Badmovies.org Forum

Ok, before this thread starts, know that I'm not jabbing at any particular side by posting this.  I'm quite the liberal, but I actually kinda like Palin for some reason.  She stands for most everything I disagree with, but I think she's a good candidate for VP.

Anyway, Daily Kos thinks that her newborn actually isn't hers but is her 16 year old daughter's child.  Their evidence certainly does point towards them being right. 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223 (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223)

Thoughts????

I'm not believing it just because Alaska, and ESPECIALLY the Alaska State Government can't keep a secret, I don't believe there is any way they could pull this off. Anchorage Daily News had deep enough contacts to blast the fact that Her child has a developmental disorder all over the headlines the very same day the child was born (In about the most class-less way possible), there's no way they wouldn't have know who the child came out of. As for the daughter's flab, , that's something nearly all Alaska woman have, we just don't have nearly as many anorexic beanpoles, she actually looks on the thinner side of average for girls her age.

Looks like her daughter just has a little ponch belly, to me.  A lot of girls I know have bellies like that.

That cannot be Palin's unmarried daughter's baby, because her daughter is actually five months pregnant right now.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/index.html)

That throws a kink in a few conspiracies, doesn't it?

The Daily Kos? OH PLEASE ... provide a creditable source in the future.

Labor Day is when you announce your teenage daughter is pregnant.


Another victory for abstinence only education! :cheers:

Ya know, Tars, girls from every religious, ideological, and political background get pregnant in their teens every day.  Very few, if any, of their parents wanted that to happen.  But as long as young men are programmed, by both biology and Hollywood, to believe that if they haven't gotten laid by the time they are 16, that they are some sort of bizarre, pathetic freak, teenage girls are going to get pregnant, get STD's, or whatever, REGARDLESS of whether they had comprehensive sex ed or abstinence based instruction.  Because they all believe it won't happen to them if they give in just this once . . .

How about this:  If you disagree with someone's politics, religion, or life philosophy, bashing them for it is a part of what freedom of speech is all about. But regardless of our politics, can we all agree that the candidate's kids, especially when they are minors, should be off limits?

Gotta agree with you Indy, there's no book on parenting, , kids will be kids, , and lots of things happen that aren't planned or expected. No kid ends up perfect (if there is such a thing), and many have faults that aren't so obvious. 110% true on the "Because they all believe it won't happen to them if they give in just this once", that goes for LOTS of things, pregnancy, shoplifting, drugs, DWI, just plainly driving like idiots, all kinds of things. There's no saying she's not going to be an excellent mother and an upstanding, successful human being, but for some reason people feel that's not possible. Unfortunately, some people want to extend that she is a bad person, therefore her parents are bad, therefore their political positions are erroneous.

Also, you're right, the kids should be left out.

Not attacking the kid is fine, but Palin opened herself up to this, especially since the announcement (by the McCain campaign, not Palin) manages to bash Obama in doing so, as well as saying that a not even front page diary by a random guy on Daily Kos was causing such alarm they have to address rumors now.  This is like Snickers making a press conference announcing they don't use peanuts anymore because of the 100 candy thread on this board.  They made it political.  I won't even get into the laundry list of insults on the Bush twins, Chelsea, Obama's daughters, or the sick kids Malkin went after on children's healthcare.  Palin has dozens of bad things emerging about her now, a pregnant daughter is the least of them.

NY Times article announcing:  http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/us/international-usa-politics-palin.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

Ok, , but that's a far cry from your original post. . .

Ghouck,

I'm curious of your opinion of Palin since you are a native to Alaska.  From what I've seen in your posts on this thread, you must like her as a Governor.  I believe most of us have little to no knowledge of her, and her political stances at this point.  I was only marginally aware of her because of Glenn Beck and his seemingly endless love for the woman.

Palin has dozens of bad things emerging about her now, a pregnant daughter is the least of them. (http://Palin has dozens of bad things emerging about her now, a pregnant daughter is the least of them.)

Such as?

Surely I don't need to point out all of Nobama's bad things?

Sarah Palin is more of a man than Obama/Biden will ever be.

I knew when bill kristol of the Ny Times came out in favor of her that it was a bad move.  that guy has never in my and probably his entire life been right about anything.

