I just get confused.
The one thing that I want to insist on is that, as I travel around the country, the American people are a decent people. Now they get confused sometimes. You know, they listen to the wrong talk radio shows or watch the wrong TV networks, um, but they’re, they’re basically decent, they’re basically sound.
And Obama is a jackass. A condescending one at that.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I thought that I was just bitter, but now I see I am confused too. Good thing I’m decent. Whew! I was about to get worried.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Maybe NRO should blog this-
“Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contentedly and to feebly ask “Where is that marvelous ape?”" -John McCain
Just because you’re condescending doesn’t mean you’re wrong. The American people do get confused sometimes. There’s no other way to explain how Bush is president right now. How do you like all these corporate bailouts? Bush has turned out to be the most socialist president in history. Confusing, huh?
You can call Obama a jackass, but it does make you sound a little bitter
September 18th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Yeah, I am a little bitter at having my intelligence called into question by people just because I have different opinions. I try to keep that limited to conversations with my husband, rather than blog it, but we all have our limits, I guess.
While we’re quoting McCain,
“I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”
Just because you don’t use a computer because your war injuries make it too painful, doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Just because you don’t use a computer because your war injuries make it too painful, doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
And just because you have war injuries, doesn’t mean you’re qualified to be president. Look, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The fact McCain may have supported one regulatory act only serves to point out what a flip-flopper he is! McCain also voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that deregulated banking in 1999.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
C’mon, decent people can be stupid. If you take what Sean Hannity says seriously, you’re probably both.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
And Rove’s “don’t use computers because of war injuries” is total bullshit, BTW.
Is McCain a lying idiot because of his war injuries, too?
September 18th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
McCain simply doesn’t know how to use a computer.
I’ll bet he works a telegraph like nobody’s business, though!
September 19th, 2008 at 3:46 am
In fairness- I didn’t like Obama’s computer commercial. It seemed a bit mean. But on the other hand, McCain has a commercial that virtually insinuates Obama is a child molester, which is just the worst kind of shameless, dishonorable tactic.
It’s funny, the one time I was ever in Bernie’s congressional office downtown, which was also the one time I ever met Pollina before the last blogger bbq, it was in 1991, right around the time of the Keating 5 scandal. Bernie was mentioning how congress didn’t mind throwing 80 billion dollars at the bailout like nothing. “They don’t give a shit.” Bernie said.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Hey… this is interesting… You know how people sometimes ask “What has Obama done?” Here’s one thing I just found out about, that I think all sides can agree has merit. He introduced Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. As a result we can see how are money is spent at USAspending.gov.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Yeah, JD, McCain knows nothing about computers or the internet.
Haik, if you are talking about the commercial that I think you are, there is no implication that Obama is a child molester. It is questioning his judgment in supporting a bill that addressed sex education in grades k – 12 (changed from 6 – 12). It is illustrating the wrong-headed view Democrats have about what is appropriate for our children and at what ages, a view that Obama supported.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Personally, I think all of the commercials have been pretty lame – from both campaigns. They are different enough on the issues that each side should tell the truth about their own positions and let the people decide.
Of course, they need to know their own positions first.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
The ad certainly does make an insinuation by manipulating Obama’s image to make him appear sickly and leering downward, as if at a child.
Thanks for the link to the bill. I read through it, albeit not thoroughly, and didn’t find anything objectionable.
What in it do you find objectionable, Charity? Or is it just the idea of any public sex education at all?
September 19th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I thought I made it clear in the comment. The objectionable aspect of the bill that the ad is raising is that it changes the age for sex ed from starting in grade 6 to starting in grade K. Arguably that is not the main purpose of the bill, but it still represents a world-view that is out of the mainstream.
What makes you think I oppose any sex ed, Haik. The left-wing smear machine and their caricatures of conservatives?
September 19th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
What makes you think I oppose any sex ed
I didn’t say I thought you opposed any sex ed. I asked what in the bill you found objectionable, or if it was just the idea of any public sex education. I said public because I know you have issues with public education, seeing as you home-school, and all. And a lot of folks just think it’s a subject for parents, not schools.
Now I’ve gone back and looked at the bill again and I’ve noticed a couple of things. First of all parents have the right to review course material, or to opt their children out of sex ed entirely. Secondly the bill states all instruction of sexual activity or behavior
“shall be age and developmentally appropriate.” Now I’ve heard Mitt Romney bluster that the amount of sex ed approriate for a kindergartener is “zero.” That line gets ‘em all whooped up at Republican ralleys but it’s false. It is appropriate to warn children of any age against sexual predators and inappropriate touching, as in…
“Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation
nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and
respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance.Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961.”
