Well, she certainly didn't kill McCain's chances

[Article 15]

in your opinion, not in mine
the main part of what he was saying was that Kaine was not effective

Yeah ... if you focus on 2.3 seconds of the video and turn your ears off for the rest ...

 

[DiveCon]

Yeah ... if you focus on 2.3 seconds of the video and turn your ears off for the rest ...

i watched the whole thing
and it all came back to the very same thing
sorry you cant see that
i but i didnt ignore any of it

 

[Ninja]

here.. ENJOYS some ******* facts, buddy.

Likewise, buddy:

Joe Biden’s history of plagiarism and “stressless scholarship” gave plenty of ammo to his enemies, one of them choosing to circulate a so-called “attack video” to demonstrate Biden’s outright plagiarism of a British politician’s speech. But this appropriation from Neal Kinnock was not the first occurrence of unacknowledged lifting by the senator from Delaware.

In 1965 Biden plagiarized while writing a paper as a student at the Syracuse University Law School in a legal methods course which he failed because of that copied paper. Such “stressless scholarship” as it is euphemistically called has become all too common in the modern Internet era with countless cheatsites and “research services” offering to sell students papers on topics from A to Z.

;;:


In an article entitled “Biden’s Belly Flop”, Newsweek printed Joe Biden’s yearbook picture from his college days and a copy of his law school transcripts with the big “F” in his transcripts circled. Biden was given a chance to repeat his legal methods course, and above the “F” his retake grade of 80% was eventually penciled in. Being a repeat offender when it came to plagiarism made things much, much worse for Biden than they might have been otherwise in his failed bid for the Democratic presidential ticket in 1987.

Senator Biden’s plagiarism of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neal Kinnock took place at a campaign stump at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. In closing his speech, Biden took Kinnock’s ideas and language as if they were his very own inspired thoughts, prefacing Kinnock’s ideas with the phrase “I started thinking as I was coming over here . . . “. Little did Biden suspect that video footage of this speech would be spliced together with footage of Kinnock’s speech in an “attack video” which would be distributed by members of the Dukakis campaign.

::;

Biden initially denied any wrongdoing, claiming that this was just an inadvertent lack of acknowledgement. Yet there were other instances of rhetorical borrowing from speeches made by Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. And the fact that Biden had given other speeches using the Kinnock passages without acknowledgment suggested that the lifting was more than just an inadvertent oversight.

:::;

“In the end, Biden may be remembered as the candidate who truly offered the voters an echo and not a choice.”

:::;

William Safire, former speechwriter for Richard Nixon, gloated in the New York Times over Biden’s demise, quoting a supposedly “embittered Democrat” who said, “I’m going back to Gary Hart . . . At least he didn’t steal that girl from some far-lefty in England.” And he concluded his op-ed column with a swipe at Biden’s ability to think apart from his speechwriter: “So my advice to candidates like Joe Biden is this: Do justly, love perorations and walk humbly with thy speechwriter. (I forget where I got that, but it has a nice ring to it.) ”

With all the press he was receiving over his Neal Kinnock plagiarism courtesy of the Dukakis “attack videos”, Biden was quickly becoming the “most famous political plagiarist of our time”, as Thomas Mallon describes the unfortunate Delaware senator. It was just a matter of time before Biden would have to bow out of the democratic primary.

Famous Plagiarists.com © WarOnPlagiarism.org-- Political Profiles

Someone get this poor man a TelePrompTer™:

[youtube]ThEAO0lt4Dw[/youtube]

 

[Article 15]

i watched the whole thing
and it all came back to the very same thing
sorry you cant see that
i but i didnt ignore any of it

He made two points ... one that he was able but not effective ... two, that his scope of responsibility was too small <--------------- that's where he points out how small Richmond is... Alaska has barely twice the population of Richmond which is 25 times bigger than Wasilla ...from three he continues to say that his appointment would be for political reasons only to shore up VA's electoral votes ...

 

[DiveCon]

He made two points ... one that he was able but not effective ... two, that his scope of responsibility was too small <--------------- that's where he points out how small Richmond is... Alaska has barely twice the population of Richmond which is 25 times bigger than Wasilla ...from three he continues to say that his appointment would be for political reasons only to shore up VA's electoral votes ...

well, AK only has 3 EC votes, and its fairly solid red
so that clearly wasnt why Palin was chosen

i still maintain it was to attract the conservatives back, and that is what i'm seeing
conservatives that were either going to vote 3rd party or stay home, are now supporting the ticket

 

[frazzledgear]

now don't go crazy toro... she's pretty fertile and doesn't believe in birth control

I don't think it was that my expectations were low, cuz they weren't. I just didn't know what the expect.

