"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Is this court? I started coming here as a refuge from listening to advocates bullshit one another and employ willful ignorance.

It is a sad state of affairs when you come to an internet bulletin board for relief from bullshit.

But, yeh, me too.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
The bigger question is why you always find pieces that show McCain in a negative light, but don't do the same to Obama.

Silly.

He did, and dismissed them all out of turn.

Recall. The Rezko matter was nonsense. The "re-tooled" autobiography was creative license. Being on the FARC computer wasn't his fault. Refusing to wear a flag pin is "haute couture".

You get the picture.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is the best you have? Really? Sex ed?

I'm hitting the pitches thrown.

Do you really think he has no opinion on sex education?

[LessinSF]

SO I was watching BBC World and the ticker on the bottom of the screen referred to a "potential Clinton Dream Ticket." I took that to mean Hillary / Bill because he's not term limited out on the undercard, and could serve out her term if she were killed, but thne I saw that it was this predicable and - to me - unlikely story about her and Barack.

The BBC has its charms, but it also sometime doesn't have a clue.

LessinHanoi

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Do you go into court and argue both sides?

Actually, I think Sebby, Hank, Club, Spanky and myself are all very fair and open about criticizing the GOP when appropriate - so yes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But on the Dem side, we have a candidate who stands for next to nothing and speaks in the most ludicrous borad platitudes and ducks every attempt by the press to pin down what his admin would actually do from a nuts and bolts perspective and you're busy pointing out four sentence blurbs about McCain's gaffes on sex education?

I don't say this sort of thing because it's horseshit. If you want to find out what Obama's policy positions are, you can. It's not that hard. The notion that he speaks only broad platitudes is a HRC talking point, made effective by the media's reluctance to spend time covering policy instead of the horse race.

I don't think Obama is perfect, but that criticism of him is just lazy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Actually, I think Sebby, Hank, Club, Spanky and myself are all very fair and open about criticizing the GOP when appropriate - so yes.

I forgot Sebby - I also come here for the humor.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Hank -

Lets keep a running tally of every one of Ty's posts citing someone criticizing McCain and then juxtapose it against the number of posts he puts up criticizing Obama or Clinton.

My bet is the ratio will be in the line of 350:5 by November.

I'd do it alone, but you seem better suited to it, seeing as how you like to keep score.

SD

PS: Ty, if you want to have any credibility here, I suggest you start criticizing in an even handed fashion.

Why don't you start the tally, and go back to January 1 to make it complete? You're not going to find much. Of course, with the way Hank keeps score that won't be a problem.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Good point. I'm sure they just made it up.

I'm happy to criticize the NYT too, but when you start dismissing news you don't like because they're the source, you're on the road to wingnutdom.

Sorry TY, but you're in the wingnut chair today. Your "big story" was McCain's refusal to get into an argument over sex education with a NY Times reporter (magine that). Posting about in on this board is really retarded and makes you look foolish, dear. BTW - I have posted way more shitty things said out there about Obama. Because I call it like I see it. I'm sorry to say, but you're a blind partisan hack.

It's odd that the NYT would ask him for his position on an issue of domestic policy. They don't do that to most septuagenarians. I'm almost tempting to credit your notions of bias, except -- let me see -- I think I vaguely recall that he some legislative responsibilites somewhere. Maybe Washington D.C. Hmm. And now that I think about it, I kinda remember that he was doing this thing with the buses full of reporters and the speeches, like he was running for president.

I didn't think legislative responsibilities included responding to every blogger, writer, reporter or general retard that grabs him demanding to know X, Y or Z, and demanding to know it right this instant. Was the reporter a constituent? Your recollection of "legislative responsibilities" is indeed "vague."

Anyway, if you seriously have your panties in a bunch worrying that McCain might not have a position on sex education (which is funny -- WTF, you big baby) why don't you do a Google search and see what you find out. I'm sure you'll feel less hysterical then.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is the best you have? Really? Sex ed?

You're forgetting that the issue is among a handful that are excellent indicators of whether one's policies are controlled by people who embrace irrational methodologies. See also: intelligent design. I consider it an important question, and not because I believe the federal government should have any kind of education policy at all.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't say this sort of thing because it's horseshit. If you want to find out what Obama's policy positions are, you can. It's not that hard. The notion that he speaks only broad platitudes is a HRC talking point, made effective by the media's reluctance to spend time covering policy instead of the horse race.

I don't think Obama is perfect, but that criticism of him is just lazy.

when I wake up, I can only remember vague outlines of my dreams. My wife can go to extreme detail about her dreams. Still, they're both just dreams that ain't really happening.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Silly.

He did, and dismissed them all out of turn.

Recall. The Rezko matter was nonsense. The "re-tooled" autobiography was creative license. Being on the FARC computer wasn't his fault. Refusing to wear a flag pin is "haute couture".

You get the picture.

I think the only one of these topics I've posted on here is the Rezko matter, and the fact that no one has shown Obama did anything wrong, but since you know my posts so well, why don't you point me to my bon mots on haute couture.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by LessinSF
SO I was watching BBC World and the ticker on the bottom of the screen referred to a "potential Clinton Dream Ticket." I took that to mean Hillary / Bill because he's not term limited out on the undercard, and could serve out her term if she were killed, but thne I saw that it was this predicable and - to me - unlikely story about her and Barack.

The BBC has its charms, but it also sometime doesn't have a clue.

The Clinton campaign has been floating this recently, but I can't figure out why.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The notion that he speaks only broad platitudes is a HRC talking point, made effective by the media's reluctance to spend time covering policy instead of the horse race.

You're right. About NAFTA and Iraq, he's talking substantively, but out of both sides of his mouth.

Speaking of HRC talking points, apparently writers at lefty blogs like TPM are now getting fired if they support HRC.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27194

[Atticus Grinch]

Uh, it seems to me that claiming the bias of a source is useless unless you dispute the truth of what is reported. You can claim Obama wouldn't have been asked the same question, but that doesn't impeach either the question or the answer.

This observation applies equally to Fox News.