But there’s a larger point here. The more we talk about this sort of social wedge issue, the less we talk about our crubling infrastructure, our crubling economy, our overstreached and misused military, the cost of energy, nuclear proliferation, rising unemployment, rediculous health care costs, etc. etc. You know… the really BIG things.
Who cares about some little amendment to a sex education law in one state?! Talk about losing the forrest for the trees! This is exactly the sort of thing the ‘condecending jackass’ is talking about. And it’s exactly the sort of tactic McCain wants to use to distract and confuse Americans in order to vote against their own and ultimately the nation’s best interest.
You know why? Because McCain is NOT QUALIFIED to be president. He’s got nothing but wedge issues and BS. He knows nothing about the economy OR national security and he’s surrounded by lobbyists and his wife’s wealth. And he’s a hypocrite! He claims the moral high ground when the movie at the GOP convention spun a tale of a dashing Navel officer walking up to Cindy and introducing himself on a cruise in Hawaii- never mentioning he was married at the time. And the woman this married man was hitting on 28 years younger than him!
Oh give me a break. Why are you defending this man?
September 20th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Hi Charity,
I think if you view the clip referred by the link you started this thread with, you’ll find you have helped take something out of context and turn it into something it isn’t.
Here’s the ABC news link: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=3386492
Charity, you focused on a short, cute, flippant line that was meant to amuse the audience (and obviously did), but you left out what Obama was really saying at that time.
If you want to get yer undies in a manufactured bunch (much like McCain/Palin did with that lipstick remark) over this that’s your privalege. But I would argue you’re successfully being diverted from the real discussion and real issues.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:13 am
I watched the entire speech before I posted this. I do not like to comment on things out of context. I like to know what I am talking about.
I have a lot of conservative readers, even though they do not usually comment due to the rude nature of some of my liberal commenters. And yeah, we do not like this sort of thing. So, Obama’s supporters think making fun of stupid hillbilly conservatives is funny, but conservatives don’t.
Arrogant liberals, like Obama, think that the only reason anyone would disagree is if that person is stupid or confused, or evil. Well, I think that attitude stinks.
This might not be an issue, per se, but Obama has focused most of his campaign on non-issues, like HOPE and CHANGE. He claims to be the ONE who will reach out and heal America, but he thinks that people who disagree are “confused.”
Some healer.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Oh, and I have some “real” issues to post about, but I hurt my shoulder this week and could not type for that long.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Funny, Haik, that we shouldn’t care about one state. That happens to be the state that Obama gained the majority of his political experience in. I would say what he did there and how he voted matters.
Here is the objectionable part:
“Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”
There is no way to make that age-appropriate. Period.
Have a good day, all. We are off to the Great Escape!
September 20th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
“And it’s exactly the sort of tactic McCain wants to use to distract and confuse Americans in order to vote against their own and ultimately the nation’s best interest.”
Exactly…this is yet another issue that’s been blown way out of proportion by the Right-wing noise machine.
“They are different enough on the issues that each side should tell the truth about their own positions and let the people decide.”
You need to realize that if McSame did this, he’d lose hands down. He’s on the wrong side (as compared to what the majority of the American people think) of almost every issue that we could think of.
The idea that McSame wanted to fix the potential housing/financial mess that we’re neck deep in now after his former economic advisor authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that caused much of it in the first place is just silly.
I also love how the Right jumps all over Biden saying that the rich paying some more in taxes during a time of war is off-base when McSame (in another lifetime apparently when he had some sort of a backbone) opposed the Bush tax cuts in the first place mainly because he thought it was a bad idea to be cutting taxes during a time of war.
“but Obama has focused most of his campaign on non-issues, like HOPE and CHANGE.”
Change from the disaster of the last 8 years is *exactly* what this country needs, and it appears that a VAST majority of the country agrees with that.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
“Shall the City of Burlington be advised to revoke the $21 million proposal to renovate and redevelop the Moran Plant with the understanding that the voters have lost confidence in the way the proposal agreement has been proceeding?”
YES!!!!!!
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:07 am
YES!!!!!!
No!!! We should keep the plant and get the tenant agreements right.
And your comment is way off topic, “Some.”
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Haik you are correct on both accounts. I made a new post for this topic.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
So basically, the age appropriate stuff for the Kindergartners consisted of letting them know about “good touch/bad touch” stuff to let them be aware of predators, and you find that inappropriate?
September 24th, 2008 at 11:21 am
As I said above,
Here is the objectionable part:
“Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”
There is no way to make that age-appropriate. Period.
“Good touch/bad touch” does not include STD prevention!
September 24th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
And can you prove anywhere where this was actually taught? Did you look at the specific guidelines for kindergarten?