McCain chooses Sarah Palin (AK) for VP

[skylndrftr]

Here is a statistic for you smocky. 49% of the people polled today said they would vote for Obama while only 43% of the people said they would vote for McCain. All Obama has to do statistically is grab another 1.1%, while McCain has to gain 7.1%, or 7 times what Obama does.

Bob you and your statistics...

its not 7 its 6.45 times

[szh]

The ball-game ain't over yet.

Z

[HashiriyaS14]

I will point out AGAIN that these polls are designed to represent a microcosm of the POPULAR vote.

In electoral terms, Obama still has a somewhat comfortable lead with 153 "safe" electoral votes versus McCain's 125. This does NOT count Oregon, Washington, Maine, or even Pennsylvania (all of which are pretty safe bets).

[smockers83]

Here is a statistic for you smocky. 49% of the people polled today said they would vote for Obama while only 43% of the people said they would vote for McCain. All Obama has to do statistically is grab another 1.1%, while McCain has to gain 7.1%, or 7 times what Obama does.

::doing the we won happy dance here::

Alright, so what do you want me to say? You trying to jab me or what? What's your source for these statistics because I've also seen others that say McCain and Obama are really neck and neck, but that's not to say those are reliable either.

I've always despised early celebration. I usually got mad at teammates in high school sports for celebrating too early, but probably because I also have a knack for predicting comebacks in the making. I've been able to predict all of U-M's comebacks in football correctly the past 4 years or games they wouldn't come back to win but would come back to make it close. As for a McCain comeback, its too early to tell. Surprisingly, most of my predictions went against the sentiment of the crowd.

[rn79870]

My source was the gallop daily poll. It showed a gain after Obama's speech and a drop for McCain after Palin's selection.

UM had a team with talented players and very good coaches. They had a clue what the goal was and they knew what it took to get the job done. you see where I'm going with this...

[rn79870]

The ball-game ain't over yet.

Z

I'm afraid to google Palin and alien abduction, but I wouldn't be surprised....

[rn79870]

I will point out AGAIN that these polls are designed to represent a microcosm of the POPULAR vote.

In electoral terms, Obama still has a somewhat comfortable lead with 153 "safe" electoral votes versus McCain's 125. This does NOT count Oregon, Washington, Maine, or even Pennsylvania (all of which are pretty safe bets).

There are about 123 votes left in the swing states. If Obama gets 45% he's president. McCain needs to get 79% to win the office.

[AZhitman]

I'm afraid to google Palin and alien abduction, but I wouldn't be surprised....

telco can tell you all about alien abductions, but it's only because Bush allows them to happen.

[audtatious]

My source was the gallop daily poll. It showed a gain after Obama's speech and a drop for McCain after Palin's selection. .

You need to talk to CNN because they state that there wasn't a positive post-DNC bump. There was a Dem bump after your messiah spoke and then there was a Rep bump with the selection of Palin and they seem to have canceled each other out.

Look it up, it was a "latest story" around noon today.

[AZhitman]

I disagree. The left tends to be intolerant of intolerance. Fundamentalists are welcome to do whatever they please, just don't try to legislate their interpretation of morality on the rest of us.

What I find is that many of the fundies are conspiracy theorists. Scientists are supposedly out to get them because they don't want pseudoscience being forced upon their kids in public schools. The left (who, as you state, is primarily Christian) hates them and thinks they are morally and intellectually superior. There is a "War on Christmas", "War on Easter", yadda yadda yadda. I'm about ready to start doling out tin-foil habits.

There's so much wrong with this, it'll take a while...

The left tends to be intolerant of intolerance. But, if it's my right to dislike gays or Blacks or short people, that's my right. Therefore, a person intolerant of intolerance is practicing intolerance. Boo-ya.

Fundamentalists are welcome to do whatever they please, just don't try to legislate their interpretation of morality on the rest of us. How about lefty fundies? tree-huggers? CARB? PETA? Enviro-whackos? The EEOC? Legislating their interpretations on me, a passive dissenter. Tell me how that's fair?

many of the fundies are conspiracy theorists. Again, not the exclusive domain of the Right. Lefty conspiracy theorists abound, led by Algore and Michael Moore.

The left (who, as you state, is primarily Christian) hates them I did? Nope.

Anyhow, back to telco and his ignorant statement that non-believers are somehow intellectually superior to those who believe in a higher power.



I won't come out and call anyone names, but if the village comes looking for its idiot, he's hijacked telco's computer.

