[kj] ot- palin vote

[Brendan]

"never reelect anybody"

And be plagued with candidates who can promise whatever they want knowing
that all they have to do is get into power, nothing really contingent on
keeping their promises...I think that's a fucked idea personally. One of
the big problems with the current financial crisis is that leaders of the
institutional investing companies has aggressive quarterly growth targets,
creating a narrow, aggressive, short-term focus on results...as Steven
Covey would say, production vs production capability. Ie making /
comsuming as much as you can now, as opposed to increasing your ability to
produce (saving).

You get the same thing in politics if all you ever have are repeated short
term tenures, no decent long term infrastrastructure spend, bridges
collapsing etc...


> Heya Karen,

>

> If you notice, I never brought up McCain or Palin here or

> promoted/endorsed any nominee.

> I never mentioned Obama till the whole mega Palin thread from a few weeks

> back.

> (Which a gatherer asked that we drop as it was overwhelming the list

> and I so obliged.)

>

> I have my issues with all 4 candidates. I voted for none of them in

> the primaries.

> Is the Palin the best candidate? No. Is Obama the best candidate? No. Did

> Obama

> pick the best VP candidate which would have made this election a

> thorough trouncing?

> Once again. No. (Hillary & Obama? Don't even bother campaigning! Sit

> back and win.)

>

> Politics. As Kinky Friedman said.

>

> "But all these guys want to do is look good, and that is the nature

> of politics:

> poly, meaning more than one, and ticks, meaning blood-sucking parasites.

> That's what they've all become after they've been around a while, so

> I just say never reelect anybody."

>

>

> The media? It's only the republicans and right wingers that discussed

> it. Why is "ties" in quotes?

> But see, you're talking about Sean Hannity, who is only listened to

> and watched by the base.

> How long ago has he mentioned Obama's ties? Many months ago. The only

> reason this got any

> traction in NYT etc... whatsoever is because Palin mentioned it on the

> stump.

> If it were not mentioned by her, the news sources would continue to

> never mention it.

>

> Having one network out of the dozens that are out there investigate

> Obama is something I'd call Kid Gloves.

>

> Everyone has skeletons and let them all be brought out. I have no

> issues with that.

> There is one word that I love dearly. "Transparency" :)

>

> Still Rockin' (or at least trying)!

> Yos

>

> Have a wonderful day Karen!

>

>

> At 01:25 PM 10/8/2008, Karen Weil wrote:

>>Hi, Exorcist.

>>Look, no offense, really: But what do you think McCain's campaign is

>>-- pure substance?

>>Do you really, really, really think McCain "chose" Palin because she

>>was truly the "best candidate"?

>>You're a sharp guy, for sure, but you know better than that.

>>(Look, we all know Biden was a convenient pick for Obama, as well --

>>but at least he makes sense.)

>>This sounds harsh, but I have to agree with Alex: She's shit.

>>And, in case you missed it, Sean Hannity had a blistering expose"on

>>Obama's "ties" with William Ayers. Don't think the media hasn't been

>>having a field day with that.

>>With all due respect, I have to disagree with you that Obama has

>>gotten the kid-gloves treatment here. He hasn't -- nor should he.

>>Neither should McCain.

>>(And if you don't think McCain doesn't have his own share of

>>skeletons in the closet, you're kidding yourself. That doesn't mean

>>McCain is terrible, mind you, but it's just the truth.)

>>As a much-revered president once said about politics: "If you can't

>>stand the heat ..."

>>Please have a good day.

>>

>>Keep on rocking,

>>

>>k.w.

>>

>>

>>----- Original Message -----

>>From: <mailto:killingjoke at theimmortalfool.com>The Exorcist

>>To: <mailto:gathering at misera.net>A list about all things Killing

>>Joke (the band!)

>>Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 10:10 AM

>>Subject: Re: [kj] ot- palin vote

>>

>>I always said people's record is fair game. Have you looked up Obama's

>> record?

>>Have you seen any of the big papers or bloggers go after his record?

>>

>>Nope...

>>

>>I've yet to hear one thing that he has accomplished.

