BF2S Forums Sarah Palin

Let's see...  Does Obama's foreign polices have anything to do with God?

I didn't say she was running for president either.
Anyone with a half a brain can see that she's pulling from the bag of cheapest tricks just to win the favor of the masses.

Last edited by Icleos (2008-10-07 10:36:49)

Icleos wrote:

Anyone with a half a brain can see that she's pulling from the bag of cheapest tricks just to win the favor of the masses.

lol...not in an election year.  no wai.  wow.  when did things change?

I had to do a double take when I saw it was CNN.

CLINTON wrote:

Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.

And, if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York and, I would hope, to every American, because they were published on 9/11, and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more.

And what they did was set bombs. And in some instances, people died. So it is -- I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about.

The election isn't news anymore?

.Sup wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The election isn't news anymore?

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=37061 … &altl=

goddammit you know how many fucking emails i got today with that link?  ugh.

.Sup wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The election isn't news anymore?

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=37061 … &altl=

What did you do now =.=

usmarine wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The election isn't news anymore?

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=37061 … &altl=

goddammit you know how many fucking emails i got today with that link?  ugh.

it wasn't me

@cybargs I'm waiting for results

FEOS wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

^LOL @ irony

And just how is that ironic, pray tell?

GTT wrote:

The numbers just came out today, 4+ point lead in enough states to make the electoral college 364 to 174 in Obama's favor.

Only if you assume that all the toss-up states are going for Obama. If any news source actually published the numbers characterized that way, they're not even trying to pretend be objective or unbiased any longer.

I'd guess North Carolina and Missouri won't, but Obama's lead in Florida, Virginia and Ohio is growing substantially. Virginia's leaning Obama but give it a few more days the way the polls are going and it'll be solid Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … cain/#data

Last edited by Poseidon (2008-10-07 17:39:48)

FEOS wrote:

There's always a difference between what people say they're going to do and what they actually do in the voting booth.

It's going to be closer than many of you think.

Not saying Obama's not going to win...I'm sure he will. But it won't be a landslide.

First, "Closer than you think" and "Too close to call" are two very different concepts in ratings-land.

Republican rule has trashed the country in the last 8 years in quite obvious ways even "Joe Six-Pack" can understand.  If you expect another 50/50 split this election and anything less is "biased", you need professional help.

That lead was based on a composite of pollsters, not any single news group.  Throwing out the "biased" polls actually tips the scales more in Obama's favor, especially if you want to let go of the debunked "liberal biased media" myth.  They've also been doing the dirty trick of just polling "equal numbers of registered democrats and republicans", which has not much basis in reality but keeps the polls looking close to 50/50.  Check the fine print sometime when you read the polling numbers.

Obama has been getting more positive media coverage throughout this whole thing, true, but its not because of political favoritism, its the fact that he's a much bigger story.  He gets draws of 10's of thousands when he speaks, he's a nice guy, he does funny things, he has a mostly positive message.  This is exactly what they were counter-acting when they picked that joke Palin, she's her very own media circus.  They had no idea that she was half-retarded, anti-US cessastionist, and had managed more corruption in 4 years of politics than most politicians manage in a lifetime.  But that's ok, the ship has sunk.  Time for FoxNews to find a new schtick, I don't think Obama will give them the same ammunition that Clinton did.

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There's always a difference between what people say they're going to do and what they actually do in the voting booth.

It's going to be closer than many of you think.

Not saying Obama's not going to win...I'm sure he will. But it won't be a landslide.

First, "Closer than you think" and "Too close to call" are two very different concepts in ratings-land.

Where did I say anything about "too close to call"?

GTT wrote:

Republican rule has trashed the country in the last 8 years in quite obvious ways even "Joe Six-Pack" can understand.  If you expect another 50/50 split this election and anything less is "biased", you need professional help.

Just what post are you responding to? I never implied any of what you are talking about here. And if you're going to look at the past 8 years, you can't overlook the past two, either.

GTT wrote:

That lead was based on a composite of pollsters, not any single news group.  Throwing out the "biased" polls actually tips the scales more in Obama's favor, especially if you want to let go of the debunked "liberal biased media" myth.

Again, which post are you responding to? Certainly not the one you quoted above. And as for polls, I'm going off the most current electoral vote map...which strangely corresponds exactly to the numbers you provided...if you assume that all the 100 electoral votes in the toss-up states go to Obama and none to McCain. I said nothing about biased media. I did say something about the way you interpreted the numbers and then attributed your interpretation to the pollsters. 

