Discriminations

John writes:

>>>" Especially because it’s clear to all sentient observers that Palin won."

ROTFLMAO!

Sarah Palin wasn't debating Joe Biden as much as she was debating The Daily Show, Letterman, Tina Fey and Adobe Photoshop.

You're a good Republican, John, and an outstanding spinmeister. I'll give you that.

Just admit it, the bar was set so low for Sarah Palin that all she had to do was show up, form complete sentences and keep from fainting for 90 minutes.

What's more telling, is the reaction of people like YOU.

For you, John Rosenberg, of all people, to so thoroughly and full-throatedly embrace the spectacular mediocrity that is Governor Palin...
...and claim that she "won" a debate where she said out loud on camera:

>>>"And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/

Well, hey--that's a neat trick! If you only have to give answers to the questions that you like, or are prepared for, this debate thing is a piece of cake!

So when Gwen Ifill asks Palin to respond to a question about the Bankruptcy bill and Senator Biden's stance on it, she can give this answer:

>>>"PALIN: That is not so, but because that's just a quick answer, I want to talk about, again, my record on energy versus your ticket's energy ticket, also."

But then again, she's a Republican, right John? And that's the only REAL credentials she needs from most conservatives nowadays.

The people who should be outraged today are Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snow and Christine Todd Whitmann, who would have ALL been far better representatives of the GOP last night.

--Cobra

"if the airwaves weren’t clogged afterwards with legions of self-important pundits telling us what to think about what we just saw."

I had the very same thoughts. And I agree, I think Palin did fabulous. It all depends on who you talk to though. I talked to a black female today who of course is voting for Obama. She seemed to have such a huge problem with Palin, and must of what she seemed bothered by was due to her looks, and easy going personality. It seems this black militant woman needs to see and hear more militancy to feel comfortable about someone. I am running into that a lot. Its troubling.

Then this black woman goes on to chastise Palin because she has 5 kids, one of them handicapped, and that Palin doesn't have the time to be VP!!!! She was outraged that someone with kids would even consider such a high job in politics! Talk about ignorance AND double standards. Its something I would have expected to hear coming out of a man's mouth. But NO!

I could just go on and on about the ignorance I have encountered today with regards to this. The poster above me is just a further exasperation but I can deal with it. After all, its a common tactic of Dem's and libtards [as if they are not one in the same]to attack, spew rhetoric, and further try to confuse people.

I agree about the "winning" part. My husband and I were talking about this earlier this evening. The debates are a chance for the voters to see the opposing candidates and get a feel for how they distinguish themselves from each other. It's not a thing you "win" unless your opponent goes entirely to pieces.

As to the low expectations of Palin going in - that's not the GOP's doing. My boss was laughing the other day about Palin saying she could see Russia from her porch. Well, Palin never said that. Tina Fey did. We're going to let Saturday Night Live pick our next President. How dumb is that?

(Cobra: John was being funny in his last sentence. This is made clear in the sentence before that, where he said, "As I said all the endless commentary about who “won” is useless nonsense.".)

Hmm...the humorlessness of Obama is spreading to the Obamabots. This is grim indeed.

I think there is a fundamental dishonesty at work on all the (cable news) networks: they present a large number of highly partisan individuals as "analysts". For instance, Bob Shrum on MSNBC. He has played an active role in 7 (or is it now 8?) Democratic presidential campaigns, all of them losers. Yet, he is presented as an "analyst" when he comments on the VP debate, and any other time, too, I presume. Shrum (and scads of others like him, both Democrats and Republicans) is not an "analyst": he is an actively partisan individual pushing his political viewpoint.

Winston Smith writes:

>>>"It's the third of the month, Cobra. Shouldn't you be standing in line to cash your welfare check?"

LOL, that would be funny if it weren't for the fact that the U.S. Government just used tax payer money to cash a $800+ BILLION dollar "welfare check". George Bush cut to the FRONT of that line, huh Wince?

I guess "race-baiting" doesn't have as much luster when you can't even afford fish bait anymore.

