^New York Times

The newspaper losing more income and readers than any other newspaper in America.

GREAT REFERENCES!!!

9/13/2008 5:42:13 PM

Quote :

"fuck sarah palin"

9/13/2008 6:00:29 PM

^^So, there's the predictable attack of the source. Who will deliver the next logical fallacy in an attempt to defend her?

9/13/2008 6:44:48 PM

the new york times is one of the biggest newspapers in america, stop it

9/13/2008 6:51:27 PM

Ouch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU

9/14/2008 2:30:18 AM

What ever happened to traps? If the wolves are a problem, trap them and transport them to another part of the state where they don't present a problem. Or euthanize them if you must. No reason to risk maiming them with a poor shot. Unless you're a sadistic bitch who wants the "devil's predators" to feel God's wrath.

9/14/2008 2:54:45 AM

I'm sure tranquilizers posed an undue financial burden on the hunters.

Let the free market decide what hunters kill wolves with from airplanes.

9/14/2008 7:52:32 AM

Just to lighten this thread up a bit:

9/14/2008 8:41:13 AM

What's the only difference between George Bush and Sarah Palin?

9/14/2008 12:31:38 PM

^the fact that i want to bang Sarah and not George

9/14/2008 12:43:24 PM

^^^No longer available



Hilarious.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM. Reason : ,]

9/14/2008 5:59:46 PM

^ That show was painful to watch...a giant hairball of unfunny. Lorne Michaels should be ashamed.

9/14/2008 9:32:05 PM

are you serious?
you have your head so far up your ass that you can't even admit a good impression and parody when you see it?

9/14/2008 10:35:13 PM

that was funny

9/14/2008 11:31:24 PM

I was wondering about her defense of her non-existant foreign relations experience. She said if you go back and look at vice presidential candidates, they had not met with heads of state before, either. Well, of course she pulled that right out of her ass.

This woman is supposed to be able to meet with foreign heads of state and conduct diplomacy on behalf of the president. How can anyone honestly think she can competently do that? Try to imagine this woman meeting with Vladamir Putin. He will eat her alive.

9/14/2008 11:34:43 PM

^ Palin does have a lot of skeletons, but it's hard to boil them down to a soundbite, so it's difficult to put them against the positive soundbites.

Plus, talking so much about Palin plays right in to McCain's hand. Olberman, and everyone else getting so bent out of shape takes the spotlight off of the Obama camp, which means they can't really get their message out.

Really, Obama would be better off if the media just ignored Palin, and pretended she was as meaningless as VP candidates have always been (for the most part).

9/14/2008 11:46:05 PM

Man, I am getting so bored of this Palin bs.

It's like the Dems decided that if their attacks can't stick with McCain (Americans apparently saw right through their "more of the same" schtick), they will attack his VP. And boy isn't that working out!!!

9/14/2008 11:56:54 PM

Considering Cheney's influence on Bush, I think VP picks should get a lot of attention, and are not meaningless. Especially one like her.

^It's pathetic how gullible so many people are.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 11:58 PM. Reason : .]

9/14/2008 11:57:15 PM

Quote :

"It's like the Dems decided that if their attacks can't stick with McCain (Americans apparently saw right through their "more of the same" schtick), they will attack his VP. "

That schtick worked very well, and is going to continue to work, if they can get the spotlight off Palin.

McCain wasn't gaining any traction UNTIL Palin. McCAin's best tactic is to keep Palin in the spotlight as much as possible.

^ To me, it seems it's obvious Palin is nothing more than a figurehead. If you watched the Gibson interview, she doesn't have any ideas or motivations of her own. She has no chance of being another Cheney. And from the campaigning perspective, McCain's deflecting any criticism of Palin as sexist works very well, so it would be difficult to punch through the wall of bullshit McCain has built around Palin. The best strategy is to just ignore her and marginalize her significance.

9/15/2008 12:02:45 AM

Maybe you're right.

