Thursday, September 4, 2008

Day 4 - Letdown or Revelation?

After the delirious joy of Sarah Palin's address last night, I approached the McCain speech with great trepidation. After all, here was someone who did consider liberal Joe Lieberman as part of his shortlist. So with the dread that I'd have to replace my TV after throwing something at it to shut his dumb ass up, I returned home to do battle with the man I have often referred to privately (and now publicly) as Assface.

As I was on the way home, though, I got to hear Cindy McCain speak. As much as I was impressed with the more articulate Michelle Obama, it was the list of humanitarian accomplishments of Cindy that truly impressed me. While I think both women would bring something special to the White house, there's no question which one has the bigger heart. That award goes to the special ed teacher of the bunch.

But on to the main event *shudder*:

Needless to say, it was much more scaled back than the grandeur of the Barackopolis, befitting the kind of man that took to the stage, John Sidney McCain II.

First of all, style contrast. McCain, of course, was far less eloquent. We expected that. I personally expected However, as I sat there, with both ups and downs, one word slowly came to mind to describe McCain this night: Statesman.

Essentially, he weaved the story of his journey from a young, ballsy pilot to the public servant he is today. And it worked, because the crowd was rocking as the speech went along, cheering "USA" every so often (which we never heard echo from the Barackopolis), and McCain, despite being prompter-challenged, actually delivered the kind of speech that can win an election.

There were a few points that annoyed me, but I was actually taken in. Not as much as Sarah Palin's speech, but I got closer to being able to vote for him. So, let's get the raw text of the speech and have at him:

Please, please, please. My friends, my dear friends, please. Please don’t be diverted by the ground noise and the static. You know, I’m going to talk about it some more. But Americans want us to stop yelling at each other, OK?

This was an unscripted and stutter-free comment after yet another asshat from the ranks of the CodePinkos disrupted the festivities and was promptly shouted out by the USA chant. McCain misses the point that sometimes we have to yell just because the colostomy bag contents of the goofball left don't know anything about sane discourse (more on that in the comment section).

..the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will know their names.

This is one of Bush's problems. He didn't do this. If McCain can, good.

We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger.

This is why we need change in Washington. Not because conservative principles are wrong, but because they were abandoned.

We’re all God’s children, and we’re all Americans.

Except for those illegal aliens. Although, had you managed with McCain-Kennedy....

Let’s remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

Bye, bye, NEA!

We’ll attack the problem on every front. We’ll produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells off-shore, and we’ll drill them now. My friends, we’ll build more nuclear power plants. We’ll develop clean-coal technology. We’ll increase the use of wind, tide, solar, and natural gas. We’ll encourage the development and use of flex-fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.

That sounds like my plan. Except for the lack of kitchen sink.

We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children.

The battle of change. I'm thinking the changes McCain wants to throw out there are better than Obama's big vision for government growth.

Again and again — again and again, I’ve worked with members of both parties to fix problems that need to be fixed. That’s how I will govern as president. I will reach out my hand to anyone to help me get this country moving again.

Oh, almost had me until that reminder of all the times you joined the ranks of the Bloody Stump Republicans; the results of reaching across the aisle.

Long ago, something unusual happened to me that taught me the most valuable lesson of my life. I was blessed by misfortune. I mean that sincerely. I was blessed because I served in the company of heroes and I witnessed a thousand acts of courage, and compassion, and love.

This was the beginning of his speech on humility, and on why he is so thankful for his country. It was his POW story, but though I had heard it before, it was compelling nonetheless. The fact is, there are some stories that never grow old. This is one of them.

(The following was during the final ovation, with McCain yelling)
Fight with me. Fight with me.
Fight for what’s right for our country. Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.
Fight for our children’s future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all.
Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up for each other, for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.
Stand up, stand up, stand up, and fight.
Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up.
We never quit.
We never hide from history. We make history.
Thank you, and God bless you, and God bless America.


I can't add anything better.

62 comments:

Patrick M said...

And she couldn't wait until I got the post up (reminding me why I enabled the damned moderation)....

shaw kenawe has left a new comment on your post "Day Three - Red Meat and":

I thought McCain's speech was about the worst I have heard a major politician give. Except for the very end, no passion at all. Nearly all of it could have been heard as a very strong exhortation to vote for Obama.

He basically said, I'm a POW, which is the only reason to elect me, and Obama isn't, so he's unqualified for the office.

It made about as much sense as using a banana to drive a nail.

DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

Day 5
The polls ate tied at 42 each!

Patrick M said...

Meant to accept this, not reject it:

Dave Miller has left a new comment on your post "Day 4 - Letdown or Revelation?":

A decent speech. If the dems want to bash him, he has openly said he is not good in this type of forum. That is why he wanted to do a town hall, which Obama wants to stay away from. I wonder why?

On substance, I would have to say this. Why does one get the idea that McCain wants to change Washington?

Hasn't the GOP held the WHite House 20 of the last 28 years?

Hasn't the GOP held control of Congress 12 of the last 14 years?

Hasn't McCain been in Washington since the 80's?

If the answer to these is yes, please tell me why I would vote for a change candidate of the same party?

Does he really believe those entrenched interests will suddenly want to follow a man whose plan will take away their power?

If McCain really wants change in Washington, the reality is one must vote for the Dems.

His problem will be that the GOP will not like, and has already fought the type of change that their nominee, a man they have openly called a traitor to the party, has advocated.

This is gonna be a great election season.

Patrick M said...