I will say this, she's one of the few Republicans I can actually LISTEN to speak for any length of time. She didn't bore the snot out of me and even if I strongly disagree with her she got her message across.

It's the wrong message for the country at this point simply based on what Bush & Co have done to this country over the last 8 years. We can't take the chance on McCain/Palin because we can't trust that they won't continue on with business as usual.

Its pretty obvious who wasn't alive under the Carter Presidency -the ABSOLUTE worst President in my lifetime. Whatever conditions you think are SOOO terrible now, it can't compare to the reality under Carter. But you better learn from it anyway -or pay the price for ignorance.

Obama isn't offering anything NEW at all. His idea of "change" is a return to the same old historically proven failures of past policies. He offers the failed policies of both Herbert Hoover and Carter and calls it "change". He wants to inflict on us all Hoover's protectionist policies that directly contributed to the Great Depression combined with the economic disaster that resulted from Carter's policies.

Hoover's protectionist policies that Obama advocates for us today and for the identical reasons Hoover did - resulted in massive factory closings across the country and a snowballing massive unemployment. With the least skilled and least educated paying the heaviest price for those protectionist policies. Carter's failed economic policies (which Obama promises to re-instate) of increasing income taxes (but only on the rich of course), payroll taxes, capital gains tax and business taxes -resulted in double digit interest rates, double digit inflation and nearly double digit unemployment rates. Carter turned a stagnant economy into an outright recession that was bordering on all out depression -and would have been if he had gotten a 2nd term. Oh, can't forget the gas rationing with mile long lines at the gas pumps -that was a lot of fun too. So the current 5.4% unemployment, 1.3% inflation and 5% prime interest rates represent AWFUL Bush policies that can't possibly get worse? ROFLMAO! Just install an unqualified liberal freshman Senator holding out Hoover's and Carter's failed policies once again and watch. While pretending Bush policies have resulted in a terrible economy that is inflicting mass suffering on Americans, keep in mind that France's turn to the left means they are thrilled anytime their unemployment rate drops from its longstanding norm of 10% to 9.8% before returning to 10% the very next month and Europeans pay $8.20 a gallon for their gas.

The average unemployment rate during Bush's Presidency has been 5.25% -never achieved by any Democrat President in modern times and lower than the average unemployment rate for the previous three decades. Economists admit that a 4% unemployment rate is "full employment" on paper but in practice 5.0% is a more realistic figure of "full employment". We have historic lows on interest rates and historic highs on productivity and we stand at 4/10ths of 1% within full employment. In spite of the uptick in home foreclosures, there are still 3.9 million more people who own their own homes than they did under Clinton. Clinton crows about "his" economy despite the fact the average unemployment rate for his 8 years was 5.4% -exactly what it is today -but with less than half the productivity rate of today and when prime interest was 8%. And due to his change in policy two years before leaving office, "his" economy totally collapsed! It requires some real deception or dull minded ignorance to insist we had a better economy under Clinton when it is now known that economy was built on a phony bubble that economists repeatedly warned was unsustainable and would dramatically collapse. And did. We have an economy that may be teetering on becoming stagnant or about to make yet another correction check that is part and parcel of the normal economic cycle. So Dems insist the answer is to shove it over the edge into recession.

Obama is NOT advocating a return to Clinton's economic policies. Not when Clinton continued pretty much with Reagan's economic policies for his first 6 years and those policies are actually much too consistent with McCain's policies. Obama is advocating a return to the proven failed economic policies of Carter -while promising it will result in a Clinton economy! Interesting but stupid delusion to believe the disastrous policies of Carter could possibly produce an economy as existed under either Clinton or Bush -when it can only result in an economy like Carter created.

Carter/Obama policies have repeatedly PROVEN to hit hardest the very people Obama claims he wants to help the most. As a result, while unemployment under Carter sharply rose to nearly 10% - among minorities and the poorest, that rate skyrocketed to 22%. Have to be pretty stupid or just downright ignorant to believe it will suddenly produce the opposite result now. Voters threw Carter out after one term for good reason and the damage he did in just a few years took much longer to repair than it took to inflict. Carter had the balls to run for re-election on a platform that Americans hadn't tightened their belts enough yet. No longer claiming his policies would bring prosperity to families and the nation but promising we could expect only further despair and financial hardship. And here comes Obama holding out the identical loser policies, and repeating Carter's initial lie that these policies will bring greater prosperity to families and the nation. They will do no such thing.

