experiences with professors are almost uniformly liberal. Even those that don't try to inject their ideas into the classroom show at least a little bias.

Can you link me to stuff that shows this? I obviously have a very limited perspective of this since in the past couple weeks all I've been able to watch is about an hour of the Situation Room a day, if that, which is why I was hoping this wouldnt turn into the same EF-politics (AKA jump on Yvl) thread.

I really don't use the internet much for this kind of research, so I haven't got any truly groundbreaking links for you. I can try to find some reputable stuff later this evening (after I get off work) if you'd like, though.

Also, I apologize to you if you've felt anything I said is an attack on you. I feel perfectly free to disagree with your viewpoints on everything, but none of this is intended as a personal attack. None of it is personal at all, in fact, it's politics. I was enjoying the debate. If you felt otherwise, let me know, and I'll bow out of this thread right now.

[Rainbow Dash]

So you know, as soon as I say that our school tries to stay away from bias, my poli sci teacher finally admits she's liberal since the entire class was as well (with the exception of one Barr supporter), and my economics teacher rants to me specifically in the middle of class for 45 minutes about how it's a bad idea to tax businesses and how Obama frightens him.

Either way, the subject I brought up has no bias to it, and was taught in class as part of the lesson, not part of a class discussion (when biases do tend to come out). If I had said, "My Poli Sci teacher says that the only way to work with the world is to have our President sit down with other leaders" then I'd understand where you're coming from, but all I'm saying is that some people see the nation as having priority for their own survival, and others feel less strongly about the necessity of nations, which to the first group seems unpatriotic - hence why republicans like Palin are seldom labeled as such. It's political theory, not policy.

People jump on you because you display cognitive dissonance and have shown and proven you let your biases blind you to things, like how you apparently didn't notice that you're not the only one to be "ripping apart" Palin.
That had little to do with my own biases and everything to do with me not being able to pay as much attention to stuff as I'd like. Besides, I'm a total noob to politics, so of course I'm going to make mistakes, which is why I don't want people harping over stuff that I did in weeks past whenever I try to start a new thread. I WANT people to point out when I do stupid shit so that I can learn from it. I DON'T want the entire site dogpiling on me and picking every little word apart and purposefully (or so it seems to me) misinterpreting my arguments.

I also still find it a bit funny (though it's quickly becoming an annoyance) that I, of all people, am considered biased here. Either we keep talking about all the wrong things, or you guys don't talk to enough other people (it's probably the first, seeing as how it's Lades that it's coming from.) I'll make a thread to outline my positions on most issues sometime soon (tonight prolly) so that I can put this joke to rest.

Also, I apologize to you if you've felt anything I said is an attack on you. I feel perfectly free to disagree with your viewpoints on everything, but none of this is intended as a personal attack. None of it is personal at all, in fact, it's politics. I was enjoying the debate. If you felt otherwise, let me know, and I'll bow out of this thread right now.
You're not part of the problem. EF politics are just always very high stress for me since I always stand alone even when I do have a decent argument, which is why I may sound especially aggressive.

[Raist No. 2]

I have spent years in college, and my experiences with professors are almost uniformly liberal. Even those that don't try to inject their ideas into the classroom show at least a little bias.You should take an economics class.

That had little to do with my own biases and everything to do with me not being able to pay as much attention to stuff as I'd like.So the question becomes, if you obviously don't have time to check out how the media's spinning a subject, then why would you assume Palin's getting a "free pass" just because your Democrat friends told you so?

I also still find it a bit funny (though it's quickly becoming an annoyance) that I, of all people, am considered biased here. Either we keep talking about all the wrong things, or you guys don't talk to enough other people (it's probably the first, seeing as how it's Lades that it's coming from.) I'll make a thread to outline my positions on most issues sometime soon (tonight prolly) so that I can put this joke to rest.I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that, since you're not "all that liberal," you can't be "all that biased?" Because that's not as relevant as you might think; my father, for instance, has almost nothing in common with the Republican party, but you will never hear him criticize a politician that isn't a Democrat.

The fact is that you attack McCain, Palin, and Fox for things that Obama, Biden, and MSNBC also do on a regular basis. Whether this is from cognitive dissonance like Lades said or whether you simply don't know the facts and accept the first spin that some liberal peddles to you, I couldn't really say, but rest assured that I'm not just using "Yvl likes Obama" as a measure of your bias.

But by all means, make the thread anyway, a thread from you that isn't strictly partisan might even make this my main account for a while.

[Rainbow Dash]

then why would you assume Palin's getting a "free pass" just because your Democrat friends told you so?
I dunno, why would I in that hypothetical situation? If you got that I thought she was being given a free pass just because she's a republican, then I musta worded something wrong. What I meant was that some of her background issues would be the end of the world if she were a republican - especially the "husband being a former independence party member" thing, which I've really only heard in passing.

Not to mention that all my friends are either independent or uninterested, save for like one or two.

