Now that the dust has settled, and more is learned about Palin, apparently people aren't so crazy about this lying, moose-eating woman. According to Newsweek, her favorability ratings are dropping, while her unfavorable ratings are rising. My guess is that as people realize she doesn't have a clue about foreign affairs, that she lied about the bridge to nowhere and earmarks, and that she is refusing to cooperate with an investigation into her abuse of power, the novelty will rub off, and people will recognize what a stupid, political choice she was.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/16/palin-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx
Apparently, even conservative commentators have concerns about her selection:
quote:
McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
quote:
Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Oh, and apparently Palin doesn't have enough experience to run a company, but running the free world isn't an issue (advice to Ms. Fiornia—apparently, you don't have enough experience to run a company, either)
Getting a good chuckle...
Dems are worried....really worried.
Rightly so.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Getting a good chuckle...
Dems are worried....really worried.
Rightly so.
Wow, that was an astute response.
We were just worried that the media wasn't going to get over their 'Palingasm'....looks like it cigarette time!
Well, I think her choice was great for the grassroots, but at this point I am wondering if her choice was the best idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Getting a good chuckle...
Dems are worried....really worried.
Rightly so.
Too bad they don't devote as much time to researching their own candidate. I guess associating with terrorists like Ayers, slum lords like Rezco and insurrectionists like Farrakhan isn't interesting enough to investigate.
They prefer to focus on the real issues...[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Getting a good chuckle...
Dems are worried....really worried.
Rightly so.
Too bad they don't devote as much time to researching their own candidate. I guess associating with terrorists like Ayers, slum lords like Rezco and insurrectionists like Farrakhan isn't interesting enough to investigate.
They prefer to focus on the real issues...[xx(]
Ha! That's the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?
About like the time the McCain camp spent vetting their veep choice?
Did you see Pat Buchanan's column entitled "The Neocons' Palin Project" in today's TulsaWorld talking about how key Neocons have been working with Palin to transform her into a Neocon?
I have had several hard core local Republicans tell me all they want is their party back. They don't want the Religious Right and they don't want the Neocons.
But apparently the Republican Party is not interested in any kind of course correction moving their party back towards the center.
They are missing out on their chance to reinvent themselves in the wake of their Baby Bush disaster.
Good news for Democrats -- who have become the party of the silent majority.
Meanwhile, Palin is clearly in over her head.
In a way I feel sorry for her.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Now that the dust has settled, and more is learned about Palin, apparently people aren't so crazy about this lying, moose-eating woman. According to Newsweek, her favorability ratings are dropping, while her unfavorable ratings are rising. My guess is that as people realize she doesn't have a clue about foreign affairs, that she lied about the bridge to nowhere and earmarks, and that she is refusing to cooperate with an investigation into her abuse of power, the novelty will rub off, and people will recognize what a stupid, political choice she was.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/16/palin-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx
Apparently, even conservative commentators have concerns about her selection:
quote:
McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
quote:
Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Oh, and apparently Palin doesn't have enough experience to run a company, but running the free world isn't an issue (advice to Ms. Fiornia—apparently, you don't have enough experience to run a company, either)
PM- a challenge to you. Can you name any redeeming qualities Joe Biden has, and what substance he could bring to the White House instead of constantly crapping on Palin? Last I checked, he's running for the same office she is, not Obama.
Usually running down the opponent is the result of not having enough good things to say about your own candidate. It deflects attention from the weaknesses or lack of substance in one's own candidate. Must be the case here as I didn't see you defending Obama or Biden very much on other recent threads started on them.
Your obsession w/ Palin borders on needing latex.
Thought I jump in here and add by 2 cents to your question:
Biden has a long record of public service and has lived in the public eye for some time now.
Vice-Presidential candidates have traditionally taken a more assertive stance than the presidential candidates during the campaigns. They were and are the original surrogates.
quote:
Biden has a long record of public service and has lived in the public eye for some time now.
So by the same logic should McCain get a pass because he's got a long record of public service and has lived in the public eye for even longer?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Biden has a long record of public service and has lived in the public eye for some time now.
So by the same logic should McCain get a pass because he's got a long record of public service and has lived in the public eye for even longer?
Like a lot of Democrats I like McCain and as you say we have had a chance to watch him in action for a long time now. And I do think McCain wants to be better than his party.
But one of things that watching McCain over the years has taught me is that he says one thing and does another. He grabs headlines with a statement but when it comes time to vote he backtracks and sides with his party.
McCain talks the talk but does not walk the walk.
When you nominated McCain I was hopeful it meant you were ready to move towards the center but that has not been the case.
Instead of McCain changing your party, your party is changing McCain -- for the worse.
Unfortunate for you and for the nation.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Biden has a long record of public service and has lived in the public eye for some time now.
So by the same logic should McCain get a pass because he's got a long record of public service and has lived in the public eye for even longer?
That's not the point of the thread.
It's frightening that someone who tries to ban books because of her faith can get this far in national politics. Hopefully people are starting to realize that.
The book banning is the one thing that scares me the most. I'm sure there are a number of reasons she shouldn't be where she is.
She's the biggest reason I've got to not vote Republican this term.
As long as she's the Republican VP candidate I plan on tossing my vote to the electoral college wolves and watch it float away into a world of meaninglessness.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Biden has a long record of public service and has lived in the public eye for some time now.
So by the same logic should McCain get a pass because he's got a long record of public service and has lived in the public eye for even longer?
That's not the point of the thread.
It's frightening that someone who tries to ban books because of her faith can get this far in national politics. Hopefully people are starting to realize that.
The book banning is the one thing that scares me the most. I'm sure there are a number of reasons she shouldn't be where she is.
She's the biggest reason I've got to not vote Republican this term.
As long as she's the Republican VP candidate I plan on tossing my vote to the electoral college wolves and watch it float away into a world of meaninglessness.
Assuage your fears:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
I think it's been pointed out to you numerous times that the "book banning" fairy tale is a fabrication. Are you still afraid of falling off the edge of the earth?
I can't help you if you can't or won't inform yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Biden has a long record of public service and has lived in the public eye for some time now.
So by the same logic should McCain get a pass because he's got a long record of public service and has lived in the public eye for even longer?
That's not the point of the thread.
It's frightening that someone who tries to ban books because of her faith can get this far in national politics. Hopefully people are starting to realize that.
The book banning is the one thing that scares me the most. I'm sure there are a number of reasons she shouldn't be where she is.
She's the biggest reason I've got to not vote Republican this term.
As long as she's the Republican VP candidate I plan on tossing my vote to the electoral college wolves and watch it float away into a world of meaninglessness.
Assuage your fears:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
I think it's been pointed out to you numerous times that the "book banning" fairy tale is a fabrication. Are you still afraid of falling off the edge of the earth?
I can't help you if you can't or won't inform yourself.
It's been pointed out to you that it's not a fabrication.
I'm not asking for your one-sided fairy tale help. I don't trust her and it blows my mind that anyone falls for her crap.
Following party lines because otherwise you'd be proven wrong is asinine.
Being uppity, self important, and dismissive to anyone not going along with your ideals is not helping your cause.
"The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question"
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
Why bring it up if you weren't interested in doing it?
That's close enough for me to say she's a book banner.
"city residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter"
Apparently her townsfolk thought so as well.
Of course it's close enough for you Townsend. Any smear, no matter how illegitimate is close enough for you and every other ASL in America. This lie is fabricated, with made up lists and unspoken statements.
Snopes calls the whole thing false. "Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agenda's,' according the the Frontiersman article."
You don't want to hear the truth. you can't hear the truth. You refuse to hear the truth. It's inconvenient to believe the truth, when it interferes with destroying an opponent. it's how you thugs operate. You don't care. http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp (//%22http://%22)
She was having a discussion with someone and wanted clarification. Have you heard a peep about her fighting to have any specific books burned? If you did, it's a lie. I checked it out. She didn't even stand up to the librarian to get books burned, she just wanted clarification.
I posted on another post, when you Dims came out screaming that now Sarah is fighting any investigations, that I would welcome the investigations, to clear my name, just as she did. I would pull up the welcome mat just as soon as you dogs inserted yourselves in to it. If she lets the Dims CONTROL the investigation, this same kind of made up, blown out of proportion crap will hound her all the way through her Vice Presidency. They won't EVER stop. DIMS NEVER STOP.
You are a bunch of Communists that use the investigative portion of the Federal government to harass and destroy people and you enjoy it, no matter how wrong and unethical it is, so long as it's even an innocent member of the opposing Party. You are vile snakes and you know it and you don't care. You feign offense, but you can't possibly take offense or you wouldn't be who you are, act how you act, do what you do and believe what you believe. It's just an impossibility. You're primitives and it would take a higher functioning brain to actually have a conscience.
Some of you may not like what has been said here but, but if you feel slighted, well.., "Birds of a feather flock together". You don't want to be grouped in with this Party of criminal thugs, get out. Otherwise you support these actions and you are who I say you are.
Yes we are the party of Franklin Roosevelt.