So I wonder about those who insist that in today's dangerous world, with very lethally real enemies, rogue nations seeking nukes, Russia and China both seeking to replace the US as superpower, still engaged in wars we are winning and cannot afford to lose because of the dire consequences to our security -we should elect someone who has never held a job of leadership in his life, one with zero executive experience, one with zero business experience, one who has never even CO-authored a single significant piece of legislation, one with no understanding of economics since he insists he can actually TAX the nation into wealth and properity and absolutely zero experience in energy, diplomacy, military and foreign affairs. In fact, his sole "qualification" is merely a gift for eloquently repeating the speeches someone else has written for him. But he isn't nearly as a gifted speaker when speaking off the cuff or in debates.

So you are going for the single most unqualified Presidential candidate in at least a century and want him elected so we can all find out the hard way that unqualified, inexperienced freshmen Senators really don't make good Presidents after all. And learn the really hard way what we should already know for a fact -when the economy is teetering on turning south, raising taxes is a really, REALLY bad idea. But not to worry! Obama is also hoping to "save" our healthcare system. Another one who believes turning over an entire industry to government is not only the best way to help those who cannot afford adequate healthcare insurance on their own, it is the ONLY way to do so. Only if you also believe that the best and only way to fit an additional family member into your house is by tearing down the entire house and putting up a big flimsy tent instead -and call it an "improvement". That is the only kind of healthcare we can get with Obama's plan. Give us ALL flimsy, inadequate, inefficient and inferior healthcare instead -while making sure we all pay far more for it in taxes than we paid before. Kind of like having a $500 monthly mortage payment on that house and replacing it with that tent we now pay $1500 a month for instead. While the con artist who sold it to us tells us what a great improvement it is.

I found it pretty funny that Dems just WAIL that Palin is unqualified to be VP after holding two different top executive offices. Dems sure didn't whine that Huckabee or Romney, also governors, weren't qualified to for an even higher job -so it must be that she was governor of AK instead of a state in the northeast that makes them believe that bs. But at the very same time they insist that being a junior freshman Senator for a few months makes Obama more than qualified for the job of President? Get real. Not only do Senators grossly overpay themselves for the number of hours they actually spend doing the work of a Senator and not only do they spend far more days not working at all than the number of days they spend on the job - their best skills are at figuring out to put pork into some unrelated bill and engage in partisan sniping. Obama hasn't done a darn thing of note as a Senator. In spite of the fact he has been one for EXACTLY as long as Palin has been holding the executive office of governor. But unlike Obama - she HAS done much of note while holding that job which explains her 80% approval rating among her own constituents.

Palin is more qualified in terms of relevant experience for the job of President even though she isn't running for that job - than Obama and Biden combined. I think it is both sad and hilarious that the guy who claimed to be THE One to bring about "change" chose an old, angry bitter white guy as his running mate -while trotting out the same old historically proven failed policies of the past. He turned to the past in EVERY way possible and calls it "change". McCain looked forward and chose someone who is clearly going to be among the next generation of leaders in this country. Someone who is not only quite politically skilled, but one who actually has quite a remarkable record of significant accomplishments in that time given the fact she's had her job exactly as long as Obama has had the job of Senator. Yet he is the one with nothing at all to show for it except the title. While you may believe that makes him fully qualified for the most powerful job in the world, a job for which he has no relevant experience and no major accomplishments whatsoever -in my book that makes him totally unfit for the job.

 

[frazzledgear]

well, AK only has 3 EC votes, and its fairly solid red
so that clearly wasnt why Palin was chosen

i still maintain it was to attract the conservatives back, and that is what i'm seeing
conservatives that were either going to vote 3rd party or stay home, are now supporting the ticket

He chose Palin for a specific reason - for the same vote that gave Bush the election in 2000. Rural and small town voters. In spite of the phony bs about who actually won Florida and the repeated counts and recounts -if Gore had been able to win his OWN state which is usually a given in every Presidential election - he would have been President even while losing Florida. But he lost big time among rural and small town voters, including in his own state which went for Bush. Bush won big time among rural and small town voters across the country. And these are the voters McCain intends to keep in his own camp while portraying Obama as a big city, out of touch urban guy who immersed himself in the Chicago political machine before emerging on the scene in Washington. Something rural voters cannot identify with at all and usually (and accurately) perceive as totally corrupt.

