[kj] ot- palin vote

[The Exorcist]

He has the decency to look serious. For sure! But that's one of the
things that bug me. There is no doubt about him being a great orator
he present himself well and smooth. He can play the game very well.

I just don't vote for someone who talks a great game. My life experience
has taught me that many times the really good talkers are the ones that
are full of it.

What about Biden and the constitution? Well as unlikely as it sounds to you
go read up on it. But it does make my point that no one mentions his lack
of understanding and gross misrepresentation.  No NYT, no WAPO no CNN
no NBC no MSNBC.... need I go on?

Eloquent? No. Better on the ball to answer questions? (IMHO) Yes.

In response to your vilification paragraph, that's about all 
politicians not only Palin.
Barney Frank? Chris Dodd? Congress with a lower approval rating than Bush.
According to what you wrote, any republican who would run; you'd say the same
thing (the same would probably apply to most democrats). So your opinion
is not that of her but that of the party.

It doesn't have much to do with Palin.

Enjoy your tea and biscuit... and if you need I just bought a bunch of Kleenex!

Best,
Me :)

At 03:54 AM 10/8/2008, Brendan wrote:

>That smile didn't leave her face the whole

>time. I think one of the reasons she is irking people so much is that

>goddam smarmy omnipresent arrogant grin...it's so evocative of Dubbya.

>Obama on the other hand has the decency to look serious much of the time.

>

>What's all this about Biden and the constitution? That would be a much

>bigger gaff, but it sounds unlikely.

>

>I reiterate, I just don't think that even with Obama's experience she

>would ever be as eloquent a speaker as he.

>

>And in terms of her vilification, in my opinion (and speaking for myself)

>it's because people are sick to the back teeth with arrogant, out of

>touch, smug, militant, lying politicians with hidden agendas, pissing away

>other people's money, the lives of their loved ones, and the reputation of

>their country, in ill-founded wars overseas that are based on manipulative

>deceptive tactics...built on lies and primitive powermongering that's only

>ever going to make the world a crappier place for the majority. The whole

>time spending past present and future generations' money on widely

>unpopular self-serving political ends.

>

>I could go on but I need to sit down and have a cup of tea and biscuit, I

>think I'm having a hot flush...someone hand me a moistie.

>

>Oh and coup de grace: Brigit Bardot agrees with me -

>

>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-eONCWO6eJs-faQpwv7bL-oHYwQ

>

>

> > Soft on her? She's been the most vilified and attacked person in ages.

> >

> > The Bush Doctrine? What about Joe Biden's massive screwup

> > interpreting the constitution? (Wait a second! for someone who

> > has been in the field for 35 years... screws up so bad... Yet no one

> > says a word? AMAZING! This is the friggin CONSTITUTION!

> > But I've heard nary a peep.)

> >

> > As I've pointed out before, the interviewer (Mr. Gibson) himself did

> > not know the Bush doctrine and

> > was immediately smacked down by the individual who coined the phrase

> > (Charles Krauthammer).

> > I've linked to it in my previous emails when we had the whole Palin

> > thing going on.

> > 

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html

> >

> > You may disagree all you want Brendan but you are dead wrong on this.

> > Not to mention that even if you were correct, not knowing the

> > constitution (after being in the service for 35 years)

> > or not knowing the bush doctrine - you tell me which is more pathetic.

> >

> > (And I still stand by my opinion that Obama is a talentless hack who

> > never accomplished anything and was hand-held

> > his entire career. Go and read up on how he achieved every job title

> > he ever had.)

> >

> > Judge not lest ye be judged. :)

> >

> > Cheers,

> > Yos

> >

> >

> > At 12:07 AM 10/8/2008, Brendan wrote:

> >>"Given enough time she'd be just as good with talking points and gotcha's

> >>as he is."

> >>

> >>That's an assumption I disagree with...unlike some others who have gone

> >>soft on her, I think stuff like not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is is

> >>absolutely pathetic, and provides more evidence that she's in there for

> >>reasons of personality / looks / gender / demographic as opposed to

> >> talent

> >>(gasp!).

> >>

> >> > Every poll is rigged... Look at the Daily Kos; they list every poll

> >> > out there and tell everyone to go and vote to change the numbers.