>>

>>His entire campaign is based on pure rhetoric. Though I am glad that

>>you've come around to

>>agreeing about going after ones record and not their race/gender and

>>just constant ad hominem attacks.

>>

>>At 07:12 AM 10/8/2008, Alexander Smith wrote:

>>>"She's been the most vilified and attacked person in ages."

>>>

>>>Hardly. If anything, she hasn't been attacked ENOUGH. Not about her

>>>gender or her character, but ABOUT HER RECORD.

>>>

>>>She's shit.

>>>

>>>Alex in NYC

>>>

>>>

>>>On Oct 8, 2008, at 3:18 AM, The Exorcist wrote:

>>>

>>>>Soft on her? She's been the most vilified and attacked person in ages.

>>>>

>>>>The Bush Doctrine? What about Joe Biden's massive screwup

>>>>interpreting the constitution? (Wait a second! for someone who

>>>>has been in the field for 35 years... screws up so bad... Yet no

>>>>one says a word? AMAZING! This is the friggin CONSTITUTION!

>>>>But I've heard nary a peep.)

>>>>

>>>>As I've pointed out before, the interviewer (Mr. Gibson) himself

>>>>did not know the Bush doctrine and

>>>>was immediately smacked down by the individual who coined the

>>>>phrase (Charles Krauthammer).

>>>>I've linked to it in my previous emails when we had the whole

>>>>Palin thing going on.

>>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>You may disagree all you want Brendan but you are dead wrong on this.

>>>>Not to mention that even if you were correct, not knowing the

>>>>constitution (after being in the service for 35 years)

>>>>or not knowing the bush doctrine - you tell me which is more pathetic.

>>>>

>>>>(And I still stand by my opinion that Obama is a talentless hack

>>>>who never accomplished anything and was hand-held

>>>>his entire career. Go and read up on how he achieved every job

>>>>title he ever had.)

>>>>

>>>>Judge not lest ye be judged. :)

>>>>

>>>>Cheers,

>>>>Yos

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>At 12:07 AM 10/8/2008, Brendan wrote:

>>>>>"Given enough time she'd be just as good with talking points and

>>>>> gotcha's

>>>>>as he is."

>>>>>

>>>>>That's an assumption I disagree with...unlike some others who have

>>>>> gone

>>>>>soft on her, I think stuff like not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is

>>>>> is

>>>>>absolutely pathetic, and provides more evidence that she's in there

>>>>> for

>>>>>reasons of personality / looks / gender / demographic as opposed to

>>>>> talent

>>>>>(gasp!).

>>>>>

>>>>> > Every poll is rigged... Look at the Daily Kos; they list every poll

>>>>> > out there and tell everyone to go and vote to change the numbers.

>>>>> > They do this for Obama, Palin, Mccain and every other friggin

>>>>> person out

>>>>> > there.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Look up freep and words similar to that.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > You ppl. really need to stop getting so fussy. :)

>>>>> >

>>>>> > When the Obama sent out the mass mailer to all their supporters to

>>>>> > shut down the radio show

>>>>> > that hosted some of his detractors I don't recall you worrying much

>>>>> > about bias. :)

>>>>> >

>>>>> > BTW, IMHO, her qualifications are just as good as Obama (which

>>>>> means

>>>>> > ZERO or close to it). He just has his

>>>>> > talking points down better after campaigning for so long. Given

>>>>> > enough time she'd be just as good with talking

>>>>> > points and gotcha's as he is.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Obama is currently in the lead and may very well win the election.

>>>>> > Life goes on and you prepare for the next one.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > BTW.... The same thing that those nasty "republicans" are doing...

