The Final US Election Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

then all the conspiracy theories are wrong, then.....

yes its the unfortunate thing about CT's they are glamorous and entertaining but when it comes to facts they seem to fail...

Besides considering the sucess of Obama i find it hard to believe he would need to cheat to win...

Obama played hardball to secure the Dem nomination (which in S Chicago was tantamount to election) for State Senate in 1996. The incumbent hand-picked him as her successor to try for a HoR seat, but after losing the nomination herself she wanted him to step aside and let her get her old seat back. Obama's team, supposedly, got her and his other nomination rivals knocked off the ballot by invalidating signatures supporting each of his opponent's candidacies. This is NOT cheating, by any means, but it is gaming the system to advantage.

He does not have a "cheater" reputation, but anyone who assumes he's above political rough and tumble hasn't looked at his record.

[CountArach]

He does not have a "cheater" reputation, but anyone who assumes he's above political rough and tumble hasn't looked at his record.

Spot on. He's a Chicago politician through-and-through.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You can't say something bad about a democrat without saying something bad about republican's as well, sorry CR those are the rules

Lol.

Anyways, I believe Lemur has referenced Andrew Sullivan as a conservative before.

CR

[Tribesman]

Anyways, I believe Lemur has referenced Andrew Sullivan as a conservative before.

Possibly because that is what Sullivan calls himself

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sean Hannity is now the arbiter of who is and who is not a real conservative.

I'm sure I heard that somewhere, anyway. Now where did I put that memo.....

[Askthepizzaguy]

Sean Hannity is a......


I'm sorry. I would like to keep this civilized.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sean Hannity is a......

thinly-veneered GOP shill cheerleading anybody who'll bust on the Dems for any reason.

Was that the finish you were looking for?

[ICantSpellDawg]

thinly-veneered GOP shill cheerleading anybody who'll bust on the Dems for any reason.

Was that the finish you were looking for?

I agree with a number of the concepts that he poorly copies and pastes, but I can't expect any well thought out objectivity from him, so there is nor purpose in watching him. Plus I'm pissed that Colmes is leaving.

I would love a Hanity and Colmes that had a reasonable and intelligent conservative in Hannity's seat. This failed experiment of an illogical loudmouth in one seat and a temperate liberal in the other is a failed one and it makes me wish I was a liberal for 1 hour per day.

Long story short, I have never learned anything from Sean Hannity.

[Tribesman]

Long story short, I have never learned anything from Sean Hannity.

Yes you have , you have learned that you have never learned anything from Sean Hannity

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes you have , you have learned that you have never learned anything from Sean Hannity

Touche

[CountArach]

I would love a Hanity and Colmes that had a reasonable and intelligent conservative in Hannity's seat. This failed experiment of an illogical loudmouth in one seat and a temperate liberal in the other is a failed one and it makes me wish I was a liberal for 1 hour per day.

That was always the problem. Colmes has never been aggressive enough at disputing Hannity and was always overshadowed. It makes you wonder if the board at Faux News set it up that way...

[ICantSpellDawg]

That was always the problem. Colmes has never been aggressive enough at disputing Hannity and was always overshadowed. It makes you wonder if the board at Faux News set it up that way...

No Count. The problem is that Hannity has no respect for Colmes. Hannity's style should have always been more like Colmes'. I've just said that Hannity's closed-minded, loud-mouthiness was the cause of my disdain.

Your solution was to make his liberal opposition equally as closed-minded and loud mouthy? How about the other option?

The problem with all people is that they take a real problem, focus correctly on what caused it and then proceed to make it worse. Ex: women have traditionally had a problem with male infidelity. Clearly people with common sense believed that infidelity and inequality were the problems that needed to be addressed. Unfortunately, the resolution was to make females feel "more equal" than males and increase the rate and tolerance of female infidelity. If females could go ahead and not cheat on their husbands it couldn't have been that hard to just not cheat on your wife out of egalitarian respect?

The exact wrong resolution. God forbid we deal sensibly with problems.

[CountArach]

No Count. The problem is that Hannity has no respect for Colmes. Hannity's style should have always been more like Colmes'. I've just said that Hannity's closed-minded, loud-mouthiness was the cause of my disdain.

Your solution was to make his liberal opposition equally as closed-minded and loud mouthy? How about the other option?

Either option would be fine by me. Think about someone like Keith Olbermann opposite Hannity. That would be awesome!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Either option would be fine by me. Think about someone like Keith Olbermann opposite Hannity. That would be awesome!

That would be horrible.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd rather have me opposing Colmes. Of course, ratings would suck since we'd actually discuss rather than froth at the mouth.

[Yoyoma1910]

Why don't you just watch the news hour with Jim Lehrer?


Then you can watch Shields and Brooks.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Either option would be fine by me. Think about someone like Keith Olbermann opposite Hannity. That would be awesome!

Sir, that is a recipe for the end of the world.

It'd be entertaining, though.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why don't you just watch the news hour with Jim Lehrer?


Then you can watch Shields and Brooks.

I listen to Lehrer, but it is just him on the radio.

Leonard Lopate has pretty good political discussions during underreported. He challenges the interviewee regardless of the agenda.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Just put O'Reilly and Olberman on the same show. They would have to shout to each other over a telephone, since having them both in the same building could lead to violence.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I agree with a number of the concepts that he poorly copies and pastes, but I can't expect any well thought out objectivity from him, so there is nor purpose in watching him. Plus I'm pissed that Colmes is leaving.