First, she's a good Governor, , compared to Merckowsky (spelled wrong intentionally) at least. But, we have to realize she is Governing a state with about 1/5 of a % of U.S. the population, and has little expierence THERE. She has done a few things: Brought back the Longevity bonus, got rid of the Jet that Morkowski illegally bought, got the NG pipeline going on, , well, 'A' track, and a few other things. Really, she's just gotten things going that had either stalled or been wrongly stopped, and has brought nothing sizable to the table that is new. It seems some are giving her credit for getting rid of the corruption in out Governmant, , GUESS AGAIN. Those guys were under investigation LONG before she hit the office, , I'm sure they were investigating HER also, since the corruption was so widespread. The FBI did NOT even REMOTELY keep her in the loop in these regards, she had NO control over even the smallest corner of that whole fiasco. I heard he speak of "being the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard"? BFD, , they've not been mobilzed, , most of them have already been FEDERALIZED for quite some time due to the war, so her capacity as CiC has been to, , well, , swear in and visit some troops that are currently under someone else's command, in Iraq.

Also, keep in mind that she's under he OWN investigation (One that I believe she was RIGHT in, so no worries AFAIC).

What I see is someone SEEMINGLY doing a god job, , but it's in comparison to a ,, , well ,s**tbag, like so many of this state's politicians. She's quite a looker, and comes with tons of catch-phrases in reagrds to things that just don't matter like her basketball abilities, bear hunting, general Alaskan perceived toughness, and being a new mother again at 44 or 46 years old (No matter what, some will claim that's a challenge she took on intentionally, who knows).

Either way, she seems good at what she does HERE, but she lacks MAJOR amounts of experience, and it's hard to dig through all the media crap about "The US's HOTTEST Governor", and "The True Alaskan Survivor" to see what she's done, , especially since most of it was blatantly obvious that in was the right thing to do, just based on the fact the LAST administration did the OPPOSITE.

Basically, I think she's GREAT as a governor so far, but really don't think she's experienced enough for VP YET.

Maybe they'll spin all of this to say that she's going to hunt down Bin Laden single-handedly, using her abilities as a failed beauty queen to seduce her way into Al Queda, fight her way through a legion of extremists to kill Osama with her bare hands and then slam dunk said head as part of a photo op for her own future bid as prez!

Beyond that, I'm staying out of the irony of hiring a woman with only two years of experience governing ALASKA (no offense Ghouck) as VP for a guy who voted AGAINST bills to give female workers fair wages compared to their male counterparts. No more politics for me folks, I'm just gonna close my eyes and ears and not open them till November. :smile:

If elected, she will be the nation's very first VPILF (not counting a young Walter Mondale).

Then that begs the question is Obama experienced enough to be P?

Governor with executive experience verses a community organizer, I'm not giving him credit as a Senator since all his done since becoming one is run for President and Biden and McCain don't have any either, the Senate is not a executive office. 

This is an excellent point that is far too often overlooked.  Some segments of our populace seem to think that legislative experience = the makings of a good executive.  After all, the Chief Executive's role is nothing more than to regulate, right?

This concept dilutes the Separation of Powers.  Putting legislators into the executive body, assuming that they will continue to think like legislators, effectively removes whatever Check and Balance the Executive Branch holds over the Legislature.

You couple that with the observation that the Senate, as a body, is a self-proclaimed Aristocracy, a Ruling Class, and I think putting former Senators into the Presidency is only asking for trouble for We The People.  This trouble may not manifest for a while, a generation perhaps, but nothing everything of importance happens during our (short) lifetimes.

Once again, I am reminded of the writings often attributed to Alexander Tyler.

Vartual B!tchsl@p!: WHACK!

Actually it's pretty true, Alaska is one of the smallest states population wise, and it lacks many of the problems other places have, and with only one real big city, many problems are contained. Add to that the fact the state gets so much money from the oil companies, , enough that we get a DIVIDEND of a couple grand every year for every person, and you can see that running the government gets easier. People are less likely to take a hard look at what the state is doing with it's money, since we don't pay state taxes, many don't realize they have a steak and a say in what is done. We're also a tourist state, so the state tends to favor businesses over individuals, and individuals are more likely to accept that. Heck, if you think about it, over 1% of the state's population is military, so there's a relatively large amount of federal money coming in right there. We are a resourced-based state also, what with all the mining, fishing, oil, lumber, gas, , a huge amount of the money made in the state is made simply by collecting what is there, , which means less skilled labor is needed, since it's all stuff we've been doing for a century or two, nothing leading-edge. Every one of those points would make any state just a little easier to run. .

I knew Palin's voice reminded me of someone:

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

McCain's only legitimate complaint of Obama was his lack of experience, and yet, McCain goes and destroys his only argument by putting someone with so little experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.  This mistake erases the experience argument, because Palin's is lacking more than Obama, and also focuses on the issue of McCain's age, 72, which is old.  It also focuses on McCain's health issues, his multiple bouts of skin cancer and other problems.  No one on the McCain campaign can seriously discuss experience as an issue with Palin on the ticket. 

