What's a Palin

[littleflower]

Only the gullible and the corrupt would vote for the republican party, so they have to engage in dirty tricks.
It's all they have.

only the seriously deluded would make such a statement. where do you live, in a cave? surrounded by tvs and computers all set to leftist propaganda? do you even know any republicans?

anyone could get lost in his own little world, gyre. you sound like a very nice person ... please try to understand others ... it's a very big world out there.

[Simon of the Playa]

gyre wrote:
Only the gullible and the corrupt would vote for the republican party, so they have to engage in dirty tricks.
It's all they have.

gyre, you left out the ridiculously stupid and insipidly mean, which make up a large portion of the republican party.

You know, those idiots that vote against their best interests because they blindly follow some wedge issue that has been put out there as a distraction, or worse.

oh yeah, lets not forget the greedy and the xenophobic racially prejudiced as well. Up Yours, Tom Tancredo, you fucking second generation wop.

[ygmir]

Why would it matter who did it? And, do you think it was a random hacker, or a, bought by the DNC, "election saboteur"......?

do you think Nixon was the first, or last? Do you think republicans are the only one doing this?

It's all so one sided......I have no problem with pointing out it's not fair, or nice, or legal, but, geeze, point both ways.........

you act as though all evil and deceit is perpetrated by "the vast right wing conspiracy".......you can't actually believe the left doesn't do the same things.....can you?

Nixon is a great example.
Watergate was a successful coverup.
The public never did find out what it was about.
And they never found out how bad the criminality was.
So
Nixon stolen election
Ford - should have been prosecuted himself
Reagan- stolen election with the help of the Iranians and fraud about R Reagan's state of health, making Nancy Reagan President by coup.
(odd that republicans have issues with Hillary when Nancy was the first female president.)
Bush the sequel- stolen election, stolen trillions, another deregulation depression, trillions stolen

Sure it's just the same.
If democrats have a dirty tricks campaign, they sure suck at it.
Just look at talk radio.
And they aren't getting paid for it well either.
Check the breakdown on donations from special intersts vs individuals.
All those crooks McCain said were separate from him showed up at the convention.
Does he even have a choice?

Only the gullible and the corrupt would vote for the republican party, so they have to engage in dirty tricks.
It's all they have.

I'm not happy with the system or democrats, but it's not like we're left with a lot of choice.

Why would it matter who did it?

How could it not matter?


I clearly missed the republican platform supporting respecting of privacy.
Maybe it was under the 'no right to abortion' part?
Don't hold your breath, folks.
The government doesn't want there to be privacy and the commercial interests have nothing to gain and a lot to lose if there is a privacy right in this country, which by the way, does not exist, and it is not an oversight.
You can expect the republicans to champion a privacy law that protects businesses, but not citizens.
Didn't they already do that though?

There is no right of privacy in this country.
If you don't like it, do something.

Start with basic reading like The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets.


On guns, anti-personal defense arguments regarding the constitution have convinced me that the second amendment does not protect handguns.
It does protect our right to have weapons sufficient to resist domination by a military force.
With current weapons, that would include automatic weapons, artillery and rockets adequate to stop helicopters.
I think the Afghanis got Sidewinders, so I would say the second amendment covers everything up to that point.
I deserve as much protection for my freedom as any village dweller in Afghanistan.

I do respect your defense of your favorite party, and, knowledge relating to same.
It seems rather myopic, discarding any negative info from "your party"......
and, accepting rumor and innuendo as fact against the "others"......

Since having pretty much rejected both, I think I've changed my perspective somewhat, from, what it was in years past.

I'm embarrassed by both parties, and, mostly, for the same reasons.....
It also allows me to see how people on both sides get so wrapped up in defense of "theirs" they lose sight of what's fair and balanced criticism.
I note a large presence of "left wing" posters here, nothing wrong with that, but, it seems to feed on itself like sharks in a frenzy......piling on, quoting innuendo, sound bites, etc, as fact.
I've seen the same thing with a predominance of "right wing" boards, too.
don't get me wrong, I'm not even saying you shouldn't support your favored candidate, and, stoop to whatever level to help them.
I'm just making the observation of how people do this.
It seems counter productive and polarizing, IMHO.
I'd sure rather discuss the virtues of governmental processes and theory, and, how they'll work, than, what's in someones email, what the pastor at their church said, who stole what, on and on.....
but, that's just me.




