"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

My wife tells me that Biden is a "hottie." I don't find Ms. Palin even
slightly physically attractive, and that accent she has...what the hell
is that all about?


Your eye surgery was a failure.

Eisboch

Sorry...I simply don't find Palin attractive, and it isn't because of her
politics. She looks short and dumpy to me, she has no sense of style, she
has a lousy hairdo, and those glasses...jesus.

There are plenty of women of Palin's approximate "vintage" and older I
find attractive. My wife, for starters, and a whole range of movie stars,
such as Salma Hayek, Catherine Deneuve, Halle Berry, Jennifer Anniston, et
cetera.


I heard a commentator explaining the "librarian" look. Seems she does that
purposely, to avoid speculation that her popularity is based on her looks.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

My wife tells me that Biden is a "hottie." I don't find Ms. Palin even
slightly physically attractive, and that accent she has...what the hell
is that all about?

Your eye surgery was a failure.

Eisboch
Sorry...I simply don't find Palin attractive, and it isn't because of her
politics. She looks short and dumpy to me, she has no sense of style, she
has a lousy hairdo, and those glasses...jesus.

There are plenty of women of Palin's approximate "vintage" and older I
find attractive. My wife, for starters, and a whole range of movie stars,
such as Salma Hayek, Catherine Deneuve, Halle Berry, Jennifer Anniston, et
cetera.


I heard a commentator explaining the "librarian" look. Seems she does that
purposely, to avoid speculation that her popularity is based on her looks.

Eisboch




Is that the rationale behind the frumpy hairdo and clothes?

Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Like many others, I watched Sarah Palin's introduction and speech given at
the RNC. And, like many others I was surprised and impressed with the
fresh face, style and apparent commitment of the surprise VP candidate's
positions.

But now, as the dust settles and the novelty starts to wear off, I am
having second thoughts.

Forget the troopergate stuff .... and the other potentially damaging
accusations of her record.

What is bugging me is the fact that her speech was written by a writer
working for Bush's administration.
Delivered well, obviously, but apparently not her original thoughts.

Then, the next day, at a rally in Wisconsin with McCain, she basically
repeated the same attention getting lines contained in the RNC speech.
Nothing new. Nothing original.

The crowd still cheered and howled as she delivered the quips written for
her, as if they were hearing them for the first time.
But then, McCain addressed the crowd and asked if they had seen her speak
at the RNC. The place erupted with another round of applause and cheers.

What the hell? They already heard it the first time, plus probably a
gazillion times more as the news media played and replayed the highlights.
Yet, they still react as if it was fresh material.

Obama's campaign does the same thing of course. Canned, packaged talking
points.

Bring on the one on one debates. This media circus is getting old.

Eisboch


Way too much time on their hands. Your system drags all the crap out way
too long.
Tomorrow, our Prime Minister will call a federal election and it will be all
over on Oct 14.
5 weeks is plenty to listen to the lies and bull****.




You have a parliamentary system, and typically that results in known
quantities taking over the PM and cabinet positions. How likely is it in
your system that a complete unknown of no particular national abilities
like Sarah Palin would be under consideration for the number two
position in your government?

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Like many others, I watched Sarah Palin's introduction and speech given
at the RNC. And, like many others I was surprised and impressed with
the fresh face, style and apparent commitment of the surprise VP
candidate's positions.

But now, as the dust settles and the novelty starts to wear off, I am
having second thoughts.

Forget the troopergate stuff .... and the other potentially damaging
accusations of her record.

What is bugging me is the fact that her speech was written by a writer
working for Bush's administration.
Delivered well, obviously, but apparently not her original thoughts.

Then, the next day, at a rally in Wisconsin with McCain, she basically
repeated the same attention getting lines contained in the RNC speech.
Nothing new. Nothing original.

The crowd still cheered and howled as she delivered the quips written
for her, as if they were hearing them for the first time.
But then, McCain addressed the crowd and asked if they had seen her
speak at the RNC. The place erupted with another round of applause and
cheers.

