Conffederate
Confederate

September 30, 2008

Campaign in Crisis: Obama Teleprompter Threatens Strike

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2008 02:52 PM
Comments

Oh, c'mon, Mr. Owens, this from a supporter of a semi-illiterate like Sarah Palin?!

Posted by: KeithNolan at September 30, 2008 08:46 PM

I'm glad to see that you haven't let your irrational hatreds get the better of you, Keith.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2008 08:55 PM

Stop, already, Mr. Owens. You and Capitalist Infidel have me pegged as some kind of raving, left-wing psycho who hates our troops and wants to spread communism over the USA.

I mention I voted for Reagan, Bush I, and Dole, and Capitalist Infidel calls me a liar.

I mention that Sarah Palin (who, like George W. Bush, is just the sort to chase old GOPers like me out of the party) isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, and you've got me down as an irrational hater.

What hate?

Regarding Sarah Palin, I will say that she is something of a dividing line between the old GOP and the George W. GOP.

Her disqualifications are obvious, and those who pretend she's a champ.... well, they've got to be so full of hate for the ho-hum Obama as to make me look positively genteel.

Anyway, I promised myself I would never bug you about anything unrelated to your military posting, so I'm not sure what I'm doin' here!

See ya,
Keith

Posted by: KeithNolan at September 30, 2008 09:06 PM

Keith, labeling a college graduate who became city council member, mayor, and governor through her own hard work and grit, and largely doing so while at-odds with her own party, as a "semi-literate" is usually either a poorly articulated jest, or a shallow personal attack irrationally affixed by someone blinded by visceral anger.

As for her being "disqualified" she meets every constitutional requirement, and is the only candidate on any spot on either ticket with any executive experience in government.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2008 09:26 PM

You like Sarah Palin, Mr. Owens. I think she's an embarrassment to the Republican Party for a multitude of reasons, to include the fact that she is clearly out of her depth now that she's hit the national stage, and can barely speak in coherent sentences.

Anyway..... why fight? We'll never agree.

But, I'd appreciate your take on the supposed membership of Sarah Palin's husband in some kind of separatist Alaskan party, and her sympathy (as expressed in speeches, etc.) for the party's position (even if she had the political savvy not to join such a fringe group herself).

A media lie?

True, but not an issue that bothers you at a gut level?

True, and an issue you'd rather not talk about?

In addition, is it true that she opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest?

Finally, in your heart of hearts, would you really be on the Palin bandwagon, if she were a D instead of an R. I suspect you'd be incredulous that Obama had picked someone so unread, incurious, religiously extreme, inarticulate, sarcastic, and something of a fabulist when describing her role in the infamous Bridge to Nowhere.

Anyway, I'm convinced William F. Buckley does another spin in his grave every time Sarah Palin opens her mouth and lets the verbiage fly.

Thanks,
Keith
P.S. If Capitalist Infidel reappears to call me a liar again in regard to my past affection for the GOP, I'd be happy to lay out my bonafides for him. It's weird to be called a liar by a stranger hiding behind a pseudonym. At least you sign your posts when calling me an irrational hater!

Posted by: KeithNolan at October 1, 2008 01:51 AM

What does Palin have to do with Obama and his teleprompter?

Anyway, great video. My friends and I often discuss Obama and his teleprompter crutch. We especially got a kick out of teleprompter being set up in a bull ring in New Mexico.

Also we are Imac lovers. We agree with teleprompter that they are sexy.

Posted by: Ninch at October 1, 2008 10:14 AM

"What does Palin have to do with Obama and his teleprompter?"

Nothing -- but the Obamanauts will do ANYTHING to distract from his issues.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 1, 2008 10:50 AM

Keith,

Instead of sending out the invective of "semi-literate" towards Gov. Palin, why not reserve judgment until after the VP debate?

Furthermore, I happen to agree with Gov. Palin on the abortion issue. The ONLY time I even believe it should be considered is when the LIFE of the mother is in jeopardy. Babies created through rape or incest have done nothing to deserve the death penalty. Now for the rapist/incestuous bastard, that's a different story.

Does my agreement with her in this case make me "... someone so unread, incurious, religiously extreme, inarticulate, sarcastic, ..." in your view?

If so, then I would agree with your assertion that CY and CI believe you are "... pegged as some kind of raving, left-wing psycho who hates our troops and wants to spread communism over the USA". Note that is YOUR assertion and are YOUR words...not theirs.

Of course, I'm an Independent Conservative...not a party shill.

Posted by: Mark at October 1, 2008 12:43 PM

"As for her being "disqualified" she meets every constitutional requirement"

HAHAHAHA ROFLOL

You would rather look stupid enough to not understand what people mean by "qualified" than admit that Pailn isn't. That's pretty pathetic.

