The pit bull in lipstick

yeah, all you guys see it from a distance, even tho our economic fortunes are all linked together, its awful to see what idiots we have on the top ranks and shinanigans it all is. Of course the older I get the less tolerant of politics and the media.

It's going to take a miracle to get us thru this mess. No matter who gets in office, it is just too big of a mess to survive. I understand Fred's rage.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
I think Fred is merely reflecting the thoughts and fears of most Democrats who realise that Obama has no chance of being elected and is looking to demonise the clear favourites.

Trouble is, even if we cared, we can't vote...

Ummm, Nigel, you might want to have a look at the current polls ... Obama is ahead in all of them. He is now not only ahead in the crucial swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida, but is competitive in former Republican strongholds such as Indiana. At this point, Obama not only has a good chance of winning but even has a chance to win an electoral college landslide.

McPalin "clear favorites"? No, sir.

And I think you should care, unless you mistakenly believe that USA policy and actions have no effect on you or the rest of the world. Believe me, they have an enormous effect on you ... what do you think is happening right now to the global economy?

Best,
Fred

I'm confused...

Fred's posts have been anything but inflammatory. They haven't been angry (even though he's enraged) and there's been no bad language, yet his first post was pulled up on these points. Why? I think others here wish to sling mud...

I saw highlights of the Minnesota debate last night. I found it very interesting and a little troubling. So far, from what I've seen I felt that Obama would be a good change. However, last night he said something which troubled me greatly. He said he was prepared to go in to Pakistan and take out the terrorist forces with or without Pakistan's agreement. I have a real problem with this since it seems that Senator Obama has no sense of other countries' sovereign rights. It is this attitude which has made America the most hated nation on earth. I appreciate where he's coming from, but the end does not justify the means. In effect he is willing to commit an act of war.

As for McCain, I warmed to him, surprisingly. I could not get around the fact that he comes across as a doddery old man, but his mental faculties appear to be all there and the points he made were well put together as well as very much to the point.

However, I was confused by both parties last night because they seemed to contradict each other on things which ought to be public record. The 'referee' never seemed to counter these arguments.

As for Sarah Palin, what an ugly woman! She may be a bit of a beauty but what issues from her mouth frightens the heeby jeebies out of me. She is a very good reason for McCain not to be elected. She comes across very much as the all-American gal who'll sooner come into your country to root out terrorists than look at you. At first I thought she was an astute choice but now I think she's one hell of a mistake.

The New York Times editorial column below epitomizes some of the most disturbing aspects of the McCain-Palin campaign. When supporters at their rallies are shouting "Kill Him!" in response to Obama's name and others are shouting insults at African American cameramen covering the event, it reminds me of what I have read about Nazi party rallies in the 1930s:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/opinion/08wed1.html?_...f=slogin&oref=slogin


Michael

quote:

it reminds me of what I have read about Nazi party rallies in the 1930s:

Michael, careful. You will upset Fred with this repetitive scare-mongering. Best leave that to the Republicans.

Cheers

Don

Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi LOVES Palin. Just loves her.

Mad Dog Palin

OH MY GAWD, he said it so perfectly and with such control.....

All I can say is that I hope she won't suffer too much from PMS if she gets in the office.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:
I'm confused...

Fred's posts have been anything but inflammatory. They haven't been angry (even though he's enraged) and there's been no bad language, yet his first post was pulled up on these points. Why? I think others here wish to sling mud...

Thanks for recognizing that, Frank. I really appreciate it.

All the best,
Fred

Frank said....

quote:

I'm confused...

Says it all really...

quote:

Fred's posts have been anything but inflammatory

I have highlighted those parts of Fred's initial post which (IMHO) I consider to be infammatory. My sole aim in this task is to help resolve the confusion you have declared....

"Since Ronald Reagan, no American presidential candidate who is leading in the polls at this point before election has lost.

As of this writing, Obama is leading, and the Republicans are getting desperate, so we have GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin, the pit bull in lipstick (her own self-description), accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists."

Fear mongering worked for Goering and the Nazis, and it's worked for BushCo for the last eight years. Never mind that Palin is talking about one "terrorist," William Ayers, a former American radical left-wing Weatherman from the 60s who was active when Obama was 8 years old.

But that's not really who Palin is referring to when she says Obama is "palling around with terrorists" because her target audience doesn't know about Ayers, the Weathermen, and the 60s ... they do know about 9/11, Al Qaeda, and Muslims. Well, gee, doggone it, Obama's middle name is "Hussein" ... they keep repeating that 24/7 on right-wing talk radio, so he must be a Muslim, right? And now Palin says he's "palling around with terrorists."

Despicable, reprehensible, lying, swift-boating assholes."

