An axiom of good management: Hiring someone who’s capability and job performance you already know is way ahead of taking a chance by drawing a name from a bowl and hoping for the best.
Ask how Obama got his jobs.
I do agree that the Obama supporters don’t have a clue. They don’t even seem to know that John McCain, not Sarah Palin is the one running for president!
Happy RRing,
Jerry
Jerry the recent addition of Palin has earned McCain more likely voters, so it would be fair to make sure that all the facts about a relatively unknown candidate that is helping a party ticket be explored, after all, Palin or Biden are a heart attack or gunshot away from being president!!!
Also she’s new on the scene. I had no idea who she was. The more I looked, the more odd and reckless the choice seemed. I’m still really startled that her husband was/is a secessionist, and it doesn’t seem to matter. I’m startled that her answers to questions, in the one single interview she gave, were abut an inch deep and stly slogans.
The other thing about Palin that annoyed me was the tone of her speech, which basically said “all those who aren’t like me suck.” That is, if you aren’t from a small town, aren’t a fundamentalist, don’t share her views you aren’t in some way a real American. I found it smug and patronizing, and I’m fed up with that particular kind of attack, frankly. My “family values” are no less real or deeply felt or important to me than hers, except I don’t use my kids as campaign props, and the media, all the media, is constantly talking about , say, NASCAR fans as “real Americans” and everyone else as some kind of fake. It’s stupid and irritating,. It resonated well with many republicans, who feel, it seems clear, a lot of resentment of elites. Everyone’s resentful. Great.
Obama was at least somewhat conciliatory, as in that moment in the speech when he insisted that red and blue americans are all equally Americans.
Mike O’Malley quote: "The other thing about Palin that annoyed me was the tone of her speech, which basically said “all those who aren’t like me suck.” That is, if you aren’t from a small town, aren’t a fundamentalist, don’t share her views you aren’t in some way a real American. "
Can you give us an example of where/when she ever said this?
I wonder what Rush Limbaugh’s newsletter has on this? 
You know Richard, I can’t–it was the general tone of it. I could try to look at the transcript, but I’m off to class in a minute
The lead paragraph of this sort of captured my feelings.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html
I’ll see if I can’t be more specific later
by the way, today she again repeated the claim that she said “no thanks” to the bridge to nowhere. it’s a complete lie, it’s been documented with absolute clarity many times now, but she keeps saying it. I frankly just don’t know what to make of that
mike omalley said:
You know Richard, I can't--it was the general tone of it. I could try to look at the transcript, but I'm off to class in a minuteThe lead paragraph of this sort of captured my feelings.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html
I’ll see if I can’t be more specific later
by the way, today she again repeated the claim that she said “no thanks” to the bridge to nowhere. it’s a complete lie, it’s been documented with absolute clarity many times now, but she keeps saying it. I frankly just don’t know what to make of that
Actually, I’ve gotten the same “general tone” from many of your posts. Where you and I don’t agree, you tend to take a very superior attitude towards me, witness you gotcha question about “The Battle of Cowpens.” To set the record straight, it should be “The Battle of the Cow Pens,” but then I pick nits. Tell me what you know about “Taffey 3” and its significance in WWII.
Yes, at first, she was in favor of the bridge, but on further study, she decided that it wasn’t. What is wrong with that?
Oh, BTW, Time Magazine is no longer a bastion of excellent journalism. It used to be, but it is now lumped in with rags like the New York Slimes, and NewsWeak. You might try reading “The Weekly Standard,” or the National Review." Those just might open your eyes.
On another subject, and you take a look at your thread on porting to improve sound? I have some questions for you.
Trains forever!
Interesting…the Time piece mentioned above is catagorized (by them) as an “article”-- except it’s wording and tone place it clearly in the realm of a partisan op-ed commentary… Are the lines really THAT blurred today? or has Time become what used to be called a YELLOW journal??? (Mostly a rhetorical question considering who the OWNER is)
BTW, from what I can tell I have as much in common with the annointed golden one (Sen Obama) as a pig does with a pigeon… The very fact that Gov Palin is NOT perfect makes her MORE attractive to me, not less.
Are there “better qualified” people out there (on BOTH sides)? undoubtably… but are there any egotistical, visionary, selfless, meglomaniacal, or just plain STUPID enough to WANT the job?
Well said, Mik.
There are two jobs that I would not consider doing. The first is President of the USA, and the second is USMC Drill Instructor.