GTT wrote:

They've also been doing the dirty trick of just polling "equal numbers of registered democrats and republicans", which has not much basis in reality but keeps the polls looking close to 50/50.  Check the fine print sometime when you read the polling numbers.

I suppose there may be some sarcasm in here, but it's so hard to tell with some of the stuff you post lately whether you're being serious in your assessment here.

As for reading the fine print...perhaps you should try doing the same. Or look up the term "toss-up" as it applies to electoral votes in this election, as the concept seems to have escaped you in your previous analysis.

GTT wrote:

Obama has been getting more positive media coverage throughout this whole thing, true, but its not because of political favoritism, its the fact that he's a much bigger story.  He gets draws of 10's of thousands when he speaks, he's a nice guy, he does funny things, he has a mostly positive message.  This is exactly what they were counter-acting when they picked that joke Palin, she's her very own media circus.  They had no idea that she was half-retarded, anti-US cessastionist, and had managed more corruption in 4 years of politics than most politicians manage in a lifetime.  But that's ok, the ship has sunk.  Time for FoxNews to find a new schtick, I don't think Obama will give them the same ammunition that Clinton did.

See, that's the difference here. You can't see the lack of objectivity in the left-leaning media because it fits your ex-pat, nouveau-european world-view. Yet you decry Fox News when they do the same thing in the other direction.

You're about as objective on this subject as rammunition is on Israel.

If you think Obama has a positive message, you need to pay closer attention. I hear nothing but doom and gloom from the guy. But--unlike you--I'm trying to look past rhetoric and editorials from media outlets on both tickets to make my decision. I'm trying to find real, detailed plans to fix some of the most critical problems this country faces--which neither candidate has offered much of. Unlike you, I still live here and have a vested interest in who the next President is. You just keep doing your "I'm a cool ex-pat" thing, sipping your carbonated mineral water and complaining about your old home. Those of us who still live here will make the decision that's right for us instead of the one Europe thinks we should make.

FEOS wrote:

Where did I say anything about "too close to call"?

You didn't say that.  It was a statement about the current election compared to the previous 2.  The last 2 were "too close to call", with the 2000 election even coming down to the SCOTUS deciding and the loser winning the popular vote.  These political brawls played out on election night coverage ensured that the maximum amount of Americans and the world were glued to their boob tubes.  That's a LOT of advertising dollars if you're reaching a bigger audience than the Super Bowl or World Cup.  These same advertising dollars are lost when the election is merely "closer than you think."  Hence, like in the previous 2 elections, it is in the corporate media's best interest to at least make the race appear as close as possible.  This isn't a political agenda being pushed, it is simple bottom-line business sense.

FEOS wrote:

Just what post are you responding to?

here...two of your posts up...

FEOS wrote:

Only if you assume that all the toss-up states are going for Obama. If any news source actually published the numbers characterized that way, they're not even trying to pretend be objective or unbiased any longer.

FEOS wrote:

I never implied any of what you are talking about here. And if you're going to look at the past 8 years, you can't overlook the past two, either.

You implied that there would still be a lot of wiggle room for a 50/50 split, it could go either way...if the media is calling it different, then they're lying to you or biased.  My assumption was that you were basing this on the previous 2 elections, where undecided + right-wing nut jobs came right at 50% of the voter demographic.  The very demographics have changed this election cycle, and pollsters haven't really caught up to this yet fully.

FEOS wrote:

Again, which post are you responding to? Certainly not the one you quoted above. And as for polls, I'm going off the most current electoral vote map...which strangely corresponds exactly to the numbers you provided...if you assume that all the 100 electoral votes in the toss-up states go to Obama and none to McCain. I said nothing about biased media. I did say something about the way you interpreted the numbers and then attributed your interpretation to the pollsters.

Again, the post above.  If the site showing the composite polling data puts anyone polling above the margin of error (3 points generally) for a given composite of polls, Vegas rules come into play.  A few may go the other way, but the house will win in the long run with a 51% margin.  Any media site saying that the numbers stand this way in this case is giving the scientific facts for this date/time based on the data they have.  This is not bias.  It is also understood that this could change before the election.

