A Lady by the name of...

[j2k4]

Sarah Palin, current Governor of Alaska, has been selected by John McCain to run as VP on the Republican ticket.

A splendid pick, I think. :whistling

Respond immediately, all of you. :mellow:

[devilsadvocate]

I don't know much about her other than she makes the religious right happy and she has a slim resume. Apparently that Doocy guy on F&F believes she has foreign policy experience because quote: "Alaska is next to Russia"
She will fit in well with the present administration if this thing with her ex brother in law turns out to be true.

[bigboab]

It could not have been funnier if he had picked Michael Palin. It is all tactical to try and get the female votes. After all is said and done, they are gullible.:nono:

[100%]

Does alaska have some hidden agendas?

[IdolEyes787]

It could not have been funnier if he had picked Michael Palin. It is all tactical to try and get the female votes. After all is said and done, they are gullible.:nono:

Clearly but how could they dismiss the fact that if a relatively ancient John McCain succeeds in his election bid his inexperienced running mate is a heatbeat from power.

Even I could write the attack ads in this case.

[bigboab]

It could not have been funnier if he had picked Michael Palin. It is all tactical to try and get the female votes. After all is said and done, they are gullible.:nono:

Clearly but how could they dismiss the fact that if a relatively ancient John McCain succeeds in his election bid his inexperienced running mate is a heatbeat from power.

Even I could write the attack ads in this case.

It doesn't really matter. The leaders are only a front. Kev runs the Republican Party.:whistling

[clocker]

So a soccer mom is going to be a heartbeat from the Presidency, heh?

Let's see...governor of the 47th most populated state (fewer citizens than Denver)- Alaska- which brings in so much oil/gas revenue that it has no state income nor sales tax.
So her experience is what, exactly?

It would appear that her choice is nothing more than a shameless attempt to cash in on disgruntled Hillary supporters, although, short of packing vadge, the two women have nothing in common.

[ilw]

i know nothing about her apart from that she's a governor in alaska, has a bunch of kids, and that apparently she used to take part in beauty pagents.

My initial judgement is that i agree with clocker, however, hopefully her performance over the coming weeks will show that this isn't exploitation of the feminist movement and that she just might be the best VP available to the Republicans

[devilsadvocate]

AT least she knows what her role will be


b4gkPXSDtGQ

Perhaps one of the conservative men explained it to her :whistling

[j2k4]

So a soccer mom is going to be a heartbeat from the Presidency, heh?

Let's see...governor of the 47th most populated state (fewer citizens than Denver)- Alaska- which brings in so much oil/gas revenue that it has no state income nor sales tax.
So her experience is what, exactly?

It would appear that her choice is nothing more than a shameless attempt to cash in on disgruntled Hillary supporters, although, short of packing vadge, the two women have nothing in common.

A blessing, that last.

A shame, though, that 16+ years of Hillary fills your political screen to the point you literally can't see past her.

Alaska wants and deserves prosperity as much as any other state, and those who think otherwise are quite literally over-stepping.

I think Alaska's resources are best husbanded by her citizens.

Hopefully we'll be drilling in ANWR by this time next year.

BTW - I live in Michigan, and our most abundant resource (which we share with many adjoining states) is water.

Imagine how we feel when we hear that Nebraska, or Kansas, or Oklahoma, or California, ffs, needs it more than we do.

Leave the oil and natural gas in the ground?

Use a few thousand acres out of out of 19+ million?

How dare anyone presume to make that decision over the preferences of the Alaskans themselves.

BTW-

Anyone who cares to make an argument in favor of the Dems, please note that Ms. Pelosi favors shifting our dependence from fossil fuels to..........................(I still can't believe she said this)......................natural gas!

[j2k4]

BTW-

You all sound scared shitless....
































...almost as if is finally dawning on you that Obama is toast, which he most assuredly is. :whistling

[clocker]

You miss my point.

Mrs. Palin has less experience governing than most big city mayors and her state is not beset by the budget woes of most others.
So she has no real experience with the issues that face the COUNTRY- she'd have a snowball's chance of being elected mayor of L.A., much less a national post.

So let's see...two weeks ago McCain is telling us that Obama has no experience and he picks this rube from Alaska as his running mate?
Makes one wonder about his choices - God forbid he gets to make them- for Cabinet positions.
Barney Fife as Secretary of Defense?

We can save ANWR for another time.

[clocker]

BTW-

You all sound scared shitless....
...almost as if is finally dawning on you that Obama is toast, which he most assuredly is. :whistling
Care to place a wager on that?

[devilsadvocate]

I'm not scared at all. I know in advance that my candidate will not win.

Assuming either candidate got their fiscal/tax/healthcare plans through congress, financially I would be better off under Obama. I would get a far larger tax cut under Obama and McCains healthcare plan would end up costing me more. However I don't want either of them to win and will vote my principles.

j2k4 as you have repeatedly claimed to be a conservative and not a republican and that you despise McCain, something a lot of conservatives say (then say they will hold their nose).

Will conservatives that vote republican be voting for a VP instead of president and if so why?

[ilw]

j2 - why do you think she is a splendid pick?

[j2k4]

You miss my point.

Mrs. Palin has less experience governing than most big city mayors and her state is not beset by the budget woes of most others.
So she has no real experience with the issues that face the COUNTRY- she'd have a snowball's chance of being elected mayor of L.A., much less a national post.

You miss my point:

She has more experience than Obama, plus that fact she's second, not first, on the ticket.

She arguably has more actual and practical experience than Hillary.

As to the bet, how's about a fifty? :whistling


j2 - why do you think she is a splendid pick?

Google her bio, Ian.

The voters want an environmentalist?

She's got more of that ability in her pinkie than the opposition with all their advisors.

On top of that, and to be totally cynical, Obama cannot be characterized as anything but a token, whose skin color is capitalized but not commented on.

If you want to call Palin a token, feel free; it won't matter.

[IdolEyes787]

I think the obvious reason is that she is a hard c conservative and will attract those hardliners who were disenchanted with McCain.
She has already gotten a ringing endorsement from the religious right.


I doubt if she can attract many of Hilton's disillusioned supporters though.

About experience she was mayor of a town of 9000 two years ago so you are giving her great credit as a fast learner.

[ilw]

Google her bio, Ian.

The voters want an environmentalist?

She's got more of that ability in her pinkie than the opposition with all their advisors.

On top of that, and to be totally cynical, Obama cannot be characterized as anything but a token, whose skin color is capitalized but not commented on.

If you want to call Palin a token, feel free; it won't matter.

Its quite a pathetic state of affairs on both our parts when anyone but old rich white men are considered 'token'.

That said, are we reading the same bio, posing her as an environmentalist seems bizarre, her wikipedia article indicates she's perfectly happy drilling and stripping the Arctic wildlife refuge and seems generally disliked by environmental groups, plus she doesn't believe in AGW...

[j2k4]

Google her bio, Ian.

The voters want an environmentalist?

She's got more of that ability in her pinkie than the opposition with all their advisors.

On top of that, and to be totally cynical, Obama cannot be characterized as anything but a token, whose skin color is capitalized but not commented on.

If you want to call Palin a token, feel free; it won't matter.

Its quite a pathetic state of affairs on both our parts when anyone but old rich white men are considered 'token'.

I think we've got a wee disconnect here. :huh:


That said, are we reading the same bio, posing her as an environmentalist seems bizarre, her wikipedia article indicates she's perfectly happy drilling and stripping the Arctic wildlife refuge and seems generally disliked by environmental groups, plus she doesn't believe in AGW...

Environmentalists don't like anything, and you know it.

Drilling?

Tell me, Ian-

Why not drill?

"Stripping the Arctic wildlife refuge"?

Tell me precisely what you (or the amorphous 'they') mean by that.

One more thing:

To whatever extent natural resources are harvested in your neck of the woods, please recount each of these and justify them.

Do it now.

[devilsadvocate]

I see you are not answering my question.

You miss my point:

She has more experience than Obama,
The arguments being made by both sides about experience are basically political spin and bullshit. The double standard applies.




Rove on Cheney

Well, look, the best candidate training is to, is — you know, this is a guy who won elections in, in a very contested primary in Wyoming, where you have to do a lot of retail campaigning, and got reelected a number of times. He’s — it’s — he’s exercising those political muscles again.Rove on Kaine
With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he’s been a governor for three years, he’s been able but undistinguished. I don’t think people could really name a big, important thing that he’s done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it’s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It’s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I’m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?rove on Palin

She’s a populist, she’s an economic and a social conservative, she’s a reformer, she took on the incumbent governor of the state Frank Murkowski — Republican — beat him in the primary, won an upset in the general election. She’s a former mayor. She’s the mayor of, I think, the second largest city in Alaska before she ran for governor.


The democrats have identical double standards



plus that fact she's second, not first, on the ticket.


Any use of this thinking must mean that you don't think she's ready now.
As the position is literally one heartbeat away from being president, the VP has to be ready from the first day. Which ties into my first question.

[j2k4]

I see you are not answering my question.

The arguments being made by both sides about experience are basically political spin and bullshit. The double standard applies.




Rove on Cheney

Well, look, the best candidate training is to, is — you know, this is a guy who won elections in, in a very contested primary in Wyoming, where you have to do a lot of retail campaigning, and got reelected a number of times. He’s — it’s — he’s exercising those political muscles again.Rove on Kaine
With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he’s been a governor for three years, he’s been able but undistinguished. I don’t think people could really name a big, important thing that he’s done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it’s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It’s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I’m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?rove on Palin

She’s a populist, she’s an economic and a social conservative, she’s a reformer, she took on the incumbent governor of the state Frank Murkowski — Republican — beat him in the primary, won an upset in the general election. She’s a former mayor. She’s the mayor of, I think, the second largest city in Alaska before she ran for governor.


The democrats have identical double standards



plus that fact she's second, not first, on the ticket.


Any use of this thinking must mean that you don't think she's ready now.
As the position is literally one heartbeat away from being president, the VP has to be ready from the first day. Which ties into my first question.

I will first review your other post and attempt to answer your first question, "Will conservatives that vote republican be voting for a VP instead of president and if so why?"

You give me opportunity to explain my voting rationale to you.

As one who denies party affiliation, you surely must know enough about each of the parties to realize the general Republican stance more closely resembles my own than the Democrat bunch ever could, especially this go 'round.

So my options are, 1) do as you apparently will; write in a name or choose a third party candidate in order to remain true to my principles, but to no avail, or-

Take the next-best thing, which is McCain, who has chosen well for his running mate.

To fully answer your question, let me say that you seem to want to imagine a scenario wherein a Conservative contemplating a vote for Obama (:lol:) might be reclaimed as a Republican by virtue of Palin's selection.

I could see a Dem being that wishy-washy, but please be serious.

As to the rest, I'm going to take them in order, without quotes.

Be careful to match them properly.

1) Please describe this double-standard you see, and fit the players to the roles as you see them.

2) The Rove stuff - his snapshot reads on the players...what of them?

3)Ticket position - Right back atcha.

Is she ready?

Now, pay close attention, because this is exactly and precisely my position:

Whether she is or not evades the operative fact, which is that she is, at an absolute minimum, the equal of Obama, who LEADS the Democrat ticket.


BTW-

Ian, I'm waiting.

[devilsadvocate]

I'm not suggesting that any conservative would vote Obama because they are not happy with McCain. I've heard plenty saying they would vote 3rd party and that vote would much better reflect their principles.

The question however made no reference to conservatives thinking of voting other than republican. It was very specific about conservatives that vote republican.

So let me rephrase the question for you.

Why are disheartened republican voting conservatives that state they will hold their nose to vote McCain so excited about the VP selection? Are they voting for a VP instead of a president and if so why?
The question doesn't involve democrats and democrats shouldn't be included in the answer. it's specifically about republican voting conservatives.

The Rove stuff was just one example of the double standard in denouncing a VP pick of the other side while ignoring the same problems with their own choices. What they are critical for the other side they phrase as a plus for their own. It's bullshit.

You seem intent on saying Palin's experience is the same as Obama's. So I'm assuming as you think Palin is a good choice you don't think experience or being ready matters.

On your voting rationale, you have made great efforts to state you are a conservative and not a republican as if it's principle not party you argue from. But you admit you will vote republican no matter. So you are voting against rather than for a candidate. A rationale that will lead to the democratic/republican seesaw status quo being sustained forever. If you want me to accept that you are a conservative and not a republican you surely see how this doesn't help your case.

We get the government we deserve, your rationale IMO will always ensure we get and deserve second best.

[j2k4]

I'm not suggesting that any conservative would vote Obama because they are not happy with McCain. I've heard plenty saying they would vote 3rd party and that vote would much better reflect their principles.

The question however made no reference to conservatives thinking of voting other than republican. It was very specific about conservatives that vote republican.

So let me rephrase the question for you.

Why are disheartened republican voting conservatives that state they will hold their nose to vote McCain so excited about the VP selection? Are they voting for a VP instead of a president and if so why?

The Rove stuff was just one example of the double standard in denouncing a VP pick of the other side while ignoring the same problems with their own choices. What they are critical for the other side they phrase as a plus for their own. It's bullshit.

You seem intent on saying Palin's experience is the same as Obama's. So I'm assuming as you think Palin is a good choice you don't think experience or being ready matters.

On your voting rationale, you have made great efforts to state you are a conservative and not a republican as if it's principle not party you argue from. But you admit you will vote republican no matter. So you are voting against rather than for a candidate. A rationale that will lead to the democratic/republican seesaw status quo being sustained forever. If you want me to accept that you are a conservative and not a republican you surely see how this doesn't help your case.

We get the government we deserve, your rationale IMO will always ensure we get and deserve second best.

"So excited"?

Faced with the prospect of eating a worm, would you be a bit more sanguine if it were slathered with icing?

Obama being (metaphorically, anyway) a bag of worms, and Biden another one.

Yes, we most certainly do get the government we deserve, but with the election looming after (literally) a two-year campaign, a credible third-party challenge is beyond us.

This is all so basic I wonder why I even feel compelled to explain...:whistling

Also-

Given that there are two other candidates altogether, I wonder what earth-shaking event could force you to reveal which one might be yours...or name your poison, feel free. :whistling

[devilsadvocate]

"So excited"?

Yes, excited. The news has been full of previously disheartened conservatives that are suddenly energized over the pick

Faced with the prospect of eating a worm, would you be a bit more sanguine if it were slathered with icing?

Obama being (metaphorically, anyway) a bag of worms, and Biden another one.

You are not answering the question, you are dancing around it and again feel you have to use democrats in the dance.

Yes, we most certainly do get the government we deserve, but with the election looming after (literally) a two-year campaign, a credible third-party challenge is beyond us.

This is all so basic I wonder why I even feel compelled to explain...:whistling

Also-

Given that there are two other candidates altogether, I wonder what earth-shaking event could force you to reveal which one might be yours...or name your poison, feel free. :whistling

Just two other candidates? Now granted the system we have makes it hard for a candidate to get on all the state ballots, which IMO is bad for democracy, but there are more than two 3rd party candidates.

I'm going to explain the question:

There are party loyalists that will cheer party no matter who the candidate is such as Sean Hannity (he's just an example, don't read anything into it).
There are party loyalists that will support the party on ballot day but make it known they are not happy and not cheer in the run up.
There are non party loyalists that feel they have to vote republican because they have no other choice.
There is another group that will either stay at home, or vote 3rd party, but the question is about party loyalist that will be holding their nose.
I pose the question to you because you appear to fit into one of the above, appear to be happy with Palin as a choice. And it's best to ask someone that fits instead of someone that doesn't to get the answer.

