Fishing - OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - OT-E: Leave it to the Brits. (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=32725)

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

A lucid and eloquent statement from the Guardian, concerning Sarah
Palin's performance at the VP debates:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
At least three times last night, Sarah Palin, the adorable,
preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had
a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity
made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of
the voting public, it would have universally noted, discussed and
mocked. Palin, however, has single-handedly so lowered the standards
both for female candidates and American political discourse that, with
her newfound ability to speak in more-or-less full sentences, she is
now deemed to have performed acceptably last night.

By any normal standard, including the ones applied to male
presidential candidates of either party, she did not. Early on, she
made the astonishing announcement that she had no intentions of
actually answering the queries put to her. "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," she said.

And so she preceded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects
she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted
attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to
her own pseudo-folksy authenticity.

It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely
described as such is that too many American pundits don't even try to
judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric
they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as
interpreters of a mythical mass of "average Americans" who they both
venerate and despise.

In pronouncing upon a debate, they don't try and determine whether a
candidate's responses correspond to existing reality, or whether he or
she is capable of talking about subjects such as the deregulation of
the financial markets or the devolution of the war in Afghanistan. The
criteria are far more vaporous. In this case, it was whether Palin
could avoid utterly humiliating herself for 90 minutes, and whether
urbane commentators would believe that she had connected to a public
that they see as ignorant and sentimental. For theAlaska governor,
mission accomplished.

There is indeed something mesmerising about Palin, with her manic
beaming and fulsome confidence in her own charm. The force of her
personality managed to slightly obscure the insulting emptiness of her
answers last night. It's worth reading the transcript of the
encounter, where it becomes clearer how bizarre much of what she said
was. Here, for example, is how she responded to Biden's comments about
how the middle class has been short-changed during the Bush
administration, and how McCain will continue Bush's policies:

Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You
preferenced [sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now
doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan
to do for them in the future. You mentioned education, and I'm glad
you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife
being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in
heaven, right? ... My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher
in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at
Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the
debate.

Evidently, Palin's pre-debate handlers judged her incapable of
speaking on a fairly wide range of subjects, and so instructed to her
to simply disregard questions that did not invite memorised talking
points or cutesy filibustering. They probably told her to play up her
spunky average-ness, which she did to the point of shtick - and
dishonesty. Asked what her achilles heel is - a question she either
didn't understand or chose to ignore - she started in on how McCain
chose her because of her "connection to the heartland of America.
Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a
special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we
going to pay those tuition bills?"

None of Palin's children, it should be noted, is heading off to
college. Her son is on the way to Iraq, and her pregnant 17-year-old
daughter is engaged to be married to a high-school dropout and self-
described "****in' redneck". Palin is a woman who can't even tell the
truth about the most quotidian and public details of her own life,
never mind about matters of major public import. In her only vice-
presidential debate, she was shallow, mendacious and phoney. What kind
of maverick, after all, keeps harping on what a maverick she is? That
her performance was considered anything but a farce doesn't show how
high Palin has risen, but how low we all have sunk.

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2008

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:47:57 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

A lucid and eloquent statement from the Guardian,

If a hundred Michelle Goldbergs sat down at typewriters and bang on the
keys, sooner or later, Shakespeare might appear...well, actually, no, it
won't...but until she's caught, she'll probably find some outlet for the
idiotic loony leftist random **** that you find so lucid and eloquent...

HTH,
R
....please, remain a teacher...in the Congo or Kowloon or wherever the
heck is that you miseducate whoever you miseducate...

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Oct 9, 5:11*am, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:47:57 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

A lucid and eloquent statement from the Guardian,

If a hundred Michelle Goldbergs sat down at typewriters and bang on the
keys, sooner or later, Shakespeare might appear...well, actually, no, it
won't...but until she's caught, she'll probably find some outlet for the
idiotic loony leftist random **** that you find so lucid and eloquent...

HTH,
R
...please, remain a teacher...in the Congo or Kowloon or wherever the
heck is that you miseducate whoever you miseducate...

Let´s all hope that you keep selling pickles, it would appear that you
are at least capable of persuading people to eat poisonous nasty ****
out of jars, although presumably you merely wax fat on the proceeds,
doubtless daddy did all the actual work.

Having watched all the debates several times, along with a few other
people whose opinions I respect and listen to, the burning question
for many is, "If those are the best you have, what on earth are the
rest like?".

Barack Obama would seem to be the only half way reasonable choice in
this silly competition. But you and others like you spend your time
trying to undermine and destroy him, and others, before they have
even taken the helm.

Your ideas of politics and politicians are naive in the extreme, and
your stupid ranting on various matters is barely coherent.
Nevertheless, you keep chanting your foolish litanies, with no regard
for reality or those you are presumably trying to convince.

More and more people are beginning to dislike and mistrust Americans.
Many of you, ( and most especially several on this group), are brash,
arrogant, ignorant, and habitual liars. You apparently imagine you
have a God given right to do anything you see fit, quite regardless of
scruples or morals, to get your own way, or force your opinions, and
outlandish and invariably stupid ideas on others.

This will eventually cost you dearly. Indeed it is already doing so.
Perhaps you will learn something from it before you drag too many
others down with you. That is unfortunately not likely.

For a good example of what happens as a result of such behaviour, you
need look no further than this group. Stupid people trying to impose
their will on others by any means they can find.

You are a really nasty stupid **** of the worst possible type. You
have likely never worked a day in your life, you continually offer
proof of your unenviable status as a waste of an expensive education.
But far worse than this you piece of totally unworthy ****ing ****,
you impugn and denigrate an honest, sensible, and very honourable man,
his profession and his lights.

You disgust me.

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:47:18 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
riverman wrote:
A lucid and eloquent statement from the Guardian, ...

If a hundred Michelle Goldbergs sat down at typewriters and bang on the
keys, sooner or later, Shakespeare might appear...

LOL !! Are you expressing your desperation or your frustration ?

That article is so spot on it's amazing it came from across the pond.

It didn't. It came from a loony leftist from Berkeley-via-New York,
spouting partisan crap on the Guardian's lame version of Huffington Post
(or whatever lame blog Rush Limpdickers use, if you prefer).