They all lie, cheat, steal.........each has their "hidden agenda", both think the public (sadly, true), doesn't get it, or care.........they (sheeple) just want cable tv and fast food and suv's......etc, etc.


How could you mention Nixon stealing an election and not mention JFK victory over him? Same thing.........
It sounds like the kid complaining because he lost, that, the other team cheated........Close elections are contorted, at best.....our system is not perfect, or, transparent.
But,
I'd submit if the majority, as anyone claims, really supports them, an election wouldn't be that close. If you could mobilize your loyal voters, you'd overwhelm the opposition.
Seems about 20% of the electorate decides the outcome, every time for the last several decades.
I'd say it means the people are pretty evenly divided as to the method of government they prefer.....left or right.......
I don't think it's so much about the candidates as it is how people perceive their tendencies, left or right.
and, for decades, there's not been a clear choice in that...........both parties seem to be getting so close to the middle, and especially their candidates for president, that, we can't tell where either will go........

I'm hoping your reference to the 2nd amendment is tongue in cheek......
a handgun is a basic form of military equipment.
If you understand military operation, you'll know that ground taken my air or sea, can only be held by "boots on the ground", and, that being true, the handgun is made for close combat, the type necessary to take and or hold actual turf. Even the knife/bayonet is critical in this.

It always comes down to one on one, except, I suppose, in a nuclear conflict.........

Sidewinders, full auto, heavier weapons are super expensive......mostly beyond the reach of most average citizens....For me, it'd not be so much a case of legality, but, affordability........Most could not afford those things, let alone practicing with them. And, I could see some complaining that the poor couldn't afford a sidewinder.......SAM, or, whatever.......
It's a hard line to draw, what should or should not be legal to own.......
I, for instance, want a .50 BMG rifle. Here in CA, the governator made them illegal to purchase.
They are, at most, capable of holding 3 rounds, in the sporterized version, and, military ones are belt fed if multi-fire capable. Way to heavy to even carry.
But, because someone decided that they are to powerful, and, since they can shoot through a car, pose to large a threat to LE. They are all very expensive. Gangbangers, for the most part, couldn't afford them, and, certainly not walk down the street with one concealed......
But, I still can't have one. I don't even hunt. I just want to shoot at targets a mile away, I think it's cool to project an action that far......but, that's just me......

ok, done rambling, for now.....

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Facts please

:lol:

He's an old guard Senator.

To even suggest he is not a corrupt bloated sack of shit is laughable. No one in DC politics gives a shit about anyone that is not writing them a check that has a lot of zeros at the end of it.

He's old guard therefore he must be corrupt

I'll admit that politics has its elements of corruption and it occurs on my levels, but joe may be the least of them all.

Rides the train to and from congress. When many are dropped off in a limo. He's middle class in income! Net worth, middle class. Upper middle, yes we should pay congress well but at 70's corporate executive levels.

I mean, Biden is a huge target, old guard corrupt senator, as dishonest and cheating as they come......

Facts please

I stand by my statement, in that, I feel any senator gets and holds office through nefarious means...........I don't feel any of them are "good and pure" people...........both sides.........

Nefarious! sure that's the corrupt individual. Otherwise, this statement is just a generalization of your distrust of politics and its based on your fears that if some are corrupt then they all must be mentality which is not a fact. A lot of people are in politics because they care just as I believe that most people enter a carreer or cause because they believe they can make a difference. Of course, not all of them and the same motives.
I would challenge anyone to state that he, or any senator, has not been involved in corrupt actions, illegal activities, obfuscation, and outright lies........
I've never done anything illegal- at least within the last 20 mins

I cringe when people get so personal and vitriolic in their attacks on each other, though.......

You talking to ME!

not that I think we should all hold hands and sing, I just think it doesn't need to be mean, degrading, or hurtful......

Or Lie! Kumbaiya can go along way though

we have more in common than differences, IMHO.

or should it be said that what makes us so common are our many differences

AIIZ

[gyre]

I know very little about the sixties elections.
It has been said that LBJ ran his first election as an idealist and discovered that in texas politics of the day, that if you run a clean election, you've already lost.

Eisenhower is noteworthy for warning of the compromise of the republican party by money and power, coining the term military industrial complex.
Classified materials becoming available show his remarkable insight in many areas, especially for the time.
But he was able to see what was happening that long ago.

