McCain v Obama

Everything Political

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby lost_shaman » Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:52 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote: Yet the majority of the vehement Republicans cannot understand that the SAME THING they decry in Obama's experience is part-and-parcel of the Palin syndrome. Does everyone just completely ignore the FACT that the selection of Palin was a PLOY advanced by the Republican Party Powerful to SPECIFICALLY highlight the arrogance and hypocrisy of the Dems? There is little doubt in my mind that is exactly why she was chosen. And yet the people who have been absorbed into BOTH the Repub and Dem Collectives seem to ignore how they are BOTH being played!

Ray


If you believe that then you are literally saying Palin was chosen because she is a woman! Specifically because the DEMS rejected Hillary!

Are you saying that a sitting Governor of Texas (Bush) or Arkansas (Clinton) is MORE experienced, and ready to be president, than a sitting Governor of Alaska (Palin)?

If so why? And why are you guy's ignoring this as an issue?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am


Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:40 pm

lost_shaman wrote:
You Can Call Me Ray wrote: Yet the majority of the vehement Republicans cannot understand that the SAME THING they decry in Obama's experience is part-and-parcel of the Palin syndrome. Does everyone just completely ignore the FACT that the selection of Palin was a PLOY advanced by the Republican Party Powerful to SPECIFICALLY highlight the arrogance and hypocrisy of the Dems? There is little doubt in my mind that is exactly why she was chosen. And yet the people who have been absorbed into BOTH the Repub and Dem Collectives seem to ignore how they are BOTH being played!

Ray


If you believe that then you are literally saying Palin was chosen because she is a woman! Specifically because the DEMS rejected Hillary!


Well.... ummm.... DUH! :) That conclusion also fits extremely well with the one I paint above. Doesn't that tell you something? Palin was chosen not only because she has MORE experience than Obama, but also because she is a woman. Hillary had more experience than Obama and it has also been alleged that she is a woman (on some occasions). :wink: So when the Dems made their choice of Obama, and Obama rejected Hillary and the "Dream Team" concept, the Republican machine wanted nothing more than to present a FEMALE Veep (to take Hillary supporters) and also someone with MORE experience than Obama. She was, quite literally, the perfect fit to give a "Dream Team" of their own when the DEM'S did not materialize Obama/Clinton. Are you saying these were NOT the calculated moves of the Repub Machine? It seems pretty obvious to me.

Are you saying that a sitting Governor of Texas (Bush) or Arkansas (Clinton) is MORE experienced, and ready to be president, than a sitting Governor of Alaska (Palin)?

If so why? And why are you guy's ignoring this as an issue?


I am not saying that Palin has less experience than Bush or Clinton did when they got the job. Clearly she is close, but does not have the time-in-position that neither Clinton nor Bush did. Bush did a full term as GOV of TX, did he not?

Anyway, not sure what you are pointing out here, LS. But hopefully I have clarified what I was saying. If not, let me know where.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby lost_shaman » Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:56 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Well.... ummm.... DUH! :) That conclusion also fits extremely well with the one I paint above. Doesn't that tell you something? Palin was chosen not only because she has MORE experience than Obama, but also because she is a woman. Hillary had more experience than Obama and it has also been alleged that she is a woman (on some occasions). :wink: So when the Dems made their choice of Obama, and Obama rejected Hillary and the "Dream Team" concept, the Republican machine wanted nothing more than to present a FEMALE Veep (to take Hillary supporters) and also someone with MORE experience than Obama. She was, quite literally, the perfect fit to give a "Dream Team" of their own when the DEM'S did not materialize Obama/Clinton. Are you saying these were NOT the calculated moves of the Repub Machine? It seems pretty obvious to me.


So in other words you are saying that a Republican "Machine", attuned to the whims of Democrats, forced McCain to choose Gov. Palin? Choose her because she is a woman?

Choose her only because Obama DID NOT choose Hillary!

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:I am not saying that Palin has less experience than Bush or Clinton did when they got the job. Clearly she is close, but does not have the time-in-position that neither Clinton nor Bush did. Bush did a full term as GOV of TX, did he not?


Ray,

Is there any evidence that the longer a Governor serves the better president that Gov. will be?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:30 am

lost_shaman wrote:So in other words you are saying that a Republican "Machine", attuned to the whims of Democrats, forced McCain to choose Gov. Palin?