The fact is that you attack McCain, Palin, and Fox for things that Obama, Biden, and MSNBC also do on a regular basis.
For the first two, the level of severity to which they do it is very different. Obama saying that everyone's social security would be in the falling stock market when it's only people under age 58 is a totally different level of untruth as McCain playing a humorous quote from Biden as an example of Obama being a malicous hateful person. And as I told you the other night (though I may have misemphasized my point) when playful, humorous quotes from the Obama camp are twisted into something like that ad that even Karl Rove condemned, they really have nothing to lose by getting into the more harsh attack ads - and those more severe ads tend to overlook the truth far more often than the kind of "McCain = Bush" ads that Obama had originally been playing.

As for Fox, I don't hate them because they're conservative, I hate them because they are jokes of journalists. They cut mics when people don't agree with them, they put the most extreme guests on during primetime, like Ann Coulter and a guy that blamed the VTech massacre on the liberal mindset, and fearmonger like there's no tomorrow. I'm aware that MSNBC is extremely liberal, especially Keith Olberman and my sweet beloved Rachel Maddow, but they get their facts straight and are willing to discuss their views, and they certainly don't pick some hippie off the street to be their special guest.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that, since you're not "all that liberal," you can't be "all that biased?" Because that's not as relevant as you might think; my father, for instance, has almost nothing in common with the Republican party, but you will never hear him criticize a politician that isn't a Democrat.

On the contrary. I know I'm quite liberal, but I'm not one to immediately jump on the democratic boat. Lemme put it like this: I hated John Kerry, even in retrospect, though I didnt pay as much attention to politics back then as I do now. And I loved McCain before he sold his soul to the far right.

I just happened to come into politics at a time that there's a guy that I WILL be biased towards due to how much of myself I see in him. If it were, say, Richardson versus the former McCain, I would be split, and probably would vote for McCain in that situation unless major shit happened.

However, I will ALWAYS hate people that run with social issues at the front of their campaign, like Huckabee or Palin.

[Raist No. 2]

I dunno, why would I in that hypothetical situation? If you got that I thought she was being given a free pass just because she's a republican, then I musta worded something wrong.I just want to know why the hell she's immune from this kind of criticism just because she supports the death penalty and opposes abortions.You should really find a job in the revisionist history field, you're a natural.

What I meant was that some of her background issues would be the end of the world if she were a republican - especially the "husband being a former independence party member" thing, which I've really only heard in passing.Aaaand.... this is why you suck at this. You just admitted that "what you've heard" is totally inconsequential, and when you use that example, specifically, when Rachel Maddow, specifically, called Sarah Palin, specifically, a member of the AIP and a secessionist more times than I could count... well, you do the math.

Not to mention that all my friends are either independent or uninterested, save for like one or two.Something I'm hearing frequently from my fellow democratsIs what I was referencing.

For the first two, the level of severity to which they do it is very different. Obama saying that everyone's social security would be in the falling stock market when it's only people under age 58 is a totally different level of untruth as McCain playing a humorous quote from Biden as an example of Obama being a malicous hateful person.But Obama playing a humorous quote by McCain in his acceptance speech to depict him as out of touch with Americans is fine, obviously. Or repeatedly taking a McCain quote out of context to portray him as a warmonger that's looking for "100 years of war in Iraq." Or, I don't know, Obama linking McCain's immigration policy with Rush Limbaugh's, who hates McCain specifically for his immigration policy.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: they are both politicians, and they will both do what it takes to win, regardless of their "postpartisan" talking points. McCain tried his usual straight-talk campaign style, but with the media fawning over Obama 24 hours a day the only time they ever even covered him was when he slipped up in one of his many straight-talk interviews. It became necessary for him to do everything possible simply to take the coverage off of Obama, so he got more negative. And it worked. But you cannot claim that Obama is any better, because the second he starts dropping in the polls, the second he even gets a glimpse of the space McCain was occupying for the previous couple of months, he got more negative too. They're politicians, it's what they do, and to act like one is any better than the other in that regard just means you're getting a fuzzy picture, adjust your set.

And as I told you the other night (though I may have misemphasized my point) when playful, humorous quotes from the Obama camp are twisted into something like that ad that even Karl Rove condemned, they really have nothing to lose by getting into the more harsh attack ads - and those more severe ads tend to overlook the truth far more often than the kind of "McCain = Bush" ads that Obama had originally been playing.That's... great. First of all, gg on the Karl Rove thing, what with ignoring the fact that he was talking about both campaigns and all, that was stellar. Second, gg on the "Obama has nothing to lose" justification, while, I don't know, totally ignoring that that holds even more true for McCain.

The jury has reached a verdict. We have found the defendant: guilty, on all counts of cognitive dissonance.

As for Fox, I don't hate them because they're conservative, I hate them because they are jokes of journalists. They cut mics when people don't agree with them, they put the most extreme guests on during primetime, like Ann Coulter and a guy that blamed the VTech massacre on the liberal mindset, and fearmonger like there's no tomorrow. I'm aware that MSNBC is extremely liberal, especially Keith Olberman and my sweet beloved Rachel Maddow, but they get their facts straight and are willing to discuss their views, and they certainly don't pick some hippie off the street to be their special guest.Don't kid yourself, Maddow is just the left's response to Ann Coulter, Matthews and Olbermann refuse to let their conservative guests speak all the time, and every 24-hour news network has fuckups in guest choices and misreporting facts in spades, you just hear about Fox's more often because you hang in circles that like to make a game of it.