> >> > They do this for Obama, Palin, Mccain and every other friggin person

> >> out

> >> > there.

> >> >

> >> > Look up freep and words similar to that.

> >> >

> >> > You ppl. really need to stop getting so fussy. :)

> >> >

> >> > When the Obama sent out the mass mailer to all their supporters to

> >> > shut down the radio show

> >> > that hosted some of his detractors I don't recall you worrying much

> >> > about bias. :)

> >> >

> >> > BTW, IMHO, her qualifications are just as good as Obama (which means

> >> > ZERO or close to it). He just has his

> >> > talking points down better after campaigning for so long. Given

> >> > enough time she'd be just as good with talking

> >> > points and gotcha's as he is.

> >> >

> >> > Obama is currently in the lead and may very well win the election.

> >> > Life goes on and you prepare for the next one.

> >> >

> >> > BTW.... The same thing that those nasty "republicans" are doing... is

> >> > the same thing you are doing now.

> >> >

> >> > Cheers,

> >> > Me :)

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > At 11:12 AM 10/7/2008, fluw wrote:

> >> >>Forward--

> >> >>

> >> >>PBS has an online poll posted asking if Sarah Palin is

> >> >>qualified.  Apparently the Republicans knew about this in advance

> >> >>and are flooding the voting with YES votes.  I know -- it's only a

> >> >>poll.  But it will be reported on PBS, picked up by mainstream media

> >> >>and can influence undecided voters in swing states. Please do two

> >> >>things -- takes 20 seconds

> >> >>1)  Click on link and vote yourself.  Here's the link:

> >> >>

> >> >><http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html>http://www.pbs.org/now

> >> /polls/poll-435.html

> >> >>2)  Then send this to every single voter you know, irregardless of

> >> >>party affiliation, and  urge them to vote and pass it on.

> >> >>The last thing we need is PBS having to say their viewers think

> >> >>Sarah Palin is qualified unless we ALL vote.

> >> >>Thanks.

> >> >>

> >> >>_______________________________________________

> >> >>Gathering mailing list

> >> >>Gathering at misera.net

> >> >>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

> >> >

> >> > Competition is a barbaric, insensitive ritual that reeks of social

> >> > Darwinism.

> >> > We cannot allow the fittest to survive on our pages. Your loss is

> >> someone

> >> > else's gain, and your gain is someone else's loss. Therefore, losers

> >> > contribute

> >> > to the society and winners take away from it. Being a winner is

> >> > unethical, while

> >> > a society of losers is happy and striving as a collective. In the

> >> > spirit of diversity,

> >> > inclusiveness, and collectivism our contests shall have no winners.

> >> > Everyone is declared a loser, which in our book means an ethical team

> >> > player.

> >> > _______________________________________________

> >> > Gathering mailing list

> >> > Gathering at misera.net

> >> > http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

> >> >

> >>

> >>

> >>_______________________________________________

> >>Gathering mailing list

> >>Gathering at misera.net

> >>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

> >

> > Competition is a barbaric, insensitive ritual that reeks of social

> > Darwinism.

> > We cannot allow the fittest to survive on our pages. Your loss is someone

> > else's gain, and your gain is someone else's loss. Therefore, losers

> > contribute

> > to the society and winners take away from it. Being a winner is

> > unethical, while

> > a society of losers is happy and striving as a collective. In the

> > spirit of diversity,

> > inclusiveness, and collectivism our contests shall have no winners.

> > Everyone is declared a loser, which in our book means an ethical team

> > player.

> > _______________________________________________

> > Gathering mailing list

> > Gathering at misera.net

> > http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

> >

>

>

>_______________________________________________

>Gathering mailing list

>Gathering at misera.net

>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering


Competition is a barbaric, insensitive ritual that reeks of social Darwinism.
We cannot allow the fittest to survive on our pages. Your loss is someone
else's gain, and your gain is someone else's loss. Therefore, losers contribute
to the society and winners take away from it. Being a winner is 
unethical, while
a society of losers is happy and striving as a collective. In the 
spirit of diversity,
inclusiveness, and collectivism our contests shall have no winners.
Everyone is declared a loser, which in our book means an ethical team player.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20081008/4a6fe139/attachment.htm>