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 12:04 AM. Reason : .]

9/15/2008 12:03:07 AM

it's gotta suck to have to deal with the same bullshit that you yourself are using as a campaign tool. McCain uses gender, Obama tacitly uses race. It's great

9/15/2008 12:52:55 AM

lol, one of the related videos from the Palin interview is the Miss Teen SC pageant question

9/15/2008 12:55:41 AM

Quote :

"The best strategy is to just ignore her and marginalize her significance."

To late for that, by focusing so much on her already the Democrats have blown that strategy. They can't really ignore her and treat her as insignificant, since they have already focused so much on her the past 2 weeks.

The Democrats themselves have made her significant.

9/15/2008 12:59:39 AM

^ not really, there's plenty of time to make her insignificant. You overestimate the public's collective intelligence span.

And it's ludicrous to say the dems are what's making her significant, if you've seen any of the recent McCain ads. They may as well make Palin the head of the ticket.

^^^ Haha, I guess if that's what helps you sleep at night. It would be impossible for Obama to use the cry of racist anywhere near as much as McCain has been using sexist. America just doesn't/can't respond to allegations of racism like they do sexism.

9/15/2008 1:41:20 AM

Quote :

"America just doesn't/can't respond to allegations of racism like they do sexism."

.... really??

9/15/2008 7:56:59 AM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/McCain_Fundamentals_are_still_strong.html?showall

I mean, I knew McCain was old, but I never thought he might actually be senile. Of all the mornings to make a statement like this, he picks the one where two of the largest financial institutions on Wall Street bite the bullet (with a third on the way)?

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 10:32 AM. Reason : :]

9/15/2008 10:32:28 AM

Quote :

"It's like the Dems decided that if their attacks can't stick with McCain"

That is fucking bullshit. I am not Dem and have always like John McCain and we up till recently 100% locked into voting for him. I absolutely detest Palin. Except for a few minute details her platform is close to the antithesis of what I beleive in. She was choose for little other reason than as a "trick play" for McCain to pander to the Christian right-wing crowd, walmart shopping working class women; and to represent "change" by having a VP woman to counter the democratic ticket of running a black man.

Independents, moderates, or anyone else in the professional socioeconomic class should be disgusted at McCain pick.

9/15/2008 11:40:59 AM

I consider myself fairly moderate on economic issues but progressive on social issues. I seriously considered McCain for a while, bascially because of his 2000 run and some other issues I agree with him on. However with his choice of Palin and his 180 on some other issues there is no way I can seriously support him.

If he would have gone with someone moderate (Liberman) for VP he could have had a very serious go at my vote. But now? No thanks.

9/15/2008 11:44:35 AM

^ If McCain had picked Lieberman, I think he almost certainly would have won. Now, it's a toss up, with Obama still ahead in the electoral vote.

What republican is going to vote for Obama just because of Lieberman? And that would have pulled a lot of the "change" voters away from Obama, as well as the independents, because choosing someone who was formerly not of your party is the epitome of change.

9/15/2008 11:50:24 AM

I'm in the same boat as you two. I really don't understand the "pandering to the far right" aspect of picking Palin. You already had their vote anyway, why pander to them? Then there was the hope that she would bring over women voters, which polls indicate she has, but all that proves are that these women don't actually care about the candidates policy, beliefs or history, just as long as they're a woman.

I may still vote for Mccain, but this VP pick was terrible for me.

9/15/2008 11:59:31 AM

Lieberman would never have worked because there's no way the Conservative Christian Right would've voted for a Moderate Jew.

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2008 12:05:16 PM

Lieberman scares me at least as much as Palin does.

9/15/2008 12:09:16 PM

Quote :

"What republican is going to vote for Obama just because of Lieberman?"

ZERO....but I guarantee you that a lot of republicans would NOT vote because if Lieberman.