I'm hoping your reference to the 2nd amendment is tongue in cheek......
a handgun is a basic form of military equipment.
If you understand military operation, you'll know that ground taken my air or sea, can only be held by "boots on the ground", and, that being true, the handgun is made for close combat, the type necessary to take and or hold actual turf. Even the knife/bayonet is critical in this.

A handgun is standard military equipment now, but I don't think it was at the time of the writing.
I do think it is covered overall.
I think I could manage with just a rifle.
There is no difference between many weapons in auto and single fire.
The cost difference is a legally created fiction.
It is rather difficult to get a Sten to not fire full auto.

You still have to hit something with any weapon.
And full auto empties a gun really fast.
An rpg is certainly affordable old technology.
The Afghanis did well with anything that came close enough to hit with one.

As for california, everyone that needed to protect themselves carried a gun anyway, after being refused a carry permit in the recent past.
Everything is still available over the counter, though I think the days of $130 M16s are gone.

I have a lot of friends in california that own weapons and many keep them in Nevada and Arizona and go there to shoot.
It's a growth industry.
If I lived anywhere near the desert, I would want a .50 to shoot.
But a 7.62 will go through a car pretty good and a 308 or 30.06 do even better.
Are those legal there?

A .50 will stop an engine block with one shot pretty easily though.

I wouldn't worry too much about magazine capacity.
You don't want to fire a .50 too rapidly anyway.

Barrett This model holds nine rounds.
They stopped selling or servicing to police in california when their rifles were banned.

The 99 is available in a .416.
Might be legal in california.

[ygmir]

I agree,

I don't think a pistol was standard equipment when the 2nd amendment was written. but, I do think they existed and, were included in the thought process.....probably why they used the term "arms" instead of specifics. It allowed for new innovations.......

a rifle would do just fine, but, I don't want to be limited.....and, in close quarters, the handgun is more controllable, and, not penetrate multiple walls in a miss......and, can deliver more actual energy to the target.
I'd take a shotgun over a rifle inside 100 feet......

Full auto fire is a last resort technique, to emulate a shotgun in effect......IMHO, pretty useless, but, for some.........I do think there is a large difference, though, between full auto and single fire, even a 3 shot burst.....namely, control.....

I think it's sad to own a weapon and have to keep it in Nevada to shoot it........legally........

and yes, the ability of many cartridges to penetrate vehicles, armor, etc makes the .50 BMG rules kind of dumb.........I think it was just for political gain........and, technically all the cartridges you mention are 7.62.......30 cal. I believe you are referring to the 7.62X30 AK round, though....?

as you say, you don't want to fire a .50 BMG fast or for long......

I just like the .50 BMG, and, the ammo can be had surplus and cheaper.......

[gyre]

Yes, the 7.62 by 39.
My friend just built a bullpup and that's probably the way I'll go.
Even my my little 14 oz 9mm is illegal in california, if I don't use a shorter magazine.
My carry permit is honored all the way to the california border, but not there, even though my state honors california permits.
What is up with that state anyway?

Anyway, legal in nevada now.

Can you keep a dismantled weapon in california?
Most places if it is rendered into parts, it is not considered a weapon.

[ygmir]

Can you keep a dismantled weapon in california?
Most places if it is rendered into parts, it is not considered a weapon.

I'm not sure, and, I'm pretty sure most of our LE don't even have a clear picture of what's legal or not.........it's hard for them to enforce a lot of what's there.....

anyway,
I'd not take the chance and or have one, even in parts...........

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Obama On Gun Control - The Facts
By SCRIBE From Rumor Mill News
9-14-8
excerpt from the rense.com show
HERE ARE THE FACTS:

****Numbers in Brackets correspond to supporting evidence below****

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia. ( 17 )

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate "assault weapons," but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen. ( 18 )

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. ( 1 )

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban. ( 15 )

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. ( 3 )

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. ( 9 )

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership. ( 2 )

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities. ( 4 )

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense. ( 5 )

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration. ( 6 )

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws. ( 7 )

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and "research." ( 8 )

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America. ( 9 )

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them. ( 10 )

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military. ( 11 )

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines. ( 12 )

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping. ( 13 )

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods. ( 2 )

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers. ( 14 )

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.( 16 )

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns. ( 9 )

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.( 9 )

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21. ( 9 )

******

That's bullshit Toolmaker!

Those are associative inferences and simplifications. NOT FACTS! It generalizes every bill he sign or supported.