What the hell? They already heard it the first time, plus probably a
gazillion times more as the news media played and replayed the
highlights. Yet, they still react as if it was fresh material.

Obama's campaign does the same thing of course. Canned, packaged
talking points.

Bring on the one on one debates. This media circus is getting old.

Eisboch


Way too much time on their hands. Your system drags all the crap out way
too long.
Tomorrow, our Prime Minister will call a federal election and it will be
all over on Oct 14.
5 weeks is plenty to listen to the lies and bull****.


You have a parliamentary system, and typically that results in known
quantities taking over the PM and cabinet positions. How likely is it in
your system that a complete unknown of no particular national abilities
like Sarah Palin would be under consideration for the number two position
in your government?

Not likely...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_...ster_of_Canada

Don White wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Like many others, I watched Sarah Palin's introduction and speech given
at the RNC. And, like many others I was surprised and impressed with
the fresh face, style and apparent commitment of the surprise VP
candidate's positions.

But now, as the dust settles and the novelty starts to wear off, I am
having second thoughts.

Forget the troopergate stuff .... and the other potentially damaging
accusations of her record.

What is bugging me is the fact that her speech was written by a writer
working for Bush's administration.
Delivered well, obviously, but apparently not her original thoughts.

Then, the next day, at a rally in Wisconsin with McCain, she basically
repeated the same attention getting lines contained in the RNC speech.
Nothing new. Nothing original.

The crowd still cheered and howled as she delivered the quips written
for her, as if they were hearing them for the first time.
But then, McCain addressed the crowd and asked if they had seen her
speak at the RNC. The place erupted with another round of applause and
cheers.

What the hell? They already heard it the first time, plus probably a
gazillion times more as the news media played and replayed the
highlights. Yet, they still react as if it was fresh material.

Obama's campaign does the same thing of course. Canned, packaged
talking points.

Bring on the one on one debates. This media circus is getting old.

Eisboch

Way too much time on their hands. Your system drags all the crap out way
too long.
Tomorrow, our Prime Minister will call a federal election and it will be
all over on Oct 14.
5 weeks is plenty to listen to the lies and bull****.

You have a parliamentary system, and typically that results in known
quantities taking over the PM and cabinet positions. How likely is it in
your system that a complete unknown of no particular national abilities
like Sarah Palin would be under consideration for the number two position
in your government?

Not likely...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_...ster_of_Canada


And you think the American election and government system is messed up
compared to yours? Ha Ha Ha Ha

Don White wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Like many others, I watched Sarah Palin's introduction and speech given
at the RNC. And, like many others I was surprised and impressed with
the fresh face, style and apparent commitment of the surprise VP
candidate's positions.

But now, as the dust settles and the novelty starts to wear off, I am
having second thoughts.

Forget the troopergate stuff .... and the other potentially damaging
accusations of her record.

What is bugging me is the fact that her speech was written by a writer
working for Bush's administration.
Delivered well, obviously, but apparently not her original thoughts.

Then, the next day, at a rally in Wisconsin with McCain, she basically
repeated the same attention getting lines contained in the RNC speech.
Nothing new. Nothing original.

The crowd still cheered and howled as she delivered the quips written
for her, as if they were hearing them for the first time.
But then, McCain addressed the crowd and asked if they had seen her
speak at the RNC. The place erupted with another round of applause and
cheers.

What the hell? They already heard it the first time, plus probably a
gazillion times more as the news media played and replayed the
highlights. Yet, they still react as if it was fresh material.

Obama's campaign does the same thing of course. Canned, packaged
talking points.

Bring on the one on one debates. This media circus is getting old.

Eisboch

Way too much time on their hands. Your system drags all the crap out way
too long.
Tomorrow, our Prime Minister will call a federal election and it will be
all over on Oct 14.
5 weeks is plenty to listen to the lies and bull****.