Dude, find any homeless person over the age of 45 who was born in this country and doesn't live in New Mexico, and they also "meet every constitutional requirement".

Of course, Dick Cheney had to change his residence from Texas to meet the requirements himself... so at the time he was picked, he wasn't "qualified" either.

Posted by: ME at October 1, 2008 02:14 PM

ME,

Dick Cheney is, has been, and will be a resident and citizen of the State of Wyoming. Even when he was CEO of Halliburton, his residence was Wyoming.

Care to retract your statement above? If not, you will merely confirm your position as a resident moonbat.

Posted by: Mark at October 1, 2008 05:49 PM

Mark, you just called me a "party shill"?

On what grounds?

I'm hardly an enthusiastic Democrat, just a former Republican absolutely ground down by the personality and politics of George W. Bush.

This makes me a shill? And, according to Mr. Owens, a hater. (This from a gentleman who keeps comparing Obama to the Nazis!)

By the way, I have no idea if those adjectives I'm willing to slap on Sarah Palin (incurious, inarticulate, sarcastic, religious extremist, etc.) have anything to do with you.... but, yes, I do think the viewpoint you share with Sarah Palin regarding forcing a woman to give birth to a rapist's baby is pretty damn monstrous.

If your sister or daughter were raped by some thug--and most rapists don't exactly possess the IQ and DNA that you'd really want to make part of your family tree--you'd actually force her to invest her health and emotions in bringing to term the result of this repellent crime?

You'd actually expect her to reshape her entire life to either a.) raise the rapist's baby; or b.) worry forever about what happened to the child she put up for adoption that was half her?

You'd actually enforce this by law?

Talk about government intrusion in the most personal, painful aspects of private life.

Anyway, what is it about Sarah Palin that floats your guys' boats? You're sympathetic to someone whose husband wanted to separate Alaska from the USA? You really believe the earth is only a few thousand years old? You really think being able to see the evil Russians from Alaska means a bloody thing? Etc.? Etc.? Etc.?

Best,
Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at October 2, 2008 04:03 PM

Keith,

Please accept this instruction as the gift it is.

Your question:

Mark, you just called me a "party shill"?

My statement:

Of course, I'm an Independent Conservative...not a party shill.

Lesson #1 is on reading comprehension.
My statement is about me and me alone. The statement means I think independently through a conservative lens ... without being beholden to a single party. The "..." that separates the phrase is a tool to draw special attention to the phrase. The sentence is a stands alone with no other connection. That is all.

This is from your second comment and I only partially quoted it in my comment to you:

Finally, in your heart of hearts, would you really be on the Palin bandwagon, if she were a D instead of an R. I suspect you'd be incredulous that Obama had picked someone so unread, incurious, religiously extreme, inarticulate, sarcastic, and something of a fabulist when describing her role in the infamous Bridge to Nowhere.

Lesson #2 is on the implication of language and 'qualifiers'. (As a professional writer, I thought you already knew this, but I am wrong.)

There is an implication of the string of adjectives in that paragraph preceded by two interesting phrases (qualifiers) of "in your heart of hearts" and then "if Obama had picked...". That implication is that you, yourself, are 'incredulous' and believe in your 'heart of hearts' them to be true.

Lesson #3 is on perspective.

Your perspective evidenced:

If your sister or daughter were raped by some thug--and most rapists don't exactly possess the IQ and DNA that you'd really want to make part of your family tree--you'd actually force her to invest her health and emotions in bringing to term the result of this repellent crime? You'd actually expect her to reshape her entire life to either a.) raise the rapist's baby; or b.) worry forever about what happened to the child she put up for adoption that was half her? You'd actually enforce this by law? Talk about government intrusion in the most personal, painful aspects of private life.

(sorry, had to remove returns to get only one blockquote)

Your perspective is on the mother only.

My perspective as evidenced:

Furthermore, I happen to agree with Gov. Palin on the abortion issue. The ONLY time I even believe it should be considered is when the LIFE of the mother is in jeopardy. Babies created through rape or incest have done nothing to deserve the death penalty. Now for the rapist/incestuous bastard, that's a different story.

My perspective is on the baby with one caveat to the mother and justice for the perpetrator.

Do you now understand, Grasshopper?

Posted by: Mark at October 2, 2008 11:29 PM

And now back to my original question to you, Keith.

Instead of sending out the invective of "semi-literate" towards Gov. Palin, why not reserve judgment until after the VP debate?

Well?

Posted by: Mark at October 2, 2008 11:34 PM

Instruction?

Gift?

Reading comprehension?

Understand, Grasshopper?

