likearock

So your position is that getting rid of the Fed will lead to a more stable economy?

I thought that Obama did look weak towards the end of this clip when they were discussing Ahmadinejad. McCain's sarcasm was very effective there. However, I think Obama was strong enough in the rest of the debate so it didn't make that much of a difference overall. That was the part that I liked the best. Sen. Obama could not get out from underneath his "no-preconditions" comment with Iran. Sen. McCain nailed it: "So let me get this straight, we sit down with Ahmadinejad, he says, 'we're going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth' and we say, 'no you're not'...oh please." It wasn't a knock out, but really showed the lack of depth in Sen. Obama's position. I agree. The "no-preconditions" statement is simply unsupportable in some circumstances and he should just let go of it. But let's face it, there's no way this election will be decided on anything other than the economy. And that puts McCain at a distinct disadvantage. I'm not willing to resign to that yet. Neither candidate is setting the agenda yet, and depending on what happens this weekend, the mark will either go up, and stabilize very quickly (thus non-issue) or it won't (thus issue).... Sorry but it's a structural liability we're talking about. American's may be at odds about the bailout and whether or not it will help them personally. But there's one thing that almost everyone agrees on: we got in this mess because someone was asleep at the wheel. And there's no way for Republicans to finesse all those years of unconditional deregulation that they've been advocating. This economic crisis is an object lesson that we can't just let people do whatever they want in a free market.

I thought that Obama did look weak towards the end of this clip when they were discussing Ahmadinejad. McCain's sarcasm was very effective there. However, I think Obama was strong enough in the rest of the debate so it didn't make that much of a difference overall. That was the part that I liked the best. Sen. Obama could not get out from underneath his "no-preconditions" comment with Iran. Sen. McCain nailed it: "So let me get this straight, we sit down with Ahmadinejad, he says, 'we're going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth' and we say, 'no you're not'...oh please." It wasn't a knock out, but really showed the lack of depth in Sen. Obama's position. I agree. The "no-preconditions" statement is simply unsupportable in some circumstances and he should just let go of it. But let's face it, there's no way this election will be decided on anything other than the economy. And that puts McCain at a distinct disadvantage. Edited to add: Democrats would be very wrong to underestimate McCain's skills as a debater. He is very good at finding weaknesses and really nailing the other guy. Here's a great moment from an exchange with Romney during the primaries. He basically took Romney's tacked-on "change" message and turned it around to emphasize how many issues he's flip flopped on.

I thought that Obama did look weak towards the end of this clip when they were discussing Ahmadinejad. McCain's sarcasm was very effective there. However, I think Obama was strong enough in the rest of the debate so it didn't make that much of a difference overall.

Based on what evidence should anyone even consider the existence of a supernatural being? We are all born as atheists, with no concept of a supernatural god. We have to be taught, or some would say, brainwashed, in order to believe in such a concept. While that may be true to a degree, logic dictates that if you follow the chain of teaching/brainwashing back far enough, you must necessarily come to a starting point of someone who wasn't being taught/brainwashed. That is, unless you believe this didactic process has been going on since we evolved from amoebas. It's amazing to me that the discussion has gotten this far without anyone at least providing a working definition of God. Without that, it's pretty meaningless to say God exists, doesn't exist, or make any claims regarding whether supporting evidence exists. So let's say for the sake of argument that God represents a sentient power that spans the universe. Feel free to refine this definition if you see fit. Two questions:Do you believe that there is such a thing as spirituality and, if so, what is its source?How do you account for the fact that similar religious beliefs sprang up independently in a number of different cultures, many of which had no communication with the other?Make no mistake about it, none of the above is evidence that God exists. But it does provide some justification for those of us who choose to remain open minded about the prospect of there being a God. The most scientific approach is to admit that we simply don't know. God probably doesn't exist but we have nothing like a logical proof by contradiction that rules the whole thing out. But that's not enough for the "strong" atheists. They need to believe in God's non-existence as badly as the strong theists need to believe in God.

Where did you get these numbers? There's no way federal spending for education is so high since schools are typically funded locally and public universities are funded by the states. Here's a more realistic breakdown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget#Total_spending

Actually, I don't think that's fair. His reluctance to be more forthcoming with Zapatero and Spain may have had to do with real conflicts with Spain. Zapatero did withdraw all Spanish troops from Iraq in 2004, partly in response to the Madrid bombing. Now you may object to that line of reasoning, but it is different than simply portraying McCain as a boob.