This doesn't even get into the heavy baggage Palin is bringing to the "Maverick"  I have compiled a quick list of problems:
Palin laughing as a rival is called a cancer and a b***h:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKkydrUnBZE

AIP - Alaska Indepence Party - a radical seperast political party calling for the emancipation of Alaska, Palin was a convention speaker in 1994 and recorded a message for their 2008 convention.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html
And hubby Todd was a registered member until 2002  http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/todd_palin_was_registered_memb.php
Can you imagine the three-ring circus if someone on the Obama ticket was associated with a secessionist party?  But it's A-ok if it is a Republican, because of patriotism.  To the country of Alaska.

Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere - http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=the_metaphysics_of_post_headli


The whole Trooper-Gate fiasco, including
She will go under oath to testify about Trooper-Gate. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/palin_likely_to_testify_soon_u.php
And she is already lawyered up for Trooper gate - http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=8933043


Sarah Palin thinks that the founding fathers said the Pledge of Allegiance. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/sep/01/palin?gusrc=rss&feed=global
Maybe the founding fathers of Alaska.


$27 million in Earmarks for 6700 people - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html?hpid=topnews


Book banner and threatened to fire librarian for not banning books - http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html
Actually fired the police chief because he didn't support her politically - http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510219.html


maverick reformer Sarah Palin ran incredibly corrupt indicted-Senator Ted Stevens’ corporate fund-raising 527
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/palin_ran_ted_stevens_527.php

Palin has said in an interview she doesn't know what the VP even does.


Her foreign policy experience is "Alaska is close to Russia" <-- actual argument said in support of Palin  http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/31/cindy-mccain-touts-palins-experience-the-pta-and-proximity-to-russia/
Her vast military experience as head of the Alaskan National Guard <-- another actual argument in support of Palin.  http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/08/commanding-the.html

General in charge says "no way" http://www.cnbc.com/id/26486269/for/cnbc 


Here is Palin praising Obama's energy policy (the one certian people keep claiming doesn't exist or is just tire inflating)  http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:wbCGTUeD1r0J:www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php%3Fid%3D1384+%22question+the+means+to+pay+for+Obama%E2%80%99s+proposed+rebate%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=safari
Note that it is cached, because the actual press release got dumped from the site after she was VP picked!


Palin was interviewed for the first time ONE DAY before she was chosen:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090203462.html?hpid=topnews
Where was the careful planning?

Palin is a gimmick choice, both a pitiful attempt to snag angry Hillary supporters (I'm sure all 14 of them will totally help McCain) and a social conservative forced on the McCain ticket to appease fundamentalist elements of the Republican party.  She brings nothing to the ticket but trouble, and the best thing she can do is resign now, because otherwise she's giving Obama a greater victory.   If the GOP was desperate for a woman, they could have picked the experienced and good candidate Olympia Snowe.  Oh, wait, she's not a social conservative, and the religious right would go nutso.  How about Christine Todd Whitman?  Oh, her attacks on the Bush administration mean she's out.  So bring on the Alaskan separatist!

Also of note is that McCain could have picked 17 other Republican Governors who had more experience (out of 22) in several areas.  I think that lends more support that she was chosen to A. rally the ultra religious conservatives who were rather luke-warm to McCain and B. to try to get some of the angry Hillary votes; either way, it's a gimmick and I know several women (of both political sides) who found that offensive.

But then again, if he "really" wanted the evangelical vote locked up, you'd think he'd have chosen Huckabee.  Perhaps they were trying for both of those birds with one stone.
Personally, I figured McCain would have picked a VP who brought more weight to the Economic position <shrugs>. 

For more on those more qualified governors: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Also of note, Obama also had (approx) 8 years in the State Senate of Illinois before his current position as well as his admirable education and experience related there.  As far as Executive experience goes, Palin has more than both McCain and Obama if you want to get technical, but how will "that" experience running a small village (and then after running a State with less population than the small city in which I live) come in to play regarding our faltering economy?

Obama:
B.A in political science from Columbia University, with a specialization in international relations
J.D. in Law from Hardvard, graduated magna cum laude; President of the Harvard Law Review
12 years (92-04) teaching constitutional law
7 years State Senator: sponsored more than 800 bills
4 years Senator for Illinos, a state with 12.8 million people

Palin:
Bachelor's in journalism from University of Idaho
4 years Wasilla City Council (8000 people)
6 years Wasilla mayor (8000 people)
1 year "Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission"
20 months governor of a state with 660,000 people

In summary of my opinion: The Palin selection was a total pandering gimmick; McCain should have picked Romney or Huckabee.