You're a hoot, professor. Thanks for the down-your-nose writing lessons. (I'll refrain from the boring rejoinders I could make.)

Anyway, I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree about whether a woman's life, once violated by a rapist, should be violated forever more by the unwanted child you would force upon the victim.

Might I ask if said woman should qualify for government assistance to raise this unwanted child, and send this unwanted child to college.

Or are she and the child on their own once the rapist (if even apprehended) is carted off to do his half-dozen years in prison?

Maybe we should tie the rapist to the woman forever with parental visits and child-support payments and such?

Oh, and is there an age limit to your monstrous imposition on other people's lives? Say, a fourteen year old is raped and made pregnant; this semi-child keeps the baby, too?

I find it hard to believe that you -- and Sarah Palin -- have really thought through what you are asking of these rape victims.

KWN

Posted by: KeithNolan at October 3, 2008 12:18 AM

Oh, regarding the debate, she did much better than I had anticipated.

Posted by: KeithNolan at October 3, 2008 12:37 AM

For what it's worth, I actually sent you a longer note about the debate.... but Mr. Owens censored it for reasons that remain murky to me.

Posted by: KeithNolan at October 3, 2008 12:59 AM

Again, Keith, our perspectives are focused on different targets. Mine is first on the baby and then the mother. Yours is only on the mother. I highly doubt either of us will change our minds on the subject and your passionate 'support the impregnated' stance is laudable. I haven't put forth any of my thoughts for after the birth and you have.

I think most rape/incest victims have been violated in the most heinous manner and the perpetrator deserves a heck of a lot more than a 'half-dozen years'. I support up to and including the death penalty for these criminals. I'm sure you will have an issue with me on that and will say something like 'gee, you won't kill a baby but you'll kill a grown man'. Let me remind you before you try that gamut, the baby has done nothing deserving of a death sentence.

Now, on to the baby. I think most of those who became mothers via incest/rape should decide what they want to do with the child after (hopefully before) it is born. Some will not be able to make a rational decision thanks to the damage done to their psyche. I would hope most of those mothers would choose to give the child up for adoption. I also feel adoption processes need to be cleaned up, streamlined, and made much less costly.

My perspective is human life begins at conception. That means there are two human lives to be factored into the eventual answer, not only one.

Posted by: Mark at October 3, 2008 11:34 AM

She did well. As I said in my comment in the post debate thread, her job was to dispel several misconceptions and she did. Biden's job was to keep both feet out of his mouth and he did.

I think she won the perception side of the debate by destroying many of those misconceptions.

Posted by: Mark at October 3, 2008 11:39 AM

Mark, one of the reasons I used to be a Republican is that I fully support the death penalty.

Not sure how I feel about the death penalty for rapists (I mean, most murderers don't even qualify for capital punishment), but, in general, I'm not sympathetic to those thugs who lurk amongst us in society.... so, no, I don't see any disharmony between your two positions.

Still, as you say, we are not going to agree on the central issue. My sympathy is only with the psyche of the young woman who has been violated, not the little blob of rapist DNA that she would want out of her as quickly as possible.

Societies make hard choices all the time about life and death. This is one of those times, and in this case, I believe what the victim wants, the victim should get.... and most rape victims do not want to carry to term the result of their violation.

Anyway, that Sarah Palin is so extreme on the abortion question -- your stepfather rapes your fourteen-year-old self, and, bam, the law requires that you become a mother -- chills me to the marrow.

Best,
KWN

Posted by: KeithNolan at October 3, 2008 12:12 PM

As you agreed, we won't agree on this issue :). We could both point to situations wherein the mother aborted or had the baby in support of our position on the issue. It is the fundamental difference (as Sen Biden was chary of saying in the debate) between us where agreement fails. For you, human life does not begin at conception and for me it does.

Therefore, "the little blob of rapist DNA" has no right to life in your view. My view comes from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." as well as my religious beliefs. I find it monstrous you condemn an innocent child to death merely because of its circumstance of conception. Therefore, we are each monsters in each other's eyes.

You support the death penalty yet stick with the currently defined 'who qualifies for it'. I want to return to a more severe definition and expand the use of the death penalty for exactly these types of crimes. I consider rape/incest to be worse than murder because the victim must live with it for the rest of their life.

As I am sure you do, I know women who have been raped or subjected to incest. They carry that pain with them every second of each day. By punishing the perpetrators with the ultimate penalty, my hope is other potential perps will take heed. The obvious benefit is the executed will never be able to commit the crime again.

I shall not comment further on this topic unless you ask.

Posted by: Mark at October 3, 2008 02:09 PM

Fair enough, Mark.

Posted by: KeithNolan at October 3, 2008 08:43 PM