>>>>> is

>>>>> > the same thing you are doing now.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Cheers,

>>>>> > Me :)

>>>>> >

>>>>> >

>>>>> > At 11:12 AM 10/7/2008, fluw wrote:

>>>>> >>Forward--

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >>PBS has an online poll posted asking if Sarah Palin is

>>>>> >>qualified.  Apparently the Republicans knew about this in advance

>>>>> >>and are flooding the voting with YES votes.  I know -- it's only a

>>>>> >>poll.  But it will be reported on PBS, picked up by mainstream

>>>>> media

>>>>> >>and can influence undecided voters in swing states. Please do two

>>>>> >>things -- takes 20 seconds

>>>>> >>1)  Click on link and vote yourself.  Here's the link:

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >>< http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html >

>>>>> http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

>>>>> >>2)  Then send this to every single voter you know, irregardless of

>>>>> >>party affiliation, and  urge them to vote and pass it on.

>>>>> >>The last thing we need is PBS having to say their viewers think

>>>>> >>Sarah Palin is qualified unless we ALL vote.

>>>>> >>Thanks.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >>_______________________________________________

>>>>> >>Gathering mailing list

>>>>> >><mailto:Gathering at misera.net>Gathering at misera.net

>>>>> >> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Competition is a barbaric, insensitive ritual that reeks of social

>>>>> > Darwinism.

>>>>> > We cannot allow the fittest to survive on our pages. Your loss

>>>>> is someone

>>>>> > else's gain, and your gain is someone else's loss. Therefore,

>>>>> losers

>>>>> > contribute

>>>>> > to the society and winners take away from it. Being a winner is

>>>>> > unethical, while

>>>>> > a society of losers is happy and striving as a collective. In the

>>>>> > spirit of diversity,

>>>>> > inclusiveness, and collectivism our contests shall have no winners.

>>>>> > Everyone is declared a loser, which in our book means an ethical

>>>>> team

>>>>> > player.

>>>>> > _______________________________________________

>>>>> > Gathering mailing list

>>>>> > <mailto:Gathering at misera.net>Gathering at misera.net

>>>>> > http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>>>>> >

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>_______________________________________________

>>>>>Gathering mailing list

>>>>><mailto:Gathering at misera.net>Gathering at misera.net

>>>>>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>>>>

>>>>Competition is a barbaric, insensitive ritual that reeks of social

>>>>Darwinism.

>>>>We cannot allow the fittest to survive on our pages. Your loss is

>>>> someone

>>>>else's gain, and your gain is someone else's loss. Therefore,

>>>>losers contribute

>>>>to the society and winners take away from it. Being a winner is

>>>>unethical, while

>>>>a society of losers is happy and striving as a collective. In the

>>>>spirit of diversity,

>>>>inclusiveness, and collectivism our contests shall have no winners.

>>>>Everyone is declared a loser, which in our book means an ethical

>>>>team player.

>>>>_______________________________________________

>>>>Gathering mailing list

>>>><mailto:Gathering at misera.net>Gathering at misera.net

>>>>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>>>

>>>_______________________________________________

>>>Gathering mailing list

>>>Gathering at misera.net

>>>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>>

>>Competition is a barbaric, insensitive ritual that reeks of social

>> Darwinism.

>>We cannot allow the fittest to survive on our pages. Your loss is someone

>>else's gain, and your gain is someone else's loss. Therefore, losers

>>contribute

>>to the society and winners take away from it. Being a winner is

>>unethical, while

>>a society of losers is happy and striving as a collective. In the

>>spirit of diversity,

>>inclusiveness, and collectivism our contests shall have no winners.

>>Everyone is declared a loser, which in our book means an ethical team

>> player.

>>

>>

>>----------

>>_______________________________________________

>>Gathering mailing list

>>Gathering at misera.net

>>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>>

>>_______________________________________________

>>Gathering mailing list

>>Gathering at misera.net

>>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>

> Competition is a barbaric, insensitive ritual that reeks of social

> Darwinism.

> We cannot allow the fittest to survive on our pages. Your loss is someone

> else's gain, and your gain is someone else's loss. Therefore, losers

> contribute

> to the society and winners take away from it. Being a winner is

> unethical, while

> a society of losers is happy and striving as a collective. In the

> spirit of diversity,

> inclusiveness, and collectivism our contests shall have no winners.

> Everyone is declared a loser, which in our book means an ethical team

> player.

> _______________________________________________

> Gathering mailing list

> Gathering at misera.net

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>