11. What Happy Days character best represents you? Difficulty: no Fonz.

?

Yes, please, all of those. Someone needs to actually give McCain a question. Has the press actually lobbed a serious question at him yet?

/Liberal Press my ass

BuckTurgidson: ?

you don't know how close i was to making a potsy reference.

//sitting on it

Oh, and nice to see that while the anti-Obama threads get mainpaged, this one goes to politics in the middle of the night.

How about "As President, do you believe that it is more important to safeguard American citizens or uphold the ideals of the constitution?"

Can I bang your somewhat trampy daughter?

either this blogger stole this from a fark post within the last 2 days

or some fark poster saw this somewhere else, and then posted it before this blogger could steal it...

nashBridges

You rock like Gibraltar, BABY!

Couldn't have said it better!

Ooooh, If he was asked those questions, I bet he would be calling the reporter a farking coont by the end of it.

I'm surprised his hair is so white for having his head up George's ass for so long. It's no wonder he's lost some of it.... besides being old that is.

I shouldn't say anything about his being old...
because who I will vote for is a year older and much more wiser...
Ron Paul.

/(Every thread needs a Ron Paul thrown in it, if not just for fun.)

nashBridges:

It's not so much whether the questions are fair, it's that they aren't even being asked of him. If Obama had cheated on and eventually left his wife for another woman he would be questioned on it and repeatedly bludgeoned with it in every damn interview he had.

The point of the article is that the media is giving McCain an insane amount of courtesy whilst they're hurling shiat at the democratic candidates.

Some others that won't be asked:

"Do you feel that hugging George Bush in public was a mistake?"

"So what was it like during the Great Depression?"

"Do you ever feel like a minority as the only white male candidate?"

nashBridges

I can honestly say that for the first time in my fark history, I actually read an entire extremely long post and learned a few things from it. I never read really long posts like yours, ever, but I read yours and I dont regret it. Not one bit. I'm glad I did it. Thank you.

I think some missed the point. The point of this story is that to be fair, all should be asked those questions that are really unnecessary, without merit, but sensationalized nevertheless. Reasoning? To gauge reaction, to test. That's it. Intense pressure either brings out the truth, or lies. So let's let it happen and watch the outcome. Nice rants, but don't protect McCain, unless you're worried he'll get into a fistfight, call someone a douche bag (or worse).

And yes, debates are the wrong forum for this, but news radio and TV are not the wrong forum, so ask away...

Obama's mistake was to get frustrated. Answer the bloody question and move on. To Obama: If America, in all it's stupid-endous glory wants to know why you don't wear a farking flag pin, then America wants to know. Those are your constituents. Don't get pissed because we don't have a grasp of all the issues to properly debate you, or you think we're above that. Same message to the others. Just answer and move on.

My mind shut off after the elitist question. The questions before did have some validity but any competent politician would be able to swipe them aside. But the elitist question.... being an elitist is not your station in life nor the comfortably of your upbringing but it is your view upon your fellow man. Being an elitist is one in which you look down upon the little people and say to the world you know better than them because of where you are no matter what the cognizant ability of the lowly.

nashBridges: If Obama isn't on the hook for his own pastor, then McCain isn't on the hook for this, either.

I think you missed the point of the post. Obama shouldn't be on the hook for his pastor, and yet it came up during the debate. If ABC was as ridiculous with McCain as they were with Hillary and Obama, this is what they would ask.

Kos on the cross.

They wouldn't have it any other way.

Number41: If ABC was as ridiculous with McCain as they were with Hillary and Obama, this is what they would ask.

FTFY

No need to lie. ;)

USP .45: Number41: If ABC was as ridiculous with McCain as they were with Hillary and Obama, this is what they would ask.

FTFY

No need to lie. ;)

I still think Hillary/sniper fire jokes are funny, but it's not an issue I think is worth asking at a debate.

GAT_00: Yes, please, all of those. Someone needs to actually give McCain a question. Has the press actually lobbed a serious question at him yet?

/Liberal Press my ass

It's more about him not having an opponent to prod the media into action than any kind of 'love affair'. The Dem primary is a fight right now, which is fundamentally more interesting news, so that's where the snark as well as all other coverage gets focused. There's some snark in McCain's direction, like a lot of really caustic articles about his Iran gaffes and the stupid 'thermiasol causes autism' thing, but it's not harped over for days on end because, unlike the other two, his current position is pretty much entirely immune to anything the media can do at this point.