Face it Rick, Palin is a category 5 moron from the snake handling
wing of the GOP and the only people on earth who refuse to recognize
that her candidacy is a preposterous farce are either rabid, cynical
partisans or morons themselves.

No, she isn't a moron, and no, her candidacy is no more of a farce than
Obama's. There is no question that she is inexperienced and based on
her slim record, the bet would be she isn't ready to be POTUS, but
neither is Obama when put under the same lens. Hell, there are many
things with which she and I completely disagree, but I don't think she
is "a moron" because of it. The fact that you (or some idiot like
Goldberg) don't like her politics or beliefs does not make her a moron,
either, but the naked bias and partisanship you display does make you
look like one. And it's that type of hysterical, unfounded
partisanship, compounded by the overabundance of "information," that has
badly damaged the US political system.

HTH,
R
....and plus, she's hot...in a MILF-y, Tina Fey kinda way...

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Oct 8, 10:34*pm, wrote:

TIME OUT

OK I would like to be the first to nominate Dean's last post for
inclusion when the "ROFF's 100 Best Posts" retrospective volume comes
out. The category would be "Actually Funny, Rabid Right-wingnut"
posts of Exceptional Quality, by a modern massah..

RESUME NASTINESS

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Oct 9, 7:34*am, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:06:51 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 9, 5:11*am, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:47:57 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

A lucid and eloquent statement from the Guardian,

If a hundred Michelle Goldbergs sat down at typewriters and bang on the
keys, sooner or later, Shakespeare might appear...well, actually, no, it
won't...but until she's caught, she'll probably find some outlet for the
idiotic loony leftist random **** that you find so lucid and eloquent....

HTH,
R
...please, remain a teacher...in the Congo or Kowloon or wherever the
heck is that you miseducate whoever you miseducate...

Let´s all hope that you keep selling pickles, it would appear that you
are at least capable of persuading people to eat poisonous nasty ****
out of jars, although presumably you merely wax fat on the proceeds,
doubtless daddy did all the actual work.

Bull****. *Daddy barely sold pickle one. *Of course, it's hard to fault
him too much, what with running the sausage-selling operation and all.
And boy-howdy, could that man sell sausage! *He was a joy to behold, let
me tell you! *He once sold 600 tons of nothing but ham and seasoning
stuffed in hog casing to the New York Bar Mitzvah Catering
Company...hell, the salt wasn't even kosher! *And they said they didn't
care because it was the best stuff they had ever eaten. *Two Rabbis even
wanted to make him an honorary mohel...they said anyone who could snip
links like nobody's business while selling sausage must have had a
God-given talent...

Having watched all the debates several times, along with a few other
people whose opinions I respect and listen to, the burning question
for many is, "If those are *the best you have, what on earth are the
rest like?".

Barack Obama would seem to be the only half way reasonable choice in
this silly competition. But you and others like you spend your time
trying to undermine and destroy him, and others, *before they have
even taken the helm.

Your ideas of politics and politicians are naive in the extreme, and
your stupid ranting on various matters is barely coherent.
Nevertheless, you keep chanting your foolish litanies, with no regard
for reality or those you are presumably trying to convince.

More and more people are beginning to dislike and mistrust Americans.
Many of you, ( and most especially several on this group), are brash,
arrogant, ignorant, and habitual liars. You apparently imagine you
have a God given right to do anything you see fit, quite regardless of
scruples or morals, to get your own way, or force your opinions, and
outlandish and invariably stupid ideas on others.

This will eventually cost you dearly. Indeed it is already doing so.

Hell, son, I'm making it hand over fist - times may be tough, but people
the world over gotta have their pickles!

Perhaps you will learn something from it before you drag too many
others down with you. That is unfortunately not likely.

For a good example of what happens as a result of such behaviour, you
need look no further than this group. Stupid people trying to impose
their will on others by any means they can find.

You are a really nasty stupid **** of the worst possible type. You
have likely never worked a day in your life,

Damnable lies! *I am at the pickleworks every morning by 6am, rain or
shine, and I'll have you know I personally load every barrel, by myself
and by hand, into the curing room. *Oh, sure, for a fabulously wealthy,
expensively-educated glamourous jet-setter like myself, it might seem a
bit menial, but I want to make sure we ship no pickle before its time...

you continually offer
proof of your unenviable status as a waste of an expensive education.
But far worse than this you piece of totally unworthy ****ing ****,
you impugn and denigrate an honest, sensible, and very honourable man,
his profession and his lights.

"Hello, FBI, how may direct your call?"

"I want to report an impugning denigrator, you stupid ****ing ****!"

"Pardon me?"

"Connect me to the head of denigration, you piece of ****!"

"Hold please..."

"Agent Vlasic, how may I help you?"

"Look, you stupid ****ing American, there's a denigrator in your midst!"

"Excuse me?"

"My boyfriend and I watched the debates and..."

"HEY! *I know who you are...you're the loony dude from the fishing group
who calls every few days...man, I gotta tell ya, that boyfriend of yours
is one homely dude...but the good news is that we use the pictures in
our, er, enhanced interrogations and thus far, it's more effective than
waterboarding..."

"**** YOU CHOC! *JUST **** YOU! *I FLEW F-86.5 SABER TIGGERS OVER THE
YANGWANG WITH MY BEST FRIENDS BRIAN KEITH AND ROBERT E. LEE! *I AM A
LEGEND!"

click....

You disgust me.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, you're gonna report me to the AFTMA and the
Army Air Corps...

SNICKER,
R

Unfortunately for you you nasty dumb mother****er, all you have is
nonsense and lies. You merely appear to be too stupid to realise it.
You also seem to be too stupid to realise that others realise it
perfectly well. If it was not somehow of some importance to you,
( although I must confess that the motivations of dumb unprincipled
mother****ers are a sealed book to me) you would not even be posting
all this ****e in the first place.

The result of this is quite inevitable, and there is no way for you to
do anything at all about it. Even changing your disgusting and stupid
behaviour at this late date would be most unlikely to affect what
others think of you.

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Oct 9, 11:11*am, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:47:57 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

A lucid and eloquent statement from the Guardian,

If a hundred Michelle Goldbergs sat down at typewriters and bang on the
keys, sooner or later, Shakespeare might appear...well, actually, no, it
won't...but until she's caught, she'll probably find some outlet for the
idiotic loony leftist random **** that you find so lucid and eloquent...

