Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by chicojuarz on Aug 30, 2008 17:38:38 GMT -5
Looks like you had a great time dcbee. I'm sure Denver was going crazy.
Anybody just catch the rally with McCain and Palin? I'm not certain her speech was that effective. I mean she was just talking about reform and change in Washington. Isnt that exactly the opposite of what they stand for in reality? (I only caught the end) I mean it seems like McCain was really for change before he sold his "rebelliousness" for the nomination.
Plus it seemed fitting that right at the end of her speech they started playing Right Now. I dont think that song means quite what they think it means.
I find all this talk about women being disenchanted since Hillary lost interesting. And they are now willing to vote for the McCain ticket with Palin on board. A ticket so opposite to everything Hillary stands for. Just to get a women in office in the hopes McCain dies? Are you kidding me?
I don't care what race or sex they are. I just want someone who can do a better job than the fiasco we have had for eight years. Our economy, our environment, hell our lives depend on it.
I don't care what race or sex they are. I just want someone who can do a better job than the fiasco we have had for eight years. Our economy, our environment, hell our lives depend on it.
I find all this talk about women being disenchanted since Hillary lost interesting. And they are now willing to vote for the McCain ticket with Palin on board. A ticket so opposite to everything Hillary stands for. Just to get a women in office in the hopes McCain dies? Are you kidding me?
I don't care what race or sex they are. I just want someone who can do a better job than the fiasco we have had for eight years. Our economy, our environment, hell our lives depend on it.
This morning on Meet the Press, Mike Murphy said that women don't really care that much about social issues and the economy is much more important. Huh?
And on Face the Nation, Bob asked Carly Fiorina if Palin is the most qualified for the position and she just said "she's a really good choice." hahahaha
It will be really interesting to see how she holds up to the scrutiny of the main stage.
WIth all of her problems and now being discovered that she was part of a right wing group that wanted to vote to have Alaska become its own country and cut funding to teen pregnancy programs Palin stated she had to anwer 70 "intrusive questions" to become McCains VP selection... Wow 70 questions...below are some that should have been asked.
"Intrusive Personal Questions" from the Palin Vetting Questionnaire
"Mr. McCain’s advisers said repeatedly on Monday that Ms. Palin was 'thoroughly vetted'"- The New York Times
Palin "responded to a 70-question form that included 'intrusive personal questions' a senior campaign aide said today."- The Washington Post
"Intrusive Personal Questions" from the Palin Vetting Questionnaire:
1) Did we forget anything?
2) Secession from your own country is
a) Patriotic b) A qualification to be the potential leader of that country c) Maverick-y! d) None of the above
3) John McCain has said that he has followed your record for "many, many years." Divide those "many" years by the number of years of your actual record. The result is
a) Three days b) Two years as mayor of a town of 9000, and 20 months at the helm of the vaunted Alaska National Guard c) 0: experience, as we know, is not relevant to one's record d) Czechoslovakia
4) Moose Burger : Abstinence as Moose Hunting :
a) Brother-in-law b) 50 state flag c) Bridge to Nowhere (after it was made impossible) d) All of the above
5) Did we forget anything?
6) Three Vice Presidential candidates are moving from three equidistant fixed points towards a podium. One, in his slightly glazed stare and awkwardly quasi-combative speech bears a faint resemblance to Dan Quayle; the next can only assist the ticket as we near closer to Rapture; the third seems to have stumbled out of one of Christopher Buckley's sharper efforts. Which one arrives at the podium first?
7) "Nothing that has come out did not come out in the vet." This sentence actually means:
a) Everything has come out and everything has been vetted b) Everything that was vetted has come out c) Everything that has come out was vetted d) The vet came out and vetted the vets vetter than anything has ever been vetted. Really.