Steve, I’m really not sure what you want from me on the Battle of Cowpens. I think it’s wonderful that you knew about it as I said before Historians–including military historians–routinely refer to it as “The Battle of Cowpens,” not “the battle of THE Cow pens.” Here, for example, is a citation from the Journal of Military History
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lownote/_forumfiles/cowpens.jpg)
I did a search for the phrase “battle of cowpens” at jstor, which is an online archive of 1000s of scholarly journals going back to the 20s
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lownote/_forumfiles/cowpens1.jpg)
Then I did a search for “battle of the Cowpens”
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lownote/_forumfiles/thecowpens.jpg)
As you can see, it’s much more regularly referred to the way I did. But I don’t care–my point, as you can see if you read my original post, was not that you were ignorant–you clearly are not. My point was that many important historical events are forgotten by many people What matters regarding the bridge is she was for the bridge until she started running with McCain, when she suddenly decided she had been against it. She was ALWAYS for the bridge and complained when CONGRESS canceled it. She is lying about how she opposed the bridge–that’s the important thing
Mike,
I can’t help it if your friends and colleagues are all wrong. That is their problem, not mine. 
Cow Pens being pens to secure cows is what that area was, and being incorrect about it will not change the fact. It is much like using the term “gender,” when you actually mean “sex,” but are afraid to say so. But, I am willing to let the matter drop.
Guv’nor Palin decided that the bridge was unnecessary long before she was selected to be McCain’s VP candidate. Liberal press lies about that will not change that fact, either.
Steve Featherkile said:Steve, that's just not true. As in, "a lie." As in "factually wrong." As in "objectively a falsehood."
Guv'nor Palin decided that the bridge was unnecessary long before she was selected to be McCain's VP candidate. Liberal press lies about that will not change that fact, either.
She was for it until CONGRESS canceled it, at which point she expressed her regret that it was canceled, and said that she would not use state money to build it.
It can’t be any clearer. She ran on a platform supporting it. The when McCain, ironically, made a national issue of it, CONGRESS canceled it–that is, Congress said “we will not provide money for this bridge.”
At that point Palin, facing the possibility of having to pay for the bridge out of state money, announced reluctantly that she was canceling the project
She was only against it when Alaskans had to pay for it, rather than you and me, and she was only against it after Congress canceled it.
Basically Congress said to Sarah Palin “thanks but no thank no that bridge to nowhere. If you want that bridge you can build it yourselves.” And Palin said “oh, if WE have to pay for it, then let’s cancel it.”
But she is running arund claimng te opposite–she is claming that Cngress said, Hey, we’l build yu a bridge" and she said “no thanks”
She is lying. Plain simple english
Here’s the link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901
And here’s description, including quotes
"Here’s what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor’s seat (via Nexis):
5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
"Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."
So she was for the bridge and insisted that Alaska had to act quickly—the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority. By that point, the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the earmark. When the Alaska Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin said no, she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state’s list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress. Finally, on September 19, 2007, she decided to redirect funds away from the project altogether:
"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."
So she canceled the project AFTER Congress cut funding
How do you read that statement? Is she against the bridge, or is she sorry Congress cut the funding?
Mike,
For some reason, I got the impression that the hoopla was that she didn’t change her mind about the bridge until after she accepted the VP slot. I thought it was you who made that assertion, but I can’t find it now, after spending about 30 seconds looking for it. I’ve got track to lay this afternoon, so I can’t spend more time looking.
"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin.
I think that statement pretty much settles the matter, don’t you? The rest seems to me to be spin. As to whether she lied, I don’t read it that way, you do, and we will just have to leave it that way.
What have you found on Taffey 3? I am pretty sure you will have to go digging for it because it is out of your field. Still, it is as important to US History as the Cow Pens.
Steve
Richard Smith said:TonyWalsham said:
Hey Richard.It took me precisely 5 seconds to locate at least 10 sites where the Republicans are attacking Biden with “trumped up charges”.
Perhaps those erudite contributors here will find them just as easily and you will have your request granted poste haste.
Hehe Tony. Precisely my point. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the posts to appear here though.
Steve Featherkile said:
"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin.I think that statement pretty much settles the matter, don’t you? The rest seems to me to be spin. As to whether she lied, I don’t read it that way, you do, and we will just have to leave it that way.
Steve
No, it doesn’t settle it at all. She was happy to have the bridge when you and I were going to pay for it, and then when Congress cut funding–when she would have to pay for it herself–she canceled it. What she says on the stump–twelve times, on tape-is “I told congress no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.” That’s a lie. What she actually told congress is “please keep funneling more than 300 billion in taxpayer dollars to build this bridge.” That’s what she said to Congress.
Ralph Berg said:Richard Smith said:TonyWalsham said:
Hey Richard.It took me precisely 5 seconds to locate at least 10 sites where the Republicans are attacking Biden with “trumped up charges”.
Perhaps those erudite contributors here will find them just as easily and you will have your request granted poste haste.
Hehe Tony. Precisely my point. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the posts to appear here though.
What point?
Mike has debunked several posts on LSC about Obama that were flat out false.
Anything I have personally posted on Sarah Palin has come from reputable news outlets and not some forwarded e-mail.
Ralph