HTH,
R
...please, remain a teacher...in the Congo or Kowloon or wherever the
heck is that you miseducate whoever you miseducate...

LOL. That sure was a deterioration into rabid name-calling, even for
you. All I did was post an album....uh...a newspaper article.

;-)
--riverman

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:59:40 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Face it Rick, Palin is a category 5 moron from the snake handling
wing of the GOP and the only people on earth who refuse to recognize
that her candidacy is a preposterous farce are either rabid, cynical
partisans or morons themselves.

No, she isn't a moron, ...

snicker

No, of course not, she's just "intellectually challenged".

No, she isn't, but please, do take this attitude out in public...I'm
sure McCain will appreciate the support...

LOL !!

and no, her candidacy is no more of a farce than
Obama's. ...

Alrighty then, I'll mark you down as rabid, cynical partisan.

Here's a little exercise for folks - imagine you have just returned from
a 5 year trip into a remote jungle where you've heard no news in any way
related, even tangentially, to the election or candidates. While you're
on the flight back, a fellow passenger hands you an objective, unbiased
and rather detailed summary of both Obama and Palin, but with no
pictures and the names as "Senator John Doe" and "Governor Jane Doe,"
but doesn't identify the states represented. You are also given an
objective snapshot of the current situation in the US - i.e., nothing
partisan. You are then asked whether you think either person is ready
to be POTUS or Veep. You are then asked who you would like to see as
the POTUS and where these two rank on your list, if at all. The results
are surprising...well, devastating to rabid Obamanics...

You betcha. ;-)

Bet? How much?

HTH,
R

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 23:25:42 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Oct 9, 11:11*am, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:47:57 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

A lucid and eloquent statement from the Guardian,

If a hundred Michelle Goldbergs sat down at typewriters and bang on the
keys, sooner or later, Shakespeare might appear...well, actually, no, it
won't...but until she's caught, she'll probably find some outlet for the
idiotic loony leftist random **** that you find so lucid and eloquent...

HTH,
R
...please, remain a teacher...in the Congo or Kowloon or wherever the
heck is that you miseducate whoever you miseducate...

LOL. That sure was a deterioration into rabid name-calling, even for
you. All I did was post an album....uh...a newspaper article.

Er, no. It wasn't a newspaper article, it wasn't from a Brit, and it
wasn't "a...statement from the Guardian."

HTH,
R

;-)
--riverman

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Oct 9, 10:55*pm, wrote:
*The results
are surprising...well, devastating to rabid Obamanics...

The results *ARE* surprising? Has this imaginary exercise actually
happened? Where are these alleged results? In your mind?

I, for one, do not subscribe to the 'gee, neither candidate is any
good' nihlist attitude. I think Obama is not only the better of the
two candidates, I think he is a GREAT candidate. I think his
intelligence, eloquence, charisma and rational thought are precisely
the traits that we need in the next (and did not have in the last)
POTUS. The US is in deep **** these days, and the next POTUS has to
have all of those traits in order to try to turn things around.

"Obamaniacs"...lol. What would you prefer...that we elect a president
out of a sense of national apathy? IIRC, that was how Bush got in the
second time ("its the Dems fault because they could not vet a good
candidate") and look where THAT got us.

Bush was a ****up, but the NeoCon team pumped up half of the country
to get lost in the big cheerleading frat party and got him reelected.
McCain is too senile and statistically barely stands a chance to
survive the first term, and Palin really and truly is WAY out her her
depth, and has exhibited neither the wherewithal nor the intelligence
to manage the current crisis the US is in. I'm thankful we have
someone like Obama in the race.

--riverman

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Oct 9, 11:01*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 23:25:42 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Oct 9, 11:11*am, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:47:57 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

A lucid and eloquent statement from the Guardian,

If a hundred Michelle Goldbergs sat down at typewriters and bang on the
keys, sooner or later, Shakespeare might appear...well, actually, no, it
won't...but until she's caught, she'll probably find some outlet for the
idiotic loony leftist random **** that you find so lucid and eloquent....

HTH,
R
...please, remain a teacher...in the Congo or Kowloon or wherever the
heck is that you miseducate whoever you miseducate...

LOL. That sure was a deterioration into rabid name-calling, even for
you. All I did was post an album....uh...a newspaper article.

Er, no. *It wasn't a newspaper article, it wasn't from a Brit, and it
wasn't "a...statement from the Guardian."

HTH,
R

You left out "lucid and eloquent"...
:-)

--riverman

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

Leave it to the Brits.

"riverman" wrote

That
her performance was considered anything but a farce doesn't show how
high Palin has risen, but how low we all have sunk.

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2008

I intentionally avoided ALL contact with media, the news and the 'real
world' BS from the end of May until early Oct.

When I got back to California was the first time I heard of Palin. I had
never seen or heard her until the VP Debate, although I had heard she had
come across poorly in some interviews. I had NOT seen those interviews.

I watched the debate ( remember MY first exposure to Palin, period ) and was
absolutely appalled at what I saw. If she were running for class president
in a small high school it would have been pathetic, the winking, the fake
cutesy, the blatant avoidance on answering the questions etc. I
literally was embarrassed for her, for McCain, and for my country.

When the post debate pundits announced that she "had performed better than
feared" it was like the Twilight Zone ... being transported to an alternate
universe where things look the same but are actually vastly different.

I honestly can't understand how she can appeal to ANYone .... you, for
instance, Joe Sixpack .... do you LIKE being referred to in such a
condescending, demeaning, way? Does it make you feel you belong in the
Republican Party to be talked down to ... by an idiot?

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Oct 9, 4:55*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:59:40 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Face it Rick, Palin is a category 5 moron from the snake handling
wing of the GOP and the only people on earth who refuse to recognize
that her candidacy is a preposterous farce are either rabid, cynical
partisans or morons themselves.

No, she isn't a moron, ...

snicker

No, of course not, she's just "intellectually challenged".

No, she isn't, but please, do take this attitude out in public...I'm
sure McCain will appreciate the support...

LOL !!

and no, her candidacy is no more of a farce than
Obama's. *...

Alrighty then, I'll mark you down as rabid, cynical partisan.