Oh, fucking shit Toolmaker why don't you post some of the other shit on Obama from that right wing wacko Jeff Rense like this:

Jeff Rense Show, Reverend Manning, Obama closet homosexual, Wright closet homosexual, James Manning interview
May 12, 2008 · 7 Comments
The Reverend James Manning will be interviewed on the Jeff Rense show tonight. Reverend Manning has a new video and states that Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright are closet homosexuals. Manning also has a few things to say about Oprah. The Reverend Manning video can be viewed here:
http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/ ... d-manning/

or the Obama nuts paranoia:

Jeff Rense, OBAMA BLOGONUTS ADMIT RESPONSIBILITY FOR CRIMINAL ATTACKS TO SHUT DOWN RENSE.COM, by Larry Sinclair, July 14, 2008, Is Obama camp responsible?
July 15, 2008 · 2 Comments
I attempted to access the website of Jeff Rense and the site would not respond. Jeff Rense has interviewed Larry Sinclair on many occasions. Larry Sinclair has a new post up with information about the Jeff Rense site:
“OBAMA BLOGONUTS ADMIT RESPONSIBILITY FOR CRIMINAL ATTACKS TO SHUT DOWN RENSE.COM
Posted by Larry Sinclair on July 14th, 2008
THE FOLLOING WAS EMAILED TO ME MOMENTS AGO AFTER I INQUIRED INTO SOME INTERNET STATEMENTS BY PRO-OBAMA BLOGONUTS CLAIMING THEY HAVE SHUT RENSE.COM AND ITS ENTIRE RADIO NETWORK DOWN.  THE INTERESTING THING IS THE FIRST CLAIM OF RESPONSIBILITY CAME FROM AN INDIVIDUAL ASSOCIATED WITH AN OREGON IMMIGRATION REFORM GROUP.  WELL AT LEAST THEIR ARE DOCUMENTED SCREEN SHOTS OF PEOPLE CLAIMING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS CRIMINAL ACT.

Monica Lewinsky... an Israeli Agent? Only at Rense.com
http://rensewatch.blogspot.com/

come on Toolmaker you can do better then that but not the rense show!

[ygmir]

AZ:
even considering the wacko stuff you post at the end, it is no different than the type stuff posted here by Obama supporters aimed at their opponents.....lots of innuendo, etc.....

and,
the stuff Toolmaker posted is not hyperbole or distortion, or half truth.......
take from it what you will, but, it is accurate.....

It's not like someone who disagrees with you politically is attacking you personally. You seem to get so angry. ...........

I say, we all meet up and get big diapers and sumo wrestle to find out who's right..........

[gyre]

Can you keep a dismantled weapon in california?
Most places if it is rendered into parts, it is not considered a weapon.

I'm not sure, and, I'm pretty sure most of our LE don't even have a clear picture of what's legal or not.........it's hard for them to enforce a lot of what's there.....

anyway,
I'd not take the chance and or have one, even in parts...........

It never hurts to carry a copy of the ATF rules that apply.
I know people that carry a copy notarized by an attorney.


Magsafe advises me that their 9mm is high risk for the Keltec.
X-raying the barrel may be called for.
The .380 and 32 ammo has been reduced to be safe.

[cowboyangel]

Obama may talk tough on guns, but I doubt he'll do anything about it. He's a consensus builder and the economy is taking precedence over EVERYTHING right now. Again, republican Schwarzenneger banned .50 rifles...not a democrat.

[ygmir]

I don't trust any of them..........I think the left tends to want to take my guns, but, as pointed out, the right can do it, too..........I just think the tendency is towards the left wanting more gun control........
And,
Obama may not do anything in that direction right away, but, especially to solidify his base, I think he'd be there in a second.........and, if he got to appoint any supreme court judges,,,,,,,they'd be very left, IMHO.

Both parties are so wishy/washy anymore, there is no clear choice, IMHO......yeah, each candidate has a certain base to play to, but, they'll do anything to get and hold office..........

I try to use "left" and "right" when I can, to discuss politics, since, it seems the given candidates don't stay with the strict party line any more........
Dem and Rep doesn't necessarily equate to left and right, respectively.....

[Toolmaker]

That's bullshit Toolmaker!

Those are associative inferences and simplifications. NOT FACTS! It generalizes every bill he sign or supported.