9/15/2008 12:23:44 PM

Quote :

"I really don't understand the "pandering to the far right" aspect of picking Palin. You already had their vote anyway, why pander to them? Then there was the hope that she would bring over women voters, which polls indicate she has, but all that proves are that these women don't actually care about the candidates policy, beliefs or history, just as long as they're a woman. "

The former was what I thought when all my right wing buddies try to talk about how great Palin is. I do not exactly see Billy Bob upset with McCain going to the polls to vote Obama. On the later I could only see the "woman conversion" true only for the disadvantaged white woman demographic; those who have little grasp of the true issues and eat up the "popular" appeal Palin has. More educated / High class women were either voting McCain already b.c of they are more christian / conservative or they are to smart to get duped into replacing Hillary with Palin as an alternative to "breaking the glass ceiling". Palin represents the exact opposite of what many of the Fem-Nazi's and left wing liberal women represent; they are not that stupid to blindly run to the poll in Nov to cast a vote for Palin.

9/15/2008 12:33:25 PM

Quote :

"http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/McCain_Fundamentals_are_still_strong.html?showall I mean, I knew McCain was old, but I never thought he might actually be senile. Of all the mornings to make a statement like this, he picks the one where two of the largest financial institutions on Wall Street bite the bullet (with a third on the way)?"

God no shit, because he doesn't know shit about shit in the economy.

His own economic adviser Gramm called US a 'nation of whiners' referring to the economic hardships of Americans. It permeates his campaign and suggests the tact if he takes office...that is precisely why I would never consider him along with my primary reason (I think he'd start more wars).

9/15/2008 1:01:58 PM

EVEN FOX NEWS SAYS THAT MCCAIN IS LYING ABOUT "FACTS"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/foxs-megyn-kelly-works-ov_n_126473.html

Quote :

"KELLY: I want to hold you accountable for what McCain is doing, and get you to weigh in on this. Has your candidate gone too far, has he stretched the truth with the voters? BOUNDS: Well, Megyn, what we have done is gone to great lengths to discuss Barack Obama's record. And I think what you're seeing in this ad today is that he would rather hurl insults than examine his record. I mean, it is true that during a struggling economy, he proposes raising taxes. KELLY: Not on the middle class. BOUNDS: Well.....on job growth and small businesses that drive the job growth of this country. KELLY: But you guys have suggested he's going to raise taxes on the middle class and virtually every independent analyst who took a look at that claim said that's not true. He'll raise it on people making $200,000 or $250,000, but not the middle class. BOUNDS: Well, Megyn, you're giving him an enormous amount of credit for a guy who has voted only to raise taxes in the United States Senate. For now...for him to make a new claim...for him...now, keep in mind -- KELLY: No, no! Let's stay on point, I'm not giving him any credit. I'm saying what the independent analysts say. They say that claim is false. And if that's false, why would John McCain do that, Tucker? Why wouldn't he just level with the voters and say, look, he's going to raise taxes on the wealthy or whatever you consider somebody to be making over $250,000, it's going to have a trickle down effect. That may not be good for the middle class. But why say he's going to raise taxes on the middle class when he's not? BOUNDS: Because his record says that he will. If we take ever his word on everything he says he will do, the oceans will part, the sick will become healed. They're all sorts of things that Barack Obama is claiming on this campaign. But when you look is at his record, he has voted to increase taxes, he has voted in support of higher taxes for people making as little as $42,000 a year. I think you and I can both agree that those people are entrenched in the middle-class of this country. KELLY: Tucker, why did he claim-- BOUNDS: 94 times in three years he is voted in support of higher taxes. Why are we to take him on his word that he would cut any tax? He has no record of doing it. KELLY: Why did John McCain suggests in an ad that Barack Obama supported, comprehensive sex-ed for kindergartners? BOUNDS: You'll notice that the Obama campaign has never refuted that. They voted for that in Barack Obama's committee. His committee that he chaired voted to pass that legislation. If you examine the language in the bill-- KELLY: I looked at the language in the bill. BOUNDS: I know you will have an Obama person on later, I hope that you will ask them if there was language in the bill that actually talked about sex education for kindergartners. KELLY: The language in the bill talks about age appropriate sex ed, including education about child predators and inappropriate touching. What is wrong with that? BOUNDS: And sexually transmitted diseases. KELLY: Right. Why wouldn't you want a kindergartner to be educated somewhat about inappropriate touching from adults? BOUNDS: About sexually transmitted diseases? KELLY: No! No! [crosstalk] His campaign says that's not fair, what he was backing was trying to educate little kindergartners on how to avoid sexual predators' and that you are distorting the language of the bill. Your response. BOUNDS: We did not distort the language of the bill. We told voters that he voted in favor of this education. That is a reform that is on his record. If we cannot talk about the votes that he's actually taken, if we can't talk about the fact that he is supporting higher taxes or has proposed more taxes in a down economy when americans are struggling, what can we talk about? It is an important debate. Let's talk about the facts. No more of the dishonest, sleazy accusations. What he is trying to do is divert attention away from the fact that he is no proven record of making reforms. When voters go to the ballot in November, they will vote for someone who has a record of reform and bipartisanship. That is John McCain, not Barack Obama. "