Here's a little exercise for folks - imagine you have just returned from
a 5 year trip into a remote jungle where you've heard no news in any way
related, even tangentially, to the election or candidates. *While you're
on the flight back, a fellow passenger hands you an objective, unbiased
and rather detailed summary of both Obama and Palin, but with no
pictures and the names as "Senator John Doe" and "Governor Jane Doe,"
but doesn't identify the states represented. *You are also given an
objective snapshot of the current situation in the US - i.e., nothing
partisan. *You are then asked whether you think either person is ready
to be POTUS or Veep. *You are then asked who you would like to see as
the POTUS and where these two rank on your list, if at all. *The results
are surprising...well, devastating to rabid Obamanics...

You betcha. ;-)

Bet? *How much?

HTH,
R

The majority of modern politicians are not really suitable for
anything at all, that is often why they become politicians. They want
power over others, status, and money, and the vast majority are
willing to do anything at all to achieve it, retain it, and extend it.
Those who are suited to be politicians are among the most devious,
calculating, callous, and dishonest people on the planet. Many of
them work extremely hard at it, and they were all pretty hard nosed to
start with.

Those best suited to govern would not be foolish enough to accept such
a job, much less ask or campaign for it.

Some of the worst possible people appeal to the masses precisely
because some of their traits mirror those of many in those masses. It
is not a case of being "suitable" in any real sense of the word, they
merely have to convince enough people to vote for them.Whether it be
party members or other voters.

There are a great many people who will identify with the ridiculous
behaviour of Governor Palin, and assume as a result that she is "one
of them", and thus good for them. They are in their own fashion just
as naive as you are, they see things how they would like to see them,
and not as they are.

That is also why you have the government and problems that you have.
Too many warmongers, too many frustrated patriots, too much self-and
private interest, too many lobby groups, too much money wasted on
politics, instead of addressing actual problems,too much manipuation
by the governement, too many lies, too much deceit, and almost
universal contempt for the marks ( voters). In your particular case,
there is even considerable contempt for the candidates among your own
countrymen. Your politics are obviously quite extreme and appear
ridiculous in any case to a great many people

Probably ninety per cent or more of most governments, starting at the
top, are unsuitable for the jobs they hold.

Party politics as such are always stupid, for the quite simple reason
that they blind people to the actual issues, and seduce, or even force
them into following ideas.

You have two choices, both people who have spent incredible sums of
money financing a three ring circus in order to get people to vote for
them. In any sensible society, that would be grounds for disqualifying
them immediately. Emotions, party politics, bull****, bribes,
stupidity, high finance, lies, propaganda, and a host of other factors
got them where they are, not "suitability", and it will also take at
least one of them further, ( two if one includes the VP candidate).

All your bull**** and whining and bitching will not change that one
iota.

You dumb ****ers have filled this group with all this nonsensical
****e for half an age now, and you still don´t know what the issues
actually are, or what to do about them.You are running around in
circles spouting bull**** like the dumb ****ers you are, and that is
also why you get exceptionally dumb ****ers as politicians.

Although this group is obviously not a representative cross section of
the American public, it is doubtless a fairly good cross section of
the upper middle class, and you dumbos are incredibly self-centred and
stupid. Why would you expect others of your ilk to be any better?
That is also what the politicians rely on, your stupidity.

None of this changes the fact that you are a nasty unprincipled ****,
who along with others has reduced what was once a fishing group to a
load of crap, where no sensible angler would visit.

So all you have achieved is to ruin other people´s pleasure, and
pervert this group.

You are obviously quite incapable of behaving yourself in a free
environment, so what makes you think you are an expert on democracy?
You are just a stupid nasty selfish **** full of bull****.

If you want to change things for the better, then good politics, like
charity, begins at home. Bitching about something will not change it,
it merely ****es people off.

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:41:04 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Are you really saying that folks can compare Obama's
resume with Palin's and conclude that Palin is the better candidate ?

No, what I am really saying is that both have pretty slim records,
because, well, they both have pretty slim records.

So, that whole post *was* about a comedy album. See, I'm glad
I asked.

Well, maybe you're right...let's look at Obama's awards (as of the
beginning of 2005):

Outstanding Legislator Awards from Campaign for Better Health Care and
Illinois Primary Health Care Association, 1998

Best Freshman Legislator Award from Independent Voters of
Illinois/Independent Precinct Organizations, 1997

Legal Eagle Award for litigation leading to Illinois' compliance with
national "Motor Voter" Legislation, 1995

Monarch Award for Outstanding Public Service, 1994
(an award limited to black men in Chicago, apparently no longer given
out, from a fairly small community program)

Crain's Chicago Business "40 Under 40" Award, 1993

I mean, I have to ask because it just might be a comedy album. ;-)

Columbia, Harvard, teaching constitutional law at the University
of Chicago, state Senator and US Senator versus barely BS from
six schools, mayor and Governor hockey mom ?

Hmmm...lessee...Hillary, 1 term Senator, no other elected office, Bill,
Governor, Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Gov (with Dukakis) and Senator, Bush,
Yale AND Harvard, Governor...

More comedy ? Or are you trying to say *nobody* is or was qualified
to be POTUS ?

No, what I'm saying is that being a Mayor and a Governor generally fits
in with recent Dem candidates and most recent Prez, and also, that
Columbia and Harvard isn't as impressive as Yale and Harvard...

HTH,
R

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

wrote in message
...
On Oct 9, 4:55 pm, wrote:
snip
If you want to change things for the better, then good politics, like
charity, begins at home. Bitching about something will not change it,
it merely ****es people off.

Please heed your own advice.

Bob Weinberger

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:05:51 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
And comparing Shrub's legacy Yale and Harvard MBA to Obama's Honors
Columbia and Harvard Law Review editor is apples and oranges.

You might want to look into what a Harvard Law Review "editor" position
is (here's a hint - being an "editor" isn't "special" in the least...

You might want to consider whether Shrub, Palin, or McCain for that
matter, would have had anywhere near the intellect to be an editor
of the Harvard Law Review or even be admitted to Harvard Law School.

Bush and McCain, probably, if they really buckled down and tried. Palin,
I have no idea. Getting into law school isn't all THAT tough, even
Harvard, and making it to graduation is more "work" than "intellect."
The bar exam takes work and prep, along with having paid attention in
law school - knowledge rather than intellect, if you will. Where real
intellect comes into play with the law is in (actual) scholarship and in
being a truly fine counsel to and advocate for one's clients. Merely
being somebody with a bar card doesn't require all that much raw
"intellect." And FWIW, Obama wasn't just an editor (all invited - about
1 in 5 that apply - are "editors"), he was President of the Review, but
seemingly, did little with it.