Shaw: I thought McCain's speech was about the worst I have heard a major politician give.

Was MSNBC overdubbing the speech again? Because you couldn't have been listening to the same speech I was listening to.

Because it brought me closer to voting for him. I approach it cautiously, because it's McCain, but if he does get elected and he does bring the kinds of changes he was talking about, I will be absolutely in his corner in 2012.

BTW, the speech wasn't meant to attract the Obamatons. It was meant to appeal to ME.

DD2: Consider that those numbers are before the GOP convention bounce. Although there was another one out there that had Obama up 50-42.

Dave: I'll be glad when I shut off the moderation.

That is why he wanted to do a town hall, which Obama wants to stay away from. I wonder why?

I think you nailed it as to who "writes" good speeches and who knows what he's saying. Personally, I'd like to see
McCain and Obama go head to head without some stupid moderation structure. It would be the last debate Obama would ever do against McCain.

On the change question, it's one that has haunted all of the people on the right, except for the Kool Aid crowd. Ad McCain addressed that. It's part of that whole maverick thing.

Back in 1994, we elected a GOP majority on the idea that they would cut taxes and government. By 2000, they were failing at that, and when Bush got into the White House, he forgot all about the veto. Thus, 2006.

But McCain's contention is that he has fought with his party over the years. I can attest to that. Sometimes, he's done some absolutely stupid things. But there's a chance he might actually go ape shit once he is elected and really shake things up. Picking Sarah Palin is a good indication of that.

I comes down to whether we trust him to do what he says.

The party hacks of the GOP will fight him if he really does try to change things. But if he can sell the people on the change, the hacks will pick victory.

Although I'm going to have to drop him some email about pushing the FairTax. If he took THAT up, he'd win me immediately.

Dave Miller said...

Arnold tried to push the GOP towards change in CA and they have basically droped him unless they need him, which of course they feel they don't.

The result is more deadlock then the folks have seen then they ever had with Gray Davis, whom he replaced.

Entrenched powers seldom yield to change and the GOP has become as entrenched as the Dems ever were.

Toad734 said...

Ok, give me a break. Bigger heart?? No, bigger bank account and nothing else to do. If I had no job and endless amounts of wealth I would go feed babies in Burma too but I have life and a job and have to feed myself, as does, or at least did, Michelle.

And Cindy is creepy. I thought she looked a little bit like Ming the Merciless with that big ass yellow dress the other day. I was waiting for Flash Gordon to come in and save us from pending doom.

Statesmen?? Mabye bitter old grandpa on the porch screaming at the neighborhood kids but I wouldn't go as far as Statesmen and we know with his temper that he isn't going to be all that great of a statesmen.

As far as earmarks goes, you know that bridge Palin said no to? Well, as it turns out, she originally wanted it and pushed for it until everyone else in the US found out about it so she declined to have it built but ended up keeping all the money anyway. So sure, she said no to the actual pork but still charged us for it. I wonder if McCain would do the same. And by the way, if "pork" is the only way Minnesota can rebuild their bridges for instance, then I would rather have some money for a bridge set aside on an education bill than have it crush a bunch of people on their way home from work. Now, that being said, thats a shitty and shady way of conducting business and instead of vetoing entire bills, how about just make a law that bills can only pertain to one subject?

As far as change I am reminded of a scene from Oh Brother Where Art Thou:

Junior O'Daniel: "Well' he's the reform candidate, Daddy."
Pappy O"Daniel: "Yeah."
Junior O'Daniel: "A lot of people like that reform. Maybe we should get us some."
Pappy O"Daniel: "I'll reform you, you soft-headed son of a bitch. How we gonna run reform when we're the damn incumbent? Is that the best idea you boys can come up with?

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"We’ll increase the use of wind, tide, solar, and natural gas. We’ll encourage the development and use of flex-fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles."

Let us ask, will we do so at the expense of sustainable energy producers such as Oil and Coal Companies?

Will we use government, not as a force to Protect Property but rather, as a force to Redistribute Property to "prop-up" inefficient energy companies??

shaw kenawe said...

..."but if he does get elected and he does bring the kinds of changes he was talking about, I will be absolutely in his corner in 2012."

How can you possibly think John McCain will bring "change?"

"Change" is Obama's and the Democrats' theme, and the Republicans apparently had to steal it in order to give themselves a reason to keep themselves in power.

McCain was once a maverick, but in his cynical choice of Palin, he proves he is more of the same.

Ronald Reagan once said that government is not the solution; government is the problem.

Why in god's green teeth do the Republicans want to continue to be the problem?


The Republicans keep asking America to believe they'll change the country by keeping them in power?

Apparently, Patrick, you're warming up to him because he has promised to give you more of the same, not change.

You didn't like him when he was a maverick. You like him now that he's embraced the tired old mantras of the GOP. No taxes! Drill, drill, drill! No choice for women!!! Same. Same. Same.

And you fell for the bait and switch.

Change means the repudiation of the Bush Doctrine. Will he change that?

Change means no more tax cuts for the wealthy 1% of Americans. Ooops. He changed that stand and reverted back to the old Bush.

Change means not continuing our dependence on oil which he was mavrickly against and now is Bushly for. That's change back to the past.

Change means not repudiating what he said about the radical Xians: "Agents of Intolerance" and putting one on the ticket with him. That's back to the past.

Jerry Falwell would have loved Sarah Palin. In fact, she reminds me of him--with lipstick.

There is nothing about John McCain nor the Republican Party that promises change.

Nothing.

