Re: Change?

by **Stephanie** Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:03 am

OK, Terry.

Tell me something. Did I miss your slams against John Edwards for taking his kids out of school to take them and his terminally ill wife out on the road campaigning? Did I miss that, or did were you unaware that is what he did?

by TerryRC Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:14 am

Tell me something. Did I miss your slams against John Edwards for taking his kids out of school to take them and his terminally ill wife out on the road campaigning? Did I miss that, or did were you unaware that is what he did?

You did miss that, as a matter of fact. I thought using his wife like that was abhorrent.

However, was he running on FAMILY VALUES?

Sorry, Steph.

You will have to actually attack my arguments instead of claiming the win by calling me a bigot.

by **Stephanie** Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:21 am

As a matter of fact, I do seem to recall John Edwards putting himself out there as a family man with good old fashioned "family values".

Yes, you do recall you criticizing his use of his dying wife, but the kids not at all.

by TerryRC Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:27 am

Sorry, Steph. I should have screamed more loudly. Does that make Palin less of a hypocrite?

I notice that you are STILL not attacking my arguments, preferring to paint me as a partisan, sexist jerk.

Palin displays no conservative FAMILY VALUES as far as I am concerned.

Edwards didn't either. Guess what, I wouldn't have voted for him, either.

by sodbuster Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:38 am

Well I dont care about that stuff.

It is irrelevant to their political positions of importance.

I liked Edwards because I thought he was sincere about creating a level playing field and wanted to help create one America instead of two.

And if Palin comes out for making the wv coal industry share the wealth like they make the oil companies share in Alaska she has my vote.

by **SheikBen** Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:45 am

ziggy wrote:
How is it I can like you all so much and yet you can have such nasty arguments with each other?

Haven't your kids taught you anything?

We're fighting for your attention, dammit.

Your adopted anyway. MOM! Ziggy won't stop touching me! And he called my sister that word that rhymes with "itch!"

by Randall Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:36 am

Well, back to the original topic, Obama unfortunately doesn't have much to choose from if he wants experienced Democrats in his cabinet. Bill Clinton was the only other Dem president for nearly the last 30 years, so it follows that most of Obama's team would be former Clintonites, promises of "change" notwithstanding.

For Secretary of State, I hope he goes with Richardson. He is experienced and level-headed. John Kerry is a buffoon, and Hillary brings way too much baggage.

by sodbuster Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:53 am

"For Secretary of State, I hope he goes with Richardson. He is experienced and level-headed. John Kerry is a buffoon, and Hillary brings way too much baggage."

Well I suppose Richardson has a good resume.

But something about him I don't like.

I mean besides the fact he was disloyal to the Clintons.

Plus I dont believe Obama would have flown Hillary out to Chicago if he didnt have something up his sleeve.

I would create a new job for Richardson dealing with the immigration issue.

by ziggy Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:17 am

ohio county wrote:
Potential Secretary of State John Kerry: Elected to the Senate in 1984; served every day since.

Potential Secretary of State Bill Richardson: Elected to the House of Representatives in 1982, served until 1997. Former U.N. Ambassador, Secretary of Energy.

Potential Secretary of State Anthony Lake: Joined the State Department in 1962. Worked in the Carter Administration. Named National Security Adviser in 1993. Nomination to be CIA Director was withdrawn by the Clinton administration.

Potential Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers: Joined the World Bank as chief economist in 1991. Served in Clinton's Treasury Department and actually previously served as Treasury Secretary from 1999 to 2001.

Potential Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin: Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, 1993 to 1995. Treasury Secretary, 1995-1999.

Potential Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner: Joined Kissinger and Associates in 1985; joined the Treasury Department in 1988 and served in various capacities until 2001.

Potential Treasury Secretary Laura Tyson: Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers from 1993 to 1995; Director of the National Economic Council from 1995 to 1996.