To the unwarey reader, it might not appear inflammatory - but it is. If we remove the highlighted elements, and one or two other bits of Fred's propagander, his message is less inflammatory, and hopefully this helps to reduce your confusion further....ie you will appreciate that it is inflammatory and hence understand why others have responed accordingly.

"Since Ronald Reagan, no American presidential candidate who is leading in the polls at this point before election has lost.

As of this writing, Obama is leading, and the Republicans are getting desperate, so we have GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin, accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists."

Palin is talking about one "terrorist," William Ayers, a former American radical left-wing Weatherman.

But her target audience doesn't know about Ayers. (However) they do know about 9/11, Al Qaeda, and Muslims. Obama's middle name is "Hussein" ... so he must be a Muslim. And now Palin says he's "palling around with terrorists."

Reprehensible"

Please note. I personnaly have no problem with Fred writing these inflammatory tirades, or this one in particular. That's his privilege. Its also (I believe, but Adam will no doubt rectify any error of understanding on my part) my privilige and that of others, to politely express our views about both the nature and content of Fred's contributions to this forum.

Cheers

Don

Don,

I see nothing inflammatory in the highlighted sections. Methinks you're just a kid throwing his toys out of the pram (now that's inflammatory).

Frank

"Methinks you're just a kid throwing his toys out of the pram" You thinks wrong.

"(now that's inflammatory)". Nope. Its a (pathetic) attempt at a personal insult, pure and simple. IMHO you've let yourself down on this occasion.

"I see nothing inflammatory in the highlighted sections", well that, of course, is your privilege.

Cheers

Don

Like Frank, I must admit that I am at a loss to see what is inflammatory about the highlighted sections. Those who want to see an example of inflammatory speech should try to get hold of one of the transcripts of the speeches she (Palin) has been making this week.


Michael

I heard a commentator describe US politics as 'a contact sport'.

We have copied much (and will take more) from US politics but thankfully still fall short of that here. The enormous emphasis on overt and demonstrative faith is something we can also do without. Was it Nick Clegg who said that he did not believe in God' but caused barely a ripple?

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:


Since Ronald Reagan, no American presidential candidate who is leading in the polls at this point before election has lost.

I think, as of this point, the election itself is a mere formality. I will be the first to wish Obama luck as the new president.

As far as I can see, the debates have accomplished one thing. They have convinced the American people that Obama is conscientious, bright, intelligent, sane,.. and in the end, "presidential". It's hard to see what McCain can gain from the debates; he looks tired, old and cranky: a stooped figure with a dazed, bug eyed expression, desperate to communicate with the voters. I think he would be a good leader for America, but I am not daft enough to think he has a chance.

As far as bashing Ms Palin. What's the point ? She is neither so good as her fans say she is nor as bad as her detractors claim. I rather like her, myself.

You know it's funny. We treat our leaders like rubbish and then wonder why we are treated the same in return. Politics as usual, I suppose.


Noyes

A sensible post in a sea of hyperbole.

quote:

A sensible post in a sea of hyperbole.

That's no exageration....

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Noye's Fludde:
She is neither so good as her fans say she is nor as bad as her detractors claim. I rather like her, myself.

She's quite likely even worse than most of her detractors have had time to discover. Either way, you're welcome to her - let her help run your country.

Sound sensible?

quote:

let her help run your country

Take my vice, please.

David

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:

quote:

Originally posted by Noye's Fludde:
She is neither so good as her fans say she is nor as bad as her detractors claim. I rather like her, myself.

She's quite likely even worse than most of her detractors have had time to discover. Either way, you're welcome to her - let her help run your country.

Sound sensible?

Spot on, jayd.

Just today, a state of Alaska legislative committee found that Palin illegally abused her power when she fired the state's public safety commissioner.

I don't see how intelligent people can listen to the woman speak for a few minutes and not conclude that she is far less than the sum of her parts. That whole folksy, winking, "doggone it, you betcha" shtick is so blatantly phony. I just don't understand how anyone takes that as genuine ... even a child could see that the empress isn't wearing any clothes.

Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
even a child could see that the empress isn't wearing any clothes.

Fred,

I wont' be betting on that.

I'll keep it simple

you the man fred

good lookin out

and what about my man buff daddy (warren buffet)

I was happy to see that!

quote:

Originally posted by kuma:

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
even a child could see that the empress isn't wearing any clothes.

Fred,

I wont' be betting on that.

I asked my nine year old daughter what she thought of Palin after the debate and she just lowered her eyes and silently shook her head from side to side.

Fred

fred

I agree that Palin is shallow but at least she livened things up. McCain is frankly past it and Obama is just a smart suit with a big mouth.

What a lousy choice .. commisserations to America and to the world.

Regards

Mick

Mick is right.

Would any of the candidates have the wotsits to tell the bankers to put up, shut up and stop behaving like spoilt children who lost the game and don't want to play any more?

Jono