Edited to Add: Not sure about the credibility of just one news source but still it's interesting.  Here is an ABC article on McCain's last minute VP pick being forced due to threats of an evangelical vote: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/03/2353903.htm

Apparently, the Maverick originally wanted Indie Rocker Joe but had to cave.  Great leadership demonstration there John!

I centainly don't consider the Alaska Independence Party to be as radical as others seem to. Let's face it, HUGE spreads of land are FEDERAL land in Alaska, and the vast majority of the people that have a say in what happens with it have never and will never visit it. People in FLORIDA have a say in where snowmachines are allowed and not allowed to go. Most people CAN'T understand, that since Alaska is a STATE, every Joe in the US gets to make many of our decisions FOR us, ,, but, , look around at how many US companies won't ship to Alaska or Hawaii, , even when the BUYER pays actual shipping, , all the while plastering an American flag all over their web page. We have FEDERAL FISH AND WILDLIFE officers that go around and , , ,well ,, , EVERY time I've heard of them doing ANYTHING, , it had nothing top do with the land they are supposed to be patroling. FFS one keeps giving my kid a bunch of crap for riding his quad on the road on his way to the trail (a trail on STATE land), , despite the fact the STATE TROOPERS say as long as the kid is wearing protective gear, only on the road to get from point A to point B, and riding safely, it's OK. They let those iduiots carry GUNS , ,and for WHAT?

You also have gotten into a bunch of issues that have nothing to do with you. Unless you live in Alaska, you really don't don't know or have a say in many of those issues. No matter if YOU agree with it or not, OUR state says she was within her rights to fire the police chief. That is REALLY an issue that is not any or your business. That might be why so many people are FOR Alaskan Independence. "She has already lawyered up for Troopergate", ,, Yes, , she's very smart there. .

What people can't understand, is a large number of Alaskans do NOT want to be a part of the United States, since there is quite a bit a strife that goes along with that. People complain about the existence of the Alaskan Independence Party for no real reason , and it sounds a bit like a temper tantrum when they do. It's typical U.S. ramming crap down everyone's throat that Alaskans are often trying to avoid, just like denouncing the AIP is them trying to ram THEMSELVES down out throats.

Secessionist Alaska need to combine with the 'Conch Republic' movement in the Florida Keys to form an independent nation which would have the U.S. covered from top to bottom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic)

(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/morrisawilliams/conchflag.jpg)

For the record: my family, being originally from Winston County, Alabama (aka The Free State of Winston and Republic of Winston), has a record of of bailing out of the gov'mint. When Alabama seceded from the U.S., Winston County seceded from Alabama!

True story!

Go to Haleyville and see the annual play about it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Winston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Winston)

I find it very interesting how so many people think secession is a Very Bad Thing.  There is no provision in the US Constitution requiring a certain number of states, or that once a state joins the Union (Article IV Section 3) that it must remain so forever.

In fact, the Constitution's silence on secession is very important ... because of that pesky little combination of the 9th and 10th Amendments.  In other words, if the Federal Document does not EXPLICITLY give a power to the Federal Government, it is up to the State's (or the people).  Seems to me that secession would be included in this doctrine.

Ghouk, the point you make transcends just Alaska...we have California deciding what text books are appropriate for the whole nation, we have New Yorkers paying for roads (that go nowhere) in South Carolina, etc.  You see the effect of the marriage to federalism on this site all the time with those complaints about communities choosing to outlaw profanity, strip bars or some such.

We are NOT a "One Size Fits All" country and I don't believe we were ever even meant to be.  Imagine for a moment what of our social problems would go away, or at least be greatly reduced, if each community were left to govern itself as it sees fit, without all the interference from the Feds.

[/soapbox]

The thing of it is, if a Democrat running for this high of an office were part of any independence group as such, we'd be hearing "traitor" and hearing about all sorts of attacks on their patriotism, now wouldn't we?  Could you imagine if Obama had been a member of some similar group? 

We had a debate about secession from 1861-1865.  The answer was "No".

Gotta agree with you there, yet some don't see it like that. I've heard people complain about the fact that many villages in Alaska are dry, as if they have a say one way or another. I say live in one for a winter or two and see why, but people won't CONDESCEND to that, , they'll just complain from a distance, and THEN, , act surprised and offended when someone says "I don't want YOU making decisions for ME".