(Here's a hint - three ice cubes in hell would have had a better
chance. ;-)

You're plain wrong.

HTH,
R

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

wrote in message
...
Bush and McCain, probably, if they really buckled down and tried. Palin,
I have no idea. Getting into law school isn't all THAT tough, even
Harvard, and making it to graduation is more "work" than "intellect."

to coin a phrase, 'you're just plain wrong'. GW was denied admission to far
lesser schools than Harvard Law,
and McCain's academic record was dismal. Sorry, it isn't a matter of
'buckling down', it is lack of intellect. Palin,
actually, may have had a better chance that either of the other two, but a
long-shot at best, given it took her a virtual parade of colleges to acquire
a degree.
Tom

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:31:56 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
Bush and McCain, probably, if they really buckled down and tried. Palin,
I have no idea. Getting into law school isn't all THAT tough, even
Harvard, and making it to graduation is more "work" than "intellect."

to coin a phrase, 'you're just plain wrong'. GW was denied admission to far
lesser schools than Harvard Law,

Which ones? But regardless of where GW went, applied, etc., your
response is non sequitur. Law school is more "work" than "intellect."

and McCain's academic record was dismal. Sorry, it isn't a matter of
'buckling down', it is lack of intellect.

No, it isn't. I've seen folks that had the "intellect" to breeze
through law school wash out and/or blow the bar and folks that aren't,
well, the sharpest tools in the shed make it through and pass the bar.

Palin,
actually, may have had a better chance that either of the other two, but a
long-shot at best, given it took her a virtual parade of colleges to acquire
a degree.

I reserved my comments Palin because I'm not that familiar with her
record, but I will say that she apparently was graduated, and since I
have no idea of her college circumstances, but I'd suggest that your
average "morons" don't really care about attending college, much less a
degree of some kind, so whether it was Harvard or 6 different versions
of Bob's Auto Body Shop and Kollege of Nallidge, the fact that anyone
thought that much of being graduated says at least _something_ positive
for them.

TC,
R
Tom

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:31:56 GMT, "Tom Littleton" Which ones? But
regardless of where GW went, applied, etc., your
response is non sequitur. Law school is more "work" than "intellect."

UTexas law school, to name one that's in the public record.......and no,
their very firm rejection letter does not negate my premise.
Tom

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:41:52 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:31:56 GMT, "Tom Littleton" Which ones? But
regardless of where GW went, applied, etc., your
response is non sequitur. Law school is more "work" than "intellect."

UTexas law school, to name one that's in the public record.......and no,
their very firm rejection letter does not negate my premise.
Tom

I had forgotten about UT Law, and that's only one school, not schools,
but your premise is negated regardless. Being rejected by _one_ law
school is meaningless - I know practicing lawyers that were rejected by
several schools and I know Harvard grads that were rejected by other
schools. And FWIW, UT Law is not "a far lesser school" - it is right up
there with Harvard among the top 10 or so law schools in the US, and
although the ABA doesn't "rank" schools, the data it provides shows it
to be a top school.

TC,
R

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Oct 10, 2:27*am, "Bob Weinberger" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Oct 9, 4:55 pm, wrote:
snip
If you want to change things for the better, then good politics, like
charity, begins at home. Bitching about something will not change it,
it merely ****es people off.

Please heed your own advice.

Bob Weinberger

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

I did not give any advice, nor would I give any here, even if I was
asked for it, I merely stated the obvious.

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Oct 10, 6:48*pm, wrote:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

I had forgotten about UT Law, and that's only one school, not schools,
but your premise is negated regardless. *Being rejected by _one_ law
school is meaningless.....

Yeah, but what does it take to get rejected by a Law School when your
dad is the past long-serving Chairman of the State Republican party, a
current US Congressman, your Grandaddy had been a US Senator, and you
had just gone to an elite prestigious New England private school and
had just graduated from Yale?

That was no small rejection. I would LOVE to know the conversation
that took place in the Admissions Office that day....

--riverman

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:06:06 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Oct 10, 6:48*pm, wrote:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

I had forgotten about UT Law, and that's only one school, not schools,
but your premise is negated regardless. *Being rejected by _one_ law
school is meaningless.....

Yeah, but what does it take to get rejected by a Law School when your
dad is the past long-serving Chairman of the State Republican party, a
current US Congressman, your Grandaddy had been a US Senator, and you
had just gone to an elite prestigious New England private school and
had just graduated from Yale?

An "average" LSAT score combined with an "average" college transcript.
And there are lots of folks with a lot more pull at UT than the Bushes
had at that time whose "average" kids didn't get into UT Law. In fact,
I know of one who had a similar record to Bush, didn't get into UT Law,
went to St. Mary's, graduated, passed the bar, and not only do I
consider him to be a better-than-average lawyer, he considered so by a
fair portion of his Bar.

And FWIW, Bush scored a 1200 or so on his SAT, and had a decent prep
record, so academically, he could have gotten into a fair number of
undergrad schools regardless of who his family might be. Heck, Yale
turned down Bill Bradley, who had a lower SAT than Bush, and Kerry's SAT
was lower than Bush's, but he got in (a legacy, too). I have no idea if
they are correct, but seemingly objective analysis of the publicly-known
Bush test results indicate that he is in the top 5 percent or so in
"intelligence."

That was no small rejection. I would LOVE to know the conversation
that took place in the Admissions Office that day....

I dunno...I suspect it was pretty routine, but ???

TC,
R

--riverman

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

Here's a new brit contribution. For what it's worth, this one is an
article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The chameleon: who is the real Sarah Palin?
A report on the Troopergate affair to be published today is expected to
throw light on to a politician known as a moral crusader but whose
values are questioned from right and left

When the man working for Frommer's, America's best-selling travel
guide, alighted on the small town of Wasilla in south-central Alaska,
he concluded glumly that the place should be condemned as "the worst
kind of suburban sprawl". To the European eye it would barely be a town
at all. Rather, it is a four-lane highway that clatters across the
magnificent, mountain-fringed Matanuska-Susitna valley, dumping seven
miles of strip-malls, petrol stations and supermarkets in its wake.