Here's my favorite excerpt:

Yes. I think that virtually all of those functions are either (a) unnecessary, or (b) better performed by private companies. And, don't you think you're overstating Gawain's case there? He was proposing shutdown of federal services. That does not include (local) police, fire and EMS, which are generally maintained by entities that are not allowed to run a budget deficit. You would have to do something about all those soldiers in Iraq though. Last I looked the military was a federal service.

hmm, and maybe once in a while we all should jump without the main and just open the reserve, to "know I can do it without the device (main) should it ever malfunction"? Talk to the BASE jumpers about that. In spite of your sarcasm, there's nothing wrong with what you just said. Do something that puts you outside of your comfort zone. Complacency kills. Try some CREW and you're less likely to panic when you get close to another canopy. Work on landing while in a flat turn so when you have to do it, it's not a new experience. And yes, see if you can do without those safety devices once in a while.

Last Sunday at the Ranch, I finished up a 2-way FF jump, went flat and deployed. My Crossfire's openings are usually very soft, but this one was hard enough to ring my bell. I felt my neck snap backwards and figured I probably had a minor whiplash but I could still move my head and was not in too much pain. I kicked out of a bunch of line twists and was able to land normally. After I landed, I noticed that my right hand was covered with blood but the hand itself wasn't bleeding. That spooked me so I took off my gear in the middle of the LZ, left it there, and walked over to the guy I just jumped with. He took a look at me and said it looked bad, I should go and wash it off. After I did so, I took a look in the mirror and saw that I had a 3 inch gash at the top of my neck just under the chin. Later, I drove to the ER in Poughkeepsie and got stitched up. So what happened? From what I remember, I knew something was wrong as soon as I threw out the PC. The d-bag spun up inducing line twists down almost to the connectors. What must have happened is that, just before line stretch, I pendulumed back from flat to a stand and somehow the risers were in front of me. Then at opening shock, the right riser caught me under the chin and dug into the flesh. I definitely think it was more of a packing problem than body position - I remember being flat and not tracking at deployment. I also remember being very careless with the pack job. You know the feeling when you say to yourself, "Maybe I better repack this thing?" But then you think to yourself about all the crummy pack jobs you've done in the past that have opened perfectly and you just go with it. I think I'll have a different perspective on that going forward. Up until this happened, I naively figured that at worst a bad pack job could lead to a cutaway. But when you get a riser that close to your throat at linestretch you tend to think differently.

Yet another indication that they're still in the process of vetting Sarah Palin? Sarah Palin: AWOL from Sunday circuit by Mark Silva A couple of major political parties have just finished nominating their candidates for president and vice president. Pretty proud, they both are. So everyone will show up at the Sunday morning news talk shows, right? Wrong. Where in the world is Sarah Palin? As our colleague, Don Frederick, notes at Top of the Ticket, Palin is a no-show on the Sunday shows. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, will appear on ABC This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Joe Biden, Obama's running mate, will appear on NBC's Meet the Press. John McCain, the Republican nominee for president - isn't it nice to be able to stop saying, presumptive? - will "Face the Nation'' on CBS. There are a few cable networks out there with Sunday morning news shows. Funny they haven't booked Palin. Maybe not so funny: McCain campaign manager Rick Davis has indicated that they aren't "in any hurry to slot Palin for a Sunday show appearance,'' Frederick notes, "and will do so only if he and other strategists determine it serves the ticket's purposes, not because some may view it as a required initiation for a major political player.'' Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Davis said, "I'd never commit to anything in the future. ... Our strategy is in our hands, not the media's. We're going to do what's in our best interests to try to win the election. If we think going on TV news shows are [sic] in our best interests, we'll do it. If we don't, we won't." So, maybe putting Sarah Palin out there in public where she has to answer questions from a reporter, as opposed to running circles around a fast-reeling TelePrompTer, isn't in McCain's "best interests?'' Palin, conspicuous by her mere absence: This booking strategy may speak volumes about the McCain campaign's confidence in the governor from Alaska.

He really did not. So the thumpers were going with Obama? There is such a thing as low voter turn out you know.... And don't forget about Bob Barr. Even if he takes a few of the R-base votes from McCain, it could be a decisive factor.