You make great noise over the difference between Obama being the president while Palin the vice president.

It has to be considered that McCain is old and suffers life threatening or incapacitating conditions healthwise so VP becoming president has a greater odds with McCain than we would otherwise have with a president. This sounds cold and lets hope he lives a long long life, but it is a reality that has to be factored in.

So are these nose holders and party protest defectors that are now rethinking, hoping Palin will be taking over? Because unless something happens to McCain -



BTW I know resumes generally have a certain amount of embelishment but have you attempted to scratch under the surface of hers to see if she's what she's made out to be as you claim is necessary with Obama?

Her stance on the bridge to nowhere perhaps.

For the record I think for the goals of the right wing of the republican party and the religious right she is a good choice. That doesn't mean I think she's a good choice for America

[Tracy]

Long time no see everyone. Hey J2.

Since this is where I first wet my feet in any political talk, I thought I'd stop in and see what was being said on this very topic.

My personal thoughts are that I like her.

I still, at this time, plan to vote for Ron Paul because represents what I want this country to be. McCain scares me for some reason, and Obama in my view is even worse.

So far as I can see, it is lack of experience that Obama has going for him and that's it. I don't like his plans for the country, but I do like that he is not a long time politician. Too bad he picked an oldy for his VP. Not that it would have made a difference for me, but it would have meant that he really meant change when he said it.

As far as Palin, well, she is new, but she has also been hard at work. She may not have some of the issues others have in their states, but if McCain had chosen one of the good ol boys from Alaska, would we be using location as an issue or singing their praises?

She, in her short time, has shown she is more then just words. She has actually done something. What did the ol boys do in the same position before her?

People are saying he used the sex card in picking her, but that belittles her actual accomplishments, and in my opinion makes those commentors the actual sexists.

But either way, it's still too early to say. I still plan on writing in Paul, but at least now I can consider voting for Palin (yes, I would base it on the VP) because it is no longer as scary as it was about 36 hours ago.

TD

[j2k4]

"So excited"?

Yes, excited. The news has been full of previously disheartened conservatives that are suddenly energized over the pick

Faced with the prospect of eating a worm, would you be a bit more sanguine if it were slathered with icing?

Obama being (metaphorically, anyway) a bag of worms, and Biden another one.

You are not answering the question, you are dancing around it and again feel you have to use democrats in the dance.

Yes, we most certainly do get the government we deserve, but with the election looming after (literally) a two-year campaign, a credible third-party challenge is beyond us.

This is all so basic I wonder why I even feel compelled to explain...:whistling

Also-

Given that there are two other candidates altogether, I wonder what earth-shaking event could force you to reveal which one might be yours...or name your poison, feel free. :whistling

Just two other candidates? Now granted the system we have makes it hard for a candidate to get on all the state ballots, which IMO is bad for democracy, but there are more than two 3rd party candidates.

I'm going to explain the question:

There are party loyalists that will cheer party no matter who the candidate is such as Sean Hannity (he's just an example, don't read anything into it).
There are party loyalists that will support the party on ballot day but make it known they are not happy and not cheer in the run up.
There are non party loyalists that feel they have to vote republican because they have no other choice.
There is another group that will either stay at home, or vote 3rd party, but the question is about party loyalist that will be holding their nose.
I pose the question to you because you appear to fit into one of the above, appear to be happy with Palin as a choice. And it's best to ask someone that fits instead of someone that doesn't to get the answer.

You make great noise over the difference between Obama being the president while Palin the vice president.

It has to be considered that McCain is old and suffers life threatening or incapacitating conditions healthwise so VP becoming president has a greater odds with McCain than we would otherwise have with a president. This sounds cold and lets hope he lives a long long life, but it is a reality that has to be factored in.

So are these nose holders and party protest defectors that are now rethinking, hoping Palin will be taking over? Because unless something happens to McCain -



BTW I know resumes generally have a certain amount of embelishment but have you attempted to scratch under the surface of hers to see if she's what she's made out to be as you claim is necessary with Obama?

Her stance on the bridge to nowhere perhaps.

For the record I think for the goals of the right wing of the republican party and the religious right she is a good choice. That doesn't mean I think she's a good choice for America

Now I'm lost.

It seems you are trying to put a fine point on a blunt instrument.

Do I think there are some who were disenchanted with McCain as a candidate but now have summoned some enthusiasm since he's announced Palin as his running mate?

Sure.

Numbers?

Possibly substantial.

What else do you need to hear?

BTW-

What possible problem could you have with her position on the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere"?

As an aside, while you are still scurrying about avoiding a label, I have divined that, since you are so sure McCain is about to die, the prospect of Palin in the Oval Office disquiets you.

I don't sense any trepidation over the possibility of an Obama presidency, however.

Interesting, huh? :whistling

[devilsadvocate]

Now I'm lost.

I think not, I think you are playing games

It seems you are trying to put a fine point on a blunt instrument.

Do I think there are some who were disenchanted with McCain as a candidate but now have summoned some enthusiasm since he's announced Palin as his running mate?

Sure.

Numbers?

Possibly substantial.

Thanks for that but it answers something I haven't asked.

What else do you need to hear?

I need to hear why these people that claim they have to hold their nose to vote for McCain, these people that said they could never vote for him, these people that say they are only voting for him because they don't want Obama to win are suddenly enthused at the prospects of voting for him because of his VP pick.
I already asked if it had anything to do with the prospect of McCain having to step down (that's the nicest way I can put it) Could it be they are not voting for McCain. They are voting for the pro lifer that wants creationism taught in science classes in the hope of McCain stepping down?

BTW-

What possible problem could you have with her position on the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere"?

What do you think her position is/was and do you think she always held it? Think I was for it before I was against it

In this day and age is it too hard to compare what they say now to what they said then?

As an aside, while you are still scurrying about avoiding a label, I have divined that, since you are so sure McCain is about to die, the prospect of Palin in the Oval Office disquiets you.

I don't sense any trepidation over the possibility of an Obama presidency, however.

Interesting, huh? :whistling

I don't like the idea of McCain, Obama or Biden there but all of them have given me reason not to fear them, domestically at least. Endure perhaps

[j2k4]

I need to hear why these people that claim they have to hold their nose to vote for McCain, these people that said they could never vote for him, these people that say they are only voting for him because they don't want Obama to win are suddenly enthused at the prospects of voting for him because of his VP pick.
I already asked if it had anything to do with the prospect of McCain having to step down (that's the nicest way I can put it) Could it be they are not voting for McCain. They are voting for the pro lifer that wants creationism taught in science classes in the hope of McCain stepping down?

So, you want to know why the "nose-holders", and the ones who would "never vote for McCain", are suddenly hot to vote for McCain?

Okay.

The nose-holders are voting against Obama.

The never-vote-for-McCain contingent is, by default, voting for Palin, and against Obama.

You couldn't figure that out without my help?

Ffs, what does it matter to you, anyway.

BTW-

Its people who, not people that.

Now that I've enlightened you, how do you feel, and what conclusions do you reach?

[devilsadvocate]

I conclude that you are one of those republican people THAT is hoping that McCain wins but that he has to step aside pretty soon. Pretty sad statement about where conservatism is in the party, considering there were far more conservative candidates beaten by McCain.

Did you look into any of Palin's background yet or are you accepting the nod as is?

You may find yourself holding your nose to vote for her as well.

[j2k4]

I conclude that you are one of those republican people THAT is hoping that McCain wins but that he has to step aside pretty soon. Pretty sad statement about where conservatism is in the party, considering there were far more conservative candidates beaten by McCain.

Did you look into any of Palin's background yet or are you accepting the nod as is?

You may find yourself holding your nose to vote for her as well.

I have bio'd her to a fare-thee-well.

I know about the deal with the state cop and his supervisor's firing.

I have no compunctions.

If McCain dropped dead immediately after the inauguration, I would be less unsettled than if Obama was in control.

In alluding to problems you see in Palin's past, you have already spent more time picking over a VP nominee than you have Obama and Tony Rezko or the Ayers character, neither of whom apparently bother you.

Try for some balance while you're being all independent and stuff, huh?

[devilsadvocate]

Obama has had his dirty laundry aired already It's been found he did nothing wrong with Rezko and as for Ayres just what did Obama do? He served on a committee that deals with helping the disadvantaged. Nowhere did Obama plot anything against America or have any connection with the weather underground. There is no there there, just ridiculous innuendo.

I mentioned McCain's close friendship with G Gordon Liddy in another thread. Is McCain for shooting federal agents in the head? Of course not, It's bullshit distractions to avoid talking issues.

Anyone that suggest we know nothing about Obama can't have been paying attention. We've had 18 months of in depth investigations, not just of Obama, but of his family, friends of his family, everyone he has met and those who have met people he met. We know how many times he goes to the toilet and how much the movement weighs and you complain about a couple of days of wondering who the hell this Palin woman is? Good God man.

Obama is who/what he says he is, which is why I'm not voting for him.

Palin has not been vetted and seeing as you started this thread about HER and not Obama, I am discussing her and the reaction to her nomination.

She has been introduced as a conservative reformer with impeccable ethics. So I think the cop thing needs looking into. This is something SHE may have done, not something someone she knows may have done.

In her acceptance speech she stated she told congress thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere. Turns out she pushed to get federal funds restored after congress blocked them and stated she closed the project because the state representatives were unable to procure the funds, leaving them short a few hundred million. Does that sound like a fiscal conservative fighting earmarks?

When Obama proposed a windfall tax on the oil companies to pay for a fuel benefit or when the democrats proposed it to pay for alternative fuel research there was outrage from the republicans about wealth redistribution and accusations of socialism and Marxism. Palin actually did place a windfall tax on them and gave the money to Alaskan residents.

The religious right like her because she wants to ban abortion in all cases, no exceptions and she wants creationism taught in schools. She vetoed a same sex partner benefits bill as well (although apparently only because she was advised it may not be constitutional), So their issues are taken care of, apparently no further vetting is needed and no other issues matter.

[Skiz]

We'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.

She does have experience as Governor of Alaska, a mayor, and legislator, even as a small state, I'm sure the education obtained is relatively high, which truth be told is more than Obama can say, and he's running for the office itself. A community organizer and one-term state assemblyman, and what, 140 days in Congress before he started his campaign for president? Is he more qualified than McCain's second seater? At least she will have the luxury of learning at McCain's side in the event something happens to McCain. But he's healthy and will probably have no problems during a four-year term of office. And I think she and her husband have more real-life experience than Obama does, as well as Biden.

[IdolEyes787]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E29UdRc2Xw8

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E29UdRc2Xw8)Palin attended Hawaii Pacific College in Hilo, Hawaii, in 1982 for a semester, where she majored in Business Administration, and transferred in 1983 to North Idaho College.In 1987, Palin received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho, where she also minored in political science. Palin briefly worked in broadcasting as a sports reporter for local Anchorage television stations and with her husband in commercial fishing.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E29UdRc2Xw8)Expound all you want about her relative experience and readiness to lead but N. Idaho College is a far cry from Havard.
And not just geographically.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E29UdRc2Xw8)

[devilsadvocate]

I could be wrong here but I read Skizo's post as meaning the governing learning process, not academic education. I don't agree with him mind you.

At the moment she accepted the nomination all I knew about her is what she said about herself and how the campaign described her. To date apart from her proclaimed stance on social/cultural issues I haven't seen much that matches the reported reality of her record.

[j2k4]

Obama has had his dirty laundry aired already It's been found he did nothing wrong with Rezko and as for Ayres just what did Obama do? He served on a committee that deals with helping the disadvantaged. Nowhere did Obama plot anything against America or have any connection with the weather underground. There is no there there, just ridiculous innuendo.

Aired?

Bullshit.

Managed would be the word you're looking for.

You libs only yip this much when you've been jabbed stupid.


I mentioned McCain's close friendship with G Gordon Liddy in another thread. Is McCain for shooting federal agents in the head? Of course not, It's bullshit distractions to avoid talking issues.

Do you seriously propose to compare the two?

Liddy spouted for the CIA (to no avail) and then got caught doing a B & E.

Ayers went quite a bit further, I think you'll find.


Anyone that suggest we know nothing about Obama can't have been paying attention. We've had 18 months of in depth investigations, not just of Obama, but of his family, friends of his family, everyone he has met and those who have met people he met. We know how many times he goes to the toilet and how much the movement weighs and you complain about a couple of days of wondering who the hell this Palin woman is? Good God man.

Good God man:

Pray, how much does it weigh?

You're the first I've heard claiming to actually possess that knowledge, tho' I have heard he's been more constipated lately.


Obama is who/what he says he is, which is why I'm not voting for him.

You're fooling, right?


Palin has not been vetted and seeing as you started this thread about HER and not Obama, I am discussing her and the reaction to her nomination.

So I've noticed.

Whom have you been discussing it with, by the way. :whistling


She has been introduced as a conservative reformer with impeccable ethics. So I think the cop thing needs looking into. This is something SHE may have done, not something someone she knows may have done.

It's being investigated, as we speak, by the Alaskan authorities and others.

I'm sure they'd welcome your help.


In her acceptance speech she stated she told congress thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere. Turns out she pushed to get federal funds restored after congress blocked them and stated she closed the project because the state representatives were unable to procure the funds, leaving them short a few hundred million. Does that sound like a fiscal conservative fighting earmarks?

Yes, in fact it does.

Certain tactics work more quickly than others, truth.

You really don't understand that, do you.

The Bridge to Nowhere was a part of another bill; she was seeking to restore the "non-bridge" section, leaving the "bridge" to die of lack of funding, the state (infinitely wiser in refusing to fund it) being the only alternative, and therefore putting an end to it's consideration.



When Obama proposed a windfall tax on the oil companies to pay for a fuel benefit or when the democrats proposed it to pay for alternative fuel research there was outrage from the republicans about wealth redistribution and accusations of socialism and Marxism. Palin actually did place a windfall tax on them and gave the money to Alaskan residents.

That kinda depends on what you call it.

Ffs, I normally find Wikipedia incredibly wanting in most circumstances, but it will work splendidly for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund_Corporation

Funded by state oil taxes to ensure the security of future generations of Alaskans, and administered by a semi-private corporation.

What is there for one such as yourself to complain about.


The religious right like her because she wants to ban abortion in all cases, no exceptions and she wants creationism taught in schools. She vetoed a same sex partner benefits bill as well (although apparently only because she was advised it may not be constitutional), So their issues are taken care of, apparently no further vetting is needed and no other issues matter.

This complaint always kills me.

Pray tell, what does the religious left have to say.


We'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.

She does have experience as Governor of Alaska, a mayor, and legislator, even as a small state, I'm sure the education obtained is relatively high, which truth be told is more than Obama can say, and he's running for the office itself. A community organizer and one-term state assemblyman, and what, 140 days in Congress before he started his campaign for president? Is he more qualified than McCain's second seater? At least she will have the luxury of learning at McCain's side in the event something happens to McCain. But he's healthy and will probably have no problems during a four-year term of office. And I think she and her husband have more real-life experience than Obama does, as well as Biden.


I could be wrong here but I read Skizo's post as meaning the governing learning process, not academic education. I don't agree with him mind you.