Of course I would not use the word "forced". Coerced? Convinced? Cajoled? Quite possibly. Let me put it this way: One can structure a trade-off study and the metrics used to quantify the trade study in such a way as to "coerce" someone towards making one selection over another. There is no doubt that McCain's VP selection committee used metrics to arrive at a VP decision. They presented it as such to McCain.

Choose her because she is a woman?


It seems quite clear to me that yes, this was ONE metric on their "want list" for a Veep...

Choose her only because Obama DID NOT choose Hillary!


And yes, I would hazard to guess that the reason the female metric appeared on the search criteria for a Veep was a strategic decision resulting directly from the fallout of the DEM contest. What I want to know is if you are implying that the Repubs did NOT have in the front of their mind trying to swing Hillary votes towards McCain in putting female candidates on their list? Do you think it had NOTHING to do with the selection? Please answer.

Is there any evidence that the longer a Governor serves the better president that Gov. will be?


No, of course there isn't. But why do you ask? I am not trying to make any such argument. I think Palin's experience is at least in the range of Bush and Clinton. But has Obama ever served as a governor? (And running a campaign doesn't really count, now does it?) So again, I am asking you to clarify what your position/point is LS. I think I have gone to fair lengths to clarify mine.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby lost_shaman » Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:32 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:So in other words you are saying that a Republican "Machine", attuned to the whims of Democrats, forced McCain to choose Gov. Palin?


Of course I would not use the word "forced". Coerced? Convinced? Cajoled? Quite possibly. Let me put it this way: One can structure a trade-off study and the metrics used to quantify the trade study in such a way as to "coerce" someone towards making one selection over another. There is no doubt that McCain's VP selection committee used metrics to arrive at a VP decision. They presented it as such to McCain.


Well there is no question then is there? As long this is a FACT that you can prove Ray?

What you've failed to even admit is that Gov. Palin has the natural ability to electrify the Republican base in ways that NO OTHER V.P. potential nominee could ever do. And not only that but she has actual experience dealing with real Energy issues! Seriously, the Coup here is not that Gov. Palin is a woman, it is that Gov. Palin is SO ELECTRIFYING! None of McCains other potential V.P. Nominees had any hope of being as popular as Gov. Palin.







You Can Call Me Ray wrote: What I want to know is if you are implying that the Repubs did NOT have in the front of their mind trying to swing Hillary votes towards McCain in putting female candidates on their list? Do you think it had NOTHING to do with the selection? Please answer.


I seem to recall something that stated women are much more critical of Female candidates than men are! If that's true at all then the whole idea of Female Hillary Voters, Voting for McCain because of Gov. Palin seems ludicrus to me. Am I wrong?





You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
Is there any evidence that the longer a Governor serves the better president that Gov. will be?


No, of course there isn't. But why do you ask? I am not trying to make any such argument. I think Palin's experience is at least in the range of Bush and Clinton. But has Obama ever served as a governor? (And running a campaign doesn't really count, now does it?) So again, I am asking you to clarify what your position/point is LS. I think I have gone to fair lengths to clarify mine.

Ray


My position is simple, Gov. Palin was a great choice by McCain and not a choice that was based on the failure of Obama to nominate Hillary!

You have to recognize that Gov. Palin is a better choice than Sen. Lieberman or Gov. Romney!
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:01 am

lost_shaman wrote:
You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:So in other words you are saying that a Republican "Machine", attuned to the whims of Democrats, forced McCain to choose Gov. Palin?


Of course I would not use the word "forced". Coerced? Convinced? Cajoled? Quite possibly. Let me put it this way: One can structure a trade-off study and the metrics used to quantify the trade study in such a way as to "coerce" someone towards making one selection over another. There is no doubt that McCain's VP selection committee used metrics to arrive at a VP decision. They presented it as such to McCain.


Well there is no question then is there? As long this is a FACT that you can prove Ray?


I, of course, do not have access to "inside info" that would allow me to prove it. But it sure does seem as obvious to me as the fact that a flame is hot and you shouldn't put your hand in it! :shock: And as far as proof, isn't it enough that the McCain campaign took out a television ad using a woman who had previously supported Hillary who was now changing her support to McCain? Did you not see that ad within a week or two after the RNC? That is not enough "proof" for you that the campaign was shooting to capture just this type of voter?

What you've failed to even admit is that Gov. Palin has the natural ability to electrify the Republican base in ways that NO OTHER V.P. potential nominee could ever do. And not only that but she has actual experience dealing with real Energy issues!