FEOS wrote:

I suppose there may be some sarcasm in here, but it's so hard to tell with some of the stuff you post lately whether you're being serious in your assessment here.

As for reading the fine print...perhaps you should try doing the same. Or look up the term "toss-up" as it applies to electoral votes in this election, as the concept seems to have escaped you in your previous analysis.

No sarcasm, very serious about this.  Pollsters have not caught up with how to conduct polls with the very changed political landscape.  Several small factors make a big difference, and all of them when accounted for tip scales in Obama's favor in each case.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/ … sults.html
And Gallup's own fuckup with the difference between a "likely voter" and a "registered voter" (bottom of the article explains it).
http://www.zimbio.com/Barack+Obama/arti … gged+Again

Gallup Article wrote:

The Democratic Party has an advantage of 11 million more registered voters than the Republican Party and the margin keeps growing. But that difference is not reflected in the polls. The reason, according to Seth Coulter Walls in the Huffington Post, is that "Party ID" -- who's Democrat, Republican, etc -- is estimated as either 50 / 50 or in some cases with Republicans ahead. That's not what reality tells us, but the poll results reflect a closer race that the true totals of registered Democrats and Republicans show. And that shows a possible landslide victory for Senator's Barack Obama and Joe Biden if the Obama camp's get out the vote strategy works as well as it seems that it will come election day.

FEOS wrote:

See, that's the difference here. You can't see the lack of objectivity in the left-leaning media because it fits your ex-pat, nouveau-european world-view. Yet you decry Fox News when they do the same thing in the other direction.

Basic items that were conveyed, regardless of how "biased" they were dressed up:
- Barack Obama draws bigger crowds when he speaks at public events. This makes a bigger story.  This is not about ideology, this is the media covering a bigger story.
- In Sarah Palin's media appearances so far, nobody with any kind of literary expertise could possibly parse half of what she said if you were to dissect her answers during interviews.
- FoxNews is admittedly an outlet for conservative viewers.  It says so itself.  There is no denying this.  They discovered a market niche, the "low information viewer" that wanted more entertainment and feel-good patriotism in their news and they made it.
- Facts have a well-known liberal bias, tough shit.

Nouveau-European, awesome!  Was I just complimented for being "civilized" or insulted for being "elite"?  What does that mean exactly? The dictionary is failing me here.  Basically, I think what you're saying is because you feel I'm more "worldly" and knowledgable" that my opinion is biased and useless.  But what do I know, American English is such a foreign language to me now...

FEOS wrote:

You're about as objective on this subject as rammunition is on Israel.

Hey, I like Israel too!  They can take their zionism and shove it though.  But in all I favor the people, just think their government is run by fascist assholes.  Seems to be a world-wide theme actually...

FEOS wrote:

If you think Obama has a positive message, you need to pay closer attention. I hear nothing but doom and gloom from the guy. But--unlike you--I'm trying to look past rhetoric and editorials from media outlets on both tickets to make my decision. I'm trying to find real, detailed plans to fix some of the most critical problems this country faces--which neither candidate has offered much of. Unlike you, I still live here and have a vested interest in who the next President is. You just keep doing your "I'm a cool ex-pat" thing, sipping your carbonated mineral water and complaining about your old home. Those of us who still live here will make the decision that's right for us instead of the one Europe thinks we should make.

I already voted actually - just trying to figure out why "where one lives" makes one any more or less American or care more or less about his country, his family that still lives there, or his children that may live there later.  Believe me, the guys here would love to send me back so I can stop forcing the democratic ideals of fairness, rule of law (and not personality), and ethics down their throats in the workplace.  But, its good to be the boss...*he says as he kicks back, sipping the latte delivered by his smoking hot Ukrainian secretary*

You want detailed plans?  Warning though, there's a lot of words and not just sound-bites.

Obama/Biden - http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlu … Change.pdf

McCain/Palin - http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

Glad we could clear some things up,

Cheers,

GTT

usmarine wrote:

you know obama was told to keep his answers in debate short and to the point.  i wish we could do the same here.

I was watching that debate (yes, I had nothing better to do and I couldn't fall asleep) and that guy never fucking shut up about telling them two, about sticking to the time. I mean for fuck sake, if you're so fucking constricted of time then organise the debate some other time when you're not. The guy kept on acting like he/they (the people who organised the debate) had something else much more important to do and they wanted this over asap.