Timewaster's Guide Archive

may not agree with McCain and Palin on all of the issues, but at least they have shown that they will stand up to their own party and do what they feel is  right, even if it is unpopular with their political base. 

oh, you mean like last year, when he stood up to Bush because he felt shuffling people away to nameless prisons in unfindable locales and not telling anybody any of it was wrong?
Or do you mean three days later when he gave in after no compromise whatsoever and supported the same bill?

I'm not necessarily anti-McCain, but buying into this "maverick" bullhocky is foolish. The only person who considers McCain a maverick is McCain.

No, you didn't do anything wrong. You stated your political beliefs, considerably more gently than Skar and I generally do. Though they may be less conventional political beliefs, there was no hate speech or emotional outpouring. You did just fine.

Ignore the guy telling others to ignore you.

Skar, please re-read this quote from my post (emphasis added):
"just every Republican (most of them) who made a big deal about Obama's lack of experience and is now suddenly excited about the McCain ticket"

Note that I did not accuse *any* republican that did *not* make a big deal of experience of anything. Thank you.
I think specifically of my friend online whom I do work for, who in many ways represents to me what is wrong with conservative voters in general and seems to ignore my statements.

I too am irked by generalizing a large group by the actions of one. This is my biggest problem with political speeches in general, because speeches, by the nature of their format, don't go into details and (not by nature) tend to generalize groups. Which is why I went to bed in the middle of McCain's speech last night. I'm sure had I listened to Obama's, I would have done the same for him. I'm slightly irritated at my wife for making me turn off Six-Sting Samurai last night so she could listen to something that was just going to make me angry.

Again, i repeat that Lincoln, a model for the GOP, had zero executive experience and less federal experience than Obama when he was elected. I seriously can't see how experience is still an issue in this debate. It may be nice to see some to judge behavior, but it's hardly decisive.

I'm sure Pallin does have more ammo, which makes me wonder why she thinks she needs to bring up experience. Or why it's the first thing I hear out of the mouths of 90% of Obama critics. Why don't they talk about policy problems. His vagueness in his plans for carrying out his ideas is a much bigger problem for me than his lack of experience. It seems like a more substantial issue and a better demonstration of his not being qualified.

(also, i think that's an unfair description of legislative procedure, Skar, but that's a matter for another discussion, I think)

In my opinion, she was a purely political pick by the McCain camp to attract a bulk of the extremely fanatical Hillary supporters who would vote for a woman just because she is a woman (please keep in mind that there ARE people like this out there and it is not something I personally relish bringing up, but it is the truth). I fully support a woman to be president if she wishes.

I think this is kind of a knee jerk reaction and not at all likely to sway a significant voters. And I'm dead certain the the high muckety mucks in the GOP know that. Thus I can't believe this is the case.

The die-hard Hillary voters were primarily feminist. And no feminist is going to vote for a pro-lifer, be it a woman or not. So no, I think this is not the case at all

My biggest problems with Pallin are this:
1) hypocrisy. Republicans have been making a *huge* deal about experience with Obama, yet they choose a newcomer for VP. Makes me ill. Makes me angry. Makes me stabbity.
Note this is not a problem with PALLIN being a hypocrite, just every Republican (most of them) who made a big deal about Obama's lack of experience and is now suddenly excited about the McCain ticket. Shows they were grasping at straws. Sticks in my craw a bit, y'know?

2) Her daughter. Look, I'm not pure. I've got nothing against Pallin because she had a daughter who had sex, or even got pregnant. I applaud her that she and her daughter decided to carry the baby to term. It's what I think should be done. However. The girl is 17. She's *marrying* the father?! doubleyoo tee eff. Really. Toooooo young. The baby should be given for adoption, not forced into a family with underage parents that will probably only last a couple years (statistically).
And yes, I admit the following is speculation: I really wonder how much of this the girl is doing by choice. Would she have made the choice for an abortion? Would she have never married the guy? would she prefer to give the child up for adoption? Or is all this happening because her mom was being vetted for VP? I try to think that people are trying to do the right thing, but I can't help but think that "the right thing" got confused here with "what will improve my chances for being selected and then elected?" Like I said, this paragraph is pure speculation, but I can't get myself past it.

I don't know that either of those issues would prevent me from voting for her, but there' still there and pretty big. Hard to get around.


Oh, and experience?

Abraham Lincoln, arguably the greatest president this nation has had (he always makes the top 5 list when a historian makes one), had only 8 years of experience, AS A STATE SENATOR, and only TWO as a U.S. Senator before he led this nation through the biggest crisis it ever had (yes, bigger than September 11, bigger than Katrina, bigger than everything in the last 8 years COMBINED). Let's listen to what the candidates will DO rather than worry about what their experience is. People who say things about "experience" are, imo, simply trying to find something to be wrong with candidates. I dismiss these criticisms as invalid and, at best, fuzzy muddying of the actual issues.

This topic has been moved to Brandon Sanderson.

http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?topic=5989.0

I'm going to have to re-listen to a few of those, i thinks.

Personally, I don't care for RATM, though much of their oeuvre is specifically resistance/rebellion. Because of my personal tastes, I won't be adding them though.

thought of a few more obvious ones and added 'em in.

EUOL wrote the code for the titles, actually. A while back we went through a spree of having him make a long list of new titles because my level had gone beyond what he'd done. I'm not sure how far ahead we are on me, but I don't post nearly as much, so it's probably not a danger anymore.