So I will admit to that, if that is what you want. But I think you are smart enough to know that admitting to that does not nullify that the points I have made are likely to have been part of the strategy. Not only that, but polls AFTER Palin's selection did indeed show that some who had previously supported Hillary were considering changing their vote BECAUSE of Palin.

Now I don't want to let you slip away on something. I asked you the following question, and I asked for a real answer. You didn't provide one, but rather asked another question. Are you going to answer my question or not?

You Can Call Me Ray wrote: What I want to know is if you are implying that the Repubs did NOT have in the front of their mind trying to swing Hillary votes towards McCain in putting female candidates on their list? Do you think it had NOTHING to do with the selection? Please answer.


lost_shaman wrote:I seem to recall something that stated women are much more critical of Female candidates than men are! If that's true at all then the whole idea of Female Hillary Voters, Voting for McCain because of Gov. Palin seems ludicrus to me. Am I wrong?


I believe you may be wrong, but even if you are right this does not change the fact that Hillary did, indeed, have a LARGE base of the female vote...at least the large share of the female DEM vote. And then there is the McCain ad I mentioned above. So rather than asking another question of me to avoid answering my question, please give me a direct answer to my previous question re-quoted above. Thanks.


My position is simple, Gov. Palin was a great choice by McCain and not a choice that was based on the failure of Obama to nominate Hillary!

You have to recognize that Gov. Palin is a better choice than Sen. Lieberman or Gov. Romney!


Well of course I can accept that this is likely true. But again LS, this is not an either/or proposition. EVERYTHING you say can certainly be true, and it can ALSO be true (and seems obvious to me) that she was ALSO selected because she has a vagina as did Clinton. If this had not been a factor in the decision, why would the McCain campaign have trotted out that former-Hillary FEMALE supporter in their ad telling people she was voting for McCain?

I'm NOT disagreeing with your points, LS. But I would like you to stop the nonsense you seem to be engaging in by trying to claim (I think) that Palin's gender had nothing to do with wishing to steal Hillary votes away from Obama. CLEARLY it was a campaign strategy. Don't you ALWAYS try to dilute votes away from your opponent in any general election? As far as I know, that has always been a tactic of BOTH parties.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby lost_shaman » Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:48 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
My position is simple, Gov. Palin was a great choice by McCain and not a choice that was based on the failure of Obama to nominate Hillary!

You have to recognize that Gov. Palin is a better choice than Sen. Lieberman or Gov. Romney!


Well of course I can accept that this is likely true. But again LS, this is not an either/or proposition. EVERYTHING you say can certainly be true, and it can ALSO be true (and seems obvious to me) that she was ALSO selected because she has a vagina as did Clinton.


I'm not going to agree with you on that Ray! I don't think that if Sen. Lieberman or Gov. Romney simply had vaginas that McCain would have choosen them as his V.P. over Gov. Palin!
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:54 am

lost_shaman wrote:
You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
My position is simple, Gov. Palin was a great choice by McCain and not a choice that was based on the failure of Obama to nominate Hillary!

You have to recognize that Gov. Palin is a better choice than Sen. Lieberman or Gov. Romney!


Well of course I can accept that this is likely true. But again LS, this is not an either/or proposition. EVERYTHING you say can certainly be true, and it can ALSO be true (and seems obvious to me) that she was ALSO selected because she has a vagina as did Clinton.


I'm not going to agree with you on that Ray! I don't think that if Sen. Lieberman or Gov. Romney simply had vaginas that McCain would have choosen them as his V.P. over Gov. Palin!


But are you going to answer my question? Or should I just put you down as ducking it and move on? [-X

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby lost_shaman » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:03 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:But are you going to answer my question? Or should I just put you down as ducking it and move on? [-X

Ray


For the sake of clarity, why don't you re-state your question that you feel I haven't already answered. :|
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:23 am

lost_shaman wrote:
You Can Call Me Ray wrote:But are you going to answer my question? Or should I just put you down as ducking it and move on? [-X

Ray


For the sake of clarity, why don't you re-state your question that you feel I haven't already answered. :|


Holy crap, LS. WTF is exactly "unclear" about the re-quoting of my question above? I think the question is quite clear, if a bit long. But then I even boil it down to a much more compact form:

You Can Call Me Ray wrote: What I want to know is if you are implying that the Repubs did NOT have in the front of their mind trying to swing Hillary votes towards McCain in putting female candidates on their list? Do you think it had NOTHING to do with the selection? Please answer.