So you have decided that a 140+ year old answer is the only answer, , and no further debate is necessissary?

A lot of religious people seem content to stick to answers a lot older than that. *rimshot*

Btw, that wasn't a political statement so I'm still not getting into political debates. However, as far as the stuff that Tars and Canary brought up before, with Palin now involved in the race for a national office, everything she's had a hand in politically is no longer the business of just Alaskans, but is now open for scrutiny by the entire country since McCain wants her to be the second-in-command. Not technically a political statement so much as a... uhm... whatever that term is that I can't think of right now... bah, I'm gonna go back to getting all my news from John Stewart and Steven Colbert. :lookingup:

Not everything, you still have NO say in what MY state says was right or wrong in regards to her firing of the Police Chief, but I also take that as just typical internet throwing as much crap as one can at the wall just to see what sticks. The "Bridge to Nowhere" is an ALASKA issue, It doesn't concern others, so they're scarcely in any position ito hold it against anyone. Most people don't even understand what it was about, they just see it as a hot topic amongst others, and are trying to feed off of it. . .

I understand what you're getting at, , but people are complaining about what she has done IN this state, , without really knowing what was RIGHT for the state or not, , just knowing it wouldn't be right for THEM. They weren't a part of the equasion when that decision was made, , therefore they're not really in a position to make a viable complaint. What was right for Alaska might not be right for the rest of the US, , but the US wasn't her responsibility when those decisions were made. Complaining about them is little more than retaliation for, , ,nothing. . .

The Bridge to Nowhere was Federal funding, which makes it an issue for the rest of the 49 states as well.  Her firing of the police cheif and threatening a librarian shows the ethics of Palin, which is to threaten anyone who disagrees with her about anything.  That is not the qualities I look for when I choose a leader.  The trooper scandal shows she is not above using her power to try to do whatever she wants, regardless of consequences.  And her vault unto the national stage puts a giant spotlight on the many Alaska issues (including unrelated issues like Ted Stevens), further highlighting McCain's rash decision in picking her.  Her speech today had to be rewritten because it was already written...for a man!  They picked her last minute, had no idea what they were in for, and are now blaming the media.  I don't understand his pick at all.

If Alaska, Hawaii, or any other state wants to secede, I say more power to them!  Breaking away from a government you feel doesn't represent you adequately or fairly is THE most American thing I can imagine anyone doing.

. . sigh, , her firing of the police chief was found by MY state to be within her powers. You are not arguing ETHICS, you are arguing that YOUR rules are RIGHT, and OUR rules are WRONG. Yes the Bridge to nowhere was FEDERAL money, but it was Non-allocated federal money, , so it was OUR MONEY to do with what we please, not what YOU decide was right. Just because it was Federal money does NOT mean everyone in the entire union has a say in how it is used. Again, the attitudes towards these issues is why many Alaskans are FOR the AIP, which was the point I took issue with in the first place. For some reason, people in the lower 48 have this huge problem with the AIP, and quite bluntly, it's so childish it's scary. It sounds like a bunch of kids going "You have to play the game MY way, ,and, , you're not allowed to quit". Many people from the lower 48 don't want Alaska to succeed from the union, so they label those that support succession things like "radical", much the same as they do Al-Qiada, and then have the audacity to wonder why people feel that way. Alaska is the bastard-stepchild for the most part, , there are so many ways where Alaska isn't on the same playing field as the rest of the states, and many of us have questioned weather being one of the states is really worth it.


Many people from the lower 48 complain about Alaskans wanting independence, when they figure out why they don't want it to happen, they'll understand why so many Alaskans DO want it to happen.

Obviously the government will do everything it can to keep Alaska for the same reason they wanted it in the first place: oil. And in the current economic atmosphere? Maybe courting Palin could be part of the "let's try to keep Alaska in our power as much as possible" plan... :buggedout:

Actually, our acquisition of Alaska from Russia in 1869 was not motivated by our desire for oil . . . . :teddyr:

So he's a out of touch elites that doesn't connect with middle America.

Name one bill he's authored. Sponsoring a bill is nothing, just means your name is attached to it, but hey he voted PRESENT over 100 times.

 

You're right that teenagers will always be interested in sex.  The point is that it is outrageous that this teenage girl should be engaging in UNPROTECTED sex, STDs being the primary concern.  Education starts in the home, so PALIN may be a talented Governor, but falls short like many ordinary parents do.  And for the record, "Abstinence only education," as a term, is an oxymoron. 