You have a parliamentary system, and typically that results in known
quantities taking over the PM and cabinet positions. How likely is it in
your system that a complete unknown of no particular national abilities
like Sarah Palin would be under consideration for the number two position
in your government?

Not likely...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_...ster_of_Canada




Not with this as a duty:

The official duties of the deputy prime minister are to answer questions
pertaining to overall government policy during Question Period, and to
chair the cabinet in the absence of the prime minister.

That's most certainly not a job for Ms. Palin.

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 07:50:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Bring on the one on one debates. This media circus is getting old.

Allow me to put a couple of thoughts down about the media circus.

1 - Take a look at the past weeks worth of headers posted by Harry.
Take a look at the past weeks headlines from the MSM. Tell me what
you see. Cast yourself in the role of an objective citizen and
evaluate what, if any, points are being made about Governor Palin.
She's everything that liberals promote as being "liberated" including,
oddly, having actually made a choice with respect to aborting or not
aborting a baby. They couldn't flat out say "she was wrong not to
abort a defective baby" (although a lot of diarists/commentators on
DailyKOS and Democratic Underground did make that point) so they had
to sidle up to it from different directions up to and including the
most despicable thing I've ever seen in politics - attacking a 17 year
old daughter of a candidate for office.

2 - Understand that there is a flat out attempt to suborn the message
of anybody who does not believe as they do - that ideology trumps
practicality and pragmatism. That above all, people are basically
stupid. I give you this as an example:

"New Rule: Republicans need to stop saying Barack Obama is an elitist,
or looks down on rural people, and just admit you don't like him
because of something he can't help, something that's a result of the
way he was born. Admit it, you're not voting for him because he's
smarter than you. . . . Barack Obama can't help it if he's a magna cum
laude Harvard grad and you're a Wal-Mart shopper who resurfaces
driveways with your brother-in-law."

Guess who said that.

This is the meta-narrative - it's so neo-fascist in construct as to be
genuinely scary. It's sophisticated race and class baiting which is
another meme of the neo-fascist.

3 - The meta-narrative has to be controlled/or adjusted in an orgy of
Orwellian New Speak.

Example:

The lead sentence of the New York Times article on Governor Palin's
speech the morning after as it was originally published:

"The potential power of Ms. Palin's electrifying speech..."

As revised in later editions without explanation:

"The potential power of Ms. Palin's speech..."

And that's not the only example - it happened with the Los Angeles
Times and the Chicago Tribune.

Note two things about the above example - the use of Ms. instead of
Governor and the single word switch from the reactive to the passive.

Think about that for a minute.

4 - The selection of Governor Palin came as a surprise to those who
choose their news sources from the elite. It sure as hell didn't to
me. I saw her performance on Larry Kudlow's show six months ago in
addition to a appearance on the Bloomberg network and said at the
time, here and elsewhere, that Palin would be the best pick of the
bunch based on her solid knowledge of energy issues, anti-corruption
stance and ability to accomplish stated goals. I said so right here in
this forum a week before she was picked.

The only comment I received in return was from thunder who thought her
kids names were funny/odd. And I respect thunder for his ability to
support his side with appropriate respect for others opinions and
supporting his own with solid citations. We don't agree on a lot I
suspect, but I respect him and yet, the only thing he could say was
about the kids names.

It's an example of how flat footed everybody was (except for me - not
to pat myself on the back too hard) when the Governor was selected.
HOW DARE MCCAIN PICK SOMEBODY WE'VE NEVER HEARD OF WHICH
MADE US LOOK SILLY NOT TO MENTION COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH WITH
POLITICAL REALITY!!!

And thus the fire storm started.

5 - Last, and certainly not the least, every speech is message
controlled directly from the git-go - it's the price paid by the
24/7/365 news cycle - the message has to be contained and consistent.
Senator Obama has speech writers. Speech givers often have input into
any given speech, but in politics, the message is controlled by those
who can transform the idea into the narrative.