We are the party that won World War II.
We are the party of Working People.
And Yes, WE DEMOCRATS WILL NEVER STOP.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
"The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question"
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
Why bring it up if you weren't interested in doing it?
That's close enough for me to say she's a book banner.
"city residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter"
Apparently her townsfolk thought so as well.
Factcheck is not the only independent organization to debunk the myth. As has been pointed out to you, Snopes has fully dealt with the issue as well.
You're childish interpretations of a question asked to a librarian provide no basis in fact to support your assertion that she's a proponent of book banning.
You're the only one nutty enough on this forum to actually believe this crap, other than FauxTurd.
I found another organization in need of gullible souls. Maybe you can lend some help?
Flat Earth Society (//%22http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/%22)
I think this is the most scared and defensive I've seen some of the regular hard-C posters.
It looks like the Palin choice is the wrong choice for them as well.
Oh well, don't worry guys. If you live in Oklahoma the republicans will most likely take our electoral votes.
Palin's just the wrong person to be the VPOTUS.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I found another organization in need of gullible souls. Maybe you can lend some help?
Flat Earth Society (//%22http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/%22)
That's old school thinking like Palin's book banning. That seems more up your alley.
quote:
I think this is the most scared and defensive I've seen some of the regular hard-C posters.
Apparently it's 4:20 somewhere...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
I think this is the most scared and defensive I've seen some of the regular hard-C posters.
Apparently it's 4:20 somewhere...
Wonderful comeback. I'll blaim your opinion on pre-natal alcohol intake by mom iplaw.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I found another organization in need of gullible souls. Maybe you can lend some help?
Flat Earth Society (//%22http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/%22)
That's old school thinking like Palin's book banning. That seems more up your alley.
This is akin to the morons who believe that Obama is a practicing Muslim...
You're a perfect archetype of a great Obama supporter. Your willing to blindly stand against common sense, in even when confronted with irrefutable evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I found another organization in need of gullible souls. Maybe you can lend some help?
Flat Earth Society (//%22http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/%22)
That's old school thinking like Palin's book banning. That seems more up your alley.
This is akin to the morons who believe that Obama is a practicing Muslim...
You're a perfect archetype of a great Obama supporter. Your willing to blindly stand against common sense, in even when confronted with irrefutable evidence.
You just reversed my accusation to you. What kind of argument is that? Nice job.
Never an Obama supporter, just anti-palin. My opinion is that she shouldn't be where she is today. Being that she is, I can't vote Republican this year.
Apparently you're attention span is as long as long as you're arguments are in fact.
quote:
My opinion is that she shouldn't be where she is today.
My opinion is that you shouldn't be allowed to post without parental supervision, but we all can't get what we want.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
I think this is the most scared and defensive I've seen some of the regular hard-C posters.
It looks like the Palin choice is the wrong choice for them as well.
Oh well, don't worry guys. If you live in Oklahoma the republicans will most likely take our electoral votes.
Palin's just the wrong person to be the VPOTUS.
You call stating the facts defensive and you confuse scared with disgusted. Don't even try to stand on the foundation of your Democratic predecessors. You resemble them not. You can't even make it back to the Kennedy era. your greates hero. You're Party is nothing like the past.
They would puke on you rather than be apart of the Modern, spun out, far left, into outer-space, left wingNUT Party this abomination, you call the Democratic Party, has become. They would probably roll over in their graves if they knew how much more closely the Republican Party resembles them than their own current Party. What a bunch of extremist, lying, cheating, left wing, lunatics you've all become. Until the 60's, you would have been classified as insane and locked up. Now you actually have a Party and elect officials. It's NOT an improvement.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Apparently you're attention span is as long as long as you're arguments are in fact.
quote:
My opinion is that she shouldn't be where she is today.
My opinion is that you shouldn't be allowed to post without parental supervision, but we all can't get what we want.
My opinion is in keeping with the topic of this thread. Attacking to try to bully over a win is prickish.
Congratulations on being a sugared up 12 year old wanting to get the swingset to himself.
Well, if believing every nutjob conspiracy theory posted about Palin without any corroborating evidence is in keeping with the topic of the thread, then you sir are correct.
And pulling a jackass out of a hat...
(holding iplaw by the ears)
TADAAAAA
Zzzzz...
Wow, I feel like a real participant now. I've allowed myself to be lowered into the cesspool of closed minded conservative thinkers lurking in the political Forum.
It's not a wonderful feeling getting that all over you.
Good afternoon.
Take the swing set, but let him keep the Kool Aid and rose colored glasses.
(//http://iris.nyit.edu/~tcappell/kool-aid.gif) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/moxie_/395043793/)
And again, my challenge goes unanswered. No one can seem to come up with anything good about Biden other than he's been in public life a long time. (I do appreciate the effort, HT and thanks for not citing a bunch of moonbat Palin crap!)
Can't think of anything positive to say about your own candidate so it's tear down the opponent and those who support her with unsubstantiated paranoia.
Take the swing set, but let him keep the Kool Aid and rose colored glasses.
(http://iris.nyit.edu/~tcappell/kool-aid.gif)
(http://reinventioninc.blogspot.com/Rose-Colored-Glasses.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
And again, my challenge goes unanswered. No one can seem to come up with anything good about Biden other than he's been in public life a long time. (I do appreciate the effort, HT and thanks for not citing a bunch of moonbat Palin crap!)
Can't think of anything positive to say about your own candidate so it's tear down the opponent and those who support her with unsubstantiated paranoia.
That's the thing Conan. He's not my candidate. Point out the good in Palin. What will make her a good president if McCain dies?
Will she do a good job? Will the world treat her as the rightful leader for the US and do business and politics with her administration the way it should?
Will her beliefs overtake logical decision making pertaining to being the leader of the United States on the world stage?
How much will her viewpoints hurt our standings? Will it all become a slew of jokes?
Why should I believe she will make a good President? She'd be one 72 year old heartbeat away.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
And again, my challenge goes unanswered. No one can seem to come up with anything good about Biden other than he's been in public life a long time. (I do appreciate the effort, HT and thanks for not citing a bunch of moonbat Palin crap!)
Can't think of anything positive to say about your own candidate so it's tear down the opponent and those who support her with unsubstantiated paranoia.
Apparently it doesn't matter to these people any more whether accusations have a basis in fact or not as long as it does damage. Remember, RM told us a few weeks ago that once it's posted on the Internets, it's truth until someone proves it not to be.
[xx(]
Nevermind. This won't help.
Biden has been considered presidential material for several election cycles now. His expertise in foreign affairs has always been cited. Having been tested in the public eye does mean a lot. We've gotten to know him. We've gotten to see his reactions to many different situations. He is playing the role that Gore played for Clinton. He is fleshing out Obama's creditials. He is cool and level headed and tested and a much appreciated addition to the Democrat's ticket.
Palin is not a bad woman but she is not in the same class as the other three contenders.
Her problem now is that she has fallen in with a bad crowd -- like McCain.
Putting the Neocon crowd in charge of his campaign was a serious error on McCain's part. McCain should have reached back into his party's past and found moderates to people his campaign. My guess is that his arm was twisted and like always he fell in line with the Party.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
And again, my challenge goes unanswered. No one can seem to come up with anything good about Biden other than he's been in public life a long time. (I do appreciate the effort, HT and thanks for not citing a bunch of moonbat Palin crap!)
Can't think of anything positive to say about your own candidate so it's tear down the opponent and those who support her with unsubstantiated paranoia.
That's the thing Conan. He's not my candidate. Point out the good in Palin. What will make her a good president if McCain dies?
Will she do a good job? Will the world treat her as the rightful leader for the US and do business and politics with her administration the way it should?
Will her beliefs overtake logical decision making pertaining to being the leader of the United States on the world stage?
How much will her viewpoints hurt our standings? Will it all become a slew of jokes?
Why should I believe she will make a good President? She'd be one 72 year old heartbeat away.
It's already been shown that Palin operates on logic, rather than primarily religious decision making. What scares you is that she is morally grounded in her beliefs. Morality is always a problem for Democrats. They don't understand what they don't have or believe in. It's a relief to logical, morally grounded, intelligent individuals, not a problem.
I'm fine with her being a heartbeat away. I think she would be better than any of the 3 Senators. The least qualified of them would be stepping right in to the head job. No experience, no morality, no logic. Book smart, but not street wise. No common Sense. Yep Obama is the perfect Dim candidate.
Crash Daily, How moral is torture?
Your party is responsible for torture.
Being moral is more than sitting in church on Sunday morning. Lots of hypocrites without a moral bone in their bodies sit in church on Sunday mornings.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Crash Daily, How moral is torture?
Your party is responsible for torture.
Being moral is more than sitting in church on Sunday morning. Lots of hypocrites without a moral bone in their bodies sit in church on Sunday mornings.
Like hyperbole much?
I mean what I say. I don't have to twist words to make a point. You know -- straight talk. Another straight talking Democrat.