Well, we were talking credentials.  McCain can no longer credibly attack Obama's experience if he's putting a lesser Republican Governor a step away from the Presidency (with 17 more experienced Republican Governors).  The point of the exchange is that McCain could have picked a better VP for the country; instead he picked a better one at polarization the American public.

It is rather saddening to see such a negative viewpoint of education in our country though.  Sad that education is seen as being elite, nerdy, or just plain bad.  However, it looks rather foolish when an even richer guy (McCain) is the one crying "elite."  In Psychology, they call that defense mechanism "Projection."  It's also sad that community organizers are now under attack. 

At any rate, I know more middle class folks who can relate to Obama who comes from a split family, went through college, and just finished paying off his student loans.  Perhaps most of middle America can better relate to McCain's having several mansions and flying around on his wife's private jet.

But the bigger questions remain: how will the new running mate's credentials and governor experience play out in dealing with our faltering economy, international affairs, and domestic issues?  She has yet to really say.  We heard a lot from her on how bad the Dems are but I have yet to hear a reason I should choose them.

I think you are missing the point, and spinning. Education is one thing, "elite" Ivy league education is another. Columbia and Harvard are extreme liberal schools and Palin is not a member of it and that is a good thing.

McCain owns ZERO homes, his wifes owns them and no one in middle America can blame him for marrying up. McCain doesn't act like, talk like a member of the elite, Obama does.

Palin still has more experience than the community organizer. Hell she's a real person, not some self appointed 'celeb-u-tard'. She could be the mom next door, and lady down the street, she is someone we all know and can relate too, Obama and his militant wife are not. 

If you know more middle class people that can relate to Obama than Palin then you must not know many middle class people, because the ones I know are very pleased with this choice.

And no she hasn't really said how to deal with the gloomy world the Democrats live in, because it wasn't hers to do last night. And as for the faulting economy we had 3.3% growth last quarter how is that faltering? And we have not had one single negative growth quarter during the Bush administration ... something Clinton can't claim.  Recession is defined by 2 quarters of negative growth.

But I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine ...

Here is an interesting article on PALIN: 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20080904/cm_ucru/sarahpalinqueenofthenobodies (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20080904/cm_ucru/sarahpalinqueenofthenobodies)

You know I was trying to resist posting this clip from the Daily Show, but it's too funny.  I think it points out the quick shifting amoral world that politicians live in.

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

Ted Rall is a liberal writer and surely you don't think he's going to write a unbiased opinion piece.

That should be "an unbiased."   :teddyr:  I said it was interesting, I didn't say it was unbiased.  Y'know, CHEEZEE, the word "liberal" shouldn't be bandied about like an obscenity, such as, well, "community organizer."   :bouncegiggle: :smile:

Palin's speech was okay, she delivered it well despite it being 99% Bush talking points.  It was better than McCain's speech (maybe she should drop him...) but Obama beat them both.  Palin has yet to speak to the media, which is pretty odd for an active candidate.


As for "elitism", McCain's wife wore over $300,000 on her outfit for the GOP convention.  I could buy TEN of the house I own with that money.  Then I'd be equal with John McCain!  But McCain's not elite: billionaires=not elite, guy who went to an ivy league school=elite.  After all, Middle America is 100% billionaires who can't get into Harvard.

Well, except for that one interview where she professed she doesn't know what a VP does... :bouncegiggle:

You're buying into the exact image they're trying to portray her as, , I for one don't believe it.

Thank You. To many people don't know the difference between when Alaska was ACQUIRED, , and when it because a STATE. These are often the same people complaining about Alaskans that are for succession.

Well, except for that one interview where she professed she doesn't know what a VP does...

She said that before she accepted any offer to run for VP, she'd want to know what specific duties McCain would expect of her, since this varies quite a bit from one administration to another. Some candidates just want their running mate to deliver their home state then attend funerals for four years. She didn't want to bother running for VP just for that. The clip was cut to sound like "...don't even know what the duties of the office would be...". Maybe it wasn't even intentional, they're just in such a habit of butchering everything into little meaningless three second clips.

Some liberals give others a bad name, but after watching these self proclaimed liberals acting a fool the the GOP convention, protesting, rioting, and the like ... it is an obscenity that voice their opposition in a civilized manner.


Enlighten me, I have no way of knowing her other than what I see, she appears to have drive, goals, a plan and someone you don't want to cross ... like many of the soccer moms I know. They can be really nice and equally a really nasty too which is perhaps why she gets stuff done.