Wasilla is home to 9,780 people, hundreds of small businesses, a dozen
evangelical Christian churches, and a handful of gun stores. The
churches are places where many of the faithful see signs that judgment
day cannot be far away and where the infallibility of the Bible is
rarely, if ever, questioned. The gun stores are places where you can
pick up the new Ruger 10/22 carbine, the one that comes in bright pink
with a 10-round magazine - "perfect for your wife or daughter".

Famously, Wasilla is also the home town and launch pad for Sarah Palin,
John McCain's vice-presidential running mate. Palin is a woman for whom
many Republicans have high hopes, despite performances in early
television interviews that were so wobbly they have become YouTube
classics. She remains a politician who many in the party would like to
believe could be a future president.

Her selection six weeks ago saw a slew of stories about the former
beauty queen with the brilliant smile and the carefully styled
mom-in-a-hurry hairdo, who could drop a caribou at a thousand paces
before skinning it, butchering it, and hauling it home for the freezer.
In a country that regards the wilderness surrounding Wasilla as a last
bastion of rugged, can-do libertarianism, her story seemed to be a
potent, 21st-century update on America's central myth.

But Wasilla is no frontier town. A third of the town's workforce
commute to office jobs in Anchorage, 45 miles to the south. Many others
work in the endless strip malls. Palin may shoot, fish and ride a
snowmobile, but her neighbours are more accustomed to seeing her leap
into the 4x4 to drive to the local Starbucks. Palin's home town
represents, at most, the call of the semi-wild.

So if the image of McCain's running mate as a tough outdoorswoman is
part truth and partly a confection of her party's machine, what are we
to make of the rest of the package?

What will be revealed about her later today with the conclusion of the
investigation into the so-called Troopergate affair, in which she is
alleged to have abused her power as state governor by sacking the head
of the Alaskan state police after he refused to become involved in a
family feud?

Is Palin truly a warrior of the religious right, a woman who advocates
the teaching of creationism and who is opposed to abortion, even for
victims of rape and incest? Would she, as opponents claim, seek to ban
books from library shelves?

Who, in short, is Sarah Palin? And what on earth does she want?

Palin was born in February 1964 in another small town, Sandpoint,
Idaho, the third of four children of Chuck and Sally Heath.
Genealogists have traced her father's family tree as a far as John
Lothropp, a nonconformist minister from Beverley in Yorkshire, who
settled in Massachusetts in 1634 to escape persecution. If so, this
would make Palin a distant relation of George Bush.

The family moved to Alaska when Sarah was two months old after Chuck, a
primary school teacher, took up a post there. Accounts of her time at
Wasilla high school suggest a headstrong, slightly pushy, but popular
pupil: a girl who was determined to succeed on the sports field, and
who wanted to be noticed, who liked to be liked.

Her university days appear to have been considerably less happy. In
five years she flitted between as many different colleges, in Hawaii,
Idaho and Alaska, sometimes quitting after one term. It is unclear why
she was so unsettled. It is clear, however, that she was far from the
centre of attention at this time: after McCain named Palin as his
running mate, the Idaho Statesman newspaper tracked down 30 of her
former teachers and classmates at two colleges in the state. Only four
could remember who she was.

Returning to Wasilla in 1987 she worked as a sports reporter with her
local newspaper, the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, and as a correspondent
for an Alaskan television station. She showed little interest in
forging a lengthy career in journalism, instead marrying her high
school sweetheart, Todd Palin, a part Yup'ik Native Alaskan who works
as a technician with British Petroleum on the state's North Slope
oilfield. In 1989 the first of the couple's children was born and, in
keeping with the Alaskan fashion for unusual names, the boy was named
Track, because he arrived during the athletics season.

Since parading her five children, including Bristol, 17, who is
pregnant, and Trig, a six-month-old boy with Down's syndrome, at the
Republican national convention last month, Palin has been the subject
of bizarre internet rumours about her children's parentage, and reports
in the supermarket tabloids alleging an extramarital affair, which her
team dismissed as a "vicious lie". In Wasilla, people who know the
couple say their marriage appears genuinely to be strong.

During the early 90s, when Palin was raising her children, Wasilla and
the other small towns in the valley were undergoing rapid change as
they sucked in immigrants from that place known to Alaskans as
"Outside" - the rest of the US. And in common with other communities in
the US, the valley towns were riven by tension between secular liberals
on one hand and Christian traditionalists on the other, people who had
little interest in - and no hope of - reconciling their fundamental
disagreements over abortion, gay rights, gun control and censorship.

In Palmer, for instance, a town 20 minutes drive north-east of Wasilla,
there was a struggle for control of the hospital, one of the few in
Alaska where second trimester abortions were carried out. There were
demonstrations and court battles, and rumours that one gynaecologist
had taken to wearing a bulletproof vest beneath her jacket.

In Wasilla, the curator of the town's tiny museum, John Cooper, says he
received threats from people from a local evangelical church. "They
simply wanted to let me know that my political views, as a liberal, as
a progressive, were not welcome," he says.

This was the conflict into which Palin waded when she decided to stand
for election as mayor of Wasilla.

Palin had been a junior member of the town's council for four years,
and in 1996 decided to run against the popular mayor, John Stein.
Perhaps unusually for such a small-town affair, she won an endorsement
from the National Rifle Association and attracted the support of a
nationwide anti-abortion organisation that leafleted the town's voters.

In Palmer, the Rev Howard Bess, a left-leaning Baptist minister, is
convinced Palin was the candidate of a network of evangelist pastors
that met regularly in the valley in a conclave calling itself the
Ministers' Prayer Group. "Palin first came on the political scene in
the context of this conflict focused on the abortion issue," says Bess.
"You can't understand her without understanding the culture wars that
took place in the Mat-Su Valley in the 90s."

Laura Chase, who managed Palin's campaign, recalls her not as
doctrinaire but as seriously ambitious. "We were sitting at my kitchen
table at about 11 o'clock one night, talking about term times, and she
said: 'If I haven't moved on to higher things after two terms, I don't
deserve to be in politics.' I said: 'Sarah, you'll be governor in 10
years.' And she said: 'I don't want to be governor, I want to be
president.' I glanced up and she was looking down at a piece of paper,
she was on to the next thing we were doing. I just chalked it up to the
adrenaline of the campaign."