QuoteOriginally posted by Crash Daily
"Facts are stupid things." -at the 1988 Republican National Convention Ronald Reagan
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles."
Ronald Reagan
"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk." Ronald Reagan
"How are you, Mr. Mayor? I'm glad to meet you. How are things in your city?" -greeting Samual Pierce, his secretary of Housing and Urban Development, during a White House reception for mayors Ronald Reagan
"My name is Ronald Reagan. What's yours?" -introducing himself after delivering a prep school commencement address. The individual responded, "I'm your son, Mike," to which Reagan replied, "Oh, I didn't recognize you."
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Biden has been considered presidential material for several election cycles now.
To himself. Somehow, that didn't translate to the rank-and-file of the party though.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Biden has been considered presidential material for several election cycles now.
To himself. Somehow, that didn't translate to the rank-and-file of the party though.
Hmm, same goes for McCain I guess.
Except in this cycle, he seems to me to be self-destructing. When you have Karl Rove essentially calling you a liar and saying your ads are stepping over the line, that's like Vince McMahon saying your sport is fake.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
QuoteOriginally posted by Crash Daily
"Facts are stupid things." -at the 1988 Republican National Convention Ronald Reagan
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles."
Ronald Reagan
"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk." Ronald Reagan
"How are you, Mr. Mayor? I'm glad to meet you. How are things in your city?" -greeting Samual Pierce, his secretary of Housing and Urban Development, during a White House reception for mayors Ronald Reagan
"My name is Ronald Reagan. What's yours?" -introducing himself after delivering a prep school commencement address. The individual responded, "I'm your son, Mike," to which Reagan replied, "Oh, I didn't recognize you."
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?"
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3295/2433281852_ccf4e8eba0.jpg)
quote:
When you have Karl Rove essentially calling you a liar
I actually saw the interview with Rove. The operative word in your post is "essentially." I think he was clear when he stated that ALL political candidates blur the lines in ads.
Nothing to plant a flag on.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Biden has been considered presidential material for several election cycles now.
To himself. Somehow, that didn't translate to the rank-and-file of the party though.
Hmm, same goes for McCain I guess.
Except in this cycle, he seems to me to be self-destructing. When you have Karl Rove essentially calling you a liar and saying your ads are stepping over the line, that's like Vince McMahon saying your sport is fake.
McCain is actually headlining his party's ticket, I do believe. Big difference.
The polls don't seem to bear out that McCain is self-destructing. Keep in mind, most of what is being said right now in the campaign will be forgotten by Nov. 4. Honestly, I think everyone has their mind made up within a couple of weeks of the conventions barring an October surprise. Now it's just the sick floor show and rallying more people whose minds are made up to show up on Nov. 4.
Taking into consideration a possible "Bradley Effect" Obama better hope he's got a lead of 10% in the polls right before the election and I don't think he can do it. My tea leaves say Biden sucked some of the enthusiasm out of the Obama campaign. That's why they are hitting Palin a whole lot harder than they would have Pawlenty, Huckabee, or Romney.
I'm thinking the polls will be very close, no more than a 3 to 5% spread the rest of the campaign period. My common caveat though is: the only poll results that matter are the ones released on Nov. 5th.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
QuoteOriginally posted by Crash Daily
"Facts are stupid things." -at the 1988 Republican National Convention Ronald Reagan
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles."
Ronald Reagan
"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk." Ronald Reagan
"How are you, Mr. Mayor? I'm glad to meet you. How are things in your city?" -greeting Samual Pierce, his secretary of Housing and Urban Development, during a White House reception for mayors Ronald Reagan
"My name is Ronald Reagan. What's yours?" -introducing himself after delivering a prep school commencement address. The individual responded, "I'm your son, Mike," to which Reagan replied, "Oh, I didn't recognize you."
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?"
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3295/2433281852_ccf4e8eba0.jpg)
Racist pig. It's ALL about the waffles with YOU people isn't it????
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
[quote
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?"
"Waffle"...please
WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain was racing Wednesday to stay abreast of the turmoil in the U.S. economy, saying the $85 billion government bailout of the world's biggest insurance company — which he vigorously opposed just hours earlier — would protect millions of Americans from further financial hardship.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26754552/
"which he vigorously opposed just hours earlier"
Forgive me if I don't buy that article hook line and sinker, but McCain never said that the bailout would protect families. They don't quote him as saying that either.
Here is his exact quote sans the editorializing, "The focus of any such action should be to protect the millions of Americans who hold insurance policies, retirement plans and other accounts with AIG," he added. "We must not bail out the management and speculators who created this mess."
Please...totally waffled.
I understand though. They have to do what they can to maintain a look of leadership.
Wow. That was substantive.
If we are very fortunate, you Republicans will have another opportunity to reinvent your party the morning after the election.
FOR GODS SAKE, MOVE BACK TO THE MIDDLE AND DUMP THE RELIGIOUS NUTS AND THE WAR MONGERING NEOCONS. LET YOUR MODERATES TAKE BACK THEIR PARTY.
Look back to your roots as fiscal conservatives with a laissez faire approach to social issues. Look back to your Fords and Rockefellers and Eisenhauers.
Reagan was once in a lifetime and he and his failed ideas have not stood the test of time.
McCain could have moved you back to the center but you have become a one trick pony.
Palin is a simple woman in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It's time for you guys to reinvent yourselves.
HT- FAIC, the Democrat Party can have all their religious zealots back, including the So. Baptists.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Crash Daily, How moral is torture?
Your party is responsible for torture.
Being moral is more than sitting in church on Sunday morning. Lots of hypocrites without a moral bone in their bodies sit in church on Sunday mornings.
You know, a Democrat defining morality is like a blind man defining a rainbow.
You don't have to go to church every week to have a strong moral grounding and going to church doesn't mean you are a moral person. It's a big "No sh*t, Sherlock!"
Now, are you talking about the water boarding that occurred, in an attempt to save thousands and thousands of lives? Maybe you mean the sleep deprivation or the cool temperatures in the holding cells. I think it's immoral not to try and get the truth and save lives. Our supposed "torture" happens in college campus hazing ceremonies you wussy.
http://www.thoseshirts.com/ (//%22http://%22)
I'm talking about you Republicans breaking international treaties that the U.S. authored and creating a situation where our service people risk receiving the same.
I don't need to call you names. You have already embarassed yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I'm talking about you Republicans breaking international treaties that the U.S. authored and creating a situation where our service people risk receiving the same.
I don't need to call you names. You have already embarassed yourself.
I haven't bothered to check the voter registration of those down at the CIA and in the Army and Marines to see if it ws Republicans, Dems, Inds, or Liber. carrying out the torture, have you?
I personally have not tortured anyone, so you can leave me off your blanket statement.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I'm talking about you Republicans breaking international treaties that the U.S. authored and creating a situation where our service people risk receiving the same.
I don't need to call you names. You have already embarassed yourself.
Waterboarding is torture.
Period.
The old Soviet Empire had much more effective torture techniques, centering on Sleep and Sensory deprivation.
3-4 days without sleep, and the prisoner is much easier to break.
Never have to even lay a finger on the prisoner to break down their resistance.....
Risk receiving the same? RISK RECEIVING THE F*ING SAME!!
We should be so lucky. THIIIIIINK before you post.
If you feel that I've embarrassed myself, I'll call it a good day. If you need me to explain the above two sentences, you need to stop posting and go revisit history so you can see what happened to both our soldiers AND innocent civilians, while we were busy only hazing their prisoners.
The way Dems see things is unfathomably naive. I mean, if you really know what you are saying, God help America, because you're to busy cutting off our nose, to spite our face.
Conan, we now know who instituted the policy.
To get to your responsibility I want to ask you a simple question.
Did you vote for George W. Bush?
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
If we are very fortunate, you Republicans will have another opportunity to reinvent your party the morning after the election.
FOR GODS SAKE, MOVE BACK TO THE MIDDLE AND DUMP THE RELIGIOUS NUTS AND THE WAR MONGERING NEOCONS. LET YOUR MODERATES TAKE BACK THEIR PARTY.
Look back to your roots as fiscal conservatives with a laissez faire approach to social issues. Look back to your Fords and Rockefellers and Eisenhauers.
Reagan was once in a lifetime and he and his failed ideas have not stood the test of time.
McCain could have moved you back to the center but you have become a one trick pony.
Palin is a simple woman in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It's time for you guys to reinvent yourselves.
What about the Democratic ticket this year says "center?" I don't think they could have cobbled together a more left leaning ticket. Or is it okay if you're not "center" as long as you're to the left of it?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Wow. That was substantive.
Yes, very.
"The American taxpayer should not have to bail out AIG or anyone." John McCain
He waffled badly
Talking heads describe him of right of Clinton. Clinton made a career out of the center. One example that comes to mind is Obama's plan to bring insurers to the table to create national health insurance.
Losing one election after another drove us to the center. I hope for your sake and ours that the Rule of Neocons and the Religious Nuts in your Party is about to end and send you back towards the center where most Americans live.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Wow. That was substantive.
Yes, very.
