Micrówave 29.08.2008 11:09 |
link |
Erin 29.08.2008 11:17 |
Smooth move, McCain. I guess he's going for those Hillary votes. Plus, there's this.. At present, Palin chairs the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a multistate panel "that promotes the conservation and efficient recovery of domestic oil and natural gas resources while protecting health, safety and the environment," the biography says. It's going to be an interesting election, indeed! So, you think Joe Biden is a hottie?? Whatever floats your boat... |
Micrówave 29.08.2008 11:35 |
ah,yes... forgot this was Queenzone. Our new Republican VP is a hottie. |
magicalfreddiemercury 29.08.2008 11:35 |
She also faces possible impeachment for abuse of office. Seems the state legislature just voted to hire an independent investigator to see if she used her position to try to have a former brother-in-law - an Alaska state trooper - fired from his job, and then fired the guy who refused to fire the brother-in-law. Yup. More of the same. |
Smitty 29.08.2008 11:36 |
Ugh. Sarah Palin? It's almost like McCain doesn't even want to win. Sarah Palin brings almost nothing to the table. It's obvious that McCain wants to draw in Hillary voters by choosing a female VP, but Hillary voters admired Hillary's experience, and Sarah Palin has less experience than even Obama. And no, our new VP is not a hottie, unless you are into older men. |
Micrówave 29.08.2008 11:42 |
Smitty wrote: Ugh. Sarah Palin? And no, our new VP is not a hottie, unless you are into older men.Former Ms. Alaska. You don't get to be that unless you ARE a hottie... even in Alaska. Smitty, that would be known as a "scoreboard"... unless you've got a couple of beauty paegents under your belt. |
Erin 29.08.2008 11:50 |
Smitty wrote: It's obvious that McCain wants to draw in Hillary voters by choosing a female VP, but Hillary voters admired Hillary's experience, and Sarah Palin has less experience than even Obama.Yep..only in her first term as governor... Interesting going for a woman here but this very well could bite McCain in the ass. |
wstüssyb 29.08.2008 12:34 |
Please, even I could win Ms Alaska. BTW she is a little hot for 44... |
Music Man 29.08.2008 14:10 |
If one could guarantee that a peer of mine will look like that when she's 44, I would marry her tomorrow. I'm just saying. This is definitely going to be one of the most interesting elections to date. |
magicalfreddiemercury 29.08.2008 14:17 |
This is the first woman in GOP history to be chosen as VP and all the talk is about her appearance. What is it with you people? |
AspiringPhilosophe 29.08.2008 14:24 |
Indeed, I'd like to know what the logic behind this choice is. Right now all it seems to be is a grab for media attention (McCain has been whining all along that he's not getting nearly the media coverage Barak gets because he's African American), and everyone knows he's going after the dejected supporters of Hilary. Seems to me the only reason they picked her was so they could get some media attention and get some of Hilary's supporters. I mean, she doesn't seem like the best choice: As Magical pointed out, under investigation for abuse of office. Not to mention she represents the Republican Party in Alaska, which right now is NOT exactly something to be proud of with two of it's major members on trial for crimes committed in office. This could definitely be interesting.... |
Micrówave 29.08.2008 15:16 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: This is the first woman in GOP history to be chosen as VP and all the talk is about her appearance. What is it with you people?**ding ding** Alas, you hit it on the head. Exactly why I started this thread. Why would McCain choose someone with very minimal experience, after accusing ObaMa of the very same? What is it that makes her the perfect Yang to his Yang? Is it that he's the oldest candidate ever and she's the youngest VP candidate ever? Nope. Chick Former Beauty Paegent winner Likes to fish and hunt Former Sports Broadcaster Likes to have kids Still puttin' out How is Joe Biden going to compete with that? How would Hillary have ever competed with that? |
iron eagle 29.08.2008 16:15 |
it helps shore up the conservative wing of the party-- that part is very uneasy with McCain-- it also is an attempt for sure to grab some of the Hiliary supporters still unhappy about obama/biden ticket its going to get interesting for sure |
Poo, again 29.08.2008 17:13 |
I'd hit that. |
Smitty 29.08.2008 18:51 |
Microwave wrote: Former Sports BroadcasterSee, there we go! If McCain gets elected, thank god we have a former Sports Broadcaster a "heartbeat away" from the presidency. You know, with people with that kind of experience selected for such a vital position as presumptive VP, it just gives me a strong sense of faith in the GOP. Good one McCain! I was losing faith in you, but you haven't let me down. X-D Seriously... |
Music Man 29.08.2008 19:22 |
If McCain's potential for success in this election is based on any one issue, it is this: Is McCain a full-fledged neo-con, or are his Republican roots in pragmatism? The former would be a one-way ticket to Obamaville, whereas the latter may retain (or regain, rather) his popularity amongst independents (and even Democrats). McCain's running mate pick will surely help establish himself in the latter, although his stance on foreign policy is nigh-retarded, reverting him back to the former. Most obviously, she's a woman. This dispels any misconceptions that the GOP is a "backwards" party (or if it is, that he has nothing to do with it) that discriminates based on gender. Additionally, she has shown to be somewhat pragmatic, vetoing a bill that would have denied state benefits to same-sex couples. Then again, she's 44 and McCain's almost dead. If I could be sure that McCain were a pragmatist Republican, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (haha). However, the ambiguity concerning this issue is just too...ambiguous for me. Oh well, Obama '08. |
7Innuendo7 29.08.2008 20:20 |
John McCain is officially on the bridge to nowhere. |
Winter Land Man 29.08.2008 20:22 |
Yep. I'd put my head between Sarah Palin's legs. |
john bodega 29.08.2008 23:02 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: This is the first woman in GOP history to be chosen as VP and all the talk is about her appearance. What is it with you people?What else is there to debate with top level politicians? They should all be pitched overboard. |
Saint Jiub 29.08.2008 23:03 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: She also faces possible impeachment for abuse of office. Seems the state legislature just voted to hire an independent investigator to see if she used her position to try to have a former brother-in-law - an Alaska state trooper - fired from his job. Yup. More of the same.This ex-brother-in-law cop is pond scum - married and divorced 4 times with a history of alcohol abuse on the job. Assuming, that this charge has any grain of truth ... I ask this question: What would you do if someone threatened to kill your father? ... "he would eat a f'ing lead bullet. I will shoot him." link |
Saint Jiub 30.08.2008 01:02 |
Here is a profile of Sarah Palin: link Palin, a maverick reformer who battled corruption within her own political party, compares favorably versus Obama, the supporter of Chicago machine politics and Chicago political nepotism ... link |
Smitty 30.08.2008 01:16 |
Gym Bitch wrote:I agree that her ex-brother-in-law was