I would love a Hanity and Colmes that had a reasonable and intelligent conservative in Hannity's seat. This failed experiment of an illogical loudmouth in one seat and a temperate liberal in the other is a failed one and it makes me wish I was a liberal for 1 hour per day.

Long story short, I have never learned anything from Sean Hannity.

Another instance where you and I will agree, Tuff.

I for one like the bare-bones idea of a moderate liberal and a genuine conservative analyzing the day's news events, and discussing issues. I'd be more pleased with actual debates, moderated of course.

But what Hannity and Colmes does is it pits a rather toothless liberal against a pundit who will overtalk, interrupt, get loud, and doesn't debate with any kind of fairness or objectivity. It's a shame, because like Crossfire, it had potential.

I don't mind the enthusiasm, I don't mind the commitment to one point of view. I just mind the unprofessionalism in the program from Hannity and the overall Fox slant. Colmes is often silent on that program, and lobs decent but hardly inspired questions at conservatives, and tends to drop things when they get heated.

I think there's room for a real debate between intellectuals who are either conservative leaning or liberal leaning, maybe even wingers. But the debate has to be more than shouting, opining, and cherry-picked news articles which always favor one side of an argument. However, to be fair, it often degraded into that with the previous US election thread, so we've learned from the masters.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Another instance where you and I will agree, Tuff.

I for one like the bare-bones idea of a moderate liberal and a genuine conservative analyzing the day's news events, and discussing issues. I'd be more pleased with actual debates, moderated of course.

But what Hannity and Colmes does is it pits a rather toothless liberal against a pundit who will overtalk, interrupt, get loud, and doesn't debate with any kind of fairness or objectivity. It's a shame, because like Crossfire, it had potential.

I don't mind the enthusiasm, I don't mind the commitment to one point of view. I just mind the unprofessionalism in the program from Hannity and the overall Fox slant. Colmes is often silent on that program, and lobs decent but hardly inspired questions at conservatives, and tends to drop things when they get heated.

I think there's room for a real debate between intellectuals who are either conservative leaning or liberal leaning, maybe even wingers. But the debate has to be more than shouting, opining, and cherry-picked news articles which always favor one side of an argument. However, to be fair, it often degraded into that with the previous US election thread, so we've learned from the masters.

I believe that partisans can do an excellent job of really hashing ideas out. Moderates rely on the fringe for their identity. Without something to moderate they wouldn't be "moderates", would they? The factor that makes the show unbearable is the lack of respect between the two men - caused primarily by Hannity.

Either way, I am a believer in fringe options. I consider myself a moderate, however, because I realize that it is usually more practical to just make a deal with the opposition since we have to share the planet. Not on everything, mind you.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Someone set fire to Palin's church up in Alaska.

How tolerant.

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

Someone set fire to Palin's church up in Alaska.

How tolerant.

CR

Maybe they did it themselves trying to burn witches.

[Lemur]

Someone set fire to Palin's church up in Alaska.

That's seriously bad. I hope it's a lone loon, and not anyone with any political axe to grind. Church burnings are horrible enough without a larger partisan element.

[Tribesman]

Maybe they did it themselves trying to burn witches.

No that is her old church with the witchcraft thing , she left them a while back when she first ran for higher office .

[Askthepizzaguy]

I begrudgingly tolerate the kind of religions which I disagree with but don't harm anyone. So I am distressed that a church was terrorized in such a despicable fashion.

I personally view the organized religions as flawed, and wish people would voluntarily choose something else, but I do not now nor have I ever condoned such violence and extremism.

Kind of like Republicans and Democrats, myself and religious people have different views. But as long as the church doesn't harm anyone, I don't condone an *expletive deleted* burning it down. And I value the people who have religious faith more than I value my own aversion to what I consider flawed thinking. People are more important than ideological disagreements.

So, I may joke, but I take this nonsense very seriously, and I wish justice to come down upon whomever did this.

[Lemur]

And once again, parody speaks the truth like nobody else. From the world's finest news source:

Area Woman Becomes Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

December 17, 2008 | Issue 44•51

WASILLA, AK—In a dramatic capper to a year that already saw her son's hockey team go to district finals, a successful remodeling of the den, and her scoring of front-row tickets to a traveling production of the Broadway smash hit Les Misérables, Wasilla resident and former beauty queen Sarah Palin, 44, was chosen as the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. The mother of five, who enjoys attending church potluck dinners with husband Todd, an unemployed commercial fisherman, reportedly "jumped at the chance" to become the second most powerful person in the country. "Oh, what a nice thing for [GOP running mate] Sarah [Palin]," said Debbie McInnes, who met Palin two years ago at an advanced step aerobics class at the Wasilla YMCA. "She's such a good person, and so pretty! I think she'd be super-enthusiastic to take on that job." Although Palin ultimately never got the chance to come within a heartbeat of ruling a global superpower and its 300 million citizens, she said she was happy enough to have beaten out the other potential Republican VP candidates, including a Nebraska receptionist and a congresswoman from Ohio with more than 20 years of political experience.

[Kralizec]

December 17, 2008?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_a_dead_horse

[Seamus Fermanagh]

December 17, 2008?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_a_dead_horse

A wiki cite.....come on, take it up a level. You're responding to The Onion for heaven's sake. I recall someone (Xiahou?) had a great graphic of somebody pounding on a dead horse. Give us a little OOmph please!


btw, since people started musing about Palin for President in 2012, this parodic character attack is not at all late -- the 2012 race began a while ago (God Help us, please, though we deserve it not).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]