Patrick M said...

Arnold tried to push the GOP towards change in CA and they have basically droped him...

Except you leave out the fact that he went to the left of the national party. That's why he got dropped. Had he stayed with the conservativism that was expected, things might have gone differently.

But yeah, both parties are entrenched. Maybe McCain and Palin might make a dent. At least that's my hope. For Change. Why does that sound familiar? :)

Toad: The fact is, Cindy's father worked his ass off, achieved the American dream for his daughter, and she took that gift and did a whole lot of good with it. Sorry that Michelle doesn't quite have that on the resume, but she just doesn't.

And Flash Gordon is being played by Sarah Palin this year!

Yes, the speech was a statesman speech. It wasn't nearly as partisan in tone as the Sermon from the Barackopolis, it spoke to every segment of the population, including mine specifically, and it moved people in a way that the tired rhetoric of the shiny Obama speech just doesn't.

Oh, and if I remember from the last time I watched Oh Brother Where Art Thou (loved that movie), Pappy won.

Soapman: I'm still waiting for those numbers myself. I will point out that Obama guarantees forgetting oil in favor of crippling us. But it will be something I'm watching.

Patrick M said...

How can you possibly think John McCain will bring "change?"

Shaw: Glad you asked. Three things come to mind that make me a little more willing to trust McCain.

1. Sarah - here's someone who's seriously out of the beltway mentality, with several marks of fighting corruption and establishment politics in Alaska. It's a ballsy pick, nonetheless.

2. The maverick - it's one of the things has infuriated me with McCain, his willingness to put through legislation he says it right but plays into the hands of the left. It's entirely conceivable he'll do some shaking up once he get in the White House.

3. Rush - I'm using him as shorthand for talk radio and the blogosphere. McCain knows he hasn't had support from the conservative base for a while, and that he will have to fight a battle on two fronts if he starts pulling too much of the shit he has pulled.

Change means the repudiation of the Bush Doctrine. Will he change that?

It depends on what loaded definition you have of the "Bush Doctrine" you have in mind.

As far as I understood, the Bush Doctrine was preemption in the war on terror. And so far, while there have been problems and mistakes, we haven't been attacked on American soil. So I wouldn't want it tossed.

But I assume you're using it as a catch phrase for everything. There are things that Bush did right and things Bush did wrong. The biggest mistake is bloating the government to ungodly sizes on all fronts.

If McCain changes that, then I'm Kool and the Gang with it.

But if you notice, I give him credit for the speech, but I'm not looking at him as though he's the answer, but a possibility better than the guaranteed government expansion under Obama.

So if McCain is at least talking the talk, I'll give him the chance.

The other option is not acceptable.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"Change means no more tax cuts for the wealthy 1% of Americans."

And why? So that they can continue to shoulder nearly 40% of the Federal Tax burden towards a flurry of programs that you may benefit from without you yourself incurring a cost??

Under Bush's tax cuts, anyone paying taxes received a cut. And, seeing as how those at the top of the income scale pay the most in taxes, it would then stand to chance that they would get the most back in the event of a cut no?

If I pay $500 for front row tickets to a concert and you pay $100 for your tickets in the nose bleed section, and the concert ends up getting canceled, what ought the outcome be?

By your logic (or lack thereof) we would both receive $300 each in the spirit of "fairness".

That is so completely backasswards that I can't even begin to see how any Freedom and Liberty minded individual could conclude such a ridiculous thing.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

What's more, Obama claims that he's only going to raise taxes on those apparently UBER-RICH Americans in the top 5%.

Any earthly idea my good man how much money you need to pull in to qualify for the top 5%??? (without having to Google it??)

It's a mere $153,500 a year.

Now, if you think that's wealthy then remember this....

In many instances, that includes a married couple filing jointly.

But I digress....Obama is the Uniter right?

Well tell me something. What in the bloody hell could be more divisive for a country than to promise one half of the country something that the other half of the country is going to have to pay for???

Beth said...

Soapie's points are really at the heart of the difference between conservatism and liberalism. I am anxious to see how the libs respond, although I can guess they will say how they themselves are willing to give their tax dollars to help the less fortunate, and yet hello, you can do that, it's called charity and there is no reason in God's green earth we need the government doing charity. Or investing in the arts, or business, or science. You want to invest in them, go right ahead, it is a free country ain't it?

Bob said...

Hey Soapboxgod, tell that Redistributing the wealth socialist

Crap to your friend barack Obama!

Sarah is going make the difference in this election. She is a bright new star to the republican party.
I hope that all the people that were against MCCain will see the light now and see Obama for what he is ....If Obama is elected, get ready to give back 1/2 of your hard earned dollars and hand it over to the welfare bums.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Well Bob...while it's great to throw around generalities and demonize Obama and the Democrats about redistributing wealth, such a little Hannityesque doesn't quite pass the smell test.

The reality is, the Republican party has been pretty good at redistributing wealth themselves. And, I would certainly hope that you would have the intestinal fortitude and the objectivity to admit it.

Take a look at that God forsaken bloated-ass Farm bill for crying out loud. Republicans love their subsidies as much as those pesky Democrats.

As for Palin...indeed it is a breath of fresh air for the Republican party. Even still, I'll still remained reserved. Because you see, one person is not enough to A)negate all of the short comings of either John McCain or the party. And, B)define a party which is so completely starved of conservatism within itself.