8) You are a right-wing, red-state conservative. During the Clinton Administration, you believed that President Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinsky disqualified him from the Presidency on moral grounds; you fervently raised the terms "Lincoln Bedroom" and "Johnny Chung" to invoke notions of utter corruption, and regarded the "Travelgate" firings as an abuse of power. In the face of the recent revelations regarding Palin's directorship of Ted Stevens' 527, support of the Bridge to Nowhere, "Troopergate" imbroglio, and illegitimate pregnancy of her 16-year old daughter, you:
a) Blame George Soros b) Talk about Bill Clinton instead of Palin c) Hold your hands over your ears and loudly shout "La la la" d) Try to change the subject
9) "Foreign policy experience" includes:
a) Being near another large nation b) Seceding from your own country and then taking up residence in the new nation c) Being close to "Nowhere" in your support for the Bridge to Nowhere, which is different than being "Somewhere" d) Blame George Soros
10) If you were seeking to choose as your running mate someone who would please Evangelical Conservatives with very traditional values, who would be without taint of corruption or misuse of government power, and someone who, in line with your campaign's own slogan, would put "Country First", after thorough vetting and "intrusive personal questions", you would choose someone who:
a) Supported the Bridge to Nowhere b) Supported the secession of Alaska from the U.S. (Slogan: "Alaska First!") c) Was the subject of a state ethics investigation due to allegations that she had tried to have her brother-in-law fired and that she fired the state public safety commissioner due to his unwillingness to fire the brother-in-law d) Would suffer from allegations that her 16 year old child had become pregnant illegitimately, despite her fervent support for abstinence only sex education e) None of the above
Post by Fishing Maniac on Sept 2, 2008 20:57:45 GMT -5
You know it's the liberals and democrats who claim to have no problem with such matters that are making the biggest stink about her daughter being pregnant. They do so under the guise that "if it was our side the conservatives would..." So much for being being the bigger and better group of people. I guess that would go without saying after watching the utterly infantile series of exchanges that took place between Obama and Hillary, during which time the republicans exchanged (comparatively) gentlemanly and professional debate. I'm not a member of either party and have never voted for a member of either based on pure disgust and principal. This time of year always makes me so proud that I am unaffiliated with either movement. I can tell you as an outsider looking upon both groups that while the conservative/republicans have many things wrong with them (an amount equal to their liberal counterparts IMO) they do at least conduct themselves like grown ups. At least they do when compared to the liberals.
Let me explain this to you people. It's not the subway series. It's a lot bigger and more important than our team is better than your team. The majority of "supporters" of either candidate have never even considered voting for the opposite party should they actually produce a better candidate. This underscores what the greatest problem that the citizens of this country have; themselves. People vote based on opinions and not qualifications. They think with their hearts instead of their brains. That's why both parties have produced sub-standard, ill prepared and utterly unqualified representatives to run for the presidency for the third time in a row.
If you want to see how foolish you are all being all you have to do is realize that you have spent the last two days discussing a pregnant girl. That's something that has no actual baring on the quality of life in this country for the next four years or anything else that is of any significance whatsoever. This rumor mill gossip fest that unfairly puts stress on a teenage girl (I'm sure this does wonders for her pregnancy) have been promoted by the ever liberal news media who everwhelmingly support Obama. Yet, this controversy has been most effective in steering attention away from him. If nobody's talking about him that means that nobody is hearing him. I guess it doesn't make much difference since he has almost nothing of substance to say anyway. All he does is talk about how Bush was wrong in the past and says nothing of concrete value regarding the future. Basically he's like Bush with opposite opinions. Amazing how a guy that comes across as so much smarter can add so little of value. If you think that Obama will bring "change" you're kidding yourself. McCain won't either. The two parties just trade places like a political AC current and nothing changes for us.
Stop being knee jerk voters, no matter which side you're on. It makes the country worse every year. Those of us who think hard about this stuff are sick of getting screwed by the rest of you, conservatives and liberals alike.
That's just my $.02. Sorry if I was abrasive, but I am so fed up with knee jerk partisan nonsense destroying my quality of life. If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Continuing to give control to dems and reps is the problem. You'd think that after 150 years people would have figured that out.
Post by ClarkGriswold on Sept 2, 2008 21:42:54 GMT -5
As I watch the RNC on TV tonight I look through the ranks of the faces of the RNC and I realize the European lineage ideology and perspective is alive and energized. Although a lot of us are of European decent we all know that the American experience is a much larger tapestry rich with diverse cultures. As I watch the RNC, the diverse cultures that are the fabric of America appear to be missing and/or completely unrepresented.