All I know is we have a worthless corrupt Democrat governor here in KY which beat a worthless corrupt Republican Governor. I'd like to have one that could get stuff done, regardless of party.   

You listen to both sides, , not just her supporters. . .

You say that and then berate those that consider themselves "liberals"?  I have the feeling you wouldn't be happy if there was a non-corrupt liberal in office.

Just saying.....

All I've heard from liberals around here is tax and spend, tax and spend, so you're right I wouldn't be happy with that. corrupt or not. The term liberalism is edging dangerously close to socialism in many attitudes. 

That's all I've heard from Obama is tax, tax, tax, and spend, spend, spend, yet some how he's going to cut 95% of the peoples taxes and increase spending and pay off the debt he truly is the messiah.  :lookingup:

Would that be as close as some of us feel conservatism is starting to sound like fascism?


You're deviating from the party line.  According to McCain and company only liberals are angry.  You sound pretty angry to me there Cheeze and you did say you were an angry white guy.

You should chill, no matter which of these guys wins the world ain't coming to an end. 

Politicians want your money to fund their pet projects.  Period.  It doesn't matter what party or political bent they claim.

Raising taxes is necessary to bring the defecit under control.

Before you counter-argue, read this review of the recent documentary I.O.U.S.A. (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080821/REVIEWS/329)

Like Ebert says, we have to bite the bullet and pay higher taxes whether we want to or not.
It's the only way to get our country out of debt.

---

Personally, I abhor the choice of Palin as VP.
Ghouck had it right when he said, "You're buying into the exact image they're trying to portray her as..."
This election might as well be a chess game to the McCain camp.  And he's using Palin as a pawn.
The sad thing is that there are a lot of mindless sheep out there who will fall for all of it.

I am a staunch Obama supporter.  I caucused for him in January here at the Iowa Caucuses and I will vote for him in November.

Please be aware that I will not get into a political flame war.  I've stated my opinion.

"Liberals around here...?"  Y'mean those that haven't yet been strung up?  Obama's plan is to increase tax for the wealthier segment of society... and reduce for the majority, y'know, us poorer folk. 

How many poor people have you worked for? I'm guessing zero ... poor people don't provide jobs.

You take the "rich" people money the less people they hire, the less toys they buy and eating out they do, the less money they spend and the less people are needed to supply the services they consume and unemployment goes up.
Some of the so called RICH are small business owner, self proprietorships that file a single 1040, they might make over $250K but they aren't rich. Obama doesn't factor this, the mom and pop operation that barely get by but make over $250K but reinvest $225K of that money back into the business. These people will be slammed and likely will have to close, thus putting their employees in the soup line. 

Obama also want to raise corporate taxes, the US already has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, this is why those companies relocate to cheaper countries taking the jobs with them, and hurting or closing all the support business that clean the offices, make deliveries, fill vending machines, wash uniforms, supplies materials, tools and other services and people wonder why some many companies leave their town to go to China and Mexico. And when a major employer closes there is a tickle down effect that effect dozens upon dozens of other business.

Why punish people for making money and achieving the American dream just to take it from them to give it those that haven't put in the effort to achieve it? Don't tell me they have, anyone can make it IF THEY TRY! There is NO WAY he can reduce taxes and fulfill all the promises he has made, he has made well over a trillion dollars a year in promises. Or what I'd like to call pipe dreams.
 
The Bush taxes cut don't JUST effect the so called rich, they effect everyone. The average middle class family pays $2800 less in taxes under the plan, Obama wants to resend them and then throw you a bone of a $1000 tax cut, which means you're paying $1800 more in taxes it's the old bait and switch ... but today he's flip flopped on that and said he wouldn't resend them do to the "recession" well we're not in a recession as a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth and we haven't even had one, more left wing propaganda. Well we haven't had any since the Clinton administration ... fact look it up.

I swear people don't seem to understand Business 101, the more money pumped into the economy the more growth, the less money the less growth. You can not grow government and spend like a drunken monkey creating a nanny state and maintain growth. You have to have some taxes, but kind of like WalMart, sell for less and make billions, tax less and make trillions. The more tax free money people have, the more they have to spend that is taxes, it's a no brainer that Obama and many on the left just don't seem to get.

It's like minimum wage, raising minimum wage does nothing. It's a empty feel good for the "down trodden" you raise minimum wage the store raises prices to make it up (or fire people), the minimum wage worker might maintain their buying power but for those making above minimum wage you go back 2 spaces. Frankly I wouldn't have any minimum wage at all, and let the market work it out. All a minimum wage does is drive up the cost of living for everyone and Obama is spouting off about $9.50/hr minimum wage ... well just how many damn Happy Meals are you going to buy when they're $10 each? 