It is more than a little premature to tout Palin as some sort of saving grace, Especially considering she is not the one at the Top of the ticket.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Oh yeah...as if the Farm Bill weren't enough, need I remind you of the redistribution of wealth vis' a vis' bailing out Bear Sterns, Fanny May, and Freddy Mac??

Just think, had we not redistributed all that money, we might have been able to purchase a little bit of a thing we call objectivity for each and every American.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Truth be told, I just can't help myself here:

"I hope that all the people that were against MCCain will see the light now and see Obama for what he is."

FYI: It didn't take McCain's nomination of Sarah Palin for those of us against McCain to "see the light now".

I'm quite up to speed when it comes to politics thank you. I know full well what Obama "is" as I have for some time.

But, in as much as I know what Obama "is", so too do I know full well what McCain "is".

And, it is for this reason that his choosing Sarah Palin as VP ought not, by any rational means, grant John McCain a clean slate as it apparently has with a number of Republican party voters.

Now, I am not suggesting that I absolutely will not vote for McCain (I may and then I may not). But, what I am suggesting is that I think it completely laughable really that no sooner does he tap Palin and everyone goes gaga over the ticket.

I think most people would agree that the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are led by emotion. Whereas, conservatives are led by thought (logic and reason).

I'm not a liberal. I'm a conservative. As such, I'm not going to allow myself to get swooped up in the flurry of emotion that was Sarah Palin's speech from the other night.

Nope. Instead, I'm going to hold out and see how this thing goes up until November and come to a conclusion at that time.

Patrick M said...

Bob: Welcome. I think you're too much of a true believer for the Soapaholic.

Beth: I think the Soapster's getting crazy with not posting on his blog, don't you? But he's so, so right.

Soapman: Ah, the Kool Aid is flowing on both sides now. Yum-o!

Although beating up first-time posters isn't my favorite thing to see, you are right as usual.

BTW, you forgot the vote-buying "stimulus" checks.

I'm going to hold out and see how this thing goes up until November and come to a conclusion at that time.

AMEN!

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"I think the Soapster's getting crazy with not posting on his blog, don't you? But he's so, so right."

There's some truth in that (the crazy part).

You want the scoop do ya? I'll be back in the blogging saddle after the elections.

I'm eyes deep in campaign and PAC work. And, while the PAC work will be ongoing following the elections, not having to do both will free me up enough to start blogging without fear that anything I say on the blog is going to jeopardize our candidate's chances for success.

Of course I am getting a puppy next Friday so that could totally F* up my plans....LOL

Patrick M said...

Soaptastic: f'ing up your plans is okay, as long as you don't fuck the dog.

For clarification, I don't censor words.

Bob said...

This blog is open to invited readers only
http://soapboxgod.blogspot.com/

If you think you have all the answers what do you have to hide?
Prove it!

Throwing Stones said...

Forgive me, I'm laughing my ass off at this blog. These people don't know what they are talking about!

Patrick M said...

Bob: Let me interject between you and Soapbox for a moment.

The reason he has his blog shut down is that he's closely involved in a campaign and has it private to protect his candidate. After election day, he'll be back and you can have your way with him then.

Okay, continue having at him.

Stones: I'll assume you're talking about the lovely Shaw and the horny toad (get it?). They make it interesting at least. Otherwise, it's just a lot of people agreeing that Obama sucks.

If you're talking about me, well, I guess I'll have to destroy you. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"If you think you have all the answers what do you have to hide?"

Oh but Bob...I never claimed to have all the answers my good man. What I do have a whole heaping handful of though is information and objectivity. You won't find me looking through the lens of subjectivity.

Answers come easy once you've spent a lifetime focusing on the equation by which you come to find them.

If you've an issue or public policy question for which you'd like my response to then by all means fire away.

As for the blog being privatized, Patrick couldn't have said it better. If you'd like to take a gander before November then send me your email info and I'm more than happy to add you.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"BTW, you forgot the vote-buying "stimulus" checks."

Now THAT is what I like to see. A man who calls it as it is. Because yes, that too was a Republican endorsed redistribution of wealth scheme in that those making over $75,000 didn't get jack.

We have party loyalists and then we have ideologues. Ideologues don't give a shit who makes a dumbass move. If it goes against sound and better judgement, they'll be the first to tell you.

Patrick M said...

Now THAT is what I like to see. A man who calls it as it is.

Well, it is what it is. I may have really benefited from it personally, but that still doesn't make it right.

By the way, I'm neither a loyalist or an ideologue. I have an ideology that I follow, but I'm willing to bend a little when it will advance my greater goals. Sometimes you have to do that. We both might do just that in November.

Throwing Stones said...

Soapboxgod said: As for the blog being privatized, Patrick couldn't have said it better. If you'd like to take a gander before November then send me your email info and I'm more than happy to add you.

Oh pleeeezzze don't give me and the rest of us that BULL!
we weren’t born yesterday!
You have been saying that for months yet you HAVE the time to come here and on several other boards that I see you on daily, and almost hourly. So how can you say you are away?
Please don't take us for the idiots that you seem to think we are!
And if you have the time to be on your board when it’s PRIVATIZED, when what’s the difference? HUH?
You seem to have PLENTY of time to spread your political bullshit around on other boards!
That is RIDICULOUS maybe you were born ignorant, but I wasn’t!

Throwing Stones said...