Yes, the vetting or lack of it is the story. Here's another article: Palin disclosures raise questions about vetting Alaskans say no one from McCain camp asked them about eventual VP pick By Elisabeth Bumiller The New York Times ST. PAUL - A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket. On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father. Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge. Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. Although the McCain campaign said that Mr. McCain had known about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy before he asked her mother to join him on the ticket and that he did not consider it disqualifying, top aides were vague on Monday about how and when he had learned of the pregnancy, and from whom. While there was no sign that her formal nomination this week was in jeopardy, the questions swirling around Ms. Palin on the first day of the Republican National Convention, already disrupted by Hurricane Gustav, brought anxiety to Republicans who worried that Democrats would use the selection of Ms. Palin to question Mr. McCain’s judgment and his ability to make crucial decisions. At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain’s running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described. A rushed pick? Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could name as his running mate a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania. But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates. Perhaps more important, several Republicans said, Mr. McCain was getting advice that if he did not do something to shake up the race, his campaign would be stuck on a potentially losing trajectory. With time running out — and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, as too predictable — he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later. “They didn’t seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before,” said a Republican close to the campaign. “This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn’t get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge.” Mr. McCain’s advisers said repeatedly on Monday that Ms. Palin was “thoroughly vetted,” a process that would have included a review of all financial and legal records as well as a criminal background check. A McCain aide said that the campaign was well aware of the ethics investigation and that it had looked into it. People familiar with the process said Ms. Palin had responded to a standard form with more than 70 questions. “It was obviously something that anybody Googling Sarah Palin knew was in the news and there was a very thorough vetting done on that and also on the daughter,” the aide said. Locals say no one talked to them Mark Salter, Mr. McCain’s closest adviser, said in an e-mail message that Ms. Palin had been interviewed by Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., a veteran Washington lawyer in charge of the vice-presidential vetting process for Mr. McCain, as well as by other lawyers who worked for Mr. Culvahouse. Mr. Salter did not respond to an e-mail message asking if Ms. Palin had told Mr. Culvahouse and his lawyers that her daughter was pregnant. In Alaska, several state leaders and local officials said they knew of no efforts by the McCain campaign to find out more information about Ms. Palin before the announcement of her selection, Although campaigns are typically discreet when they make inquiries into potential running mates, officials in Alaska said Monday they thought it was peculiar that no one in the state had the slightest hint that Ms. Palin might be under consideration. “They didn’t speak to anyone in the Legislature, they didn’t speak to anyone in the business community,” said Lyda Green, the State Senate president, who lives in Wasilla, where Ms. Palin served as mayor. Representative Gail Phillips, a Republican and former speaker of the State House, said the widespread surprise in Alaska when Ms. Palin was named to the ticket made her wonder how intensively the McCain campaign had vetted her. “I started calling around and asking, and I have not been able to find one person that was called,” Ms. Phillips said. “I called 30 to 40 people, political leaders, business leaders, community leaders. Not one of them had heard. Alaska is a very small community, we know people all over, but I haven’t found anybody who was asked anything.” Trying to keep a secret The current mayor of Wasilla, Dianne M. Keller, said she had not heard of any efforts to look into Ms. Palin’s background. And Randy Ruedrich, the state Republican Party chairman, said he knew nothing of any vetting that had been conducted. State Senator Hollis French, a Democrat who is directing the ethics investigation, said that no one asked him about the allegations. “I heard not a word, not a single contact,” he said. Mr. French, a former prosecutor, said that he was knowledgeable about background checks and that, he, too, was surprised that the campaign had not reached out to state legislative leaders. A number of Republicans said the McCain campaign had to some degree tied its hands in its effort to keep the selection process so secret. “If you really want it to be a surprise, the circle of people that you’re going to allow to know about it is going to be small, and that’s just the nature of it,” said Dan Bartlett, a former counselor to President Bush and an adviser in both of his presidential campaigns. Former McCain strategists disagreed on whether it would have been useful for Ms. Palin’s name to have been more publicly floated before her selection so that issues like the trooper investigation and her daughter’s pregnancy might have already been aired and not seemed so new at the time of her announcement. Catch-22 “Had the story been written about the state trooper three months ago, nobody would care about it anymore,” said Dan Schnur, a former McCain aide who now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “It’s a risk. No matter how great the candidate, it’s a significant risk to put someone on the ticket” who hasn’t been publicly scrutinized. “They obviously felt it was worth the risk to rev up the base and potentially reach out to Clinton supporters,” Mr. Schnur said. But Howard Opinsky, another McCain veteran, said calling attention to Ms. Palin’s possible candidacy during the search process would have undermined the impact of her eventual selection. “Had her name been played out in the press for months and months, she wouldn’t have been seen as so bold,” Mr. Opinsky said. “You either get freshness and you have to live with what you get in your vetting or you lose the freshness.”

Well, it certainly seems to be distracting people from the rest. And the news stories about it seem to be more positive than negative. You really don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter if Obama, Carville, or DailyKos say a word about any of this. They'd be smart to say as little as possible. But the last thing any party wants is to have a member of their ticket be top billing on the supermarket tabloids for the foreseeable future. And make no mistake about it, the raw meat is in the water and the sharks will feast.