Good grief, know cause and effect.

Who are you babbling at?   I didn't argue any of those point with you.  "Good grief" is right! 

That's because the "liberal" he's parroting from right-wing love radio talk is nothing more than a Phantom Menace; they don't actually exist...or if you find one, they don't statistically represent the norm (thus the Fallacy of Equivocation).

John Ridley's entry on the Huffington Post is a gem:

Up in the Twin Cities area folks are speaking a new language. Or, should I
say Palinguage. It sounds sorta familiar because it's Latin based. But
different from the plain English we're used to speaking, in Palinguage
recognizable words take on new meanings. Won't you take a moment to learn
some Plainguage so you can talk like a hypocritical conservative?

REPEAT THE FOLLOWING:

If you're a minority and you're selected for a job over more qualified
candidates you're a "token hire." If you're a conservative and you're
selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "game changer."

If you live in an Urban area and you get a girl pregnant you're a "baby
daddy." If you're the same in Alaska you're a "teen father." (Actually,
according to your own MySpace page you're an F'n redneck that don't want any
kids, but that's too long a phrase for the evil liberal media to take out of
context and flog morning noon and night).

Black teen pregnancies? A "crisis" in black America. White teen pregnancies?
A "blessed event."

If you grow up in Hawaii you're "exotic." Grow up in Alaska eating
mooseburgers, you're the quintessential "American story." Similarly, if you
name you kid Barack you're "unpatriotic." Name your kid Track, you're
"colorful."

If you're a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the
individual you're "reckless." A Republican who doesn't fully vet is a
"maverick."

If you say that for the "first time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of
my country" it makes you "unfit" to be First Lady. If you are a registered
member of a fringe political group that advocates secession that makes you
"First Dude."

A DUI from twenty years ago is "old news." A speech given without proper
citation from twenty years ago is "relevant information."

And, finally, if you're a man and you decide to run for office despite your
wife's recurrence of cancer you're a "questionable spouse." If you're a
woman and you decide to run for office despite having five kids including a
newborn… Well, we don't know what that is 'cause THAT'S NOT A FAIR
QUESTION TO ASK.

They also forgot one we discussed yesterday:

If you're a White Republican and went from rags to riches and got into all
Ivy League schools, you're a "brilliant," "driven," "over-achiever" and
"living the American Dream." If your're a Black Democrat who did the same
thing, you're an "uppity" "elitist" and clearly an "affirmative action
recipient."

You Robin Hood who want to take money from the rich and give it to the moochers.

I didn't say I wanted to do that... I merely commented about OBAMA's plan which may be a complete failure, but I felt you had mischaracterized it.  Moochers...?  You mean like Halliburton? 

No, like Halliburton which just happens to be the only company in the world that does the work they do, so like them or hate them they have a monopoly do to the amount of capital invest required to do their job.

Wow...I've seen it all now: a Haliburton apologist <rolls eyes>.

Name me a company that does what they do and has the equipment to do what they do on the scale they do it on. I'm not apologizing for them I'm stating fact ... you know those things that the left wing media has so much trouble with.

Maybe if there was bidding on the contracts, you'd be surprised what would happen. 

Fair enough.  Name one other company that CAN bid on (and complete) the work - that has a track record of completing those types of projects.  Then your point will be made in spades.

As I understand the CFR for contracting, based on my experience as a business owner seeking contracts, sole sourcing actually requires a lot of hoops to be jumped through.  It can, and does, happen all the time, though.

I've seen projects that were sole sourced on the claim that the provider was the only source that COULD complete the Statement of Work...which was a crock since MY company could have completed that SoW as well.  And I know of others, competitors, that likewise could have bid as well.  These were always in some fairly obscure specialty field, though, not a highly visible one like oil exploration or building refineries.

At least with the Small Business contracts, it's generally pretty tough to Sole Source a bid request.

I don't have problems with Haliburton doing work or getting contracts, my objections to them is lack of oversight in the offering/bidding of contracts, and the lack of oversight in contract implementation.  Haliburton isn't even in Iraq anymore, IIRC, it is either  Bechtel, Fluor, Parsons or Louis Berger, I can't remember.

After Trek's Daily Show clip, I saw this today on Colbert and had to post. Can't figure out quite how to embed it here (no variances I tried seemed to work), so I'm just posting the link. Enjoy! :teddyr:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/184928/september-15-2008/the-word---how-dare-you- (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/184928/september-15-2008/the-word---how-dare-you-)