Yes, be perfectly clear; you wish to distance yourself from that dastardly conservative baby-eating bastard.


At the moment she accepted the nomination all I knew about her is what she said about herself and how the campaign described her. To date apart from her proclaimed stance on social/cultural issues I haven't seen much that matches the reported reality of her record.

That's 'cuz you only subscribe to liberal sources. :dabs:

Now, if you quote this and start with the red type again, I quit.

Come up with something original.

Objection on principle, for example. :whistling

[clocker]

Well, this just got a lot more interesting.

Palin announces her 17 year old daughter is pregnant.
I can only imagine the awkward position this puts Rove/Limbaugh et al. into.
Had Chelsea Clinton done this, the response from the right would have been a bloodfeast.

[j2k4]

Well, this just got a lot more interesting.

Palin announces her 17 year old daughter is pregnant.
I can only imagine the awkward position this puts Rove/Limbaugh et al. into.
Had Chelsea Clinton done this, the response from the right would have been a bloodfeast.

You've got that ass-backwards.

The smart liberal press will ignore it or treat it properly.

The dumb liberal press will provide entertainment for us all.

The conservative press (WSJ, Washington Times, talk radio, all three) will be circumspect in it's coverage.

As to Chelsea, she'd have had an abortion, and no one would have ever known.




stupid forum

Have to give you that one. ;)

[IdolEyes787]

Well, this just got a lot more interesting.

Palin announces her 17 year old daughter is pregnant.


And she's apparently going to wed the father.

Good thinking,that will work.

Although abortion may be wrong I guess they have no problem with sham weddings,loveless marriages and the inevitable divorcing of father Jethro.

[clocker]

The conservative press (WSJ, Washington Times, talk radio, all three) will be circumspect in it's coverage.

Yeah, talk radio is always circumspect.

I'm guessing Palin will remove herself from the ticket.

[j2k4]

The conservative press (WSJ, Washington Times, talk radio, all three) will be circumspect in it's coverage.

Yeah, talk radio is always circumspect.

I'm guessing Palin will remove herself from the ticket.

Nope.

Won't happen.

She's in solid, and that just cements it.

Let's just see the lib press go toe-to-toe with Mom, the VP candidate. ;)

[clocker]

Let's just see the lib press go toe-to-toe with Mom, the VP candidate. ;)
The "lib press"...why not the conservative press?
Since when have pregnant, unmarried 17 year olds become poster children for "family values"?

Oh, that's right...she's not poor or black.

[j2k4]

Let's just see the lib press go toe-to-toe with Mom, the VP candidate. ;)
The "lib press"...why not the conservative press?
Since when have pregnant, unmarried 17 year olds become poster children for "family values"?

Oh, that's right...she's not poor or black.

The conservative press will be circumspect, as I said.

As to "poor or black", we'll have to wait until one of them is nominated, I guess.

Obama's already said his girls would have an abortion, rather than suffer for a "mistake".

His words, not mine.

[devilsadvocate]

Aired?

Bullshit.

Managed would be the word you're looking for.

You libs only yip this much when you've been jabbed stupid.
Managed??????? How and by who?

I mentioned McCain's close friendship with G Gordon Liddy in another thread. Is McCain for shooting federal agents in the head? Of course not, It's bullshit distractions to avoid talking issues.

Do you seriously propose to compare the two?

Liddy spouted for the CIA (to no avail) and then got caught doing a B & E.

Ayers went quite a bit further, I think you'll find.

It's not about comparing the crimes, it's about linking someone to the crimes when they have/had nothing to do with them.
Obama did not commit the acts or support the weather underground.
McCain did not commit liddy's crimes or agree with his call to shoot federal agents in the head.


Anyone that suggest we know nothing about Obama can't have been paying attention. We've had 18 months of in depth investigations, not just of Obama, but of his family, friends of his family, everyone he has met and those who have met people he met. We know how many times he goes to the toilet and how much the movement weighs and you complain about a couple of days of wondering who the hell this Palin woman is? Good God man.

Good God man:

Pray, how much does it weigh?

You're the first I've heard claiming to actually possess that knowledge, tho' I have heard he's been more constipated lately.


Obama is who/what he says he is, which is why I'm not voting for him.

You're fooling, right?

No


Palin has not been vetted and seeing as you started this thread about HER and not Obama, I am discussing her and the reaction to her nomination.

So I've noticed.

Whom have you been discussing it with, by the way. :whistling
Then why complain about bias for sticking to the subject person?

She has been introduced as a conservative reformer with impeccable ethics. So I think the cop thing needs looking into. This is something SHE may have done, not something someone she knows may have done.

It's being investigated, as we speak, by the Alaskan authorities and others.

I'm sure they'd welcome your help.


In her acceptance speech she stated she told congress thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere. Turns out she pushed to get federal funds restored after congress blocked them and stated she closed the project because the state representatives were unable to procure the funds, leaving them short a few hundred million. Does that sound like a fiscal conservative fighting earmarks?

Yes, in fact it does.

Certain tactics work more quickly than others, truth.

You really don't understand that, do you.

The Bridge to Nowhere was a part of another bill; she was seeking to restore the "non-bridge" section, leaving the "bridge" to die of lack of funding, the state (infinitely wiser in refusing to fund it) being the only alternative, and therefore putting an end to it's consideration.

Sure, no really


When Obama proposed a windfall tax on the oil companies to pay for a fuel benefit or when the democrats proposed it to pay for alternative fuel research there was outrage from the republicans about wealth redistribution and accusations of socialism and Marxism. Palin actually did place a windfall tax on them and gave the money to Alaskan residents.

That kinda depends on what you call it.

Calling it by a different name doesn't change what it is.
Ffs, I normally find Wikipedia incredibly wanting in most circumstances, but it will work splendidly for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund_Corporation

Funded by state oil taxes to ensure the security of future generations of Alaskans, and administered by a semi-private corporation.

What is there for one such as yourself to complain about.

The double standard, I'm not holding my breath waiting for the republicans to accuse her of being a socialist champion of wealth redistribution


The religious right like her because she wants to ban abortion in all cases, no exceptions and she wants creationism taught in schools. She vetoed a same sex partner benefits bill as well (although apparently only because she was advised it may not be constitutional), So their issues are taken care of, apparently no further vetting is needed and no other issues matter.

This complaint always kills me.

Pray tell, what does the religious left have to say.

I dare say they don't like her for the same reasons.


We'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.

She does have experience as Governor of Alaska, a mayor, and legislator, even as a small state, I'm sure the education obtained is relatively high, which truth be told is more than Obama can say, and he's running for the office itself. A community organizer and one-term state assemblyman, and what, 140 days in Congress before he started his campaign for president? Is he more qualified than McCain's second seater? At least she will have the luxury of learning at McCain's side in the event something happens to McCain. But he's healthy and will probably have no problems during a four-year term of office. And I think she and her husband have more real-life experience than Obama does, as well as Biden.


I could be wrong here but I read Skizo's post as meaning the governing learning process, not academic education. I don't agree with him mind you.

Yes, be perfectly clear; you wish to distance yourself from that dastardly conservative baby-eating bastard.


At the moment she accepted the nomination all I knew about her is what she said about herself and how the campaign described her. To date apart from her proclaimed stance on social/cultural issues I haven't seen much that matches the reported reality of her record.

That's 'cuz you only subscribe to liberal sources. :dabs:

Now, if you quote this and start with the red type again, I quit.
Okay I'll use blue this time, I just can't place my finger on where I got the idea from.:whistling
Come up with something original.

Objection on principle, for example. :whistling

As far as I can tell Palin is not against contraception. It wouldn't be too much to imagine she is an abstinence only advocate, but it's unfair to say she is without confirmation. The pregnancy wouldn't help her case if she is.
@IdolEyes787

Although abortion may be wrong I guess they have no problem with sham weddings,loveless marriages and the inevitable divorcing of father Jethro. Granted it's not the surest route to success, but it's possible that they made the choice themselves because they want to get married.

[IdolEyes787]

Entirely possible but I somehow feel responsible parents would be more against the union than for it.

They don't have to abort the fetus but neither do they need to rush to the altar.

In this day and age I would hope we are past the necessity of having to make an honest women of the girl.

[j2k4]

Aired?

Bullshit.

Managed would be the word you're looking for.

You libs only yip this much when you've been jabbed stupid.
Managed??????? How and by who?


Do you seriously propose to compare the two?

Liddy spouted for the CIA (to no avail) and then got caught doing a B & E.

Ayers went quite a bit further, I think you'll find.

It's not about comparing the crimes, it's about linking someone to the crimes when they have/had nothing to do with them.
Obama did not commit the acts or support the weather underground.
McCain did not commit liddy's crimes or agree with his call to shoot federal agents in the head.


Anyone that suggest we know nothing about Obama can't have been paying attention. We've had 18 months of in depth investigations, not just of Obama, but of his family, friends of his family, everyone he has met and those who have met people he met. We know how many times he goes to the toilet and how much the movement weighs and you complain about a couple of days of wondering who the hell this Palin woman is? Good God man.

Good God man:

Pray, how much does it weigh?

You're the first I've heard claiming to actually possess that knowledge, tho' I have heard he's been more constipated lately.


Obama is who/what he says he is, which is why I'm not voting for him.

You're fooling, right?

No


Palin has not been vetted and seeing as you started this thread about HER and not Obama, I am discussing her and the reaction to her nomination.

So I've noticed.

Whom have you been discussing it with, by the way. :whistling
Then why complain about bias for sticking to the subject person?

She has been introduced as a conservative reformer with impeccable ethics. So I think the cop thing needs looking into. This is something SHE may have done, not something someone she knows may have done.

It's being investigated, as we speak, by the Alaskan authorities and others.

I'm sure they'd welcome your help.


In her acceptance speech she stated she told congress thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere. Turns out she pushed to get federal funds restored after congress blocked them and stated she closed the project because the state representatives were unable to procure the funds, leaving them short a few hundred million. Does that sound like a fiscal conservative fighting earmarks?

Yes, in fact it does.

Certain tactics work more quickly than others, truth.

You really don't understand that, do you.

The Bridge to Nowhere was a part of another bill; she was seeking to restore the "non-bridge" section, leaving the "bridge" to die of lack of funding, the state (infinitely wiser in refusing to fund it) being the only alternative, and therefore putting an end to it's consideration.

Sure, no really


When Obama proposed a windfall tax on the oil companies to pay for a fuel benefit or when the democrats proposed it to pay for alternative fuel research there was outrage from the republicans about wealth redistribution and accusations of socialism and Marxism. Palin actually did place a windfall tax on them and gave the money to Alaskan residents.

That kinda depends on what you call it.

Calling it by a different name doesn't change what it is.
Ffs, I normally find Wikipedia incredibly wanting in most circumstances, but it will work splendidly for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund_Corporation

Funded by state oil taxes to ensure the security of future generations of Alaskans, and administered by a semi-private corporation.

What is there for one such as yourself to complain about.

The double standard, I'm not holding my breath waiting for the republicans to accuse her of being a socialist champion of wealth redistribution


The religious right like her because she wants to ban abortion in all cases, no exceptions and she wants creationism taught in schools. She vetoed a same sex partner benefits bill as well (although apparently only because she was advised it may not be constitutional), So their issues are taken care of, apparently no further vetting is needed and no other issues matter.

This complaint always kills me.

Pray tell, what does the religious left have to say.

I dare say they don't like her for the same reasons.


We'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.

She does have experience as Governor of Alaska, a mayor, and legislator, even as a small state, I'm sure the education obtained is relatively high, which truth be told is more than Obama can say, and he's running for the office itself. A community organizer and one-term state assemblyman, and what, 140 days in Congress before he started his campaign for president? Is he more qualified than McCain's second seater? At least she will have the luxury of learning at McCain's side in the event something happens to McCain. But he's healthy and will probably have no problems during a four-year term of office. And I think she and her husband have more real-life experience than Obama does, as well as Biden.


I could be wrong here but I read Skizo's post as meaning the governing learning process, not academic education. I don't agree with him mind you.

Yes, be perfectly clear; you wish to distance yourself from that dastardly conservative baby-eating bastard.


At the moment she accepted the nomination all I knew about her is what she said about herself and how the campaign described her. To date apart from her proclaimed stance on social/cultural issues I haven't seen much that matches the reported reality of her record.

That's 'cuz you only subscribe to liberal sources. :dabs:

Now, if you quote this and start with the red type again, I quit.
Okay I'll use blue this time, I just can't place my finger on where I got the idea from.:whistling
Come up with something original.

Objection on principle, for example. :whistling

As far as I can tell Palin is not against contraception. It wouldn't be too much to imagine she is an abstinence only advocate, but it's unfair to say she is without confirmation. The pregnancy wouldn't help her case if she is.
@IdolEyes787

Although abortion may be wrong I guess they have no problem with sham weddings,loveless marriages and the inevitable divorcing of father Jethro. Granted it's not the surest route to success, but it's possible that they made the choice themselves because they want to get married.

You and I are at an impasse.

Apropos of nothing, when do you think life begins?

[clocker]

The conservative press will be circumspect, as I said.


You didn't address the question...WHY would/should they be circumspect?
Clearly, abstinence was not in play, nor was marriage (at least not until the family shotgun- which Palin apparently knows how to use- was brought down)...so why NOW is circumspection the path to take?

And BTW...your comment about Chelsea is exactly the kind of response you attribute to the lib press re: Palin.
You have absolutely no basis whatsoever to speculate on what Chelsea Clinton might do, yet you assert without reservation that she would have an abortion and cover it up.

[devilsadvocate]

For me once the brain starts functioning with awareness.

[clocker]

I saw this post on another forum and it summed up my thoughts quite well...

I'm totally on board for "kids are off limits" but I'm going to need some help with this one because kids were apparently not entirely off limits for the past three days.

Kids were not off limits when Palin was happy to discuss her son joining the Army and going off to war in her first national speech.

Kids were not off limits when the campaign was touting her decision to have Trig and discuss his Down Syndrome as an example of her pro-life cred.

Today, however, kids are off limits.

Is there some sort of chart or cheat sheet that can help me sort out when it is okay to put the kids in the national spotlight and when it is not?

[devilsadvocate]

I personally don't see her daughter getting pregnant as an issue. I know it will be to some degree but IMO it shouldn't be. Clocker is right about how it would be treated if it were Chelsea.

Regarding that quote about boundaries, given the crap made about Michelle obama over being proud of her country will questions be raised about taking off republican hats and putting on American hats?

J2k4

just for laughs

11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html

[clocker]

Apparently, the Founding Fathers are highlanders.

[Tracy]

Kids are off limits when it comes to tearing them down. If what either side says is in a positive light, then by all means, talk them up and be proud. But if your intent is to bring their actions to light as fodder to tear someone down, then that's where the line is drawn.

Should be obvious.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=j2k4;2954931]

The conservative press will be circumspect, as I said.



You didn't address the question...WHY would/should they be circumspect?

Because they normally are; the liberal press has much less compunction.


Clearly, abstinence was not in play, nor was marriage (at least not until the family shotgun- which Palin apparently knows how to use- was brought down)...so why NOW is circumspection the path to take?

Now-

How do you know the shotgun was in play?

Should Palin, rather than issue a statement on her daughter's behalf, shove her out front for the media?

How do you know the girl doesn't want to marry the fellow?

This is precisely the type of gaffe you attempt to take me to task for below, vis a vis Chelsea Clinton.