"The American taxpayer should not have to bail out AIG or anyone." John McCain
He waffled badly
Saying the taxpayer should not have to bail out AIG, then saying it was unavoidable doesn't sound like a waffle to me. But I'll gladly pass the syrup if you like.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Wow. That was substantive.
Yes, very.
"The American taxpayer should not have to bail out AIG or anyone." John McCain
He waffled badly
Saying the taxpayer should not have to bail out AIG, then saying it was unavoidable doesn't sound like a waffle to me. But I'll gladly pass the syrup if you like.
(insert bronx cheer)
He switched to sound supportive of all the little people. All of them would've.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I'm talking about you Republicans breaking international treaties that the U.S. authored and creating a situation where our service people risk receiving the same.
I don't need to call you names. You have already embarassed yourself.
Every time you sound off about the military, you make my skin crawl. Please, do not pretend you care one iota about our "service people."
Once again, here is Hometown on military service:
"I was a candidate for the draft back during Vietnam and the lottery. The last year of the lottery my number was close but I lucked out. Before the lottery most of the guys that went were working class. Middle and Upper class kids got out by going to college and that qualified for a deferral before the lottery.
Serving in the military struck me as being a lot like going to prison and if I had been drafted my plan was to go to Canada."
http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8081&whichpage=3&SearchTerms=veteran%2Cmilitary
I had almost decide on Mccain,until he picked that whiney,goofy accented militant Palin.Just to hear her voice makes me cringe!Im not against women in politics at all,but he could have done way better than this one!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
PM- a challenge to you. Can you name any redeeming qualities Joe Biden has, and what substance he could bring to the White House instead of constantly crapping on Palin? Last I checked, he's running for the same office she is, not Obama.
Usually running down the opponent is the result of not having enough good things to say about your own candidate. It deflects attention from the weaknesses or lack of substance in one's own candidate. Must be the case here as I didn't see you defending Obama or Biden very much on other recent threads started on them.
Your obsession w/ Palin borders on needing latex.
Forgive me for "obsessing" about a woman who could very well be president, a woman who could be in charge of our nuclear weapons, a woman who could potentially put our country at risk of another war, who could put my sons in danger. I have always been an Obama supporter. But honestly I was never afraid McCain, but I am afraid of Palin. I thought it showed tremendous independence when McCain referred to Falwell and the like as agents of hate. Now he is running with one of those agents. He chose a woman who has no experience (please, can we at least admit that proximity to a foreign country doesn't impart experience—you don't catch it like a cold) who would appeal to the radical right. He purposely chose someone who would further divide our country, and has no business being in such a high position. She is nothing but Bush with less experience.
This is the republican party--I thought you guys didn't support affirmative action.
As for the reasons I support Biden, he has a very strong record on women's issues. He has been at the forefront on issues regarding violence against women and equal pay (you can read more here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423843,00.html). He played a critical role in keeping Robert Bork off of the Supreme Court. His work in making college more affordable I agree with. Chairing the foreign relations committee makes him an excellent candidate based upon his experience. I supported his efforts to focus on the atrocities by Milosevic, and his attempt with Lugar to exhaust diplomatic efforts before going to war in Iraq.
On the other hand, I doubt he can shoot a moose.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The polls don't seem to bear out that McCain is self-destructing.
According to one poll, McCain has dropped seven points in seven days.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/17/opinion/polls/main4456249.shtml
I agree that polls aren't that reliable, and won't matter until election day. But I am sure that it give the Palin/McCain party some pause to drop that much that fast.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The polls don't seem to bear out that McCain is self-destructing.
According to one poll, McCain has dropped seven points in seven days.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/17/opinion/polls/main4456249.shtml
I agree that polls aren't that reliable, and won't matter until election day. But I am sure that it give the Palin/McCain party some pause to drop that much that fast.
I think the internals on this poll are as follows:
Dem 40.6 Repub 31.6 Indep. 27.8.
Still, you are correct, whatever bounce McCain got from Palin announcement and convention (that put him ahead) appears to be gone.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I'm talking about you Republicans breaking international treaties that the U.S. authored and creating a situation where our service people risk receiving the same.
I don't need to call you names. You have already embarassed yourself.
Every time you sound off about the military, you make my skin crawl. Please, do not pretend you care one iota about our "service people."
Once again, here is Hometown on military service:
"I was a candidate for the draft back during Vietnam and the lottery. The last year of the lottery my number was close but I lucked out. Before the lottery most of the guys that went were working class. Middle and Upper class kids got out by going to college and that qualified for a deferral before the lottery.
Serving in the military struck me as being a lot like going to prison and if I had been drafted my plan was to go to Canada."
http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8081&whichpage=3&SearchTerms=veteran%2Cmilitary
Yes I care about service people. Here's the remainder of my post that you quoted:
"Before the war was over I made one of my famous cross country hitch hiking trips and I made friends with another hitch hiker, a military man who was AWOL. We got stuck in Salt Lake City and stayed there all day and most of a night before we were picked up by some old guys from Arkansas in a truck. The military man was one of those people you feel like you know very well right away. We talked and talked and talked. Before we split up outside of Tulsa, I took his name and number. I wrote him several times over the years and never got a response. I still think about this man and hope that things worked out for him. I've lost his address, can't even remember where he was from."
Now you've never answered any of my questions. But I don't want to distract from the topic at hand.
I imagine you feel quite comfortable with Palin and Bush and McCain and what has happened in Iraq.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Wow. That was substantive.
Yes, very.
"The American taxpayer should not have to bail out AIG or anyone." John McCain
He waffled badly
And he's correct. How is saying that we shouldn't have to bail them out, but we're being forced into it waffling?
I'll give you his quote again:
"The focus of any such action should be to protect the millions of Americans who hold insurance policies, retirement plans and other accounts with AIG," he added. "We must not bail out the management and speculators who created this mess."
'A grizzly bear tried to stare Sarah Palin down once. Once.'
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I'm talking about you Republicans breaking international treaties that the U.S. authored and creating a situation where our service people risk receiving the same.
I don't need to call you names. You have already embarassed yourself.
Every time you sound off about the military, you make my skin crawl. Please, do not pretend you care one iota about our "service people."
Once again, here is Hometown on military service:
"I was a candidate for the draft back during Vietnam and the lottery. The last year of the lottery my number was close but I lucked out. Before the lottery most of the guys that went were working class. Middle and Upper class kids got out by going to college and that qualified for a deferral before the lottery.
Serving in the military struck me as being a lot like going to prison and if I had been drafted my plan was to go to Canada."
http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8081&whichpage=3&SearchTerms=veteran%2Cmilitary
Yes I care about service people. Here's the remainder of my post that you quoted:
"Before the war was over I made one of my famous cross country hitch hiking trips and I made friends with another hitch hiker, a military man who was AWOL. We got stuck in Salt Lake City and stayed there all day and most of a night before we were picked up by some old guys from Arkansas in a truck. The military man was one of those people you feel like you know very well right away. We talked and talked and talked. Before we split up outside of Tulsa, I took his name and number. I wrote him several times over the years and never got a response. I still think about this man and hope that things worked out for him. I've lost his address, can't even remember where he was from."
Now you've never answered any of my questions. But I don't want to distract from the topic at hand.
I imagine you feel quite comfortable with Palin and Bush and McCain and what has happened in Iraq.
I owe you no explanation or answer to any question about my military service after your "
erving in the military struck me as being a lot like going to prison and if I had been drafted my plan was to go to Canada." That comment is just about as despicable as can be. BTW, your little "walk the earth" encounter with the AWOL soldier in no way mitigates your abject disdain for the military. Do us a favor, when it comes to the military, shut up and be thankful and grateful there are those willing to stand in harms way so you can have the freedom to type on this message board.
As for Iraq, I am confortable with what appears to be a victory in Iraq.
Were there problems? Yes.
Could it have been handled better? Yes.
Am I saddened that many soldiers died or are permamently injured? Yes, very much.
However, are 25 million Iraqis free today? Yes.
Is a distabilizing regime been removed? Yes.
Has a terrorist-supporter been removed? Yes.
Is there a fledgling democracy in a region run by mullahs, dictators, and terrorists? Yes.
Will our soldiers return victors instead of losers? Yes.
Was Clinton's policy of regime change affected? Yes.
"Shut up."
I don't think so. You better hang onto your copies of my posts.
Now as our nation struggles with the mess you and your friends have created I want you to think about the final days of the Clinton administration -- prosperity and peace. Then take a look around today at what your Party has given us.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
PM- a challenge to you. Can you name any redeeming qualities Joe Biden has, and what substance he could bring to the White House instead of constantly crapping on Palin? Last I checked, he's running for the same office she is, not Obama.
Usually running down the opponent is the result of not having enough good things to say about your own candidate. It deflects attention from the weaknesses or lack of substance in one's own candidate. Must be the case here as I didn't see you defending Obama or Biden very much on other recent threads started on them.
Your obsession w/ Palin borders on needing latex.