9/15/2008 1:15:16 PM

I like how higher corporate taxes and taxing higher incomes is going to magically create more jobs.


in fact, our entire quality of life as individuals in this nation should just start increasing because of this socialist "wealth redistribution." right?

we shouldn't be suprised at all when our quality of life goes up and we don't have to work any harder to make it happen

9/15/2008 1:30:09 PM

Maher on Palin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrcy1MxhhVk

9/15/2008 1:30:38 PM

Doesn't Maher have his bi-weekly interview with Osama Bin Laden coming up soon?

PROOF, bill maher is an idiot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsHB7Hjpi4

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 1:37 PM. Reason : ,]

9/15/2008 1:35:40 PM

Quote :

"I like how higher corporate taxes and taxing higher incomes is going to magically create more jobs. in fact, our entire quality of life as individuals in this nation should just start increasing because of this socialist "wealth redistribution." right? we shouldn't be suprised at all when our quality of life goes up and we don't have to work any harder to make it happen"

I'm about to get all Robin Hood all over you. lol.

Don't extrapolate out til where we're dealing just black and white here. it's dismissive. You sound like a Randite. Taxes in general is wealth distribution, government has to have taxes to operate. Now, it's about where you allocate the tax percentages and what bracket. Obama's plan is that our middle class IS our economy and they deserve the tax break seeing as they're over 90% of what's out there.

I mean I'm sorry for big stock portfolio owners and those making over 250K a year but you are going ot have to assume a little more burden and give back to the society to turn this this around. It's not highway robbery, OK? It's funds to improve our economy and sponsor programs that our soceity needs. I mean, Boo fucking hoo. Get over it. You're left with the only Randite belief is to be like ' BUT I WORKED HARD FOR MY MONEY DONT TAKE IT AWAY'.

The funniest thing is is that you're still rich, you're just bitching b/c you'll have less money for that boat or yacht or whatever the fuck. You'll still have plenty.

9/15/2008 1:37:04 PM

^wow. look at that.

every engineer on here i hope understands that this is basically what 45/100 people in america are asking for.


1) free money, b/c "society" deserves it
2) govt to run all their "programs"
3) wealth distribution b/c working hard doesn't mean you deserve more


happy day in the usu

btw: i'll be trading in my engineering degree for a certificate to work at mcdonalds, b/c at least we'll be earning about the same soon!!!!!11

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 1:41 PM. Reason : b]

9/15/2008 1:40:13 PM

umm, what the hell are you talking about? When you can create a coherent response that isn't some spastic bunch of mess, I'll respond.