Think goose/gander.

That is not to say you shouldn't feel free to express the thought, you see.


And BTW...your comment about Chelsea is exactly the kind of response you attribute to the lib press re: Palin.

Would you say (assuming you've been watching the coverage) the liberal press is being fair, at this point?

All I said was that, had Chelsea become pregnant, you'd never have known it one way or another, and guess why?

Just think, two days into this thing and you already know more about Bristol Palin than eight years of Chelsea revealed, all thanks to the liberal press.


You have absolutely no basis whatsoever to speculate on what Chelsea Clinton might do, yet you assert without reservation that she would have an abortion and cover it up.

Tell me then, what exactly do I need to form the basis upon which to speculate about whatever I please?

[j2k4]

Kids are off limits when it comes to tearing them down. If what either side says is in a positive light, then by all means, talk them up and be proud. But if your intent is to bring their actions to light as fodder to tear someone down, then that's where the line is drawn.

Should be obvious.

Perhaps that ought to be qualified:

If the young lady were out there stumping for Mom and McCain, an argument could be made for open season.

The libs don't get it, and the evidence is plain, judging from the whining about Michelle Obama's treatment and Barak's subsequent complaints.

The rule should be, Don't put anyone out front you don't want to see flayed.

In other words, to escape the harsh light, stay the fuck out of the sun and keep your mouth shut.

[Tracy]

Kids are off limits when it comes to tearing them down. If what either side says is in a positive light, then by all means, talk them up and be proud. But if your intent is to bring their actions to light as fodder to tear someone down, then that's where the line is drawn.

Should be obvious.

Perhaps that ought to be qualified:

If the young lady were out there stumping for Mom and McCain, an argument could be made for open season.

Yeah, I agree with that to a point.

Where I'd differ would be that if she was out there simply talking good about her parents, then to a point she should still be off limits. Where she would be fair game is if she decided to join in on smearing the other side.

You expect kids to want to support their parents, and so long as they are being respectful of the other side and not debating the pro's or con's of the opponents, then let 'em do so.

[j2k4]

Perhaps that ought to be qualified:

If the young lady were out there stumping for Mom and McCain, an argument could be made for open season.

Yeah, I agree with that to a point.

Where I'd differ would be that if she was out there simply talking good about her parents, then to a point she should still be off limits. Where she would be fair game is if she decided to join in on smearing the other side.

You expect kids to want to support their parents, and so long as they are being respectful of the other side and not debating the pro's or con's of the opponents, then let 'em do so.

Right.

In other words, no campaign appearances. ;)

[clocker]

Just think, two days into this thing and you already know more about Bristol Palin than eight years of Chelsea revealed, all thanks to the liberal press.


Um, it was SARAH PALIN who made the announcement.
Her credentials as "lib press" are as shaky as her credentials for VP.

Having seen how half-assed the McCain vetting process was for Palin, one shudders to imagine the rest of his choices.

I still say she bows out.

[devilsadvocate]

The rule should be, Don't put anyone out front you don't want to see flayed.


Someone like say:











Sarah Palin?

874yiexEM_k


It's over the line to ask for an example of a claim made about her?

Seems it's over the line to ask anything about her.:whistling

I think it was a particularly funny complaint when he said you don't have to belittle her experience while he was doing just that himself to Obama.

[clocker]

That clip is everywhere today, and rightly so.
Besides, it's funny.

I see that McCain is now labeling any criticism of Palin as "sexist".
I guess we can wait for the "circumspect" conservative press to let us know what is permissible and what is not.

You'll be able to identify the "circumspect" conservative pundits because they'll be riding unicorns.

[j2k4]

The rule should be, Don't put anyone out front you don't want to see flayed.


Someone like say:











Sarah Palin?

874yiexEM_k


It's over the line to ask for an example of a claim made about her?

Seems it's over the line to ask anything about her.:whistling

I think it was a particularly funny complaint when he said you don't have to belittle her experience while he was doing just that himself to Obama.

Young Tucker obviously wasn't properly prepared; as has been noted, it wasn't a tough question, and he came across with the stink of a brain fart.

I would say that query will be asked again, and answered.


That clip is everywhere today, and rightly so.
Besides, it's funny.

Yup.

Watch the polls over the next, oh, seven days or so.


I see that McCain is now labeling any criticism of Palin as "sexist".

So angry over stolen tactics?

You really are upset, aren't you.


I guess we can wait for the "circumspect" conservative press to let us know what is permissible and what is not.

You'll be able to identify the "circumspect" conservative pundits because they'll be riding unicorns.

Only if you get off your "everything but FOXNEWS" high horse.

[devilsadvocate]

Young Tucker obviously wasn't properly prepared; as has been noted, it wasn't a tough question, and he came across with the stink of a brain fart.

I would say that query will be asked again, and answered.



So what is your opinion of McCain canceling Larry King because of it?

We appear to be in agreement that it wasn't an unreasonable question.

[j2k4]

Young Tucker obviously wasn't properly prepared; as has been noted, it wasn't a tough question, and he came across with the stink of a brain fart.

I would say that query will be asked again, and answered.



So what is your opinion of McCain canceling Larry King because of it?

We appear to be in agreement that it wasn't an unreasonable question.

No, as I said, he was very obviously flummoxed at her repetition, and retreated stupidly to the safety of his own.

If I were McCain, I would be looking to cancel King myself, but certainly not because of any sort of risk, rather more because I find him to be insufferably smarmy when he goes in overmatched, and he hasn't faced off with anyone of intellect greater than his own, since, well.......forever.

Ole Lar doesn't strike fear into people, he just gets pissy, like Joan Rivers.

That it suits as a show of pique is just icing on the cake.

In other words, I don't think it warrants the thought to develop an opinion.

[clocker]

McCain has been on Larry King Live numerous times, why is King suddenly too smarmy and overmatched to be abided?
McCain loved the press as long as they wanted to joke around, now that the gloves are off I suspect he'll be permanently apoplectic.

BTW..."Young Tucker" was an official spokeperson for the McCain campaign.
Sent in to bray about Palin's leadership experience- HE was the one who brought up the National Guard bullshit- it's more than a little surprising he wasn't prepared to give a single example to back up the assertion.

[j2k4]

McCain has been on Larry King Live numerous times, why is King suddenly too smarmy and overmatched to be abided?
McCain loved the press as long as they wanted to joke around, now that the gloves are off I suspect he'll be permanently apoplectic.

Well, then.

If the Dems can boycott Brit Hume and be lauded all around, you're gonna try to wrack McCain for avoiding Larry King?

Funny.


BTW..."Young Tucker" was an official spokeperson for the McCain campaign.
Sent in to bray about Palin's leadership experience- HE was the one who brought up the National Guard bullshit- it's more than a little surprising he wasn't prepared to give a single example to back up the assertion.

Is there another version of the interview, or is the lady named Tucker as well.

Surprising?

Acknowledged, but^?

[clocker]

Is there another version of the interview, or is the lady named Tucker as well.


Sorry...do not understand.

[devilsadvocate]

Boy they REALLY know who she is :whistling



btX1RVbgvzg

That's RNC Co-Chairwoman Jo Ann Davidson talking

[j2k4]

Is there another version of the interview, or is the lady named Tucker as well.


Sorry...do not understand.

It sounded like the lady first broached the subject.

[j2k4]

Boy they REALLY know who she is :whistling



btX1RVbgvzg

That's RNC Co-Chairwoman Jo Ann Davidson talking

:pinch:

[clocker]

Sorry...do not understand.

It sounded like the lady first broached the subject.
Ah, I see.
That is an abridged clip...I watched the whole interview and Bounds is the one who first brings up the National Guard.

[j2k4]

It sounded like the lady first broached the subject.
Ah, I see.
That is an abridged clip...I watched the whole interview and Bounds is the one who first brings up the National Guard.

Is there a link.

[clocker]

Here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYYiw_y2qDI)

[j2k4]

Well, a new day, and a workman-like job by the mainstream media has tarred the three eldest members of the Palin family, but to no avail.

I expect they'll start on the the other kids tomorrow, with the baby scheduled for Friday.

[devilsadvocate]

CrG8w4bb3kg

oops.

I liked the bit where the woman said they chose some political bullshit about narratives instead of the best choice. Apparently not worried that she might be a bullshitter herself when "on mic"

[devilsadvocate]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

oh my

[clocker]

Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 3, 11:48 PM ET

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.


Some examples:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."

THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.

PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.

He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.

THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.

MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.

THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.

FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."

THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.

FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."

THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.

___

Associated Press Writer Jim Drinkard in Washington contributed to this report.
Apparently, the "Big Lie" is alive and well.

[Biggles]

I personally think Palin is a bit of a gamble on McCain's part. He only met her a couple of times before the pick. Her somewhat fundamentalist (of the Pat Buchanan variety) views I think might be worrisome to middle of the road Republicans. I suppose it really depends if anything untoward creeps out of the woodwork. The daughter could, of her own volition, throw a spanner in the works.

It may be a gamble that pays off or it may not. I think when the dust settles Democrats might be glad it is not Romney or Rudi - I quite like the latter.

I feel a bit sorry for the son heading off to Iraq - talk about painting a target on someone's arse.

[j2k4]

I personally think Palin is a bit of a gamble on McCain's part. He only met her a couple of times before the pick. Her somewhat fundamentalist (of the Pat Buchanan variety) views I think might be worrisome to middle of the road Republicans. I suppose it really depends if anything untoward creeps out of the woodwork. The daughter could, of her own volition, throw a spanner in the works.

It may be a gamble that pays off or it may not. I think when the dust settles Democrats might be glad it is not Romney or Rudi - I quite like the latter.

I feel a bit sorry for the son heading off to Iraq - talk about painting a target on someone's arse.

Would you draw out the Buchanan parallel a bit, Les. :mellow:

[j2k4]

Here's what our tabs are doing-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wJik26tDmE

Sorry it's Foxnews.






























Fuck no, not really. :whistling

[clocker]

So US Weekly- a tabloid famous for stories about Angelina Jolie's "Twisted Double Life" and still revealing "secrets" about Anna Nichol Smith- is how you define the "lib press"?

It's a trashy supermarket news stand scandal sheet and as representative of the serious press as Rush Limbaugh is of intelligent political discourse.

[Busyman]

Sarah Palin, current Governor of Alaska, has been selected by John McCain to run as VP on the Republican ticket.

A splendid pick, I think. :whistling

Respond immediately, all of you. :mellow:

A splendid pick to win the election or a splendid pick as in "a good choice to take over as President of our United States should something unfortunate befall John McCain"?

I thought you would have trashed the pick, quite honestly....unless you pick my first reason.

edit: Well I just read most of this thread and I guess I gave you too much credit. As always....the hive mind is ruling. Clocker has you handled though. With the glut of material out there, it's too easy.

As a side note: I must say with this Sarah Palin pick, it is like some Twilight Zone shit...first the pick itself, then hearing all these Republican party goers talk as if it's great for the country. It's like everyone at the RNC was told what to say in advance and actually believe it.

[clocker]

It's like everyone at the RNC was told what to say in advance and actually believe it.
Don't say the word "choice"! (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184097&title=bristol-palins-choice)

[j2k4]

Sarah Palin, current Governor of Alaska, has been selected by John McCain to run as VP on the Republican ticket.

A splendid pick, I think. :whistling

Respond immediately, all of you. :mellow:

A splendid pick to win the election or a splendid pick as in "a good choice to take over as President of our United States should something unfortunate befall John McCain"?

I thought you would have trashed the pick, quite honestly....unless you pick my first reason.

edit: Well I just read most of this thread and I guess I gave you too much credit. As always....the hive mind is ruling. Clocker has you handled though. With the glut of material out there, it's too easy.

As a side note: I must say with this Sarah Palin pick, it is like some Twilight Zone shit...first the pick itself, then hearing all these Republican party goers talk as if it's great for the country. It's like everyone at the RNC was told what to say in advance and actually believe it.

Then there's no need to reply to you, given you and clocker are of the "hive" mind.

Insofar as there are (as always) more of you than there are of me, the more effective application of the word hive would be in reference to you and your ilk.

No original thoughts for you, eh? :whistling

[clocker]

Well, now that the initial brouhaha has died down a bit, the real fun begins.

We'll see how Sarah Baracuda (absent her ironically chosen Heart theme song) does out in the wild and at the debate.

[ilw]

Here's what our tabs are doing-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wJik26tDmE

Sorry it's Foxnews.

Fuck no, not really. :whistling
umm the sum total of the allegations against us weekly are:

1) misleading headline
2) they didn't say how many years ago the DUI as
3) they didn't say why she abused her powers to get someone fired
4) the secession thing which republicans are officially denying

1 is a fair cop, tabloid headlines can be well dodge.
2 - get serious
3 get the fuck, Palin's sister told her that the sister's ex husband did something illegal and Palin abused her power to punish him?? Leaving that out doesn't strike me as biased, it makes her sound like even more of a fuckwit.
4 she blatantly has links to the independence party what with attending the convention and being a former member.

[clocker]

I think she's a Muslim too.

[j2k4]

Here's what our tabs are doing-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wJik26tDmE

Sorry it's Foxnews.

Fuck no, not really. :whistling
umm the sum total of the allegations against us weekly are:

1) misleading headline
2) they didn't say how many years ago the DUI as
3) they didn't say why she abused her powers to get someone fired
4) the secession thing which republicans are officially denying

1 is a fair cop, tabloid headlines can be well dodge.
2 - get serious
3 get the fuck, Palin's sister told her that the sister's ex husband did something illegal and Palin abused her power to punish him?? Leaving that out doesn't strike me as biased, it makes her sound like even more of a fuckwit.
4 she blatantly has links to the independence party what with attending the convention and being a former member.

2 - Get "serious"?

You see no difference between a thing happening yesterday vs. 22 fucking years ago?

You get serious, Ian.

3 - There's documentation to be considered that you have omitted, but there's also an investigation taking place, which, if it were a democrat involved, you would claim as forestalling any conclusion.

4 - Blatantly false.

Her husband had links to a secession movement, which is still a constitutional right, though you'd never know it these days.

If you are going to comment from way over there, it behooves you to get things right.

[j2k4]

I think she's a Muslim too.

I'm sure that's being investigated, too.

[clocker]

No investigation necessary...it's enough that I think it.

[devilsadvocate]

Is Megan McCain's remark off limits?

"No one knows what war is like other than my family....period"

OMxp5UkeGCc

[j2k4]

Is Megan McCain's remark off limits?

"No one knows what war is like other than my family....period"

OMxp5UkeGCc

Would you rather talk about Chris Matthew's or Keith Olbermann's lack of bias.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080909/ENT07/809090353

BTW-

Does young Megan have her own show, or host political conventions.

No?

I Didn't think so. ;)

[peat moss]

It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .

[devilsadvocate]

It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .

I agree, I'm just wondering where exactly the boundaries are, Which is why I didn't comment on her comment

@J2K4 Apart from it being a tired old method of avoiding answering the question actually asked I fail to see any connection.

[j2k4]

Is Megan McCain's remark off limits?

"No one knows what war is like other than my family....period"

OMxp5UkeGCc


Is Megan McCain's remark off limits?

"No one knows what war is like other than my family....period"



Would you rather talk about Chris Matthew's or Keith Olbermann's lack of bias.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080909/ENT07/809090353

BTW-

Does young Megan have her own show, or host political conventions.