However, I will ALWAYS hate people that run with social issues at the front of their campaign, like Huckabee or Palin.Palin... doesn't... didn't we just go over this?

See, this is why I don't want to come here anymore.

[Rainbow Dash]

You should really find a job in the revisionist history field, you're a natural.
I was referring to a specific kind of criticism.

when Rachel Maddow, specifically, called Sarah Palin, specifically, a member of the AIP and a secessionist more times than I could count... well, you do the math.
When was this? Before or after the NYT article? Either way, while I am disappointed in her, now that it's been established it was her husband who was part of the AIG, is Rachel still saying "She's married to a secessionist! She must hate america!"?

But Obama playing a humorous quote by McCain in his acceptance speech to depict him as out of touch with Americans is fine, obviously. Or repeatedly taking a McCain quote out of context to portray him as a warmonger that's looking for "100 years of war in Iraq."
His acceptance speech? Or the faith forum thing? Cuz if it's the $5 mil thing, then I do agree with you, if not, I missed something. And come on now, McCain has said repeatedly that he wants to keep troops in Iraq, and he's shown countless signs of wanting to invade Iran - any gaffes he makes about the subject are fair game when it's a constant position that he holds.
Anyway, McCain made those gaffes on his own, and it could be argued that it's a freudian slip, or even in some cases him speaking his mind and giving us a more powerful image of what he believes. You've gotta admit that it's at least a little different when he makes a compliment by Biden out to be an attack by Obama, while playing the sexism card at the same time. Not only that, but it's an attack on him as a person, rather than on him as a potential representative of the people. Could it really be any worse?

Or, I don't know, Obama linking McCain's immigration policy with Rush Limbaugh's, who hates McCain specifically for his immigration policy.
Like I said before, this was AFTER Obama started retaliating, I don't think Obama was right in doing it, but he certainly wasn't unprovoked.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: they are both politicians, and they will both do what it takes to win, regardless of their "postpartisan" talking points. McCain tried his usual straight-talk campaign style, but with the media fawning over Obama 24 hours a day the only time they ever even covered him was when he slipped up in one of his many straight-talk interviews. It became necessary for him to do everything possible simply to take the coverage off of Obama, so he got more negative. And it worked. But you cannot claim that Obama is any better, because the second he starts dropping in the polls, the second he even gets a glimpse of the space McCain was occupying for the previous couple of months, he got more negative too. They're politicians, it's what they do, and to act like one is any better than the other in that regard just means you're getting a fuzzy picture, adjust your set.
So you're saying all politicans are exactly the same, as far as personality goes?

There are a few alternative reasons I've come up with to "He was slipping in the polls, so he went negative because it went well for McCain." The first I already mentioned. The other is that he announced he would step up his attacks the day of or after he finally had lunch with Bill Clinton, and ANYONE would be bitter after eating Hillary's cooking. The last reason I came up with is that he wants to shake the "liberal wuss" label and reaffirm through his actions that he would retaliate against an attack, though that one's kinda a stretch. It's probably a combination of all four though.

First of all, gg on the Karl Rove thing, what with ignoring the fact that he was talking about both campaigns and all, that was stellar.
As I said in the Karl Rove thread, his denouncement of his own party is a whole lot more telling that his denouncement of the other side. I hadn't seen how far Obama had gone at the time I formed my opinion on that incident, though, and I forgot to adjust my thoughts on it.

Second, gg on the "Obama has nothing to lose" justification, while, I don't know, totally ignoring that that holds even more true for McCain.
I'm... not sure if I follow you. Who was taking McCain's compliments and turning them into signs that he was an evil person?

Don't kid yourself, Maddow is just the left's response to Ann Coulter
Not the Rachel Maddow I know from her spot as a panelist on "Race for the White House." My Rachel is a calm, open person that's willing to debate even the most conservative opponent. Of course, if she releases a book titled "Republicans are stuck up idiotic sheep" then I'll take my words back. I mean, the only similarity I see between them is that they're outspoken females.

Matthews and Olbermann refuse to let their conservative guests speak all the time
Matthews I watch almost every day due to the time it's on. He tends to only talk over the conservative guest when he asks them a yes or no question and they start talking in circles. I saw one guy actually answer the question he asked, and Matthews looked awfully confused, then shut up. Of course, he does bully them a lot, but it's different from them yelling "Cut his mic!" when they don't like what they're hearing.

Palin... doesn't... didn't we just go over this?
No, we didn't. I still lack evidence that she's half the reformer than she's been made out to be by McCain, not to mention that even then that issue doesn't get the kind of attention that her social issues get (outside of fact checking sites.)

you just hear about Fox's more often because you hang in circles that like to make a game of it.
That's why I value Lades' and your input so much. You're the only politically active people I've found that I can trust that aren't liberal. That's why I count on you to prove me wrong. I WANT the other side of the story, but I can never find a genuine republican that I can discuss things with intelligently.