In this case though an attempt to change the counter narrative
backfired and in a rather strange, and to tell the truth, Twilight
Zoneish, way. It was written by a speech writer for President Bush and
thus that's what made it great.

Think about that for a moment. The scorn and derision heaped on
President Bush for lousy speeches with little or no content written by
the same person has suddenly transformed into a brilliantly written
speech performed by nothing more than a Chillbilly hockey Mom.

It's New Speak, but aimed in a different direction.

The sad thing about all this is that those of us who live in Middle
America, are successful in life and do our thing quietly without
fanfare are being pilloried as dumbasses, racists and Chillbilly
morons.

I suspect that what you are seeing is a deliberate strategic maneuver
to move the narrative away Governor Pal in and back to Mc Cain. She's
being held in reserve for a while and will be let loose when the time
is right. Senator Mc Cain is the strategist and Governor Pal in is
the tactician - she may well have been the catalyst for downplaying
her role.

Mark my words on this - Senator Mc Cain has an ace up his sleeve and
it's this - he will give her duties beyond the scope of waking up
every morning and inquiring after the health of the President. If I
were betting man, I would bet the mortgage on Department of Energy or
even Transportation - something of substance to add to her resume and
to stick another dagger in the heart of the Democratic ticket.

You heard it here first. :)

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:14:49 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 07:50:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Bring on the one on one debates. This media circus is getting old.

Allow me to put a couple of thoughts down about the media circus.

1 - Take a look at the past weeks worth of headers posted by Harry.
Take a look at the past weeks headlines from the MSM. Tell me what
you see. Cast yourself in the role of an objective citizen and
evaluate what, if any, points are being made about Governor Palin.
She's everything that liberals promote as being "liberated" including,
oddly, having actually made a choice with respect to aborting or not
aborting a baby.

The problem is, she is in favor of taking away a choice in that matter
for everyone else. She wants the law to force them all to make HER
choice.

They couldn't flat out say "she was wrong not to
abort a defective baby" (although a lot of diarists/commentators on
DailyKOS and Democratic Underground did make that point) so they had
to sidle up to it from different directions up to and including the
most despicable thing I've ever seen in politics - attacking a 17 year
old daughter of a candidate for office.


Having a baby at her age was just plain ASKING for trouble. She should
not have gotten pregnant. Abstinence!

wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:14:49 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 07:50:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Bring on the one on one debates. This media circus is getting old.
Allow me to put a couple of thoughts down about the media circus.

1 - Take a look at the past weeks worth of headers posted by Harry.
Take a look at the past weeks headlines from the MSM. Tell me what
you see. Cast yourself in the role of an objective citizen and
evaluate what, if any, points are being made about Governor Palin.
She's everything that liberals promote as being "liberated" including,
oddly, having actually made a choice with respect to aborting or not
aborting a baby.

The problem is, she is in favor of taking away a choice in that matter
for everyone else. She wants the law to force them all to make HER
choice.

They couldn't flat out say "she was wrong not to
abort a defective baby" (although a lot of diarists/commentators on
DailyKOS and Democratic Underground did make that point) so they had
to sidle up to it from different directions up to and including the
most despicable thing I've ever seen in politics - attacking a 17 year
old daughter of a candidate for office.


Having a baby at her age was just plain ASKING for trouble. She should
not have gotten pregnant. Abstinence!


Well that certainly would have been a better plan than Harry's cavalier
suggestion to kill an unborn baby.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Mark my words on this - Senator Mc Cain has an ace up his sleeve and
it's this - he will give her duties beyond the scope of waking up
every morning and inquiring after the health of the President. If I
were betting man, I would bet the mortgage on Department of Energy or
even Transportation - something of substance to add to her resume and
to stick another dagger in the heart of the Democratic ticket.

You heard it here first. :)

Thus continuing the long Republican tradition of putting incompetents in
charge of cabinet positions, hey, brownie?