You know it's the liberals and democrats who claim to have no problem with such matters that are making the biggest stink about her daughter being pregnant. They do so under the guise that "if it was our side the conservatives would..." So much for being being the bigger and better group of people.
I don't see liberals/Democrats touting a pro-abstinence stance, only to see it blow up in their face. BTW - underage Bristol's baby-daddy was 18 at conception, and I'm fairly certain won't be facing any charges. So much for all that "personal responsibility" and "tough on crime" talk from the Republicans.
Let me explain this to you people. It's not the subway series. It's a lot bigger and more important than our team is better than your team. The majority of "supporters" of either candidate have never even considered voting for the opposite party should they actually produce a better candidate.
You won't know this until the Republicans actually do produce a better candidate. This has not happened in my voting lifetime, and probably a majority of Inforoosters'. Until then, this statement is purely conjecture.
This underscores what the greatest problem that the citizens of this country have; themselves. People vote based on opinions and not qualifications. They think with their hearts instead of their brains.
This rumor mill gossip fest that unfairly puts stress on a teenage girl (I'm sure this does wonders for her pregnancy) have been promoted by the ever liberal news media who everwhelmingly support Obama.
You seem to have taken a sip of the Kool-Aid yourself. Reporters do tend to be liberals/Democrats, I'll concede. But media owners & editors tend to be conservatives/Republicans - will you concede this? And furthermore, can we concede that this constitutes a check/balance system much like the Founders intended for government?
Yet, this controversy has been most effective in steering attention away from him. If nobody's talking about him that means that nobody is hearing him. I guess it doesn't make much difference since he has almost nothing of substance to say anyway.
You show me a politician who fills in all the details when (s)he speaks, and I'll show you an also-ran...
All he does is talk about how Bush was wrong in the past and says nothing of concrete value regarding the future.
And McCain doesn't? Please. He's not going to win this election on W's coattails, I'll tell you that much. As for McCain on the future... the only thing I've heard him mention anything ahead was when he said "I'm sorry to tell you, but there will be other wars."
Amazing how a guy that comes across as so much smarter can add so little of value. If you think that Obama will bring "change" you're kidding yourself. McCain won't either. The two parties just trade places like a political AC current and nothing changes for us.
Agreed - but that's probably our own damn fault for letting them.
Stop being knee jerk voters, no matter which side you're on. It makes the country worse every year. Those of us who think hard about this stuff are sick of getting screwed by the rest of you, conservatives and liberals alike.
That's just my $.02. Sorry if I was abrasive, but I am so fed up with knee jerk partisan nonsense destroying my quality of life. If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
but she is everything the evagelical right wanted that McCain couldnt give them.
People are seriously underestimating the power of the evangelical vote. These people are active, zealous and they have lots of resources. They will rally around Palin in ways none of us can imagine. It was a very shrewd move on McCain's part.
There's no way Palin was McCain's first choice of running mate. The right wing has too much sway in the GOP to afford him the luxury of his first-choice running mate.
They essentially had veto power over this decision. If the right wing couldn't rally behind the ticket, his favorite choice wouldn't matter because it wouldn't win him the general election.
His campaign vetted 20-something prospective VP candidates without their knowledge, and narrowed it down to six prospectives who received more thorough/engaged vetting from the campaign.
Palin was definitely one of those six, and I assume the only one the right could get behind.
I presume this list (which hasn't been explicitly outlined) also included the following candidates and reasons for rejection: Joe Lieberman - former Dem ("not Republican enough",) non-Christian... but probably Mac's first choice Mitt Romney - Mormon, probably clashed too much during the primaries to get the nod Tim Pawlenty - "Minnesota nice" is a negative when the role is attack dog, not too well-known nationally Tom Ridge - pro-choice Bobby Jindal - probably would've passed muster, but possesses a Y chromosome after Hillary lost the Dem veepstakes
She might as well be the next W. As far as I can tell, she'd probably agree with him more than McCain.