Also, all of these are things he'll probably get asked in the first debate once the real election starts up. Probably some of them in almost exactly those words. The fact that the Kos guys, who are scarcely more informed than the average voter (if that), picked up on this means everyone else has too. Being blindly dedicated to your political ideology makes one... well, blind. So basically by the time these guys or the conservative bloggers pick up on anything, the real media and more neutral people have already seen it, considered it, hashed out the implications, and added it to their plans as they move on to new information. Which I guess is why Kos is always complaining about the rest of us 'ignoring' 'facts'. We heard these things months ago, or, for those of us around during McCain's last run, years ago, and we're already considering them -- the fact that Kos has only noticed now is the fault of their own ineptness, not the "mainstream media"s or ours.

EsteeFlwrPot: nashBridges

I can honestly say that for the first time in my fark history, I actually read an entire extremely long post and learned a few things from it. I never read really long posts like yours, ever, but I read yours and I dont regret it. Not one bit. I'm glad I did it. Thank you.

I never understood how someone who i see post a decent amount (enough that I know what your profile picture looks like) could be so lazy as to not read long posts. Most long posts are of some substance, and more thought out than many of the short one liners often delivered here (which, I admit, are also fun). On my favorite sports teams forum, someone posted a long post, full of stats and well thought out posts, on the teams achievement, and there were multiple posts on the first page with comments like "too long, didn't read it". And this angers me.

If you can't be bothered to read one or two long posts, why bother posting in threads of serious natures?

Oh... I forgot to mention you are cute too, and no offense... it just baffles me when people don't read long posts (unless they are not broken up into paragraphs).

/yeah, I just might occasionally give cute girls free passes
//and use slashies

Infinite Insanity: If you can't be bothered to read one or two long posts, why bother posting in threads of serious natures?

Number41:
[clever pic]

Well I guess I worded that sort of wrong... how about "if you have time to read and post in a lot of threads, how can you be too lazy to read a long post. it could take 5 minutes"

Unless you are an incredibly slow reader and have to ration your time of course.

/Don't know why I wrote the word serious in there. I deserve it.

nashBridges: If Obama isn't on the hook for his own pastor, then McCain isn't on the hook for this, either.

The press has been hounding Obama about his pastor. What makes you say he is not on the hook. I would agree that he should not be, but he is.

nashBridges: Since Democrats demonstrably do not care about family values, this is an absolute incoherent and irrelevant point.

1) I do not believe you can demonstrate that Democrats do not care about family values.

2) Even if we assume Democrats don't care, what does that have to do with the question? The question is valid regardless of what Democrats believe.

Infinite Insanity: Well I guess I worded that sort of wrong... how about "if you have time to read and post in a lot of threads, how can you be too lazy to read a long post. it could take 5 minutes"

I agree with your sentiment - it'd be nice if people responded to well-thought out discussion, especially since it's often worth more than the equivalent amount of short posts. But thems the internets for ya.

nashBridges: 1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

If Obama isn't on the hook for his own pastor, then McCain isn't on the hook for this, either. He's even less on the hook because this man isn't someone McCain sees every weekend for 20 years.

Obama, at least ostensibly, rejects and denounces Wright for his offensive rhetoric. It's certainly too little, too late for people who had no intention of voting for Obama in the first place. But Obama does at least have the wherewithal to give lip service disagreement.

I myself understand Wright's sentiment, even though it was a sh*tty and unproductive thing to say. Hagee's sentiment, on the other hand, is fairly insane, no matter how well received by the Baptist set. Bluntly, having our foreign policy dictated by speculation on biblical prophecy is quite simply far more dangerous for our nation than a general disaffection for it.

lolmao666: How the hell are you gonna pay a hundred years war in Iraq with tax cuts and the economy going into depression?

did you not watch the debates?

If you lower taxes the government makes more money.

11) Dude, seriously. WTF is that thing on your face?

nashBridges:

1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

If Obama isn't on the hook for his own pastor, then McCain isn't on the hook for this, either. He's even less on the hook because this man isn't someone McCain sees every weekend for 20 years.



If Obama stated that he agreed with everything Wright said, it would mean that he doesn't like white people.

If McCain agrees with Hagee, it means he's willing to sacrifice US interests to fulfill a biblical prophecy and possibly kill millions of non-combatants in the process.

Inquiring minds DO want to know. Sue me, but I don't think it's a good idea to entrust nuclear weapons to someone who's looking forward to Armageddon and devoutly hopes he can help bring it about. Same thing applies to the Evangelicals taking over the Air Force Academy, too.

1. Somebody McCain is only associated with in passing does not compare in any way shape or form to the relationship Obama has with Rev. Wright. It's not even close or anywhere resembling the same thing.

2. Based on the tempers of some liberals I've seen over the past 8 years I'd talk if I were you, but really... What do you think he's going to do, fly in to a rage and order nuclear attacks? Make policy choices in anger? You've got nothing but speculation here.