Stop the shenanigans and answer (or admit you don't want to). And I am sure even if/when you DO get around to addressing it, you will hedge more than the last idiot Kerry Cassidy interviewed about his "predictions" FFS.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby ryguy » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:07 pm

FYI - Polls show Obama in the lead in most key states so far. :)
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:32 am

Here is a perfect example of the "empty rhetoric" offered by Obama. The following is part of the narrative from a recent campaign ad of Obama's on the topic of health care:

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/ ... ealth.html

His plan: Keep your employer-paid coverage. Keep your own doctor. Take on insurance companies to bring down costs. Cover pre-existing conditions, and preventive care.


Well, gosh golly gee Gomer! Who the eff WOULDN'T want all that? Sounds GREAT! But it is totally empty rhetoric because he provides absolutely NO DETAILS of exactly how he could accomplish such feats. And the bold part is really what should cause people to say "WTF?". Just what exactly does "take on the insurance companies to bring down costs" mean? Do you honestly think you are going to MANDATE costs via Federal Law? Not likely. What is even worse is what he does NOT say about taking on some of the reasons for those high costs. Why oh why does he not advocate "taking on trial lawyers" whose constant lawsuits being filed for hangnail malpractice are one of the largest contributors to the costs of health care rising? The reason he doesn't mention this is clear to anyone who has done the research: the DEM party is heavily supported by trial lawyers. Indeed, John Edwards was a trial lawyer (and was how he made his fortune) before he got involved in politics.

Clearly, this commercial is nothing but empty rhetoric. And I would LOVE to see someone offer up a valid justification for why it is anything but this. So if people in this country want to vote for Obama because he "gives good (empty) rhetoric", then the economic problems are the least of our worries! :shock:

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby lost_shaman » Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:07 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Holy crap, LS. WTF is exactly "unclear" about the re-quoting of my question above? I think the question is quite clear, if a bit long. But then I even boil it down to a much more compact form:

You Can Call Me Ray wrote: What I want to know is if you are implying that the Repubs did NOT have in the front of their mind trying to swing Hillary votes towards McCain in putting female candidates on their list? Do you think it had NOTHING to do with the selection? Please answer.


Stop the shenanigans and answer (or admit you don't want to). And I am sure even if/when you DO get around to addressing it, you will hedge more than the last idiot Kerry Cassidy interviewed about his "predictions" FFS.
Ray


My position here should be clear as well.

One thing that I haven't mentioned but will now, is that I don't entertain fantasies that any significant DIE-Hard Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden!

That right there wipes out the entire foundation of your argument for me. Without that kind of assumption that you are making, you have no argument as far as I'm concerned.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:25 pm

lost_shaman wrote:My position here should be clear as well.

One thing that I haven't mentioned but will now, is that I don't entertain fantasies that any significant DIE-Hard Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden!

That right there wipes out the entire foundation of your argument for me. Without that kind of assumption that you are making, you have no argument as far as I'm concerned.


You are the slipperiest mofo I have ever encountered, LS. By far. But unfortunately I am not going to let you slide by. You see, I did not ask you (as clearly specified in my question) whether or not any Hillary DEMs were actually going to vote for McCain/Palin. What I asked you (which should be clear by my use of the words "implying that the Repubs did NOT have in the front of their mind trying to swing Hillary votes towards McCain ") was if you believed the gender issue viz-a-viz Palin was never part of the Repubs strategy? Clearly I asked one thing, and you chose to "clarify your position" on the other. Once again: Do you believe the gender of Sarah Palin had nothing to do with the Repub Machine's choice of her???

I'm waiting...
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby ryguy » Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:51 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote: Once again: Do you believe the gender of Sarah Palin had nothing to do with the Repub Machine's choice of her???

I'm waiting...
Ray


Ray - I think he answered that question a number of posts up - but he disagreed with you that her gender was as important to the Republicans as how "electrifying" her personality/background/looks/etc... would be. At least that's how I understood the comment.

This is what lost_shaman wrote way up in this thread:

Seriously, the Coup here is not that Gov. Palin is a woman, it is that Gov. Palin is SO ELECTRIFYING! None of McCains other potential V.P. Nominees had any hope of being as popular as Gov. Palin.


It appears that the two of you might be talking past each other?

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests