youngdan wrote:

You are aware these were 2 separate events and the 1.3 million Paulites who voted in the primaries have no intention of voting for McCain.

Does Ron Paul know that? Does he support McCain?

youngdan wrote:

You are aware these were 2 separate events and the 1.3 million Paulites who voted in the primaries have no intention of voting for McCain.

Who will they vote for ? I watched last night and they are a very mixed bunch.

youngdan wrote:

You are aware these were 2 separate events and the 1.3 million Paulites who voted in the primaries have no intention of voting for McCain.

Well I never, that would explain why Lieberman didn't mention economics or Austria.

Lieberman's speech was a very generous speech strongly endorsing his friend McCain. Must have been a difficult one for him to give.

Across the river (see I wasn't asleep) there were a lot of good points being made by Ron Paul and Co.

There is a certain surreal quality about American elections that amuses me. Democrats going on about Palin's lack of experience is like turkeys voting for Christmas.

When you look at the main choices thrown up by democracies, you begin to think there has to be a better way. Obama or McCain, FF or FG, Labour or Conservatives. Often there is virtually nothing of any real substance to distinguish them. How would you like your porridge Squire, luke warm or cold? Yum.

Squire wrote:

youngdan wrote:

You are aware these were 2 separate events and the 1.3 million Paulites who voted in the primaries have no intention of voting for McCain.

Well I never, that would explain why Lieberman didn't mention economics or Austria.

Lieberman's speech was a very generous speech strongly endorsing his friend McCain. Must have been a difficult one for him to give.

Across the river (see I wasn't asleep) there were a lot of good points being made by Ron Paul and Co.

There is a certain surreal quality about American elections that amuses me. Democrats going on about Palin's lack of experience is like turkeys voting for Christmas.

When you look at the main choices thrown up by democracies, you begin to think there has to be a better way. Obama or McCain, FF or FG, Labour or Conservatives. Often there is virtually nothing of any real substance to distinguish them. How would you like your porridge Squire, luke warm or cold? Yum.

And by some accounts, it doesn't matter who gets it, they'll be run by the usual mob one way or the other.

cactus flower wrote:

And by some accounts, it doesn't matter who gets it, they'll be run by the usual mob one way or the other.

That would be my view.

IMO Nader would be an outstanding president and many of the also rans would be much better than the two everyone has to chose between. Of course Nader won't get elected as the system is so skewed as to ensure that people like him have virtually no chance.

Squire wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

And by some accounts, it doesn't matter who gets it, they'll be run by the usual mob one way or the other.

That would be my view.

IMO Nader would be an outstanding president and many of the also rans would be much better than the two everyone has to chose between. Of course Nader won't get elected as the system is so skewed as to ensure that people like him have virtually no chance.

As Ken Livingstone said, if democracy worked, they'd ban it

Now an understanding of politics is becoming more apparent to multitudes. There is no difference and the big boys control both. Paul said yesterday that he likes Barr and Baldwin. He can not openly endorse them while being a Republican but Barr introduced Paul at the big conservative shin-dig a few months back and Baldwin campaigned for Paul. The Paulites want to grab back the Republican party or what is left of it and then the Libertarian and Constitution parties led by the 2 others would join it. This would be a republican party far different from what it is today and America would mind it's business.

Paul does not support McCain and his followers would never vote for McCain.

Two serious mistakes so far, 'the bitter' comments, not picking Hillary for VP slot and now this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZd_Y_D-RaA&eurl=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/mccain_lipstick.html

This is a serious mistake, and his next sentence (not on this link) about wrapping up a fish and calling it change and it will still stink after 8 years isn't a lot better.

Who is advising him, has he no judgement of his own?

To be honest though, such comments would not be scrutinised to the same extent if they were made in virtually any other State than America. Their elections are so peculiarly personality rather than issue based that you have all this shite. What Rabbitte said regarding Paris Hilton during the election here was far worse but alot of people just found it funny.

You are correct though, this sort of stuff does have a bearing yonder.

I heard the pig thing a few hours ago, and didn't think a great deal of it. I certainly would not call it a smear. Palin started the analogy contest..

But as johnfás says above, I have no clue how the yanks will take it.

To win Obama needs to improve his rating with women and in small town America.

The remark has to be seen in that contest. He deliberately did not pick Hillary and expects her to run around and patch things up for him. This will be seen as a continuation of the misogyny of the Primary campaign. It will not play well with female voters.

You don't imply the female on the other side is a pig with lipstick. Utterly stupid. It is not even funny.

i don't doubt obama's intelligence, just his common sense.

whats wrong with america nowadays, intellectualism/education seems to be a dirty word. even clinton who was a rhodes scholar and very sharp etc had to play the sax (in more ways than one!!!) to "appeal" to the common man.

Hold on, I think you may be taking Obama's pig comment out of context.
He wasn't calling Palin a pig with lipstick.
He was referring to the way McCain is now campaigning on the theme of 'change' even though he is not very different to Bush.

eoinmn wrote:

Hold on, I think you may be taking Obama's pig comment out of context.
He wasn't calling Palin a pig with lipstick.
He was referring to the way McCain is now campaigning on the theme of 'change' even though he is not very different to Bush.

No; it quite clearly was meant to have a double meaning as was the next sentence, referring to an old fish. Really stupid.

Squire wrote:

eoinmn wrote:

Hold on, I think you may be taking Obama's pig comment out of context.
He wasn't calling Palin a pig with lipstick.
He was referring to the way McCain is now campaigning on the theme of 'change' even though he is not very different to Bush.

No; it quite clearly was meant to have a double meaning as was the next sentence, referring to an old fish. Really stupid.

The context is absolutely clear. There is no double entendre here. McCain has also used the exact same analogy in the past in reference to change. Once again the republicans are feigning shock and disgust and playing the man not the ball.

If I was Palin, I wouldn't be too impressed by the fact that when republicans hear the word pig, they automatically associate it with her.

There's absolutely nothing shocking in that snippet. He isn't calling Palin a pig at all.

johnfás wrote:

There's absolutely nothing shocking in that snippet. He isn't calling Palin a pig at all.

She isn't even mentioned in the context. I just hope the American public can see through such blatant lies. I have my doubts though.

The strange thing is, the person who hosted on youtube thought it was.

His response.

And the noble Mr McCain responding to one of Hilary's proposed healthcare policies. Sauce for the goose, as they say.

Obama wasn't calling Palin a pig. He was calling McCain a pig. He was calling Pallin The Lipstick which was now being applied to make the Pig look pretty. It was in fact a very apt analogy. It is spot on. Without the cosmetics, in this case Palin, then McCain is still the unattractive Pig he was before

youngdan wrote:

Obama wasn't calling Palin a pig. He was calling McCain a pig. He was calling Pallin The Lipstick which was now being applied to make the Pig look pretty. It was in fact a very apt analogy. It is spot on. Without the cosmetics, in this case Palin, then McCain is still the unattractive Pig he was before

If taken with the next sentence about the old fish he was quite clearly referring to Palin as a pig (pit Bull ref) and McCain as an old fish. At least that was the way it sounded to me. Whatever way you look at it it wasn't the brightest thing to say.

The whole thing is more indicative of the superstitious, uptight and worried American psyche combined with Fox News 'journalism' than any slur on Obama's character.

I'm sure there are plenty of things which could indicate poor character on Obama's part, but this isn't one of them.

Squire wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Obama wasn't calling Palin a pig. He was calling McCain a pig. He was calling Pallin The Lipstick which was now being applied to make the Pig look pretty. It was in fact a very apt analogy. It is spot on. Without the cosmetics, in this case Palin, then McCain is still the unattractive Pig he was before

If taken with the next sentence about the old fish he was quite clearly referring to Palin as a pig (pit Bull ref) and McCain as an old fish. At least that was the way it sounded to me. Whatever way you look at it it wasn't the brightest thing to say.

Hardly.

Quote :

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change,'" Obama continued, "it's still gonna stink after eight years."

Has McCain been in power for eight years? The stinky fish is not an individual, it is the republican package. You see controversy here, because you wish to.

The phony war is over and the election has begun. I'll be amazed if all we see is a few words twisted about. I would guess that most Fox viewers have already decided how to vote: ironically it may be youtube that does the damage.