A few fun facts: 9 of 43 vice presidents have ascended to the presidency (20+%) 5 of 19 vice presidents during the 20th century ascended to the presidency (25+%) male life expectancy < McCain's age plus eight
I presume this list (which hasn't been explicitly outlined) also included the following candidates and reasons for rejection: Joe Lieberman - former Dem ("not Republican enough",) non-Christian... but probably Mac's first choice Mitt Romney - Mormon, probably clashed too much during the primaries to get the nod Tim Pawlenty - "Minnesota nice" is a negative when the role is attack dog, not too well-known nationally Tom Ridge - pro-choice Bobby Jindal - probably would've passed muster, but possesses a Y chromosome after Hillary lost the Dem veepstakes
What I don't understand is that if McCain picked Lieberman or Ridge, he'd have alot of independents going his way. The right wing would probably mostly stay home, but he'd be stealing away alot of votes from the Obama camp(especially disgruntled Hillary supporters). McCain has always been strong with independents. By picking Palin I think McCain has ensured that independents will go mostly to Obama and that he'll get the right wing support. But I see that evangelical right wing influence as dwindling drastically because of how Bush largely has sold them out throughout his presidency. I think it's a huge mistake for McCain and probably will be his demise. He's become another puppet for the right wing and completely sold out his whole "maverick" image.
I don't see liberals/Democrats touting a pro-abstinence stance, only to see it blow up in their face. BTW - underage Bristol's baby-daddy was 18 at conception, and I'm fairly certain won't be facing any charges. So much for all that "personal responsibility" and "tough on crime" talk from the Republicans.
I never said that the conservatives do not tout a pro abstinence stance or that the democrats did. I simply pointed out the opportunistic finger pointing that is taking pace which is less than altruistic. Children don't always listen to their parents. To say that the naturally rebellious acts of a child should bare any reflection upon an entire political party is nonsensical. They are the actions of a child.
No, the father will not be facing any charges because the age of consent in Alaska is 16.
You won't know this until the Republicans actually do produce a better candidate. This has not happened in my voting lifetime, and probably a majority of Inforoosters'. Until then, this statement is purely conjecture.
My comment was obviously directed at the supporters of both parties.
Reporters do tend to be liberals/Democrats, I'll concede. But media owners & editors tend to be conservatives/Republicans - will you concede this? And furthermore, can we concede that this constitutes a check/balance system much like the Founders intended for government?
Media mogul ownership does tend to be made up of a conservatives. Conservatives like Rupert Murdoch who hosts fund raisers for Hillary Clinton. This is related to the discussion but does not address the results of the actual journalistic content and how it effects public perception and information. It is clearly obvious that this is what I was addressing and that the ownership of media outlets is only a tangentially related matter. That makes this entire line of discussion nothing more than an attempt to form a contention based on something that is closely related but ultimately off topic. While the conservative ownership is interesting is has zero effect on the on the actual outcome.
By the way I have a degree in broadcast journalism and worked in the TV news media in NY (the #1 media market in the nation) for over three years.
As far as checks and balances, to make reference to something that is put in place to control the workings of the federal government and use it to refer to the workings of the news media is so obtuse that it borders on absurd. For the record our founding fathers used public slander in published news media as political tool. There were no actual ramifications for liable and slander until the NY Times vs. Sullivan Supreme Court case in 1964. Our founding fathers had no intentions whatsoever of there being a system of checks and balances for the press. In fact their perception of it was quite the opposite. So no, I will not concede your point of checks and balances. It is unfounded and nonfactual.
And McCain doesn't? Please. He's not going to win this election on W's coattails, I'll tell you that much. As for McCain on the future... the only thing I've heard him mention anything ahead was when he said "I'm sorry to tell you, but there will be other wars."
I never endorsed McCain. I am dissatisfied with both candidates. Just because I say something negative about one does not mean that I am stating the opposite in reference to the other. To insinuate that I did by drawing this comparison is a knee jerk partisan reaction. It exemplifies the point I made about people reacting to politics emotionally and not pragmatically.
Obama wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and I can't picture W giving a lecture on Constitutional Law.