Today, people who loathe all that Palin says she stands for cannot help
admire her common touch. Bill Clinton says: "I come from Arkansas. I
get why she's hot out there, why she's doing well." Even in 1996, Palin
seemed to float along on a tide of likability. The way she looked, the
way she sounded, the way she moved - it all combined to make people
feel they knew her in some way, and that they should vote for her. "She
was a rock star, no doubt about it," says Stein.

Nobody in Wasilla believes that Palin's parents, by all accounts
reserved people, coached such polished performances. Rather, Stein and
others point to the confidence that came with high school sporting
success, her brief time as a TV reporter, and the opportunities she had
to speak up at church.

Chase sees something else. "She's really pretty insecure. I was with
her before she gave a speech to the people from BP in Anchorage when
she was running for governor, and she was terrified. There are real
fears there. But every time she goes out and persuades people to like
her, it lifts her, it makes her feel better about herself.

"She draws on something inside herself to make them like her. She's a
natural actress. And then she wants to do it again, with even more
people. She's a brilliant politician, but it's all about getting more
and more people to love her."

With her charismatic appeal and the backing of many of the town's
evangelicals, Palin triumphed in the mayoral contest, winning by 616
votes to 413. Stein, a Lutheran, recalls a local radio station
reporting that the town finally had a Christian mayor.

In office, Palin did not push the conservative social agenda at the
heart of her election campaign. She couldn't: she was running an
authority little bigger than an English parish council - albeit one
with a $6m budget - and her main responsibilities were for planning
applications, road maintenance, and the town's 13-strong police force.

Her critics in Wasilla say she made the job appear more difficult than
it was because of her confrontational style of management. She sacked
the police chief, other senior staff resigned, and Cooper was made
redundant. "One of her conservative supporters came up to me in the
street and said: 'Gotcha Cooper!'"

The town's librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, was fired after standing up to
Palin during a conversation about censorship. She was reinstated
shortly afterwards, amid a public outcry, and the McCain team now
insists that the conversation had been "rhetorical". But Chase says she
recalls Palin telling the librarian that she objected to a children's
book about gay parents called Daddy's Roommate. "I brought a copy to
the next council meeting and offered it to Sarah to read. She said: 'I
don't need to read that kind of stuff.'"

An editorial accused the mayor of confusing her 616 votes with a
"coronation", adding: "Palin promised to change the status quo, but at
every turn we find hints of cronyism and political manoeuvring."

A public meeting was held in the town's theatre, with some urging a
recall, a form of impeachment, to remove her from office. Palin learned
her lesson fast, lowering her profile and leaving day-to-day
administration to the council's senior civil servant. "I grew
tremendously in my early months as mayor," was how she later described
that time.

When Palin was 12 she was born again, and was baptised in the frigid
waters of one of the half-dozen lakes around Wasilla. From that day,
and throughout her time as mayor, she and her mother worshipped at the
Assembly of God, a Pentecostal church where some members of the
congregation speak in tongues, and where the current pastor is on
record as saying he believes that the end of the world is nigh.

While Palin has since moved to another evangelical church - reportedly
telling friends it is "less extreme" - Pentecostalism undoubtedly
helped forge her views. She says she believes creationism should be
taught alongside evolution, and says abortion is an "atrocity" that
should be permitted only when the life of the mother is at stake.

When she made her next step in Alaskan politics, however, she made no
attempt to turn these views into policy. Nor, to the displeasure of
local Republicans, did she make much effort to uphold traditional party
values. Instead, by the time Palin ran for governor in 2006, she had
remoulded herself as a campaigner against sleaze and corruption.

It was a good moment to be a moral crusader. For two years the FBI had
been raiding the homes and offices of prominent Alaskan Republicans,
investigating their links with oil companies. Five politicians were
eventually charged with bribery and corruption.

The incumbent Republican governor, Frank Murkowski, was wildly
unpopular - largely because of his cosy relationship with Big Oil - and
Palin had established her ethical credentials by resigning from the
state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in protest at what she
described as the corruption of fellow Republicans.

Turning on their TVs during the election, many Alaskans saw Palin's
folksy, nose-wrinkling, you-betcha style for the first time, and they
liked what they saw. They liked that she was fresh and she was feisty
and that she really did seem to offer change. Disillusioned Republicans
were relieved to see someone - anyone - doing battle with the party's
leathery old guard. Polls showed that even university-educated, liberal
women warmed to her. Palin was swept effortlessly into office,
capturing 48% of the vote in a three-way race.

She surrounded herself with a group of aides whose loyalty was beyond
question. Soon they came to describe themselves as Palinistas.
According to a number of sources, one of her aides, who is on the state
payroll, has been working as a full-time babysitter for Trig in recent
months. Todd Palin also appears to play a role in the government of the
state. Although unelected, and not holding any salaried office, he is
known to take part in a number of meetings.

The new governor enjoyed approval ratings of more than 80% in the
months after her election. But it was not long before a slightly
puzzled electorate began wondering who it was that they had elected and
what it was that she really believed.

Forging alliances with Democrats, Palin pursued a shamelessly populist
agenda, imposing a windfall tax on oil companies. Leftwing Democrats
hailed the Palinistas as "Alaskan redneck socialists", while
Republicans muttered that their governor was "imposing British levels
of taxation". After she used a chunk of the revenue to send a $1,200
cheque to each man, woman and child in the state, her opponents knew
protest was pointless.

She dismayed many on the religious right by blocking a bill that would
have denied benefits to same-sex partners of state employees,
maintaining she had no choice because it was unconstitutional. She also
resisted Republican attempts to force abortion restriction measures on
to the legislative agenda, apparently because she did not wish to
alienate her new Democrat allies. Lyda Green, Republican president of
the state senate, speaks for many in the party in Alaska when she says
Palin has been "disappointingly liberal" since she was elected
governor.

Others, who had hoped to see Palin translate her high approval rating
into legislation aimed at tackling Alaska's perennial problems of
alcohol abuse and underperforming schools, were exasperated by how
little she wanted to do.