[AZhitman]

1) You want to teach your children creationism, ok by me as long as its not taught in public schools with taxpayer money.

2) Opposed to abortion, ok by me also, just don't try and impose that on an entire nation.

3) The need for abortions could be reduced by sex education and contraception but many on the right are opposed to that also.

4) Why is the right not adopting unwanted children?

1) And if you want to teach your children that they were an accident that crawled out of the primordial muck and that they should have been aborted, ok with me. But not in public schools with taxpayer money.

2) Pro-abortion? Fine by me. But it's a states' rights issue. Con Law 101.

But you needn't worry telco, no one's going to take away your right to get an abortion. You're safe. Your vehement support of this issue at your age and gender tells me you might have a dead-baby fetish.

3) The "need for abortions"? 'Need' means necessity. Is there a quota? Do we have an engine that runs on dead babies? Is someone making them into cat food?

4) Why do you assume they're not? Do you have statistics? No, you dn't. You just pull stuff out of your butt and hope it sticks to the wall.

In fact, I'd bet that adopters lean more to the right... in other words, I'll bet more people who have one or more adopted children are conservative.

So, there's more of your absurd notions shot down by logic, truth and reason.

[ishkabibble]

There's so much wrong with this, it'll take a while...

The left tends to be intolerant of intolerance. But, if it's my right to dislike gays or Blacks or short people, that's my right. Therefore, a person intolerant of intolerance is practicing intolerance. Boo-ya.

You yourself state that you don't care what people think so long as what they do doesn't infringe on your rights. Yet it's ok for the fundies imposing their beliefs on everyone else via the legal system?

Fundamentalists are welcome to do whatever they please, just don't try to legislate their interpretation of morality on the rest of us. How about lefty fundies? tree-huggers? CARB? PETA? Enviro-whackos? The EEOC? Legislating their interpretations on me, a passive dissenter. Tell me how that's fair?

I don't care for them either. Still doesn't get away from the fact that the fundies try to legislate their interpretation of morality.

many of the fundies are conspiracy theorists. Again, not the exclusive domain of the Right. Lefty conspiracy theorists abound, led by Algore and Michael Moore.

Yep.

The left (who, as you state, is primarily Christian) hates them I did? Nope.

You did not insinuate that with the statement that your church is primarily left-leaning? Either way, the left is primarily Christian, as are most Americans.

[ishkabibble]

1) And if you want to teach your children that they were an accident that crawled out of the primordial muck and that they should have been aborted, ok with me. But not in public schools with taxpayer money.

How about we teach them how to compose music rather than about origins?

[AZhitman]

You yourself state that you don't care what people think so long as what they do doesn't infringe on your rights. Yet it's ok for the fundies imposing their beliefs on everyone else via the legal system?

No, it's not OK.

And it works both ways. See your (and my) next point for examples of Fundies (religious or otherwise) legislating THEIR version of morality. It has to stop.

Fundamentalists are welcome to do whatever they please, just don't try to legislate their interpretation of morality on the rest of us. How about lefty fundies? tree-huggers? CARB? PETA? Enviro-whackos? The EEOC? Legislating their interpretations on me, a passive dissenter. Tell me how that's fair?

[smockers83]

UM had a team with talented players and very good coaches. They had a clue what the goal was and they knew what it took to get the job done. you see where I'm going with this...

No, not really because there were some games where they looked like they could come back and they didn't, in which I also predicted those correctly. I didn't say I predicted only the comeback wins. There were quite a few games where lots of people left or were all upset and I said stay and watch or just relax, calling a come back. There were also games with potential comebacks that I called off (OSU games, App State, USC--they gave up long before the 3rd qtr ended in that game).

The key to calling comebacks is you have to watch what both sides, or sidelines in this case, are doing with an nondiscriminatory mind (for some fans that's hard to do) and my having experience in great comebacks and a comeback that failed.

[themadscientist]

I am currently preparing a Piece on Sarah Palin. I thought it would be interesting to revive this thread and revisit some of the things we said at that time and see if we read her right. It won't be the same without Bob, but I think we have enough Obama-ites to carry his water.

For those that were not here at the time, check the date. We initiated this discussion soon after she was announced as McCain's VP. Were we right about her, where is she going from here?

Discuss

[wingFeather]

She was running for VP. Compared to Biden she is a GOD.

Never understood why she was compared to a Presidential candidate (and no, McCain was not going to die - he is still alive & well to date).

[IBCoupe]

He's still alive and well as a Senator from Arizona.

[wingFeather]

He's still alive and well as a Senator from Arizona.