This is true. Unfortunately, I was referring to how both W and Obama talk a lot without saying anything. I think that you understood that, but have chosen to site off topic information with the intent of derailing the conversation onto a subject that offers you a more comfortable platform. Off topic information, even when factual, does not aid in refuting the initial contention.
I'm not a member of either party and have never voted for a member of either based on pure disgust and principal.
I find this to be a very narcissistic stance. I too am an independent and I will vote for whoever the best viable candidate may be. Democrat or Republican. To vote for a 3rd party or not vote at all based on principle is putting your principles ahead of what is good for America. Not politician is going to be Superman (or Wonder Woman) but you only have two options. And you have to pick the lesser of two evils.
Maniac you are categorically talking out of your ass. I am a hard and fast liberal in all states and senses. BUT I voted almost purely Republican in my last local elections. Why? Because I live in Illinois and my elected officials are almost universally corrupt. The only way to keep the balance is to keep the power in limbo and not cede power to any one party for an extensive period of time.
You assume that because we're interested in a social matter that reflects on a person's stance that we're falling prey to knee jerk reactions. While at the same time you position yourself above the fray by acting like your vote counts if you refuse to be involved in something as petty as a two party system.
By not being willing to take any position and seeing all positions as a failure you're screwing yourself and the rest of us.
This brings up a valid point. It would be more valid were it not for the talking out my ass comment which is a personal off topic attack that immediately removes credibility from the rebuttal. It does however support my contention about people reacting emotionally to politics. Name calling and personal insults are not pragmatic responses. Nor do they lend themselves to productive intelligent discussion.
That being said...
There are exceptions to every rule. It can certainly not be assumed that my comments were meant to reflect 100% of the party affiliated population.
To say that I am not willing to take a position in direct response to me stating my position is inherently flawed. I too am interested in many social matters. For me to compromise my feelings on such matters in order to ally myself with a group that has greater chance of success would be to undermine myself. Joining a group or supporting something simply because it has a greater chance of succeeding is a "mob rules" mentality. It's much easier to give in to such pressures, but very little good ever comes from it. I'm not screwing anybody. The fact that people are so subjugated as to vote for the lesser of two evils is screwing all of us. It's not going to change any time soon, but it's not going to change at all if I succumb to the afore mentioned "mob rules" mentality. The lesser of two evils is still an evil.
For what it's worth, my vote does count. It counts to me for one thing. It also shows that some of us are willing to make a statement about our dissatisfaction. I get one vote and if all that gives me a chance to make a small statement then that's what I'm going to do with it. To vote for something or some one I don't want says nothing.
Please refrain from using immature personal insults in any future responses that you have. Exchangiing different ideas is very productive, but only when done with mutual respect. I have chosen not to reply to your insult in kind. Please show me the same courtesy that I have shown you.
Here's the problem I have with the Bristol Palin thing.
She comes from a community that teaches and encourages abstinence. Her school is not allowed to hand out condoms. She has not been taught "abstinence is best, but if you are going to have sex, use a condom" so when it came down to it, she didn't use one. And I know that teenagers of all stripes get pregnant, whether they were taught to use condoms or not. But she wasn't even given a chance.
This is not a case of bad parenting, but of mixing religion and politics - and that is why it should be talked about. The reason sex ed has been taken out of so many schools is because of religion. This is wrong.
This is also a health concern. If people are having sex without condoms, they are more likely to spread STDs. If teenagers are hiding their actions from their parents, they are probably not getting thorough exams from their doctors and thus are likely to spread any diseases to their next partners.
Yet then by this mentality you would never vote for anyone as it would be impossible for them to have the exact same stance as you regarding all issues.
Oh - and it upsets me to no end when I hear of someone willingly giving up their right to vote. Do you understand how many people fought for their right to vote? How it wasn't all that long ago that women or black men weren't allowed to vote? It seriously makes my heart hurt.
fishingmanic, I understand that you are protesting. Fine. Does anyone who can change the system know that you are protesting? Are you doing anything to change the system and to try to get someone you CAN vote for on the ticket? If so, that's fabulous and the whole point of this country. I sincerely applaud you taking full advantage of our political system.
If not, please take a closer look at the two candidates and figure out which is better for you and vote. My great-grandmother will thank you.