Potential Treasury Secretary Paul Volker: Joined the Treasury Department in 1962; became undersecretary in 1963. Federal Reserve Chairman from 1979 to 1987.

Potential Defense Secretaries: Richard Danzig, Chuck Hagel, former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, and former NATO Commander Wesley Clark.
Potential Secretary of Commerce: Harold Ford Jr., congressman from Tennessee from 1997 to 2007.

Potential Secretary of Labor: Dick Gephardt, congressman from Missouri from 1977 to 2005.

Potential Secretary of Transportation: James Oberstar, member of the House of Representatives since 1975.

Potential Secretary of Energy: Ed Markey, member of the House of Representatives since 1976.

Potential Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Max Cleland, administrator for Veterans Affairs from 1977 to 1981, elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996.

Potential National Security Adviser: Susan Rice, member of the National Security Council from 1993 to 1997; assistant Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001.

The more it changes the more it stays the same.

In this thread there seems to be a strong hint that Clinton Democrats are little or no different than Bush Republicans.

by Randall Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:53 pm

Zig, you make an interesting point. My own feeling throughout the campaign was that rather than being some closet commie who wanted to abolish capitalism and surrender to al-Qaeda, Obama was probably more centrist than his rhetoric indicated. His sober, even (at times) conservative statements since his victory have only reinforced my opinion of him. We'll see how he governs.

by **Stephanie** Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:33 pm

TerryRC wrote:Sorry, Steph. I should have screamed more loudly. Does that make Palin less of a hypocrite?

I notice that you are STILL not attacking my arguments, preferring to paint me as a partisan, sexist jerk.

Palin displays no conservative FAMILY VALUES as far as I am concerned.

Edwards didn't either. Guess what, I wouldn't have voted for him, either.

Terry that simply isn't true. For starters, as has already been discussed at length, Sarah Palin carried her less than perfect child to term. She is a breastfeeding working mother. As a woman who breastfed five children, I can personally attest to the kind of commitment that takes. That is family values, my friend.

by **SheikBen** Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:35 am

Randall wrote:Zig, you make an interesting point. My own feeling throughout the campaign was that rather than being some closet commie who wanted to abolish capitalism and surrender to al-Qaeda, Obama was probably more centrist than his rhetoric indicated. His sober, even (at times) conservative statements since his victory have only reinforced my opinion of him. We'll see how he governs.

I think the issue will be whether he is willing to veto the work of a very liberal congress, and I suspect the answer is no. He may want to govern more from the center, but he will be unable to do so.

by Randall Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:23 pm

That is indeed Obama's biggest flaw, Sheik. While Obama might be a thoughtful, moderate, and genuinely reconciliatory figure, many Congressional democrats are not, and Obama has shown no indications that he will be willing to expend the political capital necessary to stand up to them. Hopefully he will prove me wrong.

by sodbuster Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:33 pm

So far he looks like a reincarnation of Bill Clinton.

Trying to be a republican lite.

And if so the republicans will show their appreciation to him the same way they did Clinton.

by TerryRC Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:37 am

Terry that simply isn't true. For starters, as has already been discussed at length, Sarah Palin carried her less than perfect child to term. She is a breastfeeding working mother. As a woman who breastfed five children, I can personally attest to the kind of commitment that takes. That is family values, my friend.

Pulling your kids out of school to drag them around the country to use as showpieces is not family values.

She ran on being a "hockey mom". Fine. Hard to do once you are governor of a state. I guess the rest of the Palin kids lose out.

I don't see Palin as being really very "family values". She is also a pork-grabbing hypocrite that was completely unqualified for the position the GOP slotted her for.

She is also all about Palin, as is evidenced by her "going off the McCain reservation" during the later days of the campaign.

We can bring up other things, like the fact that a Kenyan preacher gave her a ritual "protection from witchcraft", something that would be merely amusing if african kids weren't being driven out of their homes and sometimes killed over similar ridiculousness.