Obama is KICKING McCain’s ASS in the polls. Not enough to beat him, but clearly well enough to give him strenght. You can vote for who ever you want to. And you can close your blog to whoever you want to, but don't tell me or anyone else it has been due to a lack of time.
And please don’t give me that High Faluting Bull Shit about your freaken Conservative values. .Your values will put the most LIBERAL anti American this country has ever seen in the White House. And you don’t give a crap about that! Instead you are willing to send in our most left-leaning senators and governors, virtually guaranteeing a Obama presidency with a liberal Congress. which is pretty damn bad - especially considering these assholes are all claiming to be American.
Of course, anyone who comes to this blog with any degree of frequency knows that my biggest beef with these conservatives that think their values will come to pass if not this time then sometime in the future. That is their ignorance, the future is now. If we let these asshole in, we will never get them out and if and when we do, it may be too late.
So SoapGod, guy, you can take your “privatized” blog and stick it where the sun don’t shine. There are plenty of other blogs in the blogosphere where I can find YOU, as you seem to be everywhere.
But my fair weather friend, Don’t let the tone of my recent posts (including this one) fool you. I’m still as optimistic as ever about a REPUBLICAN Victory....

Bob said...

It was without question a Revelation.
There there was no way John Mccain would have or could have picked Joe Leiberman. That would have been a dissaster for him.
However I think having him at the convention was brillent. And it worked.

Bob said...

I’m sorry Soapbox, but I have a problem with people who always complaining about something or other, but close there own blog to the public.
How can you preach free speech etc and close your own blog. Isn’t that the definition of hypocrisy? Preaching a certain belief or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself!

shaw kenawe said...

I have a challenge for the posters here.

Can anyone give me a reason why Sarah Palin is not going to be on any of the Sunday morning news shows answering questions? (2nd week in a row.)

(Remember, we’re in the electronic age where satellite hook-ups are available anywhere in the USA, so saying she had to be in Alaska isn’t going to work.)

McCain, Obama, and Biden will all appear on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and This Week. Where is Palin?

This is the first time in modern tv history that the vp nominee (who Americans didn’t know anything about only 3 weeks ago) is not showing up on the Sunday morning circuit, like all others in the past have. Why the break with a long, long tradition?

Here’s my guess: She doesn’t know enough about foreign or domestic policy to answer questions with any authority.

And that reflects on McCain’s cynical choice of a person with little to no knowledge of foreign and domestic issues to be able to step into the presidency at a moment’s notice.

If she can’t show up and answer questions on the Sunday shows, how in god’s green teeth is she qualified to be ready to lead the free world?

Sen. Obama faced all of these moderators on these shows when he became the nominee and even before that as a candidate for the nomination—if Palin, as the GOP tells us, is as experienced or more experienced than Obama, then why can’t she do what he did?

A New York Guy's View said...

shaw kenawe In answer to your challange, maybe beacuse Conservatives go to church, on Sunday. Politics isn't a religion.

shaw kenawe said...

shaw kenawe In answer to your challange, maybe beacuse Conservatives go to church, on Sunday. Politics isn't a religion. A New York Guy's View said...

Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Gore, Bush,Sr., Reagan, Carter are all Christians and managed to appear on Sunday on those shows.

Nice try. But it's a bullshit answer.

Bob said...

I think that NY Guy was being fascisious.
I got it.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Free speech doesn't mean that I have to provide you a fucking forum okay Bobby Boy.

As for you your commentary stone thrower, why don't you browse the fuck on out to GrantCermak.com and/or MNSonsofLiberty.com.

Then, when you find Grant's page, send an email to him and ask him who is fucking Communications Director is okay??

Give me a fucking break...yeah..that's what I do...I make up fucking stories about working on a campaign.

It's much easier to chime in periodically on someone else's blog than it is to write one of your own (unless of course substance, spelling, and grammer aren't a big deal for you).

I haven't posted on my blog since late July and that was merely a cut and paste which (oh my fucking word are you ready for this???) we used on Grant's campaign to respond to his opponent.

So put that in your fucking pipe and smoke it you ignorant boob.

Bob said...

Laughing my ass off..someone has the panties in a wad today.

I must let you know I am very impressed with yourfour letter words. do you speak like that in YOUR campaign?
Hee, hee, hee.
And btw, I don't smoke a pipe like you do.

Throwing Stones said...

While it's no secret that you and I don't agree on anything, I just want you to know that I don't give a crap about what you do or think.... No one cares. The rest of us don't give a crap either.
No one cares. Just don't bullshit everyone on the boards.
But if that’s a game you'd like to play I’m sure you’ll find some one on your closed blog to play it with.... And please don’t give me advice on websites to visit. I don't care what you do or what you say or what you want.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"I don't care what you do or what you say or what you want."

Except for when it comes to my opposition to your attempts to stake a claim on my labor and my hard earned money which you, through your candidate of choice, would love nothing more than to redistribute for your sole benefit right?

And Bob...do pray tell how my blog is "closed to the public" if in fact I sent you an invitation to join at your own freewill?

Don't convince yourself that you have a right to read my blog. If you really wanted to read what is there, you could. It's just that you aren't willing to invoke the fortitude to do so.

Bob said...

Actually, I never wanted to and never tried to read your weenie blog, I only read about the fact that it was closed to the public here.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

So you admit then that it is not closed. You just didn't take the liberty to send your email so that you could get access.

Glad we cleared that up.

Bob said...

Like always, I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
I never tried to get into your blog, because I don't have ANY desire to.
As for your e-mail, I never recieved that either.
More BS from the BS Artist.

I'm glad we cleared THAT up.

Beth said...

I really don't know what your point is anyway, Bob, anyone can make comments and they don't have to have a blog of their own. I know a few people who only comment at blogs but don't have their own blog.