3. I believe I would rather have somebody as president who has trouble sorting out which group of crazy people that want to kill us is associated with another group of crazy people that want to kill us than have a president that would give a group of crazy people that want to kill us exactly what they want: Defeat for America in Iraq.

4. Please tell me some more lies that have already been conclusively disproved. It adds so much to your credibility.

5. Opportunistic pandering you say? Like expressing disdain for normal every day people in small towns in a private meeting with donors after having run around bowling and acting like you understood those voters?

6. Being rich does not make you elitist. Talking as if normal people in small towns are bitter people that cling to religion and are xenophobic when you think said people will never hear it is elitist.

7. I'd bring up the religion thing if I were you with the whole controversy surrounding Obama's church. The exact 'religion' McCain follows can basically be boiled down to this in so far as many religious voters are concerned: If he believes in Jesus Christ as the savior of humanity then the fine details after that are not that important to most voters.

8. I'd call you a liar again but now you're not exactly lying so much as you're just being deliberately misleading. If this were a court you'd still be guilty of not telling the whole truth. This question won't be asked, you're right, because questions deliberately framed in such a way that they deliberately omit information do not usually make their way in to debates. McCain voted against this bill for reasons unrelated to torture. It would be like if you voted against a bill that contained a provision to feed puppies and a provision to kill kittens and somebody asked "Why did you vote against feeding puppies?"

9. McCain opposed the tax cuts because they were not accompanied by a cut in spending, which everyone except you and people like you already know in spite of our best efforts to educate you. Given the economic situation at the time McCain felt that we should not cut taxes without cutting spending and as I'm sure you're aware since people like you have been playing it up, we're suffering from a minor recession right now so the situation has changed from what it was years ago and raising taxes will only create more problems.

10. So you'd rather have a candidate that lies to you by claiming they are clearly experts on every issue from A to Z? If the economy is a major concern for you then you are endorsing Hillary right? For all of her bravado about experience, she was at least a lawyer for major business and has a long track record of financial deals in which she was intimately involved so of the three she would know the most about it wouldn't she? Are you supporting her? What is it exactly that makes you think Obama is an expert?

log_jammin: did you not watch the debates?
If you lower taxes the government makes more money.

Fact: After the tax cuts the amount of money the government received in taxes increased. Twist in the wind all you like, but this is an absolute fact.

Also...

The government does not make money, it only spends money other people made.

Here's a thing I've been wondering: There exists an organization whose name is usually translated into English by the MSM as 'Al Quaeda in Iraq' Is this organization

A.Connected to the Sunni-oriented bin Laden venture terrorism organization, in which case claims that Al Quaeda has no Iraqi connection are false

B.Unconnected to the bin Laden venture terrorism network and actually funded by Shi'ite Iran, in which case the identification of the organization as a Shi'ite threat is accurate.

?

randomjsa: Fact: After the tax cuts the amount of money the government received in taxes increased. Twist in the wind all you like, but this is an absolute fact.

Fact: After the tax cuts the amount of national debt has skyrocketed.

Twist in the wind all you like, but that is an absolute fact.

The government does not make money, it only spends money other people made.

I don't make money either. I just spend money given to me by my employer that was in exchange for my labor.

I swear to god, fark is increasingly becoming more of a shill for the huffpo/daily kos. it seems like almost any article they have gets put up here.

I just came here to say...

FREE MARKET YEAH

that is all

log_jammin: Fact: After the tax cuts the amount of national debt has skyrocketed.

Twist in the wind all you like, but that is an absolute fact.

I don't make money either. I just spend money given to me by my employer that was in exchange for my labor.

I was addressing his misconception. The government did receive more money after the tax cut and as the government received more money after the tax cut the tax cuts were not the cause of the national debt, irresponsible spending was.

randomjsa: I was addressing his misconception.

then you did a piss poor job of it since you only quoted and responded to me.

The government did receive more money after the tax cut

They money is coming from SOMEONE. so who forked over the extra cash?

tax cuts were not the cause of the national debt, irresponsible spending was.

And McCain wants to continue that irresponsible spending.

log_jammin:

Fact: After the tax cuts the amount of national debt has skyrocketed.

Twist in the wind all you like, but that is an absolute fact.

The government does not make money, it only spends money other people made.

I don't make money either. I just spend money given to me by my employer that was in exchange for my labor.

True debt skyrocketed, but that has more to do with rapidly increased spending than with lower tax revenue. They are not mutually exclusive, tax cuts can cause an increase in government revenue while at the sametime debt can skyrocket due to increased spending. If you wanted to ensure the increased revenue was used, you would cut spending to pay for the increased costs due to the war and increased domestic spending, but that would mean hurting many interest groups.