Ann writes:

>>>"The poster above me is just a further exasperation but I can deal with it. After all, its a common tactic of Dem's and libtards [as if they are not one in the same]to attack, spew rhetoric, and further try to confuse people."

You know what, Ann? I appreciate your viewpoint. I really do, because you don't hide your agenda. The link you provided is absolutely precious, and the first page of the blog it links to is MUST READING for all Discriminations fans.

http://stopblamingwhitey.com/

I really find your your "ABOUT" page, interesting, too.

http://stopblamingwhitey.com/archives/00000005.html

The only problem is, the authors of the blog still remain anonymous. Are you responsible, Ann...or are you just promoting this site?

--Cobra

JR, the comments here are moderated, and the one by Winston Smith shouldn't have gotten through. The commenter "Ann" runs a race-hate site, virulently anti-black and anti-semitic. That's her right, but she links to the site via her name. Are you sure you want to advertise it?

Cobra, what does it matter? And why are you not actually addressing the points. Seems like all you like to do is flood the posts with comments that really have nothing to do with... anything really aside from trying to slam another poster.

Ann writes:

>>>"Cobra, what does it matter? And why are you not actually addressing the points."

Ann, do you appreciate the irony of your statement, given what Gov. Sarah Palin said during the debate?

>>>"And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/

If you're condemning me for doing the same thing you're lauding Sarah Palin for...

Ann writes:

>>>"Seems like all you like to do is flood the posts with comments that really have nothing to do with... anything really aside from trying to slam another poster."

I've actually been kind of gentle on this one, and like I said, I appreciate it when REAL agendas aren't hidden.

And I'll let you in on a little secret, Ann...just between you and me--

You make me smile, because folks like you reinforce my arguments so soundly, the moderate, "based on principle" anti-affirmative action types are left dumbfounded.

I sincerely thank you for that.

--Cobra

Ann's website is really something special. Nice company you keep here John.

One question though, if Obama is guilty by association with Ayers and others, do we apply that same standard to everyone?
As far as the debate is concerned, Real Clear Politics averages national election polls and I think they've got Obama up on average by about 6.2 points with leads in most battleground states.

SCOREBOARD!

Best, Hussein Hull

Dom mentions above that I should not have posted Winston Smith's comment (at least one of them) with personal invective. He's right. I shouldn't have, I"ve now deleted it, and I apologize to readers, and specifically to Cobra, for allowing it.

When I get backed up my "moderating" consists primarily in determining that a comment is not obvious spam and is at least marginally responsive to issues raised by my post or by other commenters in response to the post. From now on I'll try to read them more closely (time permitting), and so let me remind readers once again to keep personal insults out of your comments.

"You make me smile, because folks like you reinforce my arguments so soundly"

Cobra, Ann's website makes you smile? Do you like having your arguments reinforced that much, really? Wouldn't you be happier if you found out that they were unfounded?

I'm not suggesting that you put your head in the sand and drop your arguments. But if for instance, a white person looked at the statistics on crime and "smiled" because his decision to stay far away from black folks appeared to be bolstered, I'd think he was a bad person.

Do what you have to do, but you don't need to be happy about somebody else leaving the path. "Love delights not in evil, but rejoices in the truth" - we can't take the second part of that and discard the first. IMO.

Laura writes:

>>>"Cobra, Ann's website makes you smile? Do you like having your arguments reinforced that much, really? Wouldn't you be happier if you found out that they were unfounded?"

If I react with anger or bitterness everytime I see or read something egregious, I'd be a taciturn, miserable person, and Laura...that's just not who I am.

Folks like Ann, or that guy with the stuffed monkey at the Sarah Palin rally tickle me because they're out in the open.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/palin_rally_attracts_monkeydol.html

They're exposed. They aren't hiding their feelings, (although the guy tried to hide the Obama sticker that was wrapped around the doll's head, and pass the stuffed monkey off to a stranger's kid when he saw the camera on him) and I know where they stand.

The people I get serious about, Laura, are the ones that "smile" in my face, say the P.C. thing, but harbor similiar views.

--Cobra