Bob said...

Beth said...
I really don't know what your point is anyway, Bob, anyone can make comments and they don't have to have a blog of their own. I know a few people who only comment at blogs but don't have their own blog.

What? Are you double talking or
did I miss something, because I don't understand what the heck you are talking about!
Not the slightest idea.
Rolling On the Floor Laughing My Ass Off While Peeing In My Pants..

Beth said...

Sorry Bob, I should have referenced your comment where you seemed to think someone cannot have an opinion unless they have a blog you can visit.

You said "I’m sorry Soapbox, but I have a problem with people who always complaining about something or other, but close there own blog to the public."

What does Soapie's opinion here have to do with seeing his blog anyway? You can reply here to his comments that he makes here, right? And some people who comment don't even have blogs you can visit, so are they not allow to "complain" as you call it? (I call it expressing one's opinion.)

It just seems like an irrelevant point of yours in the first place.

Beth said...

I should add that it's your decision to go or not go to Soapboxgod's blog, but Soapie is one of the best conservative blogers I know. It's your loss, IMHO.

Patrick M said...

Stones, Bob: If you're just going to discount everything Soapbox has said, as well as failed to take my words on the subject, why are you still blasting away?

There's a point at which you stop discussing ideas and points of view and just start personally blasting away at fellow bloggers. And at some point, because that's the very antithesis of SPD, I end up having to clean out the garbage. Now you'll notice I have liberal bloggers on here that I disagree with 90% of the time, but at least we have discussions instead of just calling each other fucking asshats and banning each other from our respective blogs.

My point is that this started because Soapster challenged a statement of yours. Bob, but instead of rationally defending the statement, you made it personal. If we can't occasionally challenge each other (maverick-style for you McCainiacs), then how are we going to grow intellectually, clean out what does weaken the GOP, and had liberals their asses on a platter. If you hadn't noticed, Soapster, Beth, both of you, and I are all on the same side of the debate. Even when we disagree on things, we all want the country to move in the same direction. So show a little intellectual honesty and knock off the personal shit.

Okay, enough on that.

Stones: We know that not supporting the McCain/Palin ticket could very well result in an Obama win and darkness covering the Earth. It's not an easy thing to consider. That's why, if you noticed, both Soapster and I are slowly warming to the idea of voting for McCain. The convention energy was a step. Sarah Palin was a step. The McCain speech was a step. If McCain is working hard to attract the voters he's shat on since the primaries, then we'll vote for him. But there comes a time where you have to draw a line. We didn't draw the line on Bush's expansion of government. We didn't do it when the GOP Congress started spending like drunken nymphos at the Cock-Mart. There has to be a point, when the party has drifted too far to the left, that we have to give them the ol "fuck you" and walk away. My breaking point was on May 30. That doesn't mean I'm going to get a lobotomy and go Democrat, it just means that the GOP no longer represents me and the loss of numbers might just get their attention. But that's why we have freedom. It's not like were Democrats.

Bob: I have to disagree with your assessment of Lieberman. I was ready to get a new TV (by throwing something through the old one) after listening to him list every reason that makes me want to NOT vote for McCain. I guarantee that the McCain camp, after looking at the reaction to the Lieberman speech compared to the Palin speech, will put Joe out to pasture except when they need to use him to shore up the independents and liberals that don't like Obama.

Soap: Anyone ever tell you to watch your fucking language? :)

NY guy: Welcome. And that's a good one. Seemed to fly over Shaw's head, though. Must have been the "Shock and Awe" of Sarah Palin.

Shaw: I have to answer with a big, fat "I don't know." Whether it's because she's getting up to speed on things that were unimportant for a governor to know, or the horrible politically disfiguring weakness that you think (and hope) she has, it will come out within a week or so. But I'm going to find out why, and you probably will too.

And I don't think you'll like the answer.

Bob said...

Beth said...

I should add that it's your decision to go or not go to Soapboxgod's blog, but Soapie is one of the best conservative blogers I know. It's your loss, IMHO
********************************************************************
Well I guess it will be MY loss, I would only hope that’s the worse loss I’ll ever have...
“the best conservative blogers “ By the looks of the BS he has posted here, I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt that....BIG time!


And then
Beth said...
Sorry Bob, I should have referenced your comment where you seemed to think someone cannot have an opinion unless they have a blog you can visit.

You said "I’m sorry Soapbox, but I have a problem with people who always complaining about something or other, but close there own blog to the public."

What does Soapie's opinion here have to do with seeing his blog anyway? You can reply here to his comments that he makes here, right? And some people who comment don't even have blogs you can visit, so are they not allow to "complain" as you call it? (I call it expressing one's opinion.)
It just seems like an irrelevant point of yours in the first place
********************************************************************“What does Soapie's opinion here have to do with seeing his blog anyway?”
Beth, it seems that you miss every point that I try to make. Is it all going over your head or what?
I’ll try to put it in simple elementary school words....It has nothing to do with MY seeing his blog, I don’t even want to see his blog. However my point is ...Now read and listen very carefully...If a person preaches FREE speech and FREEDOM and all the other glorious things that your HERO Soapbox does, then why does he HAVE TO close his blog to invited guests ONLY? He should as 99.99 percent of US do, let everybody participate.
Did you understand? I hope so, because this is beginning to get ver boring. .
And by the way, is Soapbox your Son? Are you his Mommy?
Inquiring minds want to know!!!!!!