Forgive me for "obsessing" about a woman who could very well be president, a woman who could be in charge of our nuclear weapons, a woman who could potentially put our country at risk of another war, who could put my sons in danger. I have always been an Obama supporter. But honestly I was never afraid McCain, but I am afraid of Palin. I thought it showed tremendous independence when McCain referred to Falwell and the like as agents of hate. Now he is running with one of those agents. He chose a woman who has no experience (please, can we at least admit that proximity to a foreign country doesn't impart experience—you don't catch it like a cold) who would appeal to the radical right. He purposely chose someone who would further divide our country, and has no business being in such a high position. She is nothing but Bush with less experience.
This is the republican party--I thought you guys didn't support affirmative action.
As for the reasons I support Biden, he has a very strong record on women's issues. He has been at the forefront on issues regarding violence against women and equal pay (you can read more here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423843,00.html). He played a critical role in keeping Robert Bork off of the Supreme Court. His work in making college more affordable I agree with. Chairing the foreign relations committee makes him an excellent candidate based upon his experience. I supported his efforts to focus on the atrocities by Milosevic, and his attempt with Lugar to exhaust diplomatic efforts before going to war in Iraq.
On the other hand, I doubt he can shoot a moose.
You successfully tapped into the root of my distaste for Biden, not being able to shoot a moose. [;)]
Comparing Palin to Falwell is a huge stretch, not even close. Calling her ascension to VP candidate "Affirmative Action" is demeaning to all women. So, she doesn't share your view on uterus vacuuming (10 out of 10 fetuses surveyed said they were against abortion). There are far more women's issues out there- breast cancer, domestic violence, equal pay. I'd be willing to bet there are less than 20 to 30% of all women who hold a very strong view, one way or the other, on abortion. At least those who would consider themselves single-issue voters.
So being a governor of one of the less populated states doesn't equate to proper Presidential experience, eh?.
Democrats took a bet on a 46 year-old governor from a state amongst the worst in education and poverty in 1992. Bill Clinton had a track record as a political chameleon, had his own troopergate (having troopers arrange his sexual liasiaons vs. trying to have a psychotic trooper fired who used a stun gun on a 10 year old child), known connections to the drug trade in Arkansas ("The Mena Connection"), a brother convicted of cocaine charges (this is important because Dims want to hold Palin accountable for members of her family), questionable real estate deals which saw close associates do prison time.
What foreign policy experience did Clinton bring to the White House? Attending college at Oxford doesn't count. He was Governor of a land-locked state.
What experience did Clinton have with oil and energy?
What experience did he have with the banking and finance industry?
Turns out, history will be kind to Clinton's Presidency. He brought no particular skill set with him to Washington other than a gift for the art of politics. He was a politician's politician, a true charmer. He was a consensus-builder, he surrounded himself with reasonably-good advisors (as does every President). Clinton had been governor to a poor, land-locked state, prior to that he was an attorney general.
I fail to see where Sarah Palin brings anything less to the table than one of our most effective Presidents ever. She is a likeable person (at least to those who don't have abortion hang-ups or just plain blind lib hang-ups), appears effective at getting initiatives through, and she takes command.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
"Shut up."
I don't think so. You better hang onto your copies of my posts.
Now as our nation struggles with the mess you and your friends have created I want you to think about the final days of the Clinton administration -- prosperity and peace. Then take a look around today at what your Party has given us.
Go back to the seventies you hippie. 9/11 never happened.
My sister was born on September 11. She was a lovely, very special lady that opposed the war, was an outspoken feminist and she was a union organizer. I can remember her crying the night Robert Kennedy was assassinated. When she went into the hospital where she died her truck was in the shop for repairs. When I picked it up I saw that the mechanics had pulled the antiwar stickers off of the bumper.
9/11 does not belong to you.
Shadows?
HT, its becoming clear that Tulsa has a lot of those sign pullers, bumper sticker peelers and unrestrained conversation bullies.
The one question remains in my mind. Politics aside...Why Her? You had capable people, other women, other men who were better qualified. Why?
Those who would delude themselves into thinking this particular woman is capable should sign up for the service now and await her direction. It is inevitable. Even if he makes it through one term, the presidency is a life sucking job. The pressure is constant, the controversy unrelenting. Eventually she'll be leading us.
Waterboy, you're turning into quite the drama queen lately. Who's being silenced around here? Who's keeping you from speaking your mind?
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
My sister was born on September 11. She was a lovely, very special lady that opposed the war, was an outspoken feminist and she was a union organizer. I can remember her crying the night Robert Kennedy was assassinated. When she went into the hospital where she died her truck was in the shop for repairs. When I picked it up I saw that the mechanics had pulled the antiwar stickers off of the bumper.
9/11 does not belong to you.
Subject officially changed. Well, there's always the next time you take up the military's cause.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
HT, its becoming clear that Tulsa has a lot of those sign pullers, bumper sticker peelers and unrestrained conversation bullies.
The one question remains in my mind. Politics aside...Why Her? You had capable people, other women, other men who were better qualified. Why?
Those who would delude themselves into thinking this particular woman is capable should sign up for the service now and await her direction. It is inevitable. Even if he makes it through one term, the presidency is a life sucking job. The pressure is constant, the controversy unrelenting. Eventually she'll be leading us.
Why her? How about, why Obama? What the hell has he done that is presidential? What leadership qualities does he have that would place him above her? None.
Speaking of the military Guido, I have never asked you about your military service. I asked you what your moniker meant. But your refusal to tell me about your military service when I never asked about it causes me to think there is a story there.
You have made my military service or lack of it your life's cause. So I think it is fair to ask you about your military service.
Have you served in our military?
That's a simple question that can be answered yes or no.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
HT, its becoming clear that Tulsa has a lot of those sign pullers, bumper sticker peelers and unrestrained conversation bullies.
The one question remains in my mind. Politics aside...Why Her? You had capable people, other women, other men who were better qualified. Why?
Those who would delude themselves into thinking this particular woman is capable should sign up for the service now and await her direction. It is inevitable. Even if he makes it through one term, the presidency is a life sucking job. The pressure is constant, the controversy unrelenting. Eventually she'll be leading us.
Why her? How about, why Obama? What the hell has he done that is presidential? What leadership qualities does he have that would place him above her? None.
Carefully now. I'll shorten it for you and capitalize for emphasis. WHY HER?
Not HIM. I know why HE was chosen. There seems to be some basic requirements for the job that she has to stretch to reach. He had a female Governor from New Jersey, I think, that was a maverick, even has a hyphenated last name. He had other governors that seemed more qualified.
Partisanship aside, I don't understand the choice at all and no one seems able to give a decent answer. If you don't want to answer fine.
IP, I'm confused. Have I ever shown any inclination that I wasn't a Democrat and left of center? I often find logic and reason in conservative politics, especially when espoused in a respectful reasonable manner but the republican party today is a foreign language to me. It really reminds me of a new religion.
The question on Palin's experience has been answered umpteen times. You just don't like the answer. At least be honest about it.
She's as qualified to be president as Barack Obama. They have had roughly the same amount of time served in public office. Different offices, but public service nonetheless.
More of the same. Thanks anyway.
Freak. I don't like her personality? There, all better now?
Just for giggles, why don't we do a side by side of the two candidates and their time in public service. Mind you, one of them is running for president, the other vice president:
Palin: 1992-1996 City Council Member
Obama: 1985-1988 Worked as a Community Oragnizer
Palin: 1996-2002 Mayor of Wasilla
Obama: 1997-2004 Illinois Senator
Palin: 2006-Present Governor of Alaska
Obama: 2004-Present US Senator (1/2 of this time has been consumed with running for POTUS)
Both had intervening times of school, work and family between their respective positions.
What I'm trying to figure out are the monumental differences that make Obama any more qualified than Palin?
quote:
Honestly, I don't care for her personally.
I didn't know you'd met?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The question on Palin's experience has been answered umpteen times. You just don't like the answer. At least be honest about it.
She's as qualified to be president as Barack Obama. They have had roughly the same amount of time served in public office. Different offices, but public service nonetheless.
IP, we will never get an answer about Obama's qualifications. We have gotten, though, a fairly interesting look into the heart of democrat misogyny. Cpme on, "I just don't like women like her". What kind of a woman is that. One who dares to take a stand on abortion in contrast to NARAL? Or, a wman who knows her place and falls in line with the NOW feminist movement. Or, a woman who knows her place is in the home, barefoot and pregnant.
Palin is being used. Her foreign policy knowledge, or lack thereof, is irrelevant, b/c she's just a tool to get the old white guy in office. Nobody's going to listen to her, post election. They'll bring her out and wave her like a flag at the adoring crowds...while policy is made behind closed doors without her input. She's not going to be Dick Cheney running the government. (Now, if McCain croaks...we've got a problem.)
