Update: McCain Selects Gov. Sarah Palin as Running Mate

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Here's a question for you guys:

If Candidate A wants to raise taxes (on the rich), but will spend more frugally, and Candidate B wants to lower taxes (on the rich), but will spend more frivolously, who do you choose?

This isn't the answer you want, but I wouldn't vote for either of these two candidates. Both policies are detrimental to the economy.

'A' sounds like a democrat, and 'B' sounds like a republican -- that's why I vote third party.

[MTK]

At least she knows how to email, that's more than can be said of old man McCain.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

At least she knows how to email, that's more than can be said of old man McCain.

Oh come on now, the man is a war hero! A POW!

[firstdown]

Its not a good time for me to talk about taxes because I just had to write three big checks to pay federal/State withholding and a penalty check for $238.34 because my last months payment check was two days late. People wonder why I won't vote for Obama because he is going to raise my taxes and I don't care if he says he is not but small business is going to get hit.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its not a good time for me to talk about taxes because I just had to write three big checks to pay federal/State withholding and a penalty check for $238.34 because my last months payment check was two days late. People wonder why I won't vote for Obama because he is going to raise my taxes and I don't care if he says he is not but small business is going to get hit.

Perhaps you should take the responsibility of sending Uncle Sam his money more seriously? Next time he just might send IRS agents to break your legs.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Perhaps you should take the responsibility of sending Uncle Sam his money more seriously? Next time he just might send IRS agents to break your legs.

Heck for what they charged me for the two late days a broken leg would have been cheaper.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Heck for what they charged me for the two late days a broken leg would have been cheaper.

Let me explain something to you. When people criticize the Times for being biased, as they often do, what they mean is this: that the times fails to hold the same critical lens up to liberal politicians that it does to conservatives. While I have questioned this in the past I won't dispute that this is probably the case this election. There have been more critical stories about McCain recently than Obama. However, what critics don't say is that the Times makes things up, that they cook stories, meaning that you can't just say a times article is biased and ignore it (Jason Blaire notwithstanding, although that was certainly not a political issue).

The Wall St. Journal is the same on the right. While the editorial page leans right and the articles reflect a certain framework, a thinking person would never dismiss a WSJ article outright just because they favor conservative governance. Not without pointing out specifically what was factually inaccurate in the text. To do so would be stupid, sloppy reasoning. For the record, liberal as I am, I love the WSJ.

Anyway, is there a specific point of contention you have or do you just not read whatever papers Rush tells you not to read? Explain your position vis-a-vis the article and the use of private emails to conduct government business. How is bias clouding the conclusions of the author?

Also, here's a post article talking about the same issue - specifically the governor's failure to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request for emails related to government business. washingtonpost.com

EDIT: I obviously meant to quote your previous response.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Let me explain something to you. When people criticize the Times for being biased, as they often do, what they mean is this: that the times fails to hold the same critical lens up to liberal politicians that it does to conservatives. While I have questioned this in the past I won't dispute that this is probably the case this election. There have been more critical stories about McCain recently than Obama. However, what critics don't say is that the Times makes things up, that they cook stories, meaning that you can't just say a times article is biased and ignore it (Jason Blaire notwithstanding, although that was certainly not a political issue).

The Wall St. Journal is the same on the right. While the editorial page leans right and the articles reflect a certain framework, a thinking person would never dismiss a WSJ article outright just because they favor conservative governance. Not without pointing out specifically what was factually inaccurate in the text. To do so would be stupid, sloppy reasoning. For the record, liberal as I am, I love the WSJ.

Anyway, is there a specific point of contention you have or do you just not read whatever papers Rush tells you not to read? Explain your position vis-a-vis the article and the use of private emails to conduct government business. How is bias clouding the conclusions of the author?

Also, here's a post article talking about the same issue - specifically the governor's failure to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request for emails related to government business. washingtonpost.com

EDIT: I obviously meant to quote your previous response.

I read your link and that seemed like a fair report of the issue and did not draw conclusions on things they do not know as fact as the Times seemed to do. I don't get my news from Rush and I don't really ever listen to him. In the past month I would bet I have not listened to more than a 1/2 hour of his show. I do watch Fox News, but watch one of the three nightly news either NBC, CBS, ABC at 6:30 and I will also watch some CNN & MSNBC. I listen to some right wring radio but also listen to PBS. I enjoy hearing both side of an issue and find it interesting how different a story will run from one station to the next.

[dmek25]

i think we all know the reason Gov. Palin uses personal e mails to conduct business. that way the keep outside the frame work of the law. non -disclosure?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i think we all know the reason Gov. Palin uses personal e mails to conduct business. that way the keep outside the frame work of the law. non -disclosure?

If they found any watergate type stuff going on, then I would 100% agree with you. But there was nothing shady from what I've seen.

[saden1]

Fish love oil?



Can this guy get more insulting?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Fish love oil?



Can this guy get more insulting?

Thats a pretty dumb video you just showed. Whats the link between the inland oil pump and the one in the ocean? Nothing. I did notice they showed the on in the ocean leaning over but they did not show any oil leaking out but thats what they want you to think. What McCain said about fish gatherine around these oil rigs is 100% correct and they are great fishing grounds.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Thats a pretty dumb video you just showed. Whats the link between the inland oil pump and the one in the ocean? Nothing. I did notice they showed the on in the ocean leaning over but they did not show any oil leaking out but thats what they want you to think. What McCain said about fish gatherine around these oil rigs is 100% correct and they are great fishing grounds.

I would advice you against eating any fish caught in oil rig fishing grounds.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

I would advice you against eating any fish caught in oil rig fishing grounds.

Saden stick to topics that you know something about.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Saden stick to topics that you know something about.

Yes sir. So, tell me all about fishing nearing oil rigs. Did you catch any fish around that neck of the woods? How did the fish taste?