No?

I Didn't think so. ;)



It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .

I agree, I'm just wondering where exactly the boundaries are, Which is why I didn't comment on her comment

@J2K4 Apart from it being a tired old method of avoiding answering the question actually asked I fail to see any connection.

Okay-

To answer your question, no, I think if you want to rip her, you should go ahead and rip her; I've said it before - if you go out and get your puss on TV advocating your husband/father/what-have-you, you ought to be ready for what comes after.

Now, hows about you answer my question, which I have emboldened for you.

BTW-

I hope you'll pardon my saying so, but relying on others to define the boundaries of your commentary is kind of chickenshit, but, as I have just given you carte blanche, please (please) fire away. :whistling

[devilsadvocate]

It's obvious you would rather talk about it so go ahead, I still don't see the connection or why it's important, I've already given you my assessment of the two in question.

Perhaps fox could take a leaf

As for boundaries it's a legitimate question considering we are stepping over the mark if we ask anything about Palin.

[j2k4]

It's obvious you would rather talk about it so go ahead, I still don't see the connection or why it's important, I've already given you my assessment of the two in question.

You claimed Matthews was straight-arrow, middle of the road.

Apparently Mssrs. Williams and Brokaw disagree, which opinions certainly trump your own; I merely offered you a chance to reassess, but you seem ideologically constrained.

No matter.


As for boundaries it's a legitimate question considering we are stepping over the mark if we ask anything about Palin.

Who said that?

Ask whatever you like, advance whatever views you have.

Odd, though, you are more likely to comment about Palin than Matthews, wouldn't you say.

[devilsadvocate]

You claimed Matthews was straight-arrow, middle of the road.

Apparently Mssrs. Williams and Brokaw disagree, which opinions certainly trump your own; I merely offered you a chance to reassess, but you seem ideologically constrained.

No matter.

Apart from the internal workings of nbc how do their opinion trump mine?




Odd, though, you are more likely to comment about Palin than Matthews, wouldn't you say.

Well one is a political news commentator and the other is RUNNING FOR THE POSITION OF VICE PRESIDENT AND WOULD BE ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY FROM BEING PRESIDENT OF THE USA. and we know little about her.

So tell me, where should my priorities be?

It appears you think Mathews more of an issue

[j2k4]

Apart from the internal workings of nbc how do their opinion trump mine?

Because, as liberals. they have asserted Matthews is too liberal for their taste, whereas you (who reject categorization) cannot manage to reach the same conclusion, having already vouched him as mainstream.

That's how.




Odd, though, you are more likely to comment about Palin than Matthews, wouldn't you say.

Well one is a political news commentator and the other is RUNNING FOR THE POSITION OF VICE PRESIDENT AND WOULD BE ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY FROM BEING PRESIDENT OF THE USA. and we know little about her.

So tell me, where should my priorities be?

It appears you think Mathews more of an issue

And it appears you do not, although you and Matthews are of similar mind where Palin is concerned.










This is much too easy. :whistling

[devilsadvocate]

Okay, just so that I have no false impressions here-

You think it's more important to discuss a political commentator than the potential VP?

[Busyman]

A splendid pick to win the election or a splendid pick as in "a good choice to take over as President of our United States should something unfortunate befall John McCain"?

I thought you would have trashed the pick, quite honestly....unless you pick my first reason.

edit: Well I just read most of this thread and I guess I gave you too much credit. As always....the hive mind is ruling. Clocker has you handled though. With the glut of material out there, it's too easy.

As a side note: I must say with this Sarah Palin pick, it is like some Twilight Zone shit...first the pick itself, then hearing all these Republican party goers talk as if it's great for the country. It's like everyone at the RNC was told what to say in advance and actually believe it.

Then there's no need to reply to you, given you and clocker are of the "hive" mind.

Insofar as there are (as always) more of you than there are of me, the more effective application of the word hive would be in reference to you and your ilk.

No original thoughts for you, eh? :whistling

I actually had John McCain as my pick until the Palin announcement. My thoughts were that McCain has been spouting off at the mouth with his alignment with Bush to appease folks like yourself and then once in office he'd actually be "sensible".

This Palin pick was pure pandering to disgruntled Hilary supporters and to the Republican base....a base that never really liked McCain in the first place.

Now McCain will have a person that wouldn't have an ass chance in hell of being President through an electorate, succeeding him if he falls terribly ill or....dead.

A McCain pick is now easily off the table. Then again, a pick of Romney or Giuliani pick would've sucked just as much but for different reasons. I guess I was looking for a surprise of different proportions and not of epically stupid proportions.

It's a smart pick only in the that people are epically stupid. People that pick McCain for the "OMGSHE'Z UHH WOMIN!!11!1" are fucking stupid. She's low on sensibility and high on ability to deliver zingers in speeches. It's damn good entertainment though.

Cries of sexism from the McCain camp actually go against Palin's own talk of whiney women.

A VP pick is supposed to be someone that can lead the country if the President can't. Wtf advice will she have for McCain about Iraq? Iran? Russia....oh that's right, she's an expert cuz she's up there next to it.

[Busyman]

Is Megan McCain's remark off limits?

"No one knows what war is like other than my family....period"



Would you rather talk about Chris Matthew's or Keith Olbermann's lack of bias.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080909/ENT07/809090353

BTW-

Does young Megan have her own show, or host political conventions.

No?

I Didn't think so. ;)



It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .

I agree, I'm just wondering where exactly the boundaries are, Which is why I didn't comment on her comment

@J2K4 Apart from it being a tired old method of avoiding answering the question actually asked I fail to see any connection.

Okay-

To answer your question, no, I think if you want to rip her, you should go ahead and rip her; I've said it before - if you go out and get your puss on TV advocating your husband/father/what-have-you, you ought to be ready for what comes after.

Now, hows about you answer my question, which I have emboldened for you.

BTW-

I hope you'll pardon my saying so, but relying on others to define the boundaries of your commentary is kind of chickenshit, but, as I have just given you carte blanche, please (please) fire away. :whistling

I think what MSNBC did was excellent, actually.

That would be like having Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh serving as anchor although Olberman and Mathews aren't that bad.

[j2k4]

Okay, just so that I have no false impressions here-

You think it's more important to discuss a political commentator than the potential VP?

I'll discuss either or both.

Seems you are determined to be selective; you had no trouble talking up Matthews a short while back, but the going has gotten a bit rougher on that front, precluding you from further comment.

Apparently multitasking is beyond you. :whistling

[j2k4]

Then there's no need to reply to you, given you and clocker are of the "hive" mind.

Insofar as there are (as always) more of you than there are of me, the more effective application of the word hive would be in reference to you and your ilk.

No original thoughts for you, eh? :whistling

I actually had John McCain as my pick until the Palin announcement. My thoughts were that McCain has been spouting off at the mouth with his alignment with Bush to appease folks like yourself and then once in office he'd actually be "sensible".

This Palin pick was pure pandering to disgruntled Hilary supporters and to the Republican base....a base that never really liked McCain in the first place.

Now McCain will have a person that wouldn't have an ass chance in hell of being President through an electorate, succeeding him if he falls terribly ill or....dead.

A McCain pick is now easily off the table. Then again, a pick of Romney or Giuliani pick would've sucked just as much but for different reasons. I guess I was looking for a surprise of different proportions and not of epically stupid proportions.

It's a smart pick only in the that people are epically stupid. People that pick McCain for the "OMGSHE'Z UHH WOMIN!!11!1" are fucking stupid. She's low on sensibility and high on ability to deliver zingers in speeches. It's damn good entertainment though.

Cries of sexism from the McCain camp actually go against Palin's own talk of whiney women.

A VP pick is supposed to be someone that can lead the country if the President can't. Wtf advice will she have for McCain about Iraq? Iran? Russia....oh that's right, she's an expert cuz she's up there next to it.

You had McCain as your pick?

Don't make me laugh.

Actually, your saying that is a pretty good example of pandering, come to think of it. :lol:







It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .

I agree, I'm just wondering where exactly the boundaries are, Which is why I didn't comment on her comment

@J2K4 Apart from it being a tired old method of avoiding answering the question actually asked I fail to see any connection.

Okay-

To answer your question, no, I think if you want to rip her, you should go ahead and rip her; I've said it before - if you go out and get your puss on TV advocating your husband/father/what-have-you, you ought to be ready for what comes after.

Now, hows about you answer my question, which I have emboldened for you.

BTW-

I hope you'll pardon my saying so, but relying on others to define the boundaries of your commentary is kind of chickenshit, but, as I have just given you carte blanche, please (please) fire away. :whistling

I think what MSNBC did was excellent, actually.

That would be like having Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh serving as anchor although Olberman and Mathews aren't that bad.

You conveniently overlook the fact neither O'Reilly nor Limbaugh is, was or ever will serve as an anchor, which they would have had to do for your post to make the slightest sense.

Your point has no point.

[Busyman]

I actually had John McCain as my pick until the Palin announcement. My thoughts were that McCain has been spouting off at the mouth with his alignment with Bush to appease folks like yourself and then once in office he'd actually be "sensible".

This Palin pick was pure pandering to disgruntled Hilary supporters and to the Republican base....a base that never really liked McCain in the first place.

Now McCain will have a person that wouldn't have an ass chance in hell of being President through an electorate, succeeding him if he falls terribly ill or....dead.

A McCain pick is now easily off the table. Then again, a Romney or Giuliani pick would've sucked just as much but for different reasons. I guess I was looking for a surprise of different proportions and not of epically stupid proportions.

It's a smart pick only in the that people are epically stupid. People that pick McCain for the "OMGSHE'Z UHH WOMIN!!11!1" are fucking stupid. She's low on sensibility and high on ability to deliver zingers in speeches. It's damn good entertainment though.

Cries of sexism from the McCain camp actually go against Palin's own talk of whiney women.

A VP pick is supposed to be someone that can lead the country if the President can't. Wtf advice will she have for McCain about Iraq? Iran? Russia....oh that's right, she's an expert cuz she's up there next to it.

You had McCain as your pick?

Don't make me laugh.

Actually, your saying that is a pretty good example of pandering, come to think of it. :lol:

Pandering to whom? You?

Don't make me laugh. I pander to no one. I've had my mother and countless others at my ear for months.

You surely don't come close to anyone that has any sway over my decisions or someone I'd change a response in order to pander.

I viewed McCain as a person closer to the middle than Obama. His ability to piss folks like yourself off, appealled to me.

Salin Palin as second in command is the dumbest choice I have ever seen but an excellent choice ftw.







It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .

I agree, I'm just wondering where exactly the boundaries are, Which is why I didn't comment on her comment

@J2K4 Apart from it being a tired old method of avoiding answering the question actually asked I fail to see any connection.

Okay-

To answer your question, no, I think if you want to rip her, you should go ahead and rip her; I've said it before - if you go out and get your puss on TV advocating your husband/father/what-have-you, you ought to be ready for what comes after.

Now, hows about you answer my question, which I have emboldened for you.

BTW-

I hope you'll pardon my saying so, but relying on others to define the boundaries of your commentary is kind of chickenshit, but, as I have just given you carte blanche, please (please) fire away. :whistling

I think what MSNBC did was excellent, actually.

That would be like having Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh serving as anchor although Olberman and Mathews aren't that bad.

You conveniently overlook the fact neither O'Reilly nor Limbaugh is, was or ever will serve as an anchor, which they would have had to do for your post to make the slightest sense.

Your point has no point.

Wrong. It solidified my point.

[devilsadvocate]

Okay, just so that I have no false impressions here-

You think it's more important to discuss a political commentator than the potential VP?

I'll discuss either or both.

Seems you are determined to be selective; you had no trouble talking up Matthews a short while back, but the going has gotten a bit rougher on that front, precluding you from further comment.

Apparently multitasking is beyond you. :whistling

I gave you my answer


I've already given you my assessment of the two in question. Any further discussion would just be repetition as my opinion on the two has not changed.

So to recap, you started a thread about Sarah Palin and asked for opinions, then when opinions and questions about her start flowing you want to change the subject to a tv personality then seem to suggest I have some sort of bias or agenda because I am more likely to comment about Sarah Paling IN THE SARAH PALIN THREAD than Chris Mathews.

I don't care about Mathews-- get over it

[j2k4]

I think what MSNBC did was excellent, actually.

That would be like having Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh serving as anchor although Olberman and Mathews aren't that bad.


You conveniently overlook the fact neither O'Reilly nor Limbaugh is, was or ever will serve as an anchor, which they would have had to do for your post to make the slightest sense.

Your point has no point.


Wrong. It solidified my point.

Afraid not.

To compare Limbaugh and O'Reilly to Matthews and Olbermann and then say one is more biased than the other would be logical.

To compare Limbaugh and O'Reilly the pundits/commentators to Matthews and Olbermann the anchors is utterly illogical; one might even say, desperate.

Sorry, it doesn't wash - I suspect even your mom would tell you that.





I'll discuss either or both.

Seems you are determined to be selective; you had no trouble talking up Matthews a short while back, but the going has gotten a bit rougher on that front, precluding you from further comment.

Apparently multitasking is beyond you. :whistling

I gave you my answer


I've already given you my assessment of the two in question. Any further discussion would just be repetition as my opinion on the two has not changed.

So to recap, you started a thread about Sarah Palin and asked for opinions, then when opinions and questions about her start flowing you want to change the subject to a tv personality then seem to suggest I have some sort of bias or agenda because I am more likely to comment about Sarah Paling IN THE SARAH PALIN THREAD than Chris Mathews.

I don't care about Mathews-- get over it

Yes, but you used to, and, since he's one of your boys, I'll keep reminding you of the fact.

You're on the hook - get over it. :whistling

[devilsadvocate]

Yes, but you used to, and, since he's one of your boys, I'll keep reminding you of the fact.

You're on the hook - get over it. :whistling

:blink:

[clocker]

I see that yesterday Palin polished off that old Bush administration turd and linked the war in Iraq with 9/11.
That line probably still plays well with the brain dead- Palin's core constituancy.

[clocker]

From the AP-
John McCain continued to laud his running mate, Sarah Palin, as a budget cutter on Friday, this time erroneously asserting that as governor of Alaska she had not sought congressional earmarks for her state.

Appearing on the ABC television show “The View,” McCain was pressed on her record of seeking such targeted money for Alaska. “Not as governor she didn’t,” McCain said.

Under her leadership the state this year asked for almost $300 per person in requests for pet projects...That's more than any other state received, per person, from Congress for this budget year, and runs counter to the reformer image that Palin and the McCain campaign are pushing. Other states got just $34 worth of local projects per person this year, on average, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group in Washington.
Her first year in office, the state's earmarks averaged almost $800 per person, so technically I suppose, Palin could be seen as a "reformer".
I would argue however that going from 24 times the national average to just 10 times more than everyone else just makes her a less egregious offender and not a crusader.

Keep in mind that Alaska reaps an ocean of money from oil taxes...

Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from the new tax during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. That helped push the state's total oil revenue — from new and existing taxes, as well as royalties — to more than $10 billion, double the amount received last year.

While many other states are confronting big budget deficits because of the troubled economy, Alaska officials are in the enviable position of exploring new ways to spend the state's multibillion-dollar budget surplus.

Some of that new cash will end up in the wallets of Alaska's residents.

Palin's administration last week gained legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help cope with gas prices, which are among the highest in the country.