I’m sorry Patrick for taking up so much of your cyberspace and pages.

And yes Soapbox, Did anyone ever tell you to watch your language?
It's not nice.Especially in front of your Mommy.

Willie's World Of reason said...

As a republican I have been very disappointed by the conservative party. Why? This is suppose to be the party of smaller government, but when they had the chance we didn’t see any real change.

I’m a conservative republican, but I find myself in a different place than the people that call themselves conservatives. The liberal Dems always think government and regulation is the answer to all problems. But why do you conservatives think that government is never a answer, and do you think people and corporations will always do the right thing without oversight?

In fact to many conservative leaders are acting like Democrats. I think that it will be the conservatives that will lose this election for Mccain. Most American’s still support family values, lower taxes, more control over their own lives, but the problem is the conservative party didn’t deliver. Instead we have conservatives like Thompson and Mitt. Most conservatives are not going to be excited to go work for McCain Yes the conservatives will vote for McCain, but what about donate, work phone banks, pound yard signs, etc…… The republicans can’t do it on their own.I have been disappointed in Bush, not because of his stance on the war, but rather his lack of political action. Where is the smaller government?


John McCain is the nominee of the republican party, and conservatives who disagree should have united behind one challenger in the primaries It’s too late now!
I think that he, (McCain) is honest and sincere and will make a good president, and now with Sarah, he has even a better shot at it. ....America is facing some dark times ahead. and we need someone like him at the helm, We need someone that cares about America.
Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves .. I’ll vote for McCain and I’ll be very comfortable with myself.
If he’s not Conservative enough for you then vote for Obama!

Victor said...

I think the government should own, not just regulate, the "natural" monopolies in the energy (mining, generation, transmission and distribution), public transportation, roads, railroads, airlines, ocean shipping and military production (arms manufactures), among others, industries. It should provide for the “common defense” of all the citizens, not just the defense of our corporation’s overseas investments, by controlling our borders (prevent drug smuggling and illegal immigration) and installing countervailing tariffs to negate foreign advantage in wages and environmental pollution.
The government should also provide education, and an economic safety net to help individuals like welfare or I should say workfare. The government should be paid for by a progressive income tax (first 85 percentile exempt) on the people that actually own the country and the economy.
Government should not regulate individual’s private lives including reproductive choices, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, self-defense (no government gun registration of non-criminal citizens), and privacy of communications, among others.
The private sector should be in manufacturing, fuel refining and distribution, retail (with regulation to prevent the monopoly created by national or regional gigantism (i.e. –– no Wal-mart or Proctor-Gamble) and personal services. Equity markets must be regulated to prevent speculative bubbles and phony investment schemes. The private sector should be sufficiently regulated to prevent the formation of cartels and monopolies.
As for conservatives vs. republicans.
Put it this way:

1) liberal = some one who wants everyone to pay for abortion.

2)democrat= some one who wants to create a government office to distibute information on pregnancy and tax wealth Americans to pay for it .

3) republican= if you are going to have one you better be able to pay for it yourself.

4)conservative = will not fund any education for sex prevent the sale of birth control close planed parenthood and any private organization that promotes family planning. BAN doctors from performing them and try to pass a law which would jail anyone who spoke the word abortion .
I hope this will help you come to understand the differences between the groups with this
example .
A Democrat wants to bring down Western Civilization, while a liberal wants to steal money from the rich so people don’t have to work while they give bring down Western Civilization.
A Democrat allows abortion and criticism of the Iraq War, while a liberal kills babies and supports Al-Quada.

Patrick M said...

Bob: You can take up all kinds of space if you want. I just get annoyed when the attacks get personal and don't focus on issues.

Clarification: We all have free speech. Our blogs are our piece of free speech to use and manage however we want. It's the difference between a peace protester and a code pinko. The peace marcher has freedom to stand outside the RNC and protest. The code pinkos don't have the right to come in and shoot their mouths off during speeches. Don't be a code pinko.

Now as to a matter of the Soapman's conservatism. I've had him jump on statements of mine the same way he initially did for you. What I didn't do was start jumping in his shit because I took his challenge like some teenager trying to prove his dick size (usually inadequate) by punching the first guy I see, no matter what he says. Instead, I looked at what I said and revised and extended my remarks to either make it more opaque or to correct my dimness. And I've learned and improved my ability to think rather than wandering around with the Kool-Aid-drinking sheeple.

We only grow intellectually by examining what we know and believe, testing our assumptions, and challenging each other when we blather platitudes. Remember that you can sell your candidate better when you can argue the point rather than "read off a teleprompter".

Oh and if you missed it, I was joking about Soapster's use of the word fuck. I fucking love to fucking use that fucking word. Especially when it's fucking really fucking funny. Bad fucking thing when you fucking have kids, though. :)

Beth said...

Well put, Patrick, and I have become accustom to only reading your blog when the kids are not around. But I appreciate greatly the intellectual debates that go on here between the foul language, because I agree it helps solidify our positions when we defend them. But calling names only makes a person seem petty and unable to add anything of substance to the discussion, imo.

shaw kenawe said...

A Democrat wants to bring down Western Civilization, while a liberal wants to steal money from the rich so people don’t have to work while they give bring down Western Civilization.
A Democrat allows abortion and criticism of the Iraq War, while a liberal kills babies and supports Al-Quada.


To the person who wrote this:

Franklin Roosevelt SAVED civilization in the last World War. It was a Democrat who was in office when that war was won. You fool.

And it is George W. Bush who plunged this nation into mind-boggling debt and gave us an unimaginable deficit while cutting taxes for the wealthiest 1% of the country. He is also responsible for the largest governmental agency this country has ever instituted--the absolute largest. And he never vetoed a spending bill that crossed his desk--wait yes, the Schip was vetoed and the Congress overrode it.

I'd be a bit careful about blaming anyone with the demise of western civilization, when we look at the disaster this country is in thanks to the Republican party of the last 8 years.

As for your other uninformed blatherings, A majority of Americans support abortions--the law of the land.

That majority includes Republican men and women as well as Democrats. Can you be so uninformed as to not know this obvious fact?

Your simple-minded, uninformed rant does nothing to delineate the differences between the candidates, except maybe illustrate the miasmic swamp that passes for political acuity in the conservative mind.

shaw kenawe said...

And one other thing for that know-nothing who posted his uninformed rant about the Democrats and liberals:

The Republicans had control of the Executive AND Legislative branches of govenment for 6 of the last 8 years.

Why didn't your hero, GWBush, propose a Constitutional amendment banning abortion? Why? Why didn't he push for the Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitutional amendent saying marriage in the USofA is only between a man and woman? Why? The conservatives had the power and legislative ability to do those two things. They didn't. Why?

You conservatives are being played for fools. The Republican operatives and dirty tricksters tell the party to bring up abortion and gay marriage every 4 years to get the vote out then ignore it until the next campaign cycle.

Y'all have been suckered, but are too, shall we put it gently and say "naive" to understand that fact.

Bob said...

Patrick, I didn't missed it at all ( Soapbox's language thing) I was just going along with you. lol

Beth, when you said "But calling names only makes a person seem petty and unable to add anything of substance to the discussion, "
I take it your were talking about Spapbox's calling ME names. Right?
I hope so.

Good post Willie! You made some very good points. And you didn't even use the "F" word once.

Victor's Voice said...

shaw kenawe ....eat your heat out!
Laughing my ass off.

Shaw Hussein Kenawe said...

to victor,

You didn't answer me.

If you had any cogent answers to my questions, you would have given them. Instead, you tell me you're laughing your ass off.

Brilliant.

You come onto this blog with unsubstantiated rants. When challenged to give evidence for your assertions, you turn tail and laugh?

That is the only defense for bankrupt ideas.

Thanks for proving it.

Beth said...

Shaw, you are among conservatives (I should clarify - Patrick, Soapie and I) who for the very reasons you cited about GW Bush that we don't agree with the GOP or like the direction him and his leadership have taken it.

In other words, I think we agree with you!

Bob - I condone all name calling from you and from my friend Soapie, yes. I have known Soapie for a while now though and name calling has never been his first line of defense. You on the other hand went to it rather quickly when someone disagrees with you.

Beth said...

Oh damn, rereading what I wrote I wish we could go back and edit. I meant to say I DON'T condone name calling.

Shaw - I agree with you AGAIN! I truly dislike comments that add nothing to the discussion, as if Victor laughing his ass off has any relevance. See, this is why I am more critical of conservatives, some of you make the rest of us look really bad!

Victor's Voice said...

Shaw, I answered you by saying LMAO, because debating YOU would be fruitless, and useless and I know it..
Beth, In your bloodshot eyes Soapbox can’t do anything wrong, but if he does you have excused for him, one has to wonder if indeed your are his Mother

Shaw Hussein Kenawe said...

At the same time, conservatives need to ask ourselves some hard questions about the trend toward the Democrats among America’s affluent and well educated.

Leaving aside the District of Columbia, 7 of America’s 10 best-educated states are strongly “blue” in national politics, and the others (Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia) have been trending blue.

Of the 10 least-educated, only one (Nevada) is not reliably Republican. And so we arrive at a weird situation in which the party that identifies itself with markets, with business and with technology cannot win the votes of those who have prospered most from markets, from business and from technology. Republicans have been badly hurt in upper America by the collapse of their onetime reputation for integrity and competence. Upper Americans live in a world in which things work. The packages arrive overnight. The car doors clink seamlessly shut. The prevailing Republican view — “of course government always fails, what do you expect it to do?” — is not what this slice of America expects to hear from the people asking to be entrusted with the government.
--David Frum, New York Times Magazine, Sept. 7, 2008

David Frum is a Canadian-born conservative and journalist active in the both US and Canadian political arenas. A former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush, he is also the author of the first "insider" book about the Bush presidency. His editorial columns have appeared in a variety of Canadian and American magazines and newspapers

PS. IF you do more research, you'll find that among those best educated blue states there is also the lowest divorce rates, lowest rates of smokers and lowest obesity rates.

Patrick M said...

Willie: Welcome. Good points, although the problem is not conservatives, but those who say they're conservatives but are big-government conservatives.

Victor: Welcome. Couldn't disagree with you much more, but as my comments are getting out of control....

Beth: It won't hurt them. Just tell them they can't repeat my more colorful outbursts.

Shaw: Are you going to launch into Victor the same what Soapathon unleashed on Bob and Stones? If so, I'll have to create a post just for all of you to shoot it out.

Bob: You started it, not the Soapster. He's just the more verbose.

To everyone: Have at it, this thread has gotten to far afield now.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Shaw: Are you going to launch into Victor the same what Soapathon unleashed on Bob and Stones? If so, I'll have to create a post just for all of you to shoot it out. --Patrick

No.

It would be unfair of me to engage in a battle of wits with and unarmed opponent.