Saying, "... but... but... Biden...", or "... but... but... Edwards..." doesn't change that fact.

If it makes you feel better to write off my opinion as "sexist", go right ahead.

by **Stephanie** Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:02 am

From what I have seen, the only thing the Palin children are losing out on is privacy. That is true of the children of anyone who puts themselves in the limelight.

Your most recent post does demonstrate clearly for me what is likely the cause of your scorn for her.....the woman's religion. The religion thing doesn't bother me like it does most atheists and agnostics. I simply don't care about the religious beliefs of others. I'm in a very small minority.

by TerryRC Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:03 am

Your most recent post does demonstrate clearly for me what is likely the cause of your scorn for her.....the woman's religion. The religion thing doesn't bother me like it does most atheists and agnostics. I simply don't care about the religious beliefs of others. I'm in a very small minority.

One statement out of all of my above criticisms above even mentioned religion.

That one criticism I called "merely amusing". That is not exactly scorn.

Why bother to even post here when people discount my arguments by going right to the "hater" thing?

From what I have seen, the only thing the Palin children are losing out on is privacy. That is true of the children of anyone who puts themselves in the limelight.

Palin, herself, put those kids in the spotlight. She used her children like they were tools. Many politicians manage to successfully insulate their kids from the public.

by **Stephanie** Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:35 am

Terry,

I have no interest in continuing to discuss Sarah Palin with you. I'd like to simply agree to disagree.

We've been chatting for nearly two years. I don't know what your thing with the Governor is. It doesn't really matter.

I will say that other than discussions of Governor Palin, I have never seen any indication that you are sexist. So I take that back.

by TerryRC Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:43 am

My thing with Palin is that the GOP screwed their own party.

Personally, I dislike her. I dislike the way she would talk to groups of "real Americans" with "pro-American" values. I think she is basically not a nice person and DEFINITELY not qualified for the office she is in., much less the one she was slotted for.

The outrage comes from then GOP neglecting to put in a qualified person for VP, preferring to use Palin as an appeal to the social conservatives.

I feel a white rage just thinking about it. Kept me from voting for McCain. Kept me from voting for president.

by **Stephanie** Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:02 am

lol

I like her. I like a lot of the things she's done. I like the way she gets so many in the base fired up. The GOP needs that, Terry. I like her positions on many issues but before McCain nominated I said I thougth if he tapped her she would decline if smart.

The thing she's done that upsets me most is to allow the aerial shooting of wolves. That's just so wrong for so many reasons.

by ziggy Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:26 pm

Why bother to even post here when people discount my arguments by going right to the "hater" thing?

Why bother? To thwart the efforts to shut you up. You know you're on track when they resort to attacking you instead of your words.

by SamCogar Sun Nov 23, 2008 4:57 pm

TerryRC wrote:My thing with Palin is that the GOP screwed their own party.

Personally, I dislike her. I dislike the way she would talk to groups of "real Americans" with "pro-American" values. I think she is basically not a nice person and DEFINITELY not qualified for the office she is in., much less the one she was slotted for.

The outrage comes from then GOP neglecting to put in a qualified person for VP, preferring to use Palin as an appeal to the social conservatives.

I feel a white rage just thinking about it. Kept me from voting for McCain. Kept me from voting for president.

As you can surely see by the above, .......

Jealously always brings out the worst in people.

Or is it the worst in people that brings out their jealousy?

.

by bmd Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:28 pm

SamCogar wrote:

Jealously always brings out the worst in people.

Or is it the worst in people that brings out their jealousy?

.

You mean like the overuse of enlarged, bold text and emoticons?

by TerryRC Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:25 pm

Jealously always brings out the worst in people.

So does laziness.

There was nothing in my posts to suggest jealousy.

Leave it to you to find a way to discount anything I have said without actually having to think about it.

by ziggy Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:46 pm

Leave it to you to find a way to discount anything I have said without actually having to think about it.

Yep. That's his trademark.

by Sponsored content