That check will come on top of the annual dividend of about $2,000 that each resident could receive this year from an oil-wealth savings account.
So how is it that a state that rakes in so much cash still finds it necessary to apply for so much federal money?
If they wanted to build the Gravina Island bridge, why not fund it themselves?

[Biggles]

I personally think Palin is a bit of a gamble on McCain's part. He only met her a couple of times before the pick. Her somewhat fundamentalist (of the Pat Buchanan variety) views I think might be worrisome to middle of the road Republicans. I suppose it really depends if anything untoward creeps out of the woodwork. The daughter could, of her own volition, throw a spanner in the works.

It may be a gamble that pays off or it may not. I think when the dust settles Democrats might be glad it is not Romney or Rudi - I quite like the latter.

I feel a bit sorry for the son heading off to Iraq - talk about painting a target on someone's arse.

Would you draw out the Buchanan parallel a bit, Les. :mellow:

Sorry for the delay, I am sure I read that pat Buchanan said she had been one of his supporters in a previous election and that she had certain sympathies with his religious views. To be fair I have no idea how popular or unpopular Pat Buchanan is with the religious right nor whether he would make such a claim mischievously.

[clocker]

Palin-Buchanan. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Buchanan_Palin_was_a_brigader_for_me_in_96.html)

[j2k4]

Palin-Buchanan. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Buchanan_Palin_was_a_brigader_for_me_in_96.html)

And from this we are supposed to gather...what, precisely? :huh:

[clocker]

Would you draw out the Buchanan parallel a bit, Les. :mellow:

Sorry for the delay, I am sure I read that pat Buchanan said she had been one of his supporters in a previous election and that she had certain sympathies with his religious views.
You may gather whatever you choose, I was merely providing a link to what Les was referring to.


On a separate matter...
This morning's WTF moment is provided by Bill O'Reilly in this week's Time magazine "Ten Questions for Bill O'Reilly"...

Q.-Given your defense of Sarah Palin's judgment on Bristol Palin, do you take back what you said about Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy--that her parents were to blame? Emil Caillaux, LIMA

A.-When I talked about the Spears parents, I said the parents were pinheads because they didn't supervise their young daughters. I stand by that remark. There's no evidence that the Palins did not supervise their daughter or their other children.
"Evidence" is a very fluid word in O'ReillyWorld apparently.

[j2k4]

Sorry for the delay, I am sure I read that pat Buchanan said she had been one of his supporters in a previous election and that she had certain sympathies with his religious views.
You may gather whatever you choose, I was merely providing a link to what Les was referring to.


On a separate matter...
This morning's WTF moment is provided by Bill O'Reilly in this week's Time magazine "Ten Questions for Bill O'Reilly"...

Q.-Given your defense of Sarah Palin's judgment on Bristol Palin, do you take back what you said about Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy--that her parents were to blame? Emil Caillaux, LIMA

A.-When I talked about the Spears parents, I said the parents were pinheads because they didn't supervise their young daughters. I stand by that remark. There's no evidence that the Palins did not supervise their daughter or their other children.
"Evidence" is a very fluid word in O'ReillyWorld apparently.

If the Palin family's situation generates the "drama" of the Spears situation and is documented to the same fare-thee-well, we may actually have evidence that we could judge as "fluid".

This will take another few days, I'd guess, so stay tuned.

The Palin girl still has to become a pop star, sing at the Super Bowl, have serial boyfriends, and go nuts, all while fitting in the giving-birth thing.

[devilsadvocate]

I have no doubt it would be an issue about family control for social conservatives if Palin was on the democratic party ticket, but I don't see how it's relevant to the Palin ticket other than a gotcha in regards to pushing a social agenda such as abstinence only education.

So far I have seen nothing to make me doubt her social conservatism.
I feel there has been an attitude of who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes when it comes to claims of her fiscal record.
I will state that being under investigation doesn't equal guilt, but why are they trying to block subpoenas in the abuse of power investigation? (doesn't this sound familiar)

[clocker]

The Palin girl still has to become a pop star, sing at the Super Bowl, have serial boyfriends, and go nuts, all while fitting in the giving-birth thing.
I think you're confusing the Spears sisters.
Jamie Lynn is the 16 year old babymama, not Britney.
Jamie Lynn may aspire to her sibling's notoriety- only time will tell- but as of now she's just a relatively normal teenager (who probably all aspire to pop princessdom).

[j2k4]

The Palin girl still has to become a pop star, sing at the Super Bowl, have serial boyfriends, and go nuts, all while fitting in the giving-birth thing.
I think you're confusing the Spears sisters.
Jamie Lynn is the 16 year old babymama, not Britney.
Jamie Lynn may aspire to her sibling's notoriety- only time will tell- but as of now she's just a relatively normal teenager (who probably all aspire to pop princessdom).

Not confusing them at all, just making the point that parenting seems to be a bit more of an issue in the Spears family than for the Palins, who have two more daughters who are not pregnant.

The Spears clan is batting 1.000, as compared to the Palins' .333.

As an aside, and apropos of nothing at all, I remember Britney being a republican, so.


I have no doubt it would be an issue about family control for social conservatives if Palin was on the democratic party ticket, but I don't see how it's relevant to the Palin ticket other than a gotcha in regards to pushing a social agenda such as abstinence only education.

So far I have seen nothing to make me doubt her social conservatism.
I feel there has been an attitude of who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes when it comes to claims of her fiscal record.
I will state that being under investigation doesn't equal guilt, but why are they trying to block subpoenas in the abuse of power investigation? (doesn't this sound familiar)

Yeah, it reminds me of the Clintons. :whistling

[clocker]

Not confusing them at all, just making the point that parenting seems to be a bit more of an issue in the Spears family than for the Palins, who have two more daughters who are not pregnant.

The Spears clan is batting 1.000, as compared to the Palins' .333.

As an aside, and apropos of nothing at all, I remember Britney being a republican, so.


Given that Britney is 26 years old, it would seem that the time for blaming the parents has long since passed.

Why is it that Britney wasn't embraced by the conservative right like Bristol was?

[j2k4]

Not confusing them at all, just making the point that parenting seems to be a bit more of an issue in the Spears family than for the Palins, who have two more daughters who are not pregnant.

The Spears clan is batting 1.000, as compared to the Palins' .333.

As an aside, and apropos of nothing at all, I remember Britney being a republican, so.


Given that Britney is 26 years old, it would seem that the time for blaming the parents has long since passed.

Why is it that Britney wasn't embraced by the conservative right like Bristol was?

Has Bristol been "embraced"? :dabs:

As to Britney, you feel her familial circumstances did not contribute at all?

Her earlier (as in early teenaged) exploits are rumored to have been quite racy; her mom says Britney lost her virginity well prior to meeting that Timberlake fellow, I guess. :yup:

[clocker]

So, you really wanna defend O'Reilly on this one?

[j2k4]

So, you really wanna defend O'Reilly on this one?

I have no idea what O'Reilly says or thinks, though certain things can be inferred.

I don't like him and I don't watch him, and I thought you knew that.

Britney blurbs are not at all hard to find, though I steer clear of US magazine. :whistling

[clocker]

Yes.
The Inuit are massing on the border and preparing to annex Canada.

Don't tell Idol or Ross, it's a surprise.

Edit:
What's happened here?
Looks like some posts were dropped because my post makes no sense as a response to j2.
Maybe I was just hallucinating.

[j2k4]

I notice this clip doesn't include a devastating Olbermann rebuttal...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nBdH7emDj0

[clocker]

I think ole Newt is positioning himself for a 2012 run at the Presidency.
Be interesting to see what his opinion of Sarah is then.

[j2k4]

I think ole Newt is positioning himself for a 2012 run at the Presidency.
Be interesting to see what his opinion of Sarah is then.

Newt will not have satisfied his penance by then.

My opinion. :whistling

[clocker]

And Palin will be a humorous blip in our rear view mirrors.

My opinion.

[Busyman]

And Palin will be a humorous blip in our rear view mirrors.

My opinion.

I pained me to see j2 say that Palin was a great VP pick. Just once, I wanted to be right about something and I thought for sure he wouldn't like her.

The funny thing is that I don't think she dumb. The thing is, she probably is a great governor-she's a great local for the small populace of Alaska.

She's a horrible VP pick though. She is a female Quayle, hopefully without a win.

Oh jeez....


r36Xc0GG4iQ

She should never talk to Couric again. Direct link (the McCain camp won't allow hotlinking) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36Xc0GG4iQ


azaNxqfnI7c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azaNxqfnI7c

[j2k4]

It pained you?

Do you think me a chauvinist.

[Busyman]

It pained you?

Do you think me a chauvinist.

No zer-ree. I just thought you a bit smarter is all.

The Palin pick is an insult. It's a pick that appeals to the stupid or those that want to appeal to the stupid.

Go to 2:27....


tyDgMBtxLVQ

[j2k4]

It pained you?

Do you think me a chauvinist.

No zer-ree. I just thought you a bit smarter is all.

The Palin pick is an insult. It's a pick that appeals to the stupid or those that want to appeal to the stupid.

Go to 2:27....


tyDgMBtxLVQ

You really can't see the forest for the trees, can you.

I would not have thought you'd buy the cheap cultural elitism Obama is selling, but there you have it.

I'll bet you don't like her accent, either. :whistling

[Busyman]

No zer-ree. I just thought you a bit smarter is all.

The Palin pick is an insult. It's a pick that appeals to the stupid or those that want to appeal to the stupid.

Go to 2:27....


tyDgMBtxLVQ

You really can't see the forest for the trees, can you.

I would not have thought you'd buy the cheap cultural elitism Obama is selling, but there you have it.

I'll bet you don't like her accent, either. :whistling
What elitism?

You think Mrs. Palin talking about "small town values" makes her not elite?

To be honest, her accent coupled with her skating around questions or reciting her coached answers makes her sound annoying.

It's a nightmare even imagining her talking to any foreign dignitary that understands English.

Let's not talk too much about McCain, a man that left his ailing wife for a much younger, richer woman while he was still married.

[devilsadvocate]

I thought the suggestion that Palin has foreign policy experience because of Alaska's proximity to Russia was as silly as we could get.


Then the suggestion that McCain humping a Brazilian woman back in the 50s is part of his foreign policy experience came forth.

[j2k4]

You really can't see the forest for the trees, can you.

I would not have thought you'd buy the cheap cultural elitism Obama is selling, but there you have it.

I'll bet you don't like her accent, either. :whistling
What elitism?

You think Mrs. Palin talking about "small town values" makes her not elite?

To be honest, her accent coupled with her skating around questions or reciting her coached answers makes her sound annoying.

It's a nightmare even imagining her talking to any foreign dignitary that understands English.

Let's not talk too much about McCain, a man that left his ailing wife for a much younger, richer woman while he was still married.

Let me put it to you this way, then:

Your elitism forestalls any idea of voting for anyone who is not Harvard or Yale educated.

You have occasionally complained about Washington insiders, yes?

Do you realize at all that until you break that particular chain, the best possible scenario is more of the same?

You will be missing a golden opportunity, my friend. :whistling

[clocker]

Your elitism forestalls any idea of voting for anyone who is not Harvard or Yale educated.

My elitism forstalls the idea of voting for anyone who is not educated, period.
This extends to both McCain and Palin, the former because he had the opportunity for the best education possible (as did Bush actually) and squandered it due to a sense of entitlement and sheer laziness, the latter because she suggests that aspiring to mediocrity is a virtue, in fact, excelling beyond the level of the "common man" is suspect and deserving of scorn.

Glorifying the lowest common demoninator seems like a cheap and tawdry goal, easily achieved and worth nothing when attained.

[j2k4]

Your elitism forestalls any idea of voting for anyone who is not Harvard or Yale educated.

My elitism forstalls the idea of voting for anyone who is not educated, period.
This extends to both McCain and Palin, the former because he had the opportunity for the best education possible (as did Bush actually) and squandered it due to a sense of entitlement and sheer laziness, the latter because she suggests that aspiring to mediocrity is a virtue, in fact, excelling beyond the level of the "common man" is suspect and deserving of scorn.

Glorifying the lowest common demoninator seems like a cheap and tawdry goal, easily achieved and worth nothing when attained.

You don't get an exceptional education at ivy league schools, you get plugged into the network.

That's the problem.

Please explain your "aspiring to mediocrity is a virtue" thingie.

Have I missed something.

[clocker]

You don't get an exceptional education at ivy league schools, you get plugged into the network.

That's the problem.
Nonsense.
Not everyone- in fact, only a small minority- of Ivy League attendees are "Skull and Bones" types, the majority are simply interested in getting the best education possible.
You really want to compare the quality of education between Wasilla Community College and Yale?

Furthermore, re: your comment about being "plugged into the network"- look at Palin's record and actions beginning as mayor of Wasilla. She shows a clear preference for replacing officials/functionaries based on friendship rather than qualifications.


Please explain your "aspiring to mediocrity is a virtue" thingie.

Have I missed something.
Yes, apparently you have.
Like every public utterance SP has made in the past few weeks.
The "media elite" have been practising "gotcha journalism" for simply trying to parse the meagre few sentences we've been allowed to hear from the horse's mouth.
The woman is almost incoherent and, were one to base one's opinion solely on the printed record, it could reasonably be concluded she's functionally retarded.

Palin glorifies her lack of knowledge as making her "more like us" rather than a failure of preparation or lack of interest.
It's one thing to focus on the big picture and refuse to be mired by detail, but even that approach requires a basic familiarity with the details involved...analogous to the tenet "You can't successfully break the rules till you know what they are".

Basically, I don't want me running for office, I want someone better.

[Busyman]

What elitism?

You think Mrs. Palin talking about "small town values" makes her not elite?

To be honest, her accent coupled with her skating around questions or reciting her coached answers makes her sound annoying.

It's a nightmare even imagining her talking to any foreign dignitary that understands English.

Let's not talk too much about McCain, a man that left his ailing wife for a much younger, richer woman while he was still married.

Let me put it to you this way, then:

Your elitism forestalls any idea of voting for anyone who is not Harvard or Yale educated.

You have occasionally complained about Washington insiders, yes?

Do you realize at all that until you break that particular chain, the best possible scenario is more of the same?

You will be missing a golden opportunity, my friend. :whistling

Wow, so now a Harvard or Yale graduate is a bad thing?

Tbh, I forgot that Obama went to Harvard (or was it Yale)?

Now you bring it up, conveniently, as a downgrade.

I heard shit about this from you when Bush was running and he went to Yale and Harvard ffs.

You are the ultimate party-pusher. Whatever your party is doing, it's great. Whatever another party is doing, is shit. You are a inconsistent consistent.

You remind of a fella I had minor trouble with that knew just enough legalese to get himself and others in trouble. Underneath it all, he had no substance when dealing with a straight talking judge.

[Busyman]

My elitism forstalls the idea of voting for anyone who is not educated, period.
This extends to both McCain and Palin, the former because he had the opportunity for the best education possible (as did Bush actually) and squandered it due to a sense of entitlement and sheer laziness, the latter because she suggests that aspiring to mediocrity is a virtue, in fact, excelling beyond the level of the "common man" is suspect and deserving of scorn.

Glorifying the lowest common demoninator seems like a cheap and tawdry goal, easily achieved and worth nothing when attained.

You don't get an exceptional education at ivy league schools, you get plugged into the network.

That's the problem.