Oh, fucking shit Toolmaker why don't you post some of the other shit on Obama from that right wing wacko Jeff Rense

When it comes to a yay or nay vote its pretty simple. They are facts and from reliable sources. I only cut and pasted from rense since they had the list available there. Feel free to verify and refute any LIES about his voting record. I didn't post anything else from the "wacko" site since nothing else was pertinent to his views on the 2nd amendment. I did notice that you failed to respond to the quotes directly from Barack Obamas OWN website.

I don't have the time to play the games you often like to get into AZ.. if you're gonna call bullshit than PROVE it. Check his voting record and post the CONTRARY results. Don't just call me a liar because you like Obama and I think hes another Clintonista waiting to happen.

The fact is that Obama is anti-gun. He voted that way his entire career. His official stance on his website is to restrict guns and bring back the failed Clinton ban. Go argue with the folks running the Obama campaign.. not me. Go argue with youtube for having so many videos of his flip-flop politikin.

[littleflower]

...You know, those idiots that vote against their best interests because they blindly follow some wedge issue that has been put out there as a distraction, or worse...

i know republicans who say this EXACT SAME THING about democrats!

which is why anyone so blindly partisan freaks me out.

[cowboyangel]

...You know, those idiots that vote against their best interests because they blindly follow some wedge issue that has been put out there as a distraction, or worse...

i know republicans who say this EXACT SAME THING about democrats!

which is why anyone so blindly partisan freaks me out.

...and my dear that is because the republicans have mastered the art of twisted language (wise use, for instance) co-opted grass roots organizing language put to the art of public plunder, mastery of the media-communications systems....who controls the media controls the debate and the language used in it.

I'm no fan of the testicle-less democrats, but try to put a republican in the same ethics bracket? Fuck me twice, thrice and four times over...

[littleflower]

...You know, those idiots that vote against their best interests because they blindly follow some wedge issue that has been put out there as a distraction, or worse...

i know republicans who say this EXACT SAME THING about democrats!

which is why anyone so blindly partisan freaks me out.

...and my dear that is because the republicans have mastered the art of twisted language (wise use, for instance) co-opted grass roots organizing language put to the art of public plunder, mastery of the media-communications systems....who controls the media controls the debate and the language used in it.

I'm no fan of the testicle-less democrats, but try to put a republican in the same ethics bracket? Fuck me twice, thrice and four times over...

you are the first to suggest that republicans are more eloquent than democrats. bush is such a fine example, isn't he?

i agree that whoever controls the media controls the debate, but the writers and editors of the mainstream media are democrats (85% according to pew foundation). i've read that a lot of journalists are becoming independents so the number isn't so skewed. yes, i know, those evil non-human corporations owned by people like rupert murdoch (hillary clinton supporter) and ted turner (right wing wacko) and a bunch of other people who belong to various parties ... rich pigs who have nothing better to do ... they spend hours and hours twisting the honest writings of all those good democrat journalists into sneaky republican gibberish in order to fool the sheeple. yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Das Bus]

gyre wrote:
Only the gullible and the corrupt would vote for the republican party, so they have to engage in dirty tricks.
It's all they have.

gyre, you left out the ridiculously stupid and insipidly mean, which make up a large portion of the republican party.

You know, those idiots that vote against their best interests because they blindly follow some wedge issue that has been put out there as a distraction, or worse.

oh yeah, lets not forget the greedy and the xenophobic racially prejudiced as well. Up Yours, Tom Tancredo, you fucking second generation wop.

I was undecided, but leaning towards voting Libertarian. But now I think I will vote for McCain, just in case you actually DO vote (which I doubt). And therefore I will cancel your vote out.

[gyre]

You're so right.
An owner can't influence the coverage and editorial content of his employees because he isn't allowed to fire them and replace them with someone else.

Can't you figure out this anomaly about journalists?
It is precisely because they know what is going on, that they can't support republicans.

It is stunningly easy to find out what is going on as a journalist.
The hard part is getting the information on record and being allowed the time and ability to cover it.


Here's a shining example of "news'.
Actually it's from a fake interview done with Palin that is really an illegal campaign contribution in the form of a fake interview.
She was never asked real questions in the clip I saw.
All the "questions" were statements about Obama.
"Obama did/said blah, blah, blah.
Sucks, right?"

Obama was actually criticized for recognizing the economic crisis "because it might undermine faith overseas in our economy", ie he should lie.
I guess this is the Wile E. Coyote theory of gravity applied to the US government.


Sean Hannity (playing a journalist on TV)
Senator Barack Obama yesterday was attacking Senator McCain for saying that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. (Is this a question?)