I wouldn't call that a "fact." I agree. Calling it a fact is a little strong. It's possible that McCain was told beforehand and just thought, "Ah what the hell, let's make the convention interesting." Oh, Shotgun, have I got an avatar to sell you. Just watch. FWIW, I don't think McCain knew about any of the gotchas beforehand. Let's list a fewInvestigation into whether she fired someone as governor over what should have been a family matter.The fact that she was for the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it.The fact that Alaska has never given back the federal funds that were earmarked for the "bridge to nowhere".Who knows what else? Only time will tell.Of course McCain would welcome her having an unwed pregnant teen daughter along with the other stuff. The whole mix is sure to make those social conservatives ecstatic!

Actually, as the thread-starter, I don't think that is the main topic. The most important issue brought up by this thread is not the pregnancy nor is it the views of Sarah Palin on birth control. It is the fact that McCain, on his first major decision as a potential president, did a botched job when it came to vetting this candidate. Apparently, they are insisting they knew this all along but, if so, how could they possibly be okay with it coming out the way it did? There's no way they knew about this beforehand and the sooner they are honest about that the better it will be.

I disagree. It's only terrible for the GOP if they choose to make a stink about it themselves, and I don't think they will. Pregnant teenage daughters happen to parents all across the political spectrum. I think you misread my post. The problem is not the pregnancy per se, it's the fact that it caught McCain off guard and now they're stuck with the implausible claim that he knew about it all along. As with all things political, it's the cover-up that hurts the most.

Try this. Bottom line: This VP choice was not properly vetted. Rightly or wrongly, that will not reflect well on McCain's judgment.

In all seriousness, McCain has got to come clean on whether he knew or not beforehand. It's just not going to fly that he knew about it but just never mentioned it till now. My guess is that Sarah Palin herself didn't know about it until after she was selected as VP. Any way you slice it, it's a terrible situation for the GOP. Rather than put to rest the other pregnancy, it adds fuel to it.

I guarantee that was probably one of the first things Gov. Palin said to him in the final vetting process... It went something like this I bet: McCain: Good Morning Governor, nice to see you again. Please sit dow--- Palin: Bristol's pregnant. ...and so on...

Wow. Supposedly McCain knew about this beforehand. Yeah, right. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26496189 GOP VP candidate Palin's daughter is pregnant 17-year-old Bristol to keep the child and marry the father ST. PAUL - The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child. Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin's five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said. We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," the Palins' statement said. "Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support," the Palins said. The Palins asked the news media to respect the young couple's privacy. "Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," the statement concluded. McCain knew Senior McCain campaign officials said McCain knew of the daughter's pregnancy when he selected Palin last week as his vice presidential running mate, deciding that it did not disqualify the 44-year-old governor in any way. In the short period since she was announced last Friday, Palin has helped to energize the Republican Party's conservative base, giving the McCain camp fresh energy going into the campaign for the Nov. 4 election against Democrat Barack Obama. McCain officials said the news of the daughter's pregnancy was being released to rebut what one aide called "mud-slinging and lies" circulating on liberal blog sites. According to these rumors, Sarah Palin had faked a pregnancy and pretended to have given birth in May to her fifth child, a son named Trig who has Down syndrome. The rumor was that Trig was actually Bristol Palin's child and that Sarah Palin was the grandmother. A senior McCain campaign official said the McCain camp was appalled that these rumors had not only been spread around liberal blog sites and partisan Democrats, but also were the subject of heightened interest from mainstream news media. "The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama's name in them, is a real anchor around the Democratic ticket, pulling them down in the mud in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their 'campaign of change,"' a senior aide said.

The bridge to nowhere argument may not be as strong as you think. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_nm/usa_politics_palin1_dc I can't help but think of the attack on Kerry about how he was for it before he was against it.

So, 5th kid, supposedly the water breaks and still decides to give a speech in Texas, THEN flys all the way back to Alaska to give birth? All while not "showing" any outward signs of even being pregnant? Something here is a little weird judgement-wise even if it is her child. So, why does all this matter? Why is this "different" and not a private issue between her and her family? Well, there is the whole thing about her promoting abstinence only. If it didn't work with her kid, how the hell are we supposed to believe it will work with "ours"? It's a bigger issue than that. Trig is being held up as the example of how Palin "walks the walk" regarding pro-life. How she decided to give birth to a baby knowing it had Down's. However, if it really was the daughter's child the question arises, "who really made the decision to bring him to term?" Did Palin make the choice for her daughter?

For someone who claims they won't say anything that will get them banned, that's a pretty direct personal attack. Can't you make your point by some other means?