 

[DiveCon]

He chose Palin for a specific reason - for the same vote that gave Bush the election in 2000. Rural and small town voters. In spite of the phony bs about who actually won Florida and the repeated counts and recounts -if Gore had been able to win his OWN state which is usually a given in every Presidential election - he would have been President even while losing Florida. But he lost big time among rural and small town voters, including in his own state which went for Bush. Bush won big time among rural and small town voters across the country. And these are the voters McCain intends to keep in his own camp while portraying Obama as a big city, out of touch urban guy who immersed himself in the Chicago political machine before emerging on the scene in Washington. Something rural voters cannot identify with at all and usually (and accurately) perceive as totally corrupt.

its going to be another close one

 

[Jeepers]

MSNBC's Kieth Olbermann reported that the telepromter was not working correctly...so you would be wrong.

I guess Olberman is all seeing and all knowing... I watched that teleprompter all night...it had a 30 second hiccup and then kept going...

 

[Jon]

I guess Olberman is all seeing and all knowing... I watched that teleprompter all night...it had a 30 second hiccup and then kept going...

30 seconds is long enough for Obama to stammer through at least six words and change his entire speech. Palin never showed a bit of weakness in her speech.

 

[Shogun]

Likewise, buddy:



Famous Plagiarists.com © WarOnPlagiarism.org-- Political Profiles

Someone get this poor man a TelePrompTer™:

[youtube]ThEAO0lt4Dw[/youtube]

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

yea!


because BIDEN is the ONLY politician to ever lift anything from a previous politician! OH NOOOEZ!






OLD bullshit versus BRAND NEW MEDIA FODDER.. yea, IM impressed! Maybe it's time you figure out why unvetted gimmick nominees will come back to haunt you post afterglow of your little convention orgasm...





poor guy..

 

[Shogun]

30 seconds is long enough for Obama to stammer through at least six words and change his entire speech. Palin never showed a bit of weakness in her speech.

yea.. it takes a LOT to memorize words given to you by a speech writer..





Besides, did she really need to show weakness when she was lying her ass off?

"I was FOR the bridge to nowhere before I was against it!"

 

[DiveCon]

yea.. it takes a LOT to memorize words given to you by a speech writer..





Besides, did she really need to show weakness when she was lying her ass off?

"I was FOR the bridge to nowhere before I was against it!"

LOL yeah, lets see YOU do it

btw, she was FOR getting the money, but NOT for the bridge
she used that money for more appropriate needs

 

[AllieBaba]

yea.. it takes a LOT to memorize words given to you by a speech writer..





Besides, did she really need to show weakness when she was lying her ass off?

"I was FOR the bridge to nowhere before I was against it!"

That's right, and a brilliant little bit of maneuvering it was, too.

 

[Care4all]

LOL yeah, lets see YOU do it

btw, she was FOR getting the money, but NOT for the bridge
she used that money for more appropriate needs

Alaska gets MORE than any other State in the USA in federal funds and PORK...

And their State gvt monies are in SURPLUS....taking OUR tax dollars and spending them in Alaska, when their State CLEARLY DOES NOT NEED THEM, is unethical imo....Alaska has abused us, primarily with Ted Stephens sending a great deal of OUR MONEY there....

Whether it was for the bridge to no where, or our money used there for something else....it is pork and it is OUR money, not theirs that they are taking from us....

it was and is wrong, primarily because the State of Alaska is running a surplus imho.

now that the repubs, young and stevens are in the hot seat, this should all be diminished in the future, HOPEFULLY.

 

[AllieBaba]

They don't need any money, they're nobodies! They're stupid! They're not really a part of the US! They're insignificant, gun-hugging Christians!

Send the money to the eastern US and LA, where it belongs!

 

[Shogun]

LOL yeah, lets see YOU do it

btw, she was FOR getting the money, but NOT for the bridge
she used that money for more appropriate needs

do you have ANY idea how ******* stupid it sounds for you to sit there and pretend that it makes a difference if she was FOR the money but AGAINST the bridge? DESPITE the long list of ******* evidence otherwise?


dude. for real. This desperate shit is getting to the level of "depends on what your definition of "IS" is".

 

[Shogun]

That's right, and a brilliant little bit of maneuvering it was, too.

HAHAHAHA!

yea.. BRILLIANT enough to become one hell of an albatross once the afterglow of the convention orgasm wears off!


for real.. your party shot itself in the foot with this one.

 

[AllieBaba]

She got the money, and the bridge is still under construction, and they're still developing...but got rid of all the negative aspects of that mess.

Win/win. Like I said, the woman's a genius.

 

[Shogun]

They don't need any money, they're nobodies! They're stupid! They're not really a part of the US! They're insignificant, gun-hugging Christians!

Send the money to the eastern US and LA, where it belongs!

uh, well.. when the message of her speech was a 180 degree opposite...


yea..