9/15/2008 2:01:01 PM

Kainen, your basic attitude is that its wrong for someone to be pissed that someone is taking thier money. But its ok for someone to TAKE thier money, as long as they dont touch your money.

9/15/2008 2:09:04 PM

Csharp_live is a hypocrite probing for a basis for his own selfishness and prejudice. He will find what he thinks are "reasons," but none of them are compelling or true.

9/15/2008 2:13:17 PM

Quote :

"Kainen, your basic attitude is that its wrong for someone to be pissed that someone is taking thier money. But its ok for someone to TAKE thier money, as long as they dont touch your money."

I see what you are saying but that's not really my attitude.

My attitude is that wealthy people being pissed that they are skimmed more by the government to stabilize our economy just simply does NOT outweigh the needs of America's society. Don't get me wrong, they have full right to be angry and frustrated with how their money is being used if they so choose, but that anger isn't more important than our economy ills.

The trickle down hands off approach simply is not working and the economy is in a fucking mess. Taxing the top couple of percent of taxpayers is just a way to fix things. I mean, tough break if you're rich and you have that right to complain, but again, doesn't mean it's what's best for most (most as in, 90% +) of America. Some (many even) wealthy people realize this.

9/15/2008 3:12:58 PM

Quote :

"I mean I'm sorry for big stock portfolio owners and those making over 250K a year but you are going ot have to assume a little more burden and give back to the society to turn this this around."

Have you ever actually LOOKED at the tax distribution in this country? The rich pay PLENTY of their burden to "give back to the society". This nation IS full of whiners, and the more entitlements you give to people, the more they will whine about how little they have. People need to take some fucking responsibility for themselves, man up, and do something about their problems instead of looking to the govt.

9/15/2008 3:13:22 PM

oh god, here we go.

People do take responsibility by and large, most of this country are hard ass workers. You conservatives get this image that the lower class are a bunch of welfare, street corner hugging, under bridge dwellers sipping 40's in paper bags but there's nothing further from the truth if you want to examine the numbers of it. Most are actual real people with real families working hard jobs making peanuts. This is a numbers game red stains, the economy is shit because you have middle and low class consumers not buying anything. The economy is shit because they aren't purchasing homes or even foreclosing them.

So if we need more $$ for programs to help our infrastructure, technology, energy, and economy it all boils down to where are you going to get the damn dough?? Do you do nothing like McCain and cut everyone from your pretty wealthy to wall street and yacht owning executives a huge break thinking 'oh well, but of course al that generosity will trickle down?'

Or do you end an expensive war, put some crimp on the smallest percentage of wealthy Americans, scale back the burden on middle and lower class tax brackets, and actually get to work on fixing things?

Granted, I know what you'd choose because you see it as some stoic fundamental right even as the rest of the nation rots from inside out...just so long as you keep your coffers intact. You'll just dismiss what I say as socialist bullshit but that's aight.

9/15/2008 3:29:25 PM

Quote :

"People need to take some fucking responsibility for themselves, man up, and do something about their problems"

wow, that's not a blanket statement at all.

9/15/2008 3:32:35 PM

Quote :

"If McCain had picked Lieberman, I think he almost certainly would have won. Now, it's a toss up, with Obama still ahead in the electoral vote."

Absolutely disgree. The evangenitals wouldn't back a pro-choice, pro-gay rights VP pick. They would either vote 3rd party or not show up at the ballot.

9/15/2008 3:33:39 PM

McCain needed a pro-life right-winged conservative that was far removed from Washington in order to have a chance. Don't forget that McCain has more "pull" moving towards the center on issues, which has made many republicans very unhappy with his stances in the past. Palin was not only all of the above in regards to policy, but a hot female. It was a shrewd, but sensible pick in my mind. He has vastly improved his chances of winning, however I don't see that happening despite what you read.

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 3:40 PM. Reason : -]

9/15/2008 3:40:05 PM