Please explain your "aspiring to mediocrity is a virtue" thingie.

Have I missed something.

Oh so Bush got plugged into the network? No Ivy League schools provide a good education? So it's a network of dumbdumbs?

I have 3 friends that went to Harvard and they are quite smart. If they got plugged into a network that wants smart people, so be it.

Your generalizations make you come of as some backwoods resentful militia man.

Yes everyone that goes to Harvard may not come out the brightest mainly due to the fact that certain folks should have never been admitted. Some get admitted due to who they are.

[devilsadvocate]

Uvs2g5Nj0NI

[Busyman]

Uvs2g5Nj0NI

That's funny but ermmm what does that have to do with.....oh nvm.

[j2k4]

You don't get an exceptional education at ivy league schools, you get plugged into the network.

That's the problem.

Please explain your "aspiring to mediocrity is a virtue" thingie.

Have I missed something.

Oh so Bush got plugged into the network? No Ivy League schools provide a good education? So it's a network of dumbdumbs?

I have 3 friends that went to Harvard and they are quite smart. If they got plugged into a network that wants smart people, so be it.

Your generalizations make you come of as some backwoods resentful militia man.

Yes everyone that goes to Harvard may not come out the brightest mainly due to the fact that certain folks should have never been admitted. Some get admitted due to who they are.

Yes, Bush got plugged in.

Just like your boys Kerry and Gore.

So, you are of the opinion an excellent education cannot be had outside the ivys?

BTW-

Is this-

"Your generalizations make you come of as some backwoods resentful militia man".

-not a generalization?

You are practicing an elitism you can't afford, sir.

Perhaps you could grovel before one of your three (count 'em, three) Harvard buddies to parse your posting for you.

[clocker]

So, you are of the opinion an excellent education cannot be had outside the ivys?


Why must this be either/or?
A good education is available any number of places, including the Ivy League and the public library.

[j2k4]

So, you are of the opinion an excellent education cannot be had outside the ivys?


Why must this be either/or?
A good education is available any number of places, including the Ivy League and the public library.

I'll grant you that; however, the only things that make the Ivy league exceptional are the cost and the networking.

Oh, and the snob appeal.

Period.

[clocker]

So it's just not possible that an Ivy league school might have a better teacher, better facilities, more extensive library or in fact, anything that could be considered "superior" to another school?

[j2k4]

So it's just not possible that an Ivy league school might have a better teacher, better facilities, more extensive library or in fact, anything that could be considered "superior" to another school?

Ah, elitism again.

I believe the ultimate product is more a function of the human ingredient; in fact, you intimated as much in your own postage, while denigrating Palin for having attended "Wasilla Community College", when in fact she graduated from the University of Idaho.

Harvard and Yale are fine schools; there is no denying the fact - but, as you yourself said, a fine education can be had at any public library, some of which are certainly superior to others...so what, ultimately, is your point?

I'm guessing you find her accent off-putting. :whistling

[clocker]

Your reading comprehension skills are deteriorating.
I never implied or intimated that Palin attended Wasilla Community College.

And, I've never said that a fine education is only available from an Ivy but, unlike you, I allow the possibility that someone who has attended one might have walked away with more than a secret handshake and a sense of entitlement.

My point (at least part of it) is the Republican penchant for availing themselves- typically through family connections- of the advantages of finer institutions and then turning around and bemoaning the "elitism" that apparently runs rampant in them...although somehow magically not infecting them.

This dichotomy is also evidenced in the way Repubs like to treat New York.
During, and even today, the events of Sept. 11, New Yorkers were heroes and the victims of terrorists.
In any other context except the 9/11 attacks, New York embodies all that Repubs find repellent about East coast, big city, liberal values.

This whole "Main Street, small town values" schtick is just pure unadulterated crap.
80% of Americans live in large urban areas- Opie has not been representative of the average American since BEFORE the Andy Griffith Show. Neither Bush or McCain grew up in anything like a stereotypical small town, both were children of priveledge and only wear the trappings of small town America out of political expediency.

[j2k4]

Your reading comprehension skills are deteriorating.
I never implied or intimated that Palin attended Wasilla Community College.

And, I've never said that a fine education is only available from an Ivy but, unlike you, I allow the possibility that someone who has attended one might have walked away with more than a secret handshake and a sense of entitlement.

My point (at least part of it) is the Republican penchant for availing themselves- typically through family connections- of the advantages of finer institutions and then turning around and bemoaning the "elitism" that apparently runs rampant in them...although somehow magically not infecting them.

This dichotomy is also evidenced in the way Repubs like to treat New York.
During, and even today, the events of Sept. 11, New Yorkers were heroes and the victims of terrorists.
In any other context except the 9/11 attacks, New York embodies all that Repubs find repellent about East coast, big city, liberal values.

This whole "Main Street, small town values" schtick is just pure unadulterated crap.
80% of Americans live in large urban areas- Opie has not been representative of the average American since BEFORE the Andy Griffith Show. Neither Bush or McCain grew up in anything like a stereotypical small town, both were children of priveledge and only wear the trappings of small town America out of political expediency.

So we hicks are to be excluded from the process.

Well, then.

Secession could become an issue before long, I think, should the rube population decide to charge you urbanites directly for the resources we're sitting on - you know, the oil, the water...stuff like that.

BTW-

According to the census bureau, you are abusing, or at least attempting to mislead, with your statement as to U.S. population:

URBAN AND RURAL DEFINITIONS

Source: US Census Bureau
Released: Oct. 1995

URBAN AND RURAL

The Census Bureau defines "urban" for the 1990 census as comprising all territory, population, and housing units in urbanized areas and in places of 2,500 or more persons outside urbanized areas. More specifically, "urban" consists of territory, persons, and housing units in:

1. Places of 2,500 or more persons incorporated as cities, villages, boroughs (except in Alaska and New York), and towns (except in the six New England States, New York, and Wisconsin), but excluding the rural portions of "extended cities."

2. Census designated places of 2,500 or more persons.

3. Other territory, incorporated or unincorporated, included in urbanized areas.


Ffs, I fucking live in an urban area. :whistling

[clocker]

So we hicks are to be excluded from the process.

Well, then.

Secession could become an issue before long, I think, should the rube population decide to charge you urbanites directly for the resources we're sitting on - you know, the oil, the water...stuff like that.
What?
If there is a connection between my post and your response, I fail to see it.


BTW-

According to the census bureau, you are abusing, or at least attempting to mislead, with your statement as to U.S. population:

URBAN AND RURAL DEFINITIONS

Source: US Census Bureau
Released: Oct. 1995

URBAN AND RURAL

The Census Bureau defines "urban" for the 1990 census as comprising all territory, population, and housing units in urbanized areas and in places of 2,500 or more persons outside urbanized areas. More specifically, "urban" consists of territory, persons, and housing units in:

1. Places of 2,500 or more persons incorporated as cities, villages, boroughs (except in Alaska and New York), and towns (except in the six New England States, New York, and Wisconsin), but excluding the rural portions of "extended cities."

2. Census designated places of 2,500 or more persons.

3. Other territory, incorporated or unincorporated, included in urbanized areas.


Ffs, I fucking live in an urban area. :whistling
Actually, I don't believe you do.
Your "salt-o-the-earth" status remains intact, although of increasingly dubious value.

[j2k4]

Your reading comprehension skills are deteriorating.
I never implied or intimated that Palin attended Wasilla Community College.

What was this in aid of, then?



You really want to compare the quality of education between Wasilla Community College and Yale?

If you were being other-than-literal, then I guess I am, too.





This dichotomy is also evidenced in the way Repubs like to treat New York.
During, and even today, the events of Sept. 11, New Yorkers were heroes and the victims of terrorists.
In any other context except the 9/11 attacks, New York embodies all that Repubs find repellent about East coast, big city, liberal values.

The people of New York are fine, and easily appreciated at non-critical times as well as in the wake of such as 9/11.

You fail to differentiate between the individual and the political face of New York.

I don't recall anybody saying, "Holy shit, did you see how the democrat/republican party kicked ass after the WTC came down".

They have republicans there, too, although you may think a New York republican to be vastly superior/inferior to the rural specie - I don't pretend to know.



This whole "Main Street, small town values" schtick is just pure unadulterated crap.
80% of Americans live in large urban areas- Opie has not been representative of the average American since BEFORE the Andy Griffith Show. Neither Bush or McCain grew up in anything like a stereotypical small town, both were children of priveledge and only wear the trappings of small town America out of political expediency.

How do you feel about Broadway, big city values?

Are they somehow superior in ways not reflected in sheer numbers?




BTW-

According to the census bureau, you are abusing, or at least attempting to mislead, with your statement as to U.S. population:

URBAN AND RURAL DEFINITIONS

Source: US Census Bureau
Released: Oct. 1995

URBAN AND RURAL

The Census Bureau defines "urban" for the 1990 census as comprising all territory, population, and housing units in urbanized areas and in places of 2,500 or more persons outside urbanized areas. More specifically, "urban" consists of territory, persons, and housing units in:

1. Places of 2,500 or more persons incorporated as cities, villages, boroughs (except in Alaska and New York), and towns (except in the six New England States, New York, and Wisconsin), but excluding the rural portions of "extended cities."

2. Census designated places of 2,500 or more persons.

3. Other territory, incorporated or unincorporated, included in urbanized areas.


Ffs, I fucking live in an urban area. :whistling
Actually, I don't believe you do.
Your "salt-o-the-earth" status remains intact, although of increasingly dubious value.

You would dare argue with the census bureau?

Back up your "80% urban" claim, if you please?

BTW-

I eschew salt on the orders of my medic, so my value is static, unlike our currency.

[Busyman]

Oh so Bush got plugged into the network? No Ivy League schools provide a good education? So it's a network of dumbdumbs?

I have 3 friends that went to Harvard and they are quite smart. If they got plugged into a network that wants smart people, so be it.

Your generalizations make you come of as some backwoods resentful militia man.

Yes everyone that goes to Harvard may not come out the brightest mainly due to the fact that certain folks should have never been admitted. Some get admitted due to who they are.

Yes, Bush got plugged in.

Just like your boys Kerry and Gore.

So, you are of the opinion an excellent education cannot be had outside the ivys?

Where'd you even think to pull that one out of your ass? Also there was no mention of Bush's plug-ins by you then so why mention Obama's possible plug-ins now. Bush was plugged in before Harvard and Yale.

BTW-

Is this-

"Your generalizations make you come of as some backwoods resentful militia man".

-not a generalization?

Oh no it is. I'll repeat it. Your generalizations make you come off as some backwoods resentful militia man.

You are practicing an elitism you can't afford, sir.

Perhaps you could grovel before one of your three (count 'em, three) Harvard buddies to parse your posting for you.

Perhaps you could grovel on your knees and stuff even more beef in your mouth.

[j2k4]

Yes, Bush got plugged in.

Just like your boys Kerry and Gore.

So, you are of the opinion an excellent education cannot be had outside the ivys?

Where'd you even think to pull that one out of your ass? Also there was no mention of Bush's plug-ins by you then so why mention Obama's possible plug-ins now. Bush was plugged in before Harvard and Yale.

BTW-

Is this-

"Your generalizations make you come of as some backwoods resentful militia man".

-not a generalization?

Oh no it is. I'll repeat it. Your generalizations make you come off as some backwoods resentful militia man.

You are practicing an elitism you can't afford, sir.

Perhaps you could grovel before one of your three (count 'em, three) Harvard buddies to parse your posting for you.

Perhaps you could grovel on your knees and stuff even more beef in your mouth.

I only eat pussy, sorry. :dabs:

[Busyman]

Perhaps you could grovel on your knees and stuff even more beef in your mouth.

I only eat pussy, sorry. :dabs:

Sorry? I'm not the one having you burst at the cheeks with beef. If you eat pussy, it must be male cats.

[devilsadvocate]

Perhaps you could grovel on your knees and stuff even more beef in your mouth.

I only eat pussy, sorry. :dabs:

Never heard of beef curtains then?:naughty:

http://www.americansubstandard.com/?word=Beef%20Curtains

[j2k4]

I only eat pussy, sorry. :dabs:

Sorry? I'm not the one having you burst at the cheeks with beef. If you eat pussy, it must be male cats.

Honestly, where do you get this stuff. :rolleyes:

[clocker]

Investigation finds Palin abused power in 'Troopergate



By James V. Grimaldi and Kimberly Kindy


Washington Post

Article Launched: 10/10/2008 07:47:29 PM PDT


WASHINGTON — An Alaska state legislative investigator found Friday that Gov. Sarah Palin abused her executive power when she and her husband engaged in a campaign to oust her former brother-in-law from the state police force.

In a lengthy report released in Anchorage, Stephen Branchflower found that Palin also improperly allowed her husband, Todd, to use the governor's office to pursue a personal vendetta against the trooper.

"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: To get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," said the report released by a bipartisan legislative committee.



Did Governor Sarah Palin abuse the power of her office in trying to get her former brother-in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten, fired? Yes.

Was the refusal to fire Mike Wooten the reason Palin fired Commissioner of Public Safety Walt Monegan? Not exclusively, and it was within her rights as the states' chief executive to fire him for just about any reason, even without cause.

Those answers were expected, given that most of the best pieces of evidence have been part of the public record for months. The result is not a mortal wound to Palin, nor does it put her at much risk of being forced to leave the ticket her presence succeeded in energizing.

But the Branchflower report still makes for good reading, if only because it convincingly answers a question nobody had even thought to ask: Is the Palin administration shockingly amateurish? Yes, it is. Disturbingly so.

The 263 pages of the report show a co-ordinated application of pressure on Monegan so transparent and ham-handed that it was almost certain to end in public embarrassment for the governor. The only surprise is that Troopergate is national news, not just a sorry piece of political gristle to be chewed on by Alaska politicos over steaks at Anchorage's Club Paris.

A harsh verdict? Consider the report's findings. Not only did people at almost every level of the Palin administration engage in repeated inappropriate contact with Walt Monegan and other high-ranking officials at the Department of Public Safety, but Monegan and his peers constantly warned these Palin disciples that the contact was inappropriate and probably unlawful. Still, the emails and calls continued — in at least one instance on recorded state trooper phone lines.

The state's head of personnel, Annette Kreitzer, called Monegan and had to be warned that personnel issues were confidential. The state's attorney general, Talis Colberg, called Monegan and had to be reminded that the call was putting both men in legal jeopardy, should Wooten decide to sue. The governor's chief of staff met with Monegan and had to be reminded by Monegan that, "This conversation is discoverable ... You don't want Wooten to own your house, do you?"

Monegan consistently emerges as the adult in these conversations, while the Palin camp displays a childish impetuousness and sense of entitlement.

One telling exchange: Deputy Commissioner John Glass, who worked under Monegan, told Branchflower he was "livid" after a Palin staffer, Frank Bailey, went outside the chain of command and called a state trooper in far-off Ketchikan to complain about Wooten. Why had Bailey called the trooper? Because, Bailey said, this trooper had gone to church with Sarah Palin back in Wasilla, so he felt "comfortable" talking to him about Wooten. Glass, too, tried to sound the warning that continuing to pressure anyone and everyone in the matter would end in "an unbelievable amount of embarrassment for the Governor and everybody else".


Yeah, she's good.

[j2k4]

The sum of it is she abused her power while doing nothing wrong.

The media reports the former and ignores the latter.

Of course, this arouses no one's curiosity.