Here's a fun conspiracy theory: What if Palin knows she's just there to get McCain elected. After the election, she'll determine--after a decent amount of time, but before McCain croaks--that "she needs to spend more time with her family--raising her special needs child and grandchild at home in Alaska." Then McCain can appoint whomever he wants to be VP. Another white guy, presumably, to be the heir apparent to the republican White House dynasty. Palin will look like another flakey chick...setting women's rights back another 20 years...but a nice political appointment of some kind, and a hefty payoff will make it all worthwhile. I bet Hollywood's already working on the movie: "Wag the Doll."
(Oooh...this conspiracy stuff is fun. No wonder all those nutcases are always posting them on this forum!)
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Palin is being used. Her foreign policy knowledge, or lack thereof, is irrelevant, b/c she's just a tool to get the old white guy in office. Nobody's going to listen to her, post election. They'll bring her out and wave her like a flag at the adoring crowds...while policy is made behind closed doors without her input. She's not going to be Dick Cheney running the government. (Now, if McCain croaks...we've got a problem.)
Here's a fun conspiracy theory: What if Palin knows she's just there to get McCain elected. After the election, she'll determine--after a decent amount of time, but before McCain croaks--that "she needs to spend more time with her family--raising her special needs child and grandchild at home in Alaska." Then McCain can appoint whomever he wants to be VP. Another white guy, presumably, to be the heir apparent to the republican White House dynasty. Palin will look like another flakey chick...setting women's rights back another 20 years...but a nice political appointment of some kind, and a hefty payoff will make it all worthwhile. I bet Hollywood's already working on the movie: "Wag the Doll."
(Oooh...this conspiracy stuff is fun. No wonder all those nutcases are always posting them on this forum!)
Here ya go. this might help.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
Well, thanks, now I know who you two are and its very disheartening frankly. I guess we'll have to wait for the tell all books that will come out after the election.
edit: I screwed up the edit on my post above. The one starting, "Thanks, Anyway..." If anyone still has it would they post so I can see it and re post it?
What's the problem? Was my side-by-side comparison too hard to follow? I tried to provide a baseline for our discussion by outlining their respective experience. I get the feeling that you're really not interested in a discussion about her or Obama at all.
Waterboy is this what you are looking for?
"More of the same. Thanks anyway.
Freak. I don't like her personality? There, all better now?"
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Just for giggles, why don't we do a side by side of the two candidates and their time in public service. Mind you, one of them is running for president, the other vice president:
Palin: 1992-1996 City Council Member
Obama: 1985-1988 Worked as a Community Oragnizer
Palin: 1996-2002 Mayor of Wasilla
Obama: 1997-2004 Illinois Senator
Palin: 2006-Present Governor of Alaska
Obama: 2004-Present US Senator (1/2 of this time has been consumed with running for POTUS)
Both had intervening times of school, work and family between their respective positions.
What I'm trying to figure out are the monumental differences that make Obama any more qualified than Palin?
Obama knows the consitution... Palin knows how to speak in tongues...
Obama is eminently more qualified for POTUS than Palin... of course this is simply a politically savvy move by the McCain campaign to play the political game of.... drumroll please...
equivocation n 1: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth [syn: evasion]
2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn: prevarication, evasiveness]
3: deliberate vagueness or ambiguity [syn: evasiveness]
4: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language [syn: tergiversation]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from
June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side.[13][15] During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[16] Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.[17] In mid-1988, he traveled for the first time to Europe for three weeks and then for five weeks in Kenya, where he met many of his Kenyan relatives for the first time.[18]
Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. At the end of his first year, he was selected, based on his grades and a writing competition, as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.[19] In February 1990, in his second year, he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the Law Review's staff of 80 editors.[20] Obama's election as the first black president of the Law Review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles.[20] During his summers, he returned to Chicago where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990.[21]
He graduated with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991 followed by his returning to Chicago.The publicity from his election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations.[22] In an effort to recruit him to their faculty, the University of Chicago Law School provided Obama with a fellowship and an office to work on his book.[22] He originally planned to finish the book in one year, but it took much longer as the book evolved into a personal memoir. In order to work without interruptions, Obama and his wife, Michelle, traveled to Bali where he wrote for several months. The manuscript was finally published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father.[22]
Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers and which achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African-Americans in the state, and led to
Crain's Chicago Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.[23][24]Beginning in 1992, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, being first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.[25]He also, in 1993, joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.[13][26]
Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife, Michelle, became the founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago in early 1993.[13][27] He served from 1993 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, and served from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation.[13] Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995–2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995–1999.[13] He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.[13]
------------------------------------------------
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/18/1415527.aspx
"'She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials,' Hagel said in an interview. 'You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything.'"
Check out this other Hagel line: "'I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, "I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,"' he said. 'That kind of thing is insulting to the American people.'"
And this one: "'I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States,' Hagel said."
---- Obama has been mentored in the foreign relations committee by none other than Richard Lugar, a Republican senator from Indiana... Obama has had a passport for decades, Palen just got her passport after becoming governor less than 2 years ago... oh, but she can see Russia from Alaska... yeah, right.
If anybody wants to compare Palin's experience to that of a certain Bill Clinton.... well, the only true equavalent for that argument would be if Jimmy Carter had picked Bill Clinton to be his running mate in 1980... he didn't.
and these days, McCain doesn't know if he wants to be "Barry Goldwater or Dennis Kucinich"...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Just for giggles, why don't we do a side by side of the two candidates and their time in public service. Mind you, one of them is running for president, the other vice president:
Palin: 1992-1996 City Council Member
Obama: 1985-1988 Worked as a Community Oragnizer
Palin: 1996-2002 Mayor of Wasilla
Obama: 1997-2004 Illinois Senator
Palin: 2006-Present Governor of Alaska
Obama: 2004-Present US Senator (1/2 of this time has been consumed with running for POTUS)
Both had intervening times of school, work and family between their respective positions.
What I'm trying to figure out are the monumental differences that make Obama any more qualified than Palin?
Obama knows the consitution... Palin knows how to speak in tongues...
Obama is eminently more qualified for POTUS than Palin... of course this is simply a politically savvy move by the McCain campaign to play the political game of.... drumroll please...
equivocation
n 1: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth [syn: evasion]
2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn: prevarication, evasiveness]
3: deliberate vagueness or ambiguity [syn: evasiveness]
4: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language [syn: tergiversation]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side.[13][15] During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[16] Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.[17] In mid-1988, he traveled for the first time to Europe for three weeks and then for five weeks in Kenya, where he met many of his Kenyan relatives for the first time.[18]
Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. At the end of his first year, he was selected, based on his grades and a writing competition, as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.[19] In February 1990, in his second year, he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the Law Review's staff of 80 editors.[20] Obama's election as the first black president of the Law Review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles.[20] During his summers, he returned to Chicago where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990.[21] He graduated with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991 followed by his returning to Chicago.
The publicity from his election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations.[22] In an effort to recruit him to their faculty, the University of Chicago Law School provided Obama with a fellowship and an office to work on his book.[22] He originally planned to finish the book in one year, but it took much longer as the book evolved into a personal memoir. In order to work without interruptions, Obama and his wife, Michelle, traveled to Bali where he wrote for several months. The manuscript was finally published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father.[22]
Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers and which achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African-Americans in the state, and led to Crain's Chicago Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.[23][24]
Beginning in 1992, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, being first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.[25]
He also, in 1993, joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.[13][26]
Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife, Michelle, became the founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago in early 1993.[13][27] He served from 1993 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, and served from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation.[13] Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995–2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995–1999.[13] He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.[13]
------------------------------------------------
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/18/1415527.aspx
"'She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials,' Hagel said in an interview. 'You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything.'"
Check out this other Hagel line: "'I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, "I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,"' he said. 'That kind of thing is insulting to the American people.'"
And this one: "'I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States,' Hagel said."
---- Obama has been mentored in the foreign relations committee by none other than Richard Lugar, a Republican senator from Indiana... Obama has had a passport for decades, Palen just got her passport after becoming governor less than 2 years ago... oh, but she can see Russia from Alaska... yeah, right.
If anybody wants to compare Palin's experience to that of a certain Bill Clinton.... well, the only true equavalent for that argument would be if Jimmy Carter had picked Bill Clinton to be his running mate in 1980... he didn't.
and these days, McCain doesn't know if he wants to be "Barry Goldwater or Dennis Kucinich"...
Don't be hatin' on their gurll....or they'll gitcha!!
I found it on a blog:
Paleontology: The study of ancient life forms, particularly as they are seen in fossils.
Palin-tology: Oblivious to current life forms while being seen with a fossil.
This was probably already posted somewhere in all this MILF debris....
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Palin is being used. Her foreign policy knowledge, or lack thereof, is irrelevant, b/c she's just a tool to get the old white guy in office. Nobody's going to listen to her, post election. They'll bring her out and wave her like a flag at the adoring crowds...while policy is made behind closed doors without her input. She's not going to be Dick Cheney running the government. (Now, if McCain croaks...we've got a problem.)