Palin
Well, it was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use because the fundamentals, as he was having to explain afterwards, he means our workforce, he means the ingenuity of the American people, so that was an unfair attack, there again based on verbiage that John McCain chose to use.
(Is she saying McCain doesn't know what the economy actually is, so we can't listen to his verbiage?)

Sean Hannity (Actual question, no shit, I really didn't make this up!!!!)
Why does everyone benefit if the rich pays less(sic) or if everybody pays less in taxes?
Why is that good for the economy?
(Declaration disguised, poorly, as fake questions.)

Palin
That's a great question!
(I had to throw up at this point, so that's it.)

[cowboyangel]

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/ph ... c945b9f7b6

[Simon of the Playa]

basically, what it comes down to is this....

With republicans, it's always Money.

With democrats, it's always Sex.


so, do you prefer to be robbed of say, your social security, or just have them fucking on it.

i'd rather keep our future intact, even it's it's a little wet and sticky.

[wedeliver]

I used the word 'people' in general terms. And many in this group fall into that catagory.

Humm, unable to read all the posts on Palin, I came across this one that provoked thinking (what I was hoping to have happen). People in general terms. Many in this group are people. I kinda like people, but I think I like dogs better. I find that when I meet people with a dog, I will remember the dogs name but not the peoples. Is that what you mean by "'people'" and "in this group"? Or did you mean something more sinister?

[betrdanevr]

basically, what it comes down to is this....

With republicans, it's always Money.

With democrats, it's always Sex.


so, do you prefer to be robbed of say, your social security, or just have them fucking on it.

i'd rather keep our future intact, even it's it's a little wet and sticky.

AAAAAAAYMEN!

[Elderberry]

basically, what it comes down to is this....

With republicans, it's always Money.

With democrats, it's always Sex.


so, do you prefer to be robbed of say, your social security, or just have them fucking on it.

i'd rather keep our future intact, even it's it's a little wet and sticky.

I don't know...but it seems to me that the republicans rank right up there when it comes to sex.

JK

[betrdanevr]

Yeah. Poor Larry Craig.

[Ugly Dougly]

Remember, if you are of average intelligence, then half of all humanity is stupider than you. That's a large voting block, too large to ignore. It's natural that an entire political party should customize their message for them. It's not wrong or right, it's just politics.

[Elderberry]

Remember, if you are of average intelligence, then half of all humanity is stupider than you.

Hmmm...I would have guess it would have been a lot more than that...sure seems like there are a whole lot of stupid people out there

JK

[ygmir]

Remember, if you are of average intelligence, then half of all humanity is stupider than you.

Hmmm...I would have guess it would have been a lot more than that...sure seems like there are a whole lot of stupid people out there

JK

of course, a lot of folks point at disagreement or different ideas as stupid, or evil,
just because it's not how they see things.........

edit to add an adjective........

[Ugly Dougly]

Remember, if you are of average intelligence, then half of all humanity is stupider than you.

Hmmm...I would have guess it would have been a lot more than that...sure seems like there are a whole lot of stupid people out there

JK

Well, of course if you are above average intelligence, then there are a lot more relatively stupid people out there....

[Apollonaris Zeus]

I don't trust those Alaskan Politicians. Even ex-fed-attorneys are selling out the citizens:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/washi ... gewanted=2


ON Palin, She is turning out to really help Obama. McCain couldn't have pick a better running mate. He really could have had some real republican women with extensive experiences Like these women:
Senators: Lisa Murkowski, Alaska(?!?); Olympia Snowe, Maine; Susan Collins, Maine; Elizabeth Dole North Carolina; Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas

Governors: Oline Walker, Utah; Linda Lingle, Hawaii, M. Jodi Rell, Connecticut

Members of the House: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Florida; Deborah Pryce, Ohio; Barbara Cubin, Wyoming; Sue Myrick North Carolina; Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri; Kay Granger, Texas; Mary Bono, California; Heather Wilson , New Mexico; Judith Borg Biggert , Illinois; Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia; Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee; Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida; Candice Miller, Michigan; Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado; Thelma Drake, Virginia; Virginia Foxx, North Carolina; Cathy McMorris Rodgers, West Virginia; Jean Schmidt, Ohio

Cabinet: Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State; Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor; Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education; Mary Peters, Secretary of Transportation; Susan Schwab, US Special Trade Representative

Somehow the slogan: "Don't be a Bonner, vote for McCain and Bono!"
resonates as a winning team!

AIIZ