Daedalus27: tax cuts can cause an increase in government revenue

The money is still coming from someone.

nashBridges:

Since Democrats demonstrably do not care about family values, this is an absolute incoherent and irrelevant point.

They care about family values, they just don't think the definition of family values is restricted to the 1950's "Leave it to Beaver" style fantasy that Republicans campaign on.

I was going to rip apart the rest of your response, but I spotted the trolling comment at the bottom. Bother.

Daedalus27:

If you wanted to ensure the increased revenue was used, you would cut spending to pay for the increased costs due to the war and increased domestic spending, but that would mean hurting many interest groups.

Your proposal is akin to disconnecting your WoW account while ignoring the fact that the interest on your smallest credit card is worth 10 times that amount. Decreasing spending won't fix the problem if you are pouring hideous amounts of money into a pit that has no foreseeable financial benefit to you. This plus the fact that people want to decrease the spending on the things that actually help keep your society stable (infrastructure, research, education, making sure people aren't starving) and you're just creating a big ball of Fail.

Desterion: I swear to god, fark is increasingly becoming more of a shill for the huffpo/daily kos. it seems like almost any article they have gets put up here.

It's been pretty 50/50 on the partisan asshattery being posted from places like Kos, NRO and the like. Most of the HuffPo pieces are aimed at criticizing the media or some faux pas from one of the Democratic campaigns.

/for what it's worth, I preferred Olberrman's questions
//they were actually amusing
///probably cause he made a bit out of the "Why do you hate...?" meme

Daedalus27: They are not mutually exclusive, tax cuts can cause an increase in government revenue while at the sametime debt can skyrocket due to increased spending.

Just as an aside, it really bugs me when people say this because they always ignore the fact that just because tax revenue increases at a specific level due to a change in one direction, that all changes should be in that direction. Whether a change is good or bad depends heavily on who you are taxing, what you are taxing, so on and so forth. The Laffer curve is a true concept, but the point of optimum taxation for maximum revenue shifts constantly based on factors that can change faster than the government is able to adjust the tax rates.

I would like to see him or any other of the candidates go against Ron Paul.

If Paul is so crazy, it will come out.

What you would see, though is a skewering of McCain.

Fail again. Center for American Progress still thinks $50,000


Median income for a household is ~ 60k in America.

This is BY DEFINITION middle class. Or would you prefer the mean, which is ~43K. 50k is in trhe middle of these 2 numbers. Where is their mistake?

Facts. Truth. The enemies of the "consevative."

Middle class. 60k.

Since Democrats demonstrably do not care about family values, this is an absolute incoherent and irrelevant point. It's like Billy Graham criticizing a Democrat for not being "pro-choice enough". Bullshiat logic - FAIL.

That's so stupid and such an obvious lie, I have to go take a dump now.

More questions:

Did you ever feel even a twinge of guilt fer farking around on yer first wife with whores and strippers?

Did you divorce yer first wife because she had been in a car accident while you were a POW or did you just really need to be a gold digging biatch in order to finance yer first campaign?

Do you and dirt celebrate yer birthday on the same day?

Are you really a Manchurian Candidate who will immediately surrender American soveregnty over to Vietnamese interests once some dude in black pojamas flashes an Ace of Diamonds at you?

Will you install Joe Loserman as yer Veep purely in order to continually remind you that AQ are Sunni not Shias?

If we stuck you in front of a green background would you change color like a chameleon or is yer flip flopping and pandering more due to repeated watchings of Woody Allen's 'Zelig'?

When asked about yer sex life wot did Cindy (the "overly made up Trollop") mean when she sed "ever try to shoot pool with a rope?"

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Median income for a household is ~ 60k in America.

This is BY DEFINITION middle class. Or would you prefer the mean, which is ~43K. 50k is in trhe middle of these 2 numbers. Where is their mistake?

Facts. Truth. The enemies of the "consevative."

Middle class. 60k.

I'd even be prepared to say 100K. A couple and they each have a good paying job. sounds fair.

200-250K? no way.

This thread is like the mental gymnastics olympics.

I doubt seriously that a white man republican presidential candidate will escape the anal exam already vetted by every conservative talker and blog.
If he can survive his own party he will be viable with those who see the flaws on the Dem's side.

John is a bulldog about spending and his view that judges should be strict constitutionalists and the idea that fighting Terrorists where ever and not having them over for dinner is the reason he has support.
As far as age his mother is still spry at 94.
His VP choice will of course matter even more.