Here's a fun conspiracy theory: What if Palin knows she's just there to get McCain elected. After the election, she'll determine--after a decent amount of time, but before McCain croaks--that "she needs to spend more time with her family--raising her special needs child and grandchild at home in Alaska." Then McCain can appoint whomever he wants to be VP. Another white guy, presumably, to be the heir apparent to the republican White House dynasty. Palin will look like another flakey chick...setting women's rights back another 20 years...but a nice political appointment of some kind, and a hefty payoff will make it all worthwhile. I bet Hollywood's already working on the movie: "Wag the Doll."
(Oooh...this conspiracy stuff is fun. No wonder all those nutcases are always posting them on this forum!)
Careful Ponder, you are starting to sound like the other postee on here who has a problem with geriatrics, cripples, white men, protestants, and wemmen.
Oooh...which one? (Don't we have several of those?) I can't keep them all straight b/c I usually just skim the doofus content...
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
HT, its becoming clear that Tulsa has a lot of those sign pullers, bumper sticker peelers and unrestrained conversation bullies.
The one question remains in my mind. Politics aside...Why Her? You had capable people, other women, other men who were better qualified. Why?
Those who would delude themselves into thinking this particular woman is capable should sign up for the service now and await her direction. It is inevitable. Even if he makes it through one term, the presidency is a life sucking job. The pressure is constant, the controversy unrelenting. Eventually she'll be leading us.
Why her? How about, why Obama? What the hell has he done that is presidential? What leadership qualities does he have that would place him above her? None.
Guido you are more qualified than what we have now.........
Seriously..... the pendulum has swung so far to the right that the George Wallace and "Bull" Conner's of the 60's would be smiling.......
And I am not talking about anti-war rhetoric... This administration can't even fight a war right.....
The casualties we have racked up during Iraq are a stain on this Nation.
Now we have to go back to Afghanistan and try and get it right...Bull****...thats what this administration is about Bull****.
You would feel comfortable with Sarah at the table......?
Please... You and IP take the jobs... I would sleep a lot better..
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Waterboy is this what you are looking for?
"More of the same. Thanks anyway.
Freak. I don't like her personality? There, all better now?"
No. But thanks anyway. I just editted and the whole thing disappeared.
All I was asking was a simple question...Why Her?
All I got was questioning of Obama and Biden. Forget her politics, I'll admit to not liking her personality, or in general not liking women of that personality. In contrast to most, I don't think she's all that pretty, just young and outgoing. There were some really good candidates in the party who were actually mavericks in their own right. They wouldn't have created such a contrast to his white old guy look. Just thought there must be something in his decision process that we could learn about him.
Simple questions are the hardest. They're both lawyers and are apparently trained to not answer simple questions with simple direct answers.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
You successfully tapped into the root of my distaste for Biden, not being able to shoot a moose. [;)]
Comparing Palin to Falwell is a huge stretch, not even close. Calling her ascension to VP candidate "Affirmative Action" is demeaning to all women. So, she doesn't share your view on uterus vacuuming (10 out of 10 fetuses surveyed said they were against abortion). There are far more women's issues out there- breast cancer, domestic violence, equal pay. I'd be willing to bet there are less than 20 to 30% of all women who hold a very strong view, one way or the other, on abortion. At least those who would consider themselves single-issue voters.
I disagree about Palin being a "huge stretch" from Falwell. There is a reason that the religious right rejoiced at McCain's choice. I am not a single-issue voter by any stretch. But for me, the issue of the right to control one's body is indicative of a much broader issue, namely that there are simply areas where the government has no business intruding. When someone says they won't appoint "activist" judges, what they really mean is they are going to appoint a certain type of "activist" judge—one that subscribes to their religious and moral philosophy. It means they will appoint judges that ignore the 9th Amendment, and the right to privacy. I want a government that stays away from my body and out of my bedroom. So if you define the protection of our liberties as a single issue, then perhaps I lean toward that one issue.
What would you know about being demeaning to "all women"? What is really demeaning to women is choosing a woman who is not qualified, and to overlook all the woman who worked hard at their job, and who insist on being taken seriously—people like Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Hillary Clinton. Woman who battled real sexism, only to have a young inexperienced ex-beauty queen be put in the second highest position—and have her cry sexism whenever serious questions are asked.
As for the other women's issues, that is the other reason I support Obama & Biden—they have an excellent record on women's issues. Palin charged women to get evidence in rape cases and she fired her Public Safety Commissioner for trying to secure federal money to help prosecute sexual assault cases (at least in her latest version). I don't know much about her—not for lack of trying—but because she simply has done so little, and refuses to talk to reporters.
quote:
So being a governor of one of the less populated states doesn't equate to proper Presidential experience, eh?.
Democrats took a bet on a 46 year-old governor from a state amongst the worst in education and poverty in 1992. Bill Clinton had a track record as a political chameleon, had his own troopergate (having troopers arrange his sexual liasiaons vs. trying to have a psychotic trooper fired who used a stun gun on a 10 year old child), known connections to the drug trade in Arkansas ("The Mena Connection"), a brother convicted of cocaine charges (this is important because Dims want to hold Palin accountable for members of her family), questionable real estate deals which saw close associates do prison time.
What foreign policy experience did Clinton bring to the White House? Attending college at Oxford doesn't count. He was Governor of a land-locked state.
What experience did Clinton have with oil and energy?
What experience did he have with the banking and finance industry?
Turns out, history will be kind to Clinton's Presidency. He brought no particular skill set with him to Washington other than a gift for the art of politics. He was a politician's politician, a true charmer. He was a consensus-builder, he surrounded himself with reasonably-good advisors (as does every President). Clinton had been governor to a poor, land-locked state, prior to that he was an attorney general.
I fail to see where Sarah Palin brings anything less to the table than one of our most effective Presidents ever. She is a likeable person (at least to those who don't have abortion hang-ups or just plain blind lib hang-ups), appears effective at getting initiatives through, and she takes command.
The false outrage in Palin/McCain camp is ridiculous. No democrat that I have heard has tried to somehow hold Palin responsible for her teenage daughter's pregnancy. Of course there has been scrutiny over her position on abstinence education, just as there was additional scrutiny over Clinton's position on drug control. That is legitimate.
You really want to equate Clinton to Palin? There are two things that I look to in a candidate—are they smart and do they have experience? Unlike Republicans, who for some reason seem to disdain anyone who is smart, I want a president who is brilliant. I want someone smarter than me—Republicans want someone they can drink a beer with. I drink a lot of beer. But I wouldn't make a good president.
Clinton was both smart and experienced; Palin has no experience, and as far as I can tell isn't smart. Before you get up in arms, I am not saying that she is stupid, but I see nothing to validate that she has extraordinary intelligence. Clinton went to Georgetown on scholarship and received a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service, graduating Phi Beta Kappa. Palin went to 5 different schools over 6 years and got a degree in communications. Clinton became a Rhodes Scholar and studied at Oxford. Palin was a sportscaster. Clinton went to Yale law school; Palin joined the PTA. Clinton had 12 years of state level political experience, including chairmanship of the National Governors association. Palin has less than two years experience at a state level position, plus some experience at a very, very, very small town.
Whether she is likeable or not is irrelevant.
I appreciate you explaining more about your views. Palin = Falwell is hyperbole, but believe it if you like. You take liberal license with many of your assumptions about Palin, but you do have a political pre-disposition to assume the worst of a GOP candidate.
Taking a long look at KBH, a woman you seem to admire, the only difference I see between her and Palin is that KBH says the gov't has no business in the abortion issue.
I agree with KBH on that point. I'm not a "legislated morality" person either. I do find it interesting though that most liberal pro-choice activists don't want the government saying what someone can and cannot do with their body, yet Universal Health Care is one of the larger liberal causes. Do you not think that the government will dictate what you can and cannot do to your body when they assume responsibility for health care? They will.
I suspect you would have taken exception in some way to her as a pick for McCain since you are an Obama supporter. You do, of course, remember that KBH had limited experience in her state as treasurer (about two years) prior to going on to DC and was indicted by a grand jury for supposed misconduct in using state property and ordering records destroyed? The case was tossed due to admissibility issues. Of course this was ram-rodded by the same DA who tried to railroad Tom DeLay.
I've never read that KBH or HRC travelled any more difficult a road than Sarah Palin due to being female. I'm puzzled you don't seem to understand that Alaska is the last true "frontier" state. Sarah Palin's improbable rise to power and attempts to stem corruption in her state are commendable and noteworthy because she is female.
Clinton v. Palin. Clinton's accomplishments as Governor are questionable. Arkansas was fairing little better in 1992 than it was in 1982. There was a verifiable track record of graft and corruption that followed him. He had questionable business dealings. He was a BAU governor.
No one disputes Clinton's academic achievements, but they have little to do with his success as a politician. He is clever as a fox. He is also smooth, likeable, has a great charisma, he's a consensus-builder- a politician's politician.
Likeability is one of the most essential ingredients of a successful politician.
First, not everyone thought WJC was a likable guy, just as not everyone thinks Palin is very likable (I'm sure you saw the thousands that turned out to stage a rally against her in Alaska, not to mention the fact that her own mother in law may not vote for her. Ok, ok, my mother in law might not vote for me either). Second, do you really believe that? Who would you rather have when dealing with Putin--someone who is likeable or someone who is smart? Who do you want solving the economic crises--someone who is likeable or someone who is smart?