Which disproves all the idiots who claimed he was going to die soon. The idiotic left claimed that Palin would have become President within the year. Yeah, they FAILED as usual.

But anyway, she would not have taken over, and she would definitely be a better VP than Biden.

[IBCoupe]

It says little about his likelihood of dying as President.

[Bubba1]

He's still alive and well as a Senator from Arizona.

Physically yes, politically- barely. He had to spend millions to win his primary.

[HashiriyaS14]

Which disproves all the idiots who claimed he was going to die soon.

I'm not sure who said that exactly. It was a fact that, via actuarial tables, he had a 1 in 3 chance of dying between Jan 2008 and Jan 2012. We've yet to see if that will come to pass (obviously, I wish him well and I hope not).

Palin isn't going anywhere but the bank with her huge checks from being on TV and selling books. She's not ever going to be viable for national office having walked from her job in Alaska. She's taking the perception of her viability (among some people) and leveraging that into a pundit career, which seems like a fine idea. She's not a serious political figure and has no aspirations to be one, which is probably for the best. Anyone who thinks that she'd rather be in office than on TV is buying the c*** and bull.

[wingFeather]

He had to spend millions to win his primary.

Guess how much Obama spent to get in office? Even worse, guess how many fraudulent votes he paid for via his ACORN & ex black panther ties.

Palin isn't going anywhere but the bank with her huge checks from being on TV and selling books.

As opposed to Obama & almost every politician - who has done the same? Yeah, that's a great reason to vote against her as a VP. At least her book is worth reading. Obama's $$$ fictional novel is a bag of d!ck. Clinton is the biggest whore when it comes to this issue. He banks big paychecks from personal appearances... and unlike Palin, he is not trying to fix this country, he just wants the money.

[IBCoupe]

I think Bubba's referring to the recent Arizona Republican primary, Wing. There's a difference between money spent on becoming the Presidential nominee, and money spent on becoming the President and money spent on winning re-nomination of your senate seat.

[wingFeather]

There's also a difference on being a VP candidate who is an experienced leader, and Obama (who was none of the above). What's your point?

[HashiriyaS14]

As opposed to Obama & almost every politician - who has done the same? Yeah, that's a great reason to vote against her as a VP. At least her book is worth reading. Obama's $$$ fictional novel is a bag of d!ck. Clinton is the biggest whore when it comes to this issue. He banks big paychecks from personal appearances... and unlike Palin, he is not trying to fix this country, he just wants the money.

This isn't the point, and I didn't say that there was anything wrong with what she was doing.

I'm just asserting that she has no intentions or capability to run seriously for national office, and that she will instead use the IDEA of her running for national office to make money. There isn't anything WRONG with what she's doing, viva capitalism, I'd do it too.


When someone replies to you, read and understand their reply and then answer, if needed, on topic. None of what you posted had anything to do with what I said.

[wingFeather]

When someone replies to you, read and understand their reply and then answer, if needed, on topic. None of what you posted had anything to do with what I said.

You first

[heliochrome85]

[HashiriyaS14]

You first

I almost put this in a PM, but since this isn't really about you (it's about the rules for everyone), I'm going to put it in a post instead.


Things I did say:

-Palin is not a viable national candidate
-Palin wants to make money on TV and by writing books

Things I did NOT say:

-That her TV/book moneymaking was wrong. (I actually think it's just fine)
-That I didn't vote for her BECAUSE of the fact that she wrote books (which, AFAIK, she hadn't written at the time of the election anyway)
-Anything pertaining to either Obama or Clinton


If you responded specifically to either of the things I DID say, almost no matter what your response, it would've been fine. If you want to tell me that she IS a viable candidate and that I'm a dummy, go ahead. Fire away. You didn't do that though, you spouted out a bunch of stuff that didn't really have anything to do with what I said.

Point Being: Disagreement is what makes this section fun, but disagree intelligently and disagree ON TOPIC. Arguments must be reasoned. Do not seize upon random opportunities to rant about things in an attempt to get others riled up. I will be paying closer attention to this section as we near November and I will not allow it to degenerate into a shxtfest.

This is, admittedly, a fine distinction that I have laid out. If you honestly don't understand what I'm driving at (anyone, not just Wing), PM me and I'll happily clarify and entertain commentary. Otherwise, violations of this will be at the peril of violator.

[IBCoupe]

There's also a difference on being a VP candidate who is an experienced leader, and Obama (who was none of the above). What's your point?

My point was that you missed Bubba's. And now it appears that you have compounded this by missing mine, as well.