Larry Persily, a senior civil servant who has worked for three Alaskan
governors and is a former associate director of Palin's office in
Washington, says: "She was just not interested. She had no interest in
public policy beyond the populist drive to raise oil taxes and push
through ethics reforms that the Democrats had already drafted."

Rebecca Braun, editor of Alaska Budget Report, a non-aligned political
newsletter, adds: "If she hasn't pushed the teaching of creationism in
schools, it's because she hasn't pushed the teaching of anything in
schools. She hasn't promoted her rightwing views because she hasn't
promoted any views at all. She really hasn't done very much."

But if Palin's approval ratings were falling by last summer, her
sincerity as a social conservative being questioned, her Republican
credentials under attack, and her commitment to reform belied by a
track record of inertia, she could always point to her impeccable
ethical standards.

Palin stands accused of sacking the head of the state's police force,
Walt Monegan, when he refused to dismiss her former brother-in-law, a
state trooper who had been through a bitter divorce and child custody
battle with her younger sister. There is evidence suggesting some
members of her family waged a vendetta against the trooper, Mike
Wooten, making complaints that he had broken the law, committed
disciplinary offences, and lied to obtain sickness benefits. Eventually
a divorce court judge warned family members to leave the man alone.

Wooten was investigated and disciplined in March 2006, but when Palin
was elected governor later that year, she and her husband, and members
of her staff, are said to have pressed to have the case reopened. When
Monegan was sacked last July, he claimed that his refusal to fire
Wooten had cost him his job, an allegation Palin denies.

An investigation into Troopergate was ordered by the state's
legislature, and a report on the matter is due to be published today.
While Palin initially agreed to cooperate, her husband and several
members of her staff resisted giving evidence, despite being summonsed.
It has also emerged that Palin and her senior aides used personal email
accounts while conducting official business in order to conceal their
communications about Wooten.

Many Alaskans have been greatly disappointed by Palin's behaviour
during the Troopergate affair. Patrick Dougherty, editor of the
Anchorage Daily News, the state's main newspaper, says the episode has
"raised serious doubts about her honesty and integrity".

By late August, Palin's approval ratings were still high in Alaska, but
there were growing doubts about her ability and sincerity, and there
was an investigation hanging over her head. And at this point, no doubt
looking at her public performances and her star quality, McCain and his
team decided she was the ideal running mate.

Dougherty says his reaction was one of disbelief when he heard. "She
was clearly unqualified."

Lyda Green was equally astonished. "I'm a loyal Republican and I want
to see the Republican party do well and do the right thing. But before
she was selected, no one came to Alaska and asked the questions you're
asking now. And that, to me, is insufficient."

If McCain had sent people to Alaska with instructions to ask who Palin
really is, to find out what substance lay behind the style, how
successful might they have been?

Asked what drives his former boss, Persily confesses he cannot be sure.
"She likes being in the limelight, being the centre of attention. What
she really craves is popularity, she wants the warmth and love of the
public." Laura Chase says Palin has an uncanny ability to be all things
to all people. "She can walk up to people and quickly have a perception
of what they want her to be, and she will instantly be that person."

Persily and Chase, who do not know each other, use the same word to
describe Palin: chameleon. Both also use similar language to explain
how much she unnerves them.

Chase says: "I admire her, she has boundless energy and great
determination. But the idea that she could be the leader of the free
world scares the hell out of me."

Persily believes Palin is "immature, inexperienced, and has poor
judgment", but acknowledges that she could still become president. "And
that," he says, "should scare the hell out of everybody."

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Oct 10, 10:16*pm, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

Persily believes Palin is "immature, inexperienced, and has poor
judgment", but acknowledges that she could still become president. "And
that," he says, "should scare the hell out of everybody."

Marginally interesting, but the conclusions are fogged, subjective,
and give no especial insight. Really successful modern American
politicians have always been snake oil salesmen, it is a prerequisite.

Much the same as a number of the people here who are "discussing" it.
Dishonest, doubtful morals, no integrity, very little character, and
the ready willingness to use anything they can to discredit others,
even lies if necessary, and without a thought for the consequences..

These American political campaigns are invariably a cascade of
negatives, ( also accurately reflected here). The main aim being to
discredit the opponent. Anybody with no knowledge of the matter,
easily impressed, and more or less dispassionately reading all this,
would have to conclude that none of the candidates are suitable for
anything at all other than cleaning stables under supervision.

It wont be long now before we know who wins anyway, and whoever it is,
( although I strongly assume that Obama will take it), will face an
incredibly difficult struggle to get some things in order, assuming
they can be put in order at all under the circumstances obtaining.

One thing is certain, calling people names, denigrating and defaming
them, and wailing about previous politics or incumbents, or the
parties involved, will not solve any problems at all.

Tempting to say "**** ´em! It´s no skin off my nose", but
unfortunately it is. The economic collapse of the American system is
already causing massive damage to other people, and causing other
systems to fail as well.

The presidential election as such is merely a minor consideration in
the face of that. It really doesn´t make a lot of difference who is
driving when the car hits a brick wall head on.

OT-E: Leave it to the Brits.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:07:33 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:
Illinois/Independent Precinct Organizations, 1997

and also, that
Columbia and Harvard isn't as impressive as Yale and Harvard...

HTH,
R

...if anyone else had written that tripe, you'd be all over them.
um...what were the grade points/honors earned??? i reckon you're saying
a c-student at yale is more impressive than a b-student at columbia,

Absolutely. An F- student at Yale is better than A+ with gold-star
clusters student at some backwater trade school like Columbia...

and
harvard law/law review prez, magna cum laude student is less impressive
than a ****wit mba-student at the same university?

Less impressive? No. But I will say I find it funny that when many
talk about Obama and his education, they seem so impressed with
"_HARVARD_" - "Obama went to _HARVARD_," but when those same folks talk
about Bush, Harvard becomes no big deal. The simple fact is that
"****wits" don't score 1200-plus on the (old) SAT and have undergrad
degrees from Yale (admittedly History, IIRC) with grad degrees from
Harvard. And no, I'm not claiming that Bush is some genius - he isn't.
But as wrong as doing that would be, going to extremes the other way is
equally wrong. The simple fact is that Bush is of higher than average
intelligence, but nothing noteworthy.

you're slipping in your contrariness...

Well, I know I've been slipping in something here lately...I had figured
it was all the bull**** from the respective campaigns...

TC,
R