I think a world class education is important to running our country--it provides you with the tools needed to address world crises. But my point of Clinton's academics was more that it was proof of his intelligence.
As for the sexism that HRC & KBH faced, I simply say that based upon the realities of their time. They are my mother's age--my mother who was told that she could take some secretarial courses after she completed highschool, just in case, but that my grandfather wouldn't waste money on college for her. They grew up in a time when it was legal to fire a woman once she became pregnant. When the only jobs for women were secretaries and nurses. I don't support a lot of what KBH stands for, but I respect women who fought through that. If she had been chosen as McCain's running mate, I would have still argued against her, sure, but I wouldn't have said she was unfit to be VP.
I am sure that Palin has fought through some sexism. Sexism still exists. But it takes on a different form. She has grown up in an era when woman were taught they could do anything they want.
As for Universal Healthcare, I think a lot of that depends on the approach. Obama/Biden's approach would maintain private insurance companies--not necessarily the government. Mostly, I think that something must be done if we are going to compete with the rest of the world. Private companies right now are paying huge amounts of money to provide healthcare to their employees, while competing with companies in other countries whose government overseas healthcare in one way or another. We must reduce healthcare costs one way or another if we are going to compete on a global market. If, however, any candidate ends up proposing a healthcare plan that in any way limits a person's access to medical treatment based upon someone else's idea of morality, I would fight it.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
First, not everyone thought WJC was a likable guy, just as not everyone thinks Palin is very likable (I'm sure you saw the thousands that turned out to stage a rally against her in Alaska, not to mention the fact that her own mother in law may not vote for her. Ok, ok, my mother in law might not vote for me either). Second, do you really believe that? Who would you rather have when dealing with Putin--someone who is likeable or someone who is smart? Who do you want solving the economic crises--someone who is likeable or someone who is smart?
I think a world class education is important to running our country--it provides you with the tools needed to address world crises. But my point of Clinton's academics was more that it was proof of his intelligence.
As for the sexism that HRC & KBH faced, I simply say that based upon the realities of their time. They are my mother's age--my mother who was told that she could take some secretarial courses after she completed highschool, just in case, but that my grandfather wouldn't waste money on college for her. They grew up in a time when it was legal to fire a woman once she became pregnant. When the only jobs for women were secretaries and nurses. I don't support a lot of what KBH stands for, but I respect women who fought through that. If she had been chosen as McCain's running mate, I would have still argued against her, sure, but I wouldn't have said she was unfit to be VP.
I am sure that Palin has fought through some sexism. Sexism still exists. But it takes on a different form. She has grown up in an era when woman were taught they could do anything they want.
As for Universal Healthcare, I think a lot of that depends on the approach. Obama/Biden's approach would maintain private insurance companies--not necessarily the government. Mostly, I think that something must be done if we are going to compete with the rest of the world. Private companies right now are paying huge amounts of money to provide healthcare to their employees, while competing with companies in other countries whose government overseas healthcare in one way or another. We must reduce healthcare costs one way or another if we are going to compete on a global market. If, however, any candidate ends up proposing a healthcare plan that in any way limits a person's access to medical treatment based upon someone else's idea of morality, I would fight it.
Actually, KBH and HRC were in the first generation of women to not face the sexism in education nor so much in the workplace. I won't deny it didn't exist, but by the late 1960's it wasn't a slam-dunk assertion that a woman's place was in the home. More and more women were moving on to post-graduate educations. My mother was from the same era as well.
The absolute smartest person I've ever met has never taken a college course. His business accumen is unquestionable and he's a brilliant engineer who is consistently called upon to fix problems which "looked good on paper" that were designed by schooled and licensed engineers.
An academic career like Clinton had would certainly be an indicator of a bright and high-achieving person, but not having had the same opportunities is no reason to assume someone is a complete dolt, nor unqualified to lead. Ronald Reagan graduated from Eureka College and certainly was a very effective President.
Born leaders don't all go to Harvard or Yale or get a Rhodes Scholarship.
It's interesting to note that many people gloss over the corporate welfare, normally favored by Republicans, hidden in UHC. Think about what you just said about the benefit to private companies on this. I agree, this is one of the more daunting issues to private enterprise, but I don't know that the best solution involves the gov't.
I have a number of ideas how to cut healthcare costs. The government stepping in to manage the payment for all of it is not a great idea. A close family member works with a large medicare program day in and day out. She considered herself a liberal until she started looking at the waste, redundancy, and abuse of the system by the end users and vendors. The taxpayer gets ripped off while patients get limited options.
There are more and more doctors refusing to take Medicare. The government dictating how much medical care is worth is not the proper way to contain costs nor to administer it.
My mother had to change orthopedists because her ortho quit taking medicare and she's even got one of the supplimental plans- he still wouldn't see her except on a cash basis.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Actually, KBH and HRC were in the first generation of women to not face the sexism in education nor so much in the workplace. I won't deny it didn't exist, but by the late 1960's it wasn't a slam-dunk assertion that a woman's place was in the home. More and more women were moving on to post-graduate educations. My mother was from the same era as well.
Are you just trying to be argumentative? Hillary Clinton graduated from Highschool, like my mother, in the early 1960s. The Civil Rights Act was not passed until 1964 (incidently, "sex" was added to the act in an effort to defeat it). Discrimination in education largely continued despite the CRA until Title IX was passed in 1972--when Clinton was in Law School. When Clinton graduated from Yale, less than 10% of JD graduates were woman. Sexual harassment was not determined to be a form of discrimination until 1978. Similarly, discrimination based upon pregnancy was legal until that same year. Yes, discrimination based upon sex still exists. But to argue say that women like KBH & HRC had anything but a tough road is disingenuous.
quote:
The absolute smartest person I've ever met has never taken a college course. His business accumen is unquestionable and he's a brilliant engineer who is consistently called upon to fix problems which "looked good on paper" that were designed by schooled and licensed engineers.
An academic career like Clinton had would certainly be an indicator of a bright and high-achieving person, but not having had the same opportunities is no reason to assume someone is a complete dolt, nor unqualified to lead. Ronald Reagan graduated from Eureka College and certainly was a very effective President.
Born leaders don't all go to Harvard or Yale or get a Rhodes Scholarship.
Again, I don't disagree. But if I am going to choose someone to be the leader of the United States, I must have some basis upon which to judge them. Neither Biden nor McCain have particularly stellar academic records, but they have a long record of votes and decisions that allows me to judge their qualifications. They have experience, and while you may question their decisions/judgement, you at least have a record upon which to judge. Palin has absolutely
nothing. She has not significant legislative experience, no outstanding academic record, nothing.
AND SHE WON'T TAKE QUESTIONS. The two softball interviews that she has had showed she had little knowledge of foreign affairs, despite the craming by McCain consultants. Could you imagine if a democrat had choosen a complete unknown, then refused to answer reporter questions? McCain choose someone who has never written anything, never taken a position on much of anything, that has no real exeperience, and a pretty un-extraordinary academic record. And then when people try to learn more about her, we are told that we cannot ask questions until we show more deference. What is she running for, the queen?
quote:
It's interesting to note that many people gloss over the corporate welfare, normally favored by Republicans, hidden in UHC. Think about what you just said about the benefit to private companies on this. I agree, this is one of the more daunting issues to private enterprise, but I don't know that the best solution involves the gov't.
I have a number of ideas how to cut healthcare costs. The government stepping in to manage the payment for all of it is not a great idea. A close family member works with a large medicare program day in and day out. She considered herself a liberal until she started looking at the waste, redundancy, and abuse of the system by the end users and vendors. The taxpayer gets ripped off while patients get limited options.
There are more and more doctors refusing to take Medicare. The government dictating how much medical care is worth is not the proper way to contain costs nor to administer it.
My mother had to change orthopedists because her ortho quit taking medicare and she's even got one of the supplimental plans- he still wouldn't see her except on a cash basis.
Obviously, we are not going to agree on healthcare. But at least you know where the other candidates stand. Honestly, do you have any idea what Palin thinks about the healthcare crises? Do you have any proof that she has ever even thought about it? Has she looked at what other countries have done? Does she even know what we spend as a nation on healthcare? What would her solution be?
I think she has put consideration in to these areas. As a governor, she had to consider these issues on the state level. She probably has well thought ideas regarding most major issues. We will learn more when she gets her chance to rip Biden a new one.
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
I think she has put consideration in to these areas. As a governor, she had to consider these issues on the state level. She probably has well thought ideas regarding most major issues. We will learn more when she gets her chance to rip Biden a new one.
Too bad she'll call Joe by name about 150 times during the debate and then have to be told where half the countries in the world are. Biden's probably been to half of em.
http://townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/ChuckAsay/2008/09/5 (//%22http://%22)
I'll take her experience, thank you very much. A small rose garden is preferable to a large garbage dump.