[devilsadvocate]

Well it appears this is indeed a historic election. The first African American running as the candidate for a major party and the first in American history in which both candidates on the same ticket were found to have violated ethics standards before their possible election.

I can't claim credit for pointing out the latter, I heard it mentioned on the news this morning.

[j2k4]

Well it appears this is indeed a historic election. The first African American running as the candidate for a major party and the first in American history in which both candidates on the same ticket were found to have violated ethics standards before their possible election.

I can't claim credit for pointing out the latter, I heard it mentioned on the news this morning.

So, you watch OTF, eh?

[devilsadvocate]

It was on the radio. What is OTF?

[j2k4]

It was on the radio.


Must have been NPR, huh?

[clocker]

J2 has killed all the messengers and yet the bad news keeps coming.

[Busyman]

Well it appears this is indeed a historic election. The first African American running as the candidate for a major party and the first in American history in which both candidates on the same ticket were found to have violated ethics standards before their possible election.

I can't claim credit for pointing out the latter, I heard it mentioned on the news this morning.
nvm

[Busyman]

The sum of it is she abused her power while doing nothing wrong.

The media reports the former and ignores the latter.

Of course, this arouses no one's curiosity.

Actually, I thought the opposite until a friend pointed out the former, over dinner.

When i saw the news, I saw that she basically was within her rights to fire Walt for any reason.

He, pointed out, that they found she abused her power.

It seems the media reported everything, and in what I saw, underreported the abuse of of power.

What I think it comes down to is that, yes she fired him for not firing the brother-in-law. I don't even know the reason she wanted the br-in-law fired.

My thought is if the br-in-law was some shit cop, maybe it was just but I don't know all the details.

Is Walt's dealings with subordinates supposed to be out of her purview?

Did she want the br-in-law fired for weird some personal shit?

If it was some personal shit then she's pretty fucked up and if the report basically says she fired people for whateverthefuck reason, I think one would be either a fool or hive-minded party follower to think it's okay cuz "well she didn't brake the law".

That's like the guy who commits pedophilia with all evidence pointing to him, but he gets off on a technicality so it's ok to let him watch your kids.

I will check on this further.

[j2k4]

This is making the rounds-

AND THIS GUY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT!

Now isn't this something to think about?!


If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist.


If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard! And yet he can be elected our President??? Amazing...

[Busyman]

This is making the rounds-

AND THIS GUY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT!

Now isn't this something to think about?!


If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist.


If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard! And yet he can be elected our President??? Amazing...

Wow, so even you buy into this association.

It's funny how this known terrorist is able to walk free and hold a job teaching others.

I'm sure this is making the rounds....in certain circles.

I wonder how true it is.

Explain what his association was.

edit: You guys are really reaching. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge? This Ayers would then knock out anyone associated with it and even some in the Annenburg Foundation. Howz about all staff and his students at the Univ. Of Chicago. I think not.

What desperation.....

[clocker]

If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist.



Oddly, Bill Ayers- your "known terrorist" was never convicted of anything.
He went on to become a professor at the U. of Chicago and has been "hiding" in plain site for what, almost 40 years.
Get off the "known terrorist" crap...these smears are just as flawed as associating McCain with the Keating scandal. If Obama is guilty by association, then so is McCain...which way do you want to have it?

[j2k4]

This is making the rounds-

AND THIS GUY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT!

Now isn't this something to think about?!


If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist.


If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard! And yet he can be elected our President??? Amazing...

Wow, so even you buy into this association.

It's funny how this known terrorist is able to walk free and hold a job teaching others.

I'm sure this is making the rounds....in certain circles.

I wonder how true it is.

Explain what his association was.

Oh, let's see...I think Barack's explanation goes something like, "He's just a guy from my neighborhood".

Good enough for you, eh?

Ayers appears to be one of Obama's greatest friends in Chi-town; helped him launch his political career, don't you know. ;)

[Busyman]

If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist.



Oddly, Bill Ayers- your "known terrorist" was never convicted of anything.
He went on to become a professor at the U. of Chicago and has been "hiding" in plain site for what, almost 40 years.
Get off the "known terrorist" crap...these smears are just as flawed as associating McCain with the Keating scandal. If Obama is guilty by association, then so is McCain...which way do you want to have it?

Did Ayers get off on a technicality?

From what I understand, wasn't Barack 8 years old when Ayers was invoived with the Weather Underground?

Oh since I have passed a background check, myself, I know you have to pass one to go into many areas of The Capitol, Pentagon, etc. with or without escort based on level.

Does Barack have to be escorted I wonder?

I noticed j2 doesn't mention The Keating 5.

[clocker]

Did Ayers get off on a technicality?


Yes, he did.
Just like McCain escaped the Keating scandal.

[j2k4]

Did Ayers get off on a technicality?

He is guilty, and by his own admission.

In light of the that fact, what do I care about how he got off?

I think he was quoted as saying something like, "Only in America: guilty as Hell, and free as a bird."


From what I understand, wasn't Barack 8 years old when Ayers was invoived with the Weather Underground?

What does that matter?

Ayers was moved to applaud 9/11; I don't think Obama was a youngster in 2001.

Do you?


Oh since I have passed a background check, myself, I know you have to pass one to go into many areas of The Capitol, Pentagon, etc. with or without escort based on level.

Oh, is ACORN doing background checks, too?

They've obviously overlooked your "shopping" habits, and your stash of microwave ovens - I hope they don't find the keys to your mom's "shed".


I noticed j2 doesn't mention The Keating 5.

Okay, here you go:

Keating 5.

A DEMOCRAT committee found him blameless.

Talk about it all you like.

[devilsadvocate]

[

Oh, let's see...I think Barack's explanation goes something like, "He's just a guy from my neighborhood".

Good enough for you, eh?

Ayers appears to be one of Obama's greatest friends in Chi-town; helped him launch his political career, don't you know. ;)

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html




McCain: Look, we don't care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife, who still, at least on Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. ... The point is, Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We need to know that's not true.

Obama never said Ayers was "just" a guy in the neighborhood. The quote is from a Democratic primary debate (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?pagewanted=print) on April 16 in Philadelphia, and Obama actually was more forthcoming than McCain lets on. Obama specifically acknowledged working together with Ayers on a charitable board, and didn't deny getting some early political support from him. Here's the exchange:

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, April 16: An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

Obama: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.
Sen. Hillary Clinton then said, "I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation," and predicted that "this is an issue that certainly Republicans will be raising."



Ayers was moved to applaud 9/11;


Not true


Despite the fairly mainstream life he lives now, though, Bill Ayers' image took a hit with an article that appeared in the (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)New York Times (javascript:void(0);/*1223664680656*/) on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Ayers was quoted in the lead paragraph as saying, ''I don't regret setting bombs'' and "I feel we didn't do enough." The interview had been conducted earlier, in connection with the publication of Ayers' memoir of his years as a fugitive. But when the quotes appeared on the same day thousands died at the World Trade Center and elsewhere, they enraged his critics.

You are right Ayers did admit his actions.




@Busyman

Re the background check thing, [conspiracy theory] didn't you know Obama has had secret service men following him around since announcing his candidacy? Oh sure the official reason given is "protection" but we all know it's really to keep an eye on every move that Arab makes :shifty:[/conspiracy theory]

[Busyman]

He is guilty, and by his own admission.

In light of the that fact, what do I care about how he got off?

I think he was quoted as saying something like, "Only in America: guilty as Hell, and free as a bird."


From what I understand, wasn't Barack 8 years old when Ayers was invoived with the Weather Underground?

What does that matter?

Ayers was moved to applaud 9/11; I don't think Obama was a youngster in 2001.

Do you?

You are making shit up


Oh since I have passed a background check, myself, I know you have to pass one to go into many areas of The Capitol, Pentagon, etc. with or without escort based on level.

Oh, is ACORN doing background checks, too?

They've obviously overlooked your "shopping" habits, and your stash of microwave ovens - I hope they don't find the keys to your mom's "shed".

So with all that bullshit you are talking, I see you don't know what you're talking about.



I noticed j2 doesn't mention The Keating 5.

Okay, here you go:

Keating 5.

A DEMOCRAT committee found him blameless.

Talk about it all you like.

Oh so what did anyone convict Obama of? What was Ayers convicted of?

Hell the Keating 5 was about McCain and his association and very good friend of known criminal. McCain was investigated for a crime.

What crime was Obama even investigated for? An association.

I put forth that McCain's association was much closer to Keating than Obama's was to Ayers....and again, this association prompted an investigation FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

Nice try though. Obama's association has prompted an investigation by witch hunters about...well....nothing.

[Busyman]

Ironically, this is why I like McCain....


Kf6YKOkfFsE

From the horse's mouth...he cuts some of the bullshit (that he helped start, however) and does it for all to see.

The crowd obviously didn't like him not going along with the mob mentality.

The last lady was a racist.

[clocker]

Rachel Maddow:Sarah Palin Lies to You- Enthusiastically and Repeatedly. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27171061#27171061)

[j2k4]

Rachel Maddow:Sarah Palin Lies to You- Enthusiastically and Repeatedly. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27171061#27171061)

Reminds me of The Daily Show.

I wonder if you could find me an example of Foxnews employing the "harpy" technique to go after Obama, O'Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Emmanuel...anybody at all, on the Dem side.

To paraphrase you dems, "she hasn't been convicted of /indicted for anything at all".

Why, btw, would you deny Palin the "legal" deniablity you so willingly extend to the like of Bill Clinton, et al, and which you will soon (no doubt) grant to Florida democrat Tim Mahoney, who is embroiled in a sex scandal far worse than the one which took down his predecessor, Mark Foley?

I hear Nancy Pelosi herself has been counselling Mahoney about how to keep this from negatively affecting his re-election campaign, in which (this is really hilarious) he touts himself as a paragon of ethical behavior.

In the meantime, tattoo this on your brains:

Sarah Palin is INNOCENT. :whistling

[clocker]

The report clearly stated that she violated state ethics laws and that the firing of Monegan was influenced by the Wooten case. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act states, “[...] each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”

In fact, the investigation showed that Todd Palin contacted NINE separate people about Wooten, two of whom were contacted, as stated in the report, on “numerous occasions.” And Sarah made five phone calls herself about the trooper. Three to Monegan and two to somebody else. And then there’s her staff, four of whom contacted various concerns.
I'm not fond of tattoos, especially misleading ones.

BTW, Mahoney is an excellent diversionary tactic but I'm not biting...this thread is ostensibly about Palin.
Also, from now on, every time you drag Bill-fucking-Clinton into a conversation about today's election, I'm going to raise the ghost of Richard Nixon and throw him around.

[j2k4]

Let's try 'er out then:

BILL CLINTON!!! :whistling

Actually, my point is as stated-

She's as innocent as any democrat who's slid under the wire, at a minimum.

Leave the names out of it if you prefer, but she's innocent; more innocent (for example) than Bill Clinton.

As a practical matter, it certainly won't cost McCain any conservative votes, and it won't cost him any liberal votes he might have gotten.

It is also doubtful he'd have gotten any ACORN votes.

Bottom line, it's a wash, and the libs can't hurt McCain with it.

No harm, no foul.

[clocker]

"No harm, no foul",eh?

Fine with me.
If you think a no-nothing, ethically compromised, delusional low brow is the best representative of your political values and aspirations, then have at her.

After her loss on Nov. 4th, Palin will snowmobile back up to Juneau, never to be heard from again.
The Republicans will grieve the fall of a rising star and the Dems will miss the comedy gold.

[devilsadvocate]

After her loss on Nov. 4th, Palin will snowmobile back up to Juneau, never to be heard from again.
The Republicans will grieve the fall of a rising star and the Dems will miss the comedy gold.

Should Obama be elected do you not think she has ambitions to run in 2012?

[clocker]

Should Obama be elected do you not think she has ambitions to run in 2012?
Her ambitions will be irrelevant.
The McCain/Palin campaign has become such a trainwreck that anyone associated with it will be anathema to the party's power elite, consigned to political oblivion.

Palin has neither the intellect nor the stamina to assemble and manage the infrastructure necessary to mount a campaign of her own in four years, much less the more likely eight years before the Repubs have a prayer of regaining power.

The entire Republican base since Regan has been the unlikely bedfellow coupling of evangelical Christians and far right conservatives- an amalgam that is coming apart at the seams this cycle and is unlikely to be rejoined.
Palin was/is an obvious sop to the evangelicals but they will be a mere splinter group in 2012 and even then would be far happier with a male candidate.

So no, I don't believe that Palin will be a factor in anyone's future (except her family's and the unfortunate citizens of Alaska) beyond Nov. 4.

[devilsadvocate]

The question was raised on your prediction about never being heard from again. Not on the likelihood of her actually being chosen as the candidate.

[clocker]

Oh.

I have no idea what Mrs. Palin will aspire to following her defeat.
I'm guessing that the experience will be bruising enough to give her pause and lack of support from the establishment (remember, she's a "maverick" and promising to piss on everybody's shoes) will make obscurity look welcoming.

[clocker]

Oh.

I have no idea what Mrs. Palin will aspire to following her defeat.
I'm guessing that the experience will be bruising enough to give her pause and lack of support from the establishment (remember, she's a "maverick" and promising to piss on everybody's shoes) will make obscurity look welcoming.

[Busyman]

After her loss on Nov. 4th, Palin will snowmobile back up to Juneau, never to be heard from again.
The Republicans will grieve the fall of a rising star and the Dems will miss the comedy gold.

Should Obama be elected do you not think she has ambitions to run in 2012?

She couldn't run on her own. Palin would not have made it through the normal mill of primaries and such. She wouldn't sound as good as she does today ( :lol: )
without the extensive coaching that she's had and she knows shitall about national and international....stuff.

[Busyman]

The Republicans will grieve the fall of a rising star and the Dems will miss the comedy gold.

I will miss the comedy-fo-sho.

[devilsadvocate]

While I think she may not win the nomination should she run in 2012 I don't agree that she would not be a viable candidate. She is popular with the social conservatives, enough so that she has that foothold. Perhaps 2012 might not be the target but I don't see her heading into where are they now land forever. A lot depends on the future makeup of the republican base and the financial state of the country. If the economy improves and times are good single issue social conservatives fare better.
I think this not because I find her talented, I don't. Given the right handlers she could do well.

If McCain loses I don't see it as a problem for Palin. McCain was floundering before she was introduced and it seems that few points in the polls McCain has are hers. McCain never excited the base, the base never really liked him that much. A loss will be attributed to him alone.

I will concede that for those that don't make up the republican base she would have to overcome the problem of having been put into prime time before she was ready and as the saying goes you only get one chance at a first impression. On the other hand we seem to be a nation with a short attention span and those following politics with any degree of depth are in a minority.

I'm not one to blame the last guy for the present problems, but another factor is that whoever wins this time really is going to have to be nothing short of a miracle worker. If Obama wins and doesn't pull a miracle off then I think he loses in 2012 even if Palin is the challenger. If McCain wins and doesn't pull a miracle off and Palin is the 2012 candidate (ex VP status) then she loses.

This is about the way America votes, not about competence of candidates.

[ilw]

I've been thinking about it and the best thing about Palin is that she really lowers peoples standards. Right now i'd be perfectly happy for mccain to win, he actually comes across as not being a retard and i think i speak for the world when i say that after the last 8 years we'll settle for that.

He just fucking well better not snuff it.