Heartland

if Obama loses, it will have less to do with race, I think, than it will have to do with relying on the (historically unreliable) youth vote, many of whom have been somewhat taken aback by the choice of a 30+year senator as a running mate & the perception of sexism on the part of his campaign by Clinton supporters. If his race is a factor, I honestly think it will be negligible.

I would also like to add: if he does lose, the entire world will be told, ad nauseam that it was because of race. That won't be true, of course, but it will be repeated over and over and over and over.

Jumping back a bit...

sultan2075 wrote:due to her cancellation of some needless Federal projects in Alaska (the bridge to nowhere), small government libertarians and conservatives will now find the McCain ticket more attractive.

But she only cancelled the bridge because she couldn't get any more federal funding.

"Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

(Source)

Strange... Rumours are surfacing that Sarah Palin might not be baby Trig's mother, but instead his grandmother.

Source: The Palin (Grand)Baby?

markfiend wrote:Jumping back a bit...

sultan2075 wrote:due to her cancellation of some needless Federal projects in Alaska (the bridge to nowhere), small government libertarians and conservatives will now find the McCain ticket more attractive.

But she only cancelled the bridge because she couldn't get any more federal funding.

"Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

(Source)

Regardless, I'd imagine that after nearly 8 years of Bush spending money like a drunken sailor, fiscal conservatives will be happy with anything that even looks like fiscal moderation.

markfiend wrote:Strange... Rumours are surfacing that Sarah Palin might not be baby Trig's mother, but instead his grandmother.

Source: The Palin (Grand)Baby?

I would not take those rumours--nor much else that emanates from the Daily Kos--seriously. See your link in the moon landings thread (which cost me about an hour of work time, dammit! Funny stuff).

sultan2075 wrote:I would not take those rumours--nor much else that emanates from the Daily Kos--seriously.

I guess that's fair enough

That isn't an exclusively American thing.

It may not be, but I seem to remember a fair amount of book banning back in the day in England, not to mention not being able to air certain Irish politicians voices on TV. May be before your time Dark, but not that long ago.

nodubmanshouts wrote:...not being able to air certain Irish politicians voices on TV...

Oh my. That was fcuking ridiculous. The way the BBC got round it was to overdub footage of the politicians concerned with actors saying exactly the same thing.

The Day Today had a brilliant parody of it with Steve Coogan as (generic Sinn Fein politician)* being forced to inhale helium before speaking on camera.

* or did they actually say he was someone specific? I forget. No matter.

Sarah Palin appears to be ignorant of US history:

a [url=http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html]questionnaire [/url]in 2006 wrote:Question: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God� in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Even I know that "under God" was only added to the pledge in the 1950s; the founding fathers were long dead by then. Jeez...

Edit to add: It does look like the "fake pregnancy" story is complete bull. Clicky.

markfiend wrote: the founding fathers were long dead by then.

A wise choice.

markfiend wrote:
Edit to add: It does look like the "fake pregnancy" story is complete bull. Clicky.

Yeah, that's interesting. I think if the Democrats make a big deal out of it, it will blow up in their faces. Honestly, more than anything else, it just serves to strengthen her pro-life credentials and strengthens ties with religious voters (not exactly big fans of McCain) and social conservatives (ditto).

markfiend wrote:The way the BBC got round it was to overdub footage of the politicians concerned with actors saying exactly the same thing.

Are you serious? That's hilarious.

Are you offended by the phrase “Under God� in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Pisses me off no end

If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me

Then Miss Pallin will be getting slaves then, since having slaves was good enough for most of them.

What a dip-s**t she is.

nodubmanshouts wrote:
... having slaves was good enough for most of them.

Untrue.

Well alright, may be not most, but some. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, for sure (and they're a couple of the important ones).

nodubmanshouts wrote:Well alright, may be not most, but some. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, for sure (and they're a couple of the important ones).

Since I happen to be at home, and have access to my library:

George Washington: "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]."

John Adams: "Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States... I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in ...abhorrence."

Benjamin Franklin: "Slavery is... an atrocious debasement of human nature."

James Madison: "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man."

James Otis: "The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black."

Thomas Jefferson, in fact, cites the existence of slavery in the colonies as a justification for the American revolution in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence: "He [the King of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce." In 1807, while president, Jefferson urged Congress to abolish the slave trade, to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa."

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, on the subject of slavery, Jefferson writes "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever."

The Founders, by and large, did not approve of the institution of slavery, viewing it as a violation of the natural law. The more interesting question is why, knowing full well that it was a moral evil, they chose not to abolish it at the Founding. There is an answer to that question, but "hypocrisy" isn't it.

And I have access to Wikipedia!

Seriously, just google "George Washington slaves" or "Thomas Jefferson slaves". They may have treated them well, and spoken out against slavery, but they still owned slaves. I don't think you'll find a serious historian who will debate that.

And anybody who can tell me the link between my profile picutre, Thomas Jefferson and Christies wins a fat cigar

nodubmanshouts wrote:And I have access to Wikipedia!

Seriously, just google "George Washington slaves" or "Thomas Jefferson slaves". They may have treated them well, and spoken out against slavery, but they still owned slaves. I don't think you'll find a serious historian who will debate that.

I didn't debate it. I'm not debating it. I'm saying that they knew it was wrong, and that the interesting question is why they didn't abolish it at the founding.

Because they would have lost support from some supporters of the new country, I guess. Fighting a war (somewhat) based on taxation is one thing, loosing your cheap labor force is something else.

There were less 'southern states' at the time of Independence, but I think it would still have been an issue that would have threatened to divide the young country.

Now Palin's 17 (*) year old daughter is pregnant and is going to keep it.... wonder how that's gonna stir things up?

Hopefully not at all, if everyone has some decency...

(*) age of sexual consent is generally 18 in the USA

Bloody hell.....4 pages and no...



What's going on?

sultan2075 wrote:

markfiend wrote:The way the BBC got round it was to overdub footage of the politicians concerned with actors saying exactly the same thing.

Are you serious? That's hilarious.

Totally serious. The BBC are very good at finding ways around censorship rules though: Here's a link about the six years (:eek:) the ban was in place.

Has anyone else seen the Hate Obama stickers on ebay?

markfiend wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:

markfiend wrote:The way the BBC got round it was to overdub footage of the politicians concerned with actors saying exactly the same thing.

Are you serious? That's hilarious.

Totally serious. The BBC are very good at finding ways around censorship rules though: Here's a link about the six years (:eek:) the ban was in place.

I remember that - there would be a warning before the article saying "Because we cannot broadcast [this person's] words, they will be read by someone else." Always thought that was a bit weird.

msm67 wrote:Has anyone else seen the Hate Obama stickers on ebay?

Hey, they're a lot more tasteful than I would have thought. "Obama is arabic for Carter" is a new twist, though. Surprised that they haven't made one showing a silhouette of a figure dangling by a noose from a tree with the caption "Obama lynchmob - ask me for details" or something equally crass.

EvilBastard wrote: Surprised that they haven't made one showing a silhouette of a figure dangling by a noose from a tree with the caption "Obama lynchmob - ask me for details" or something equally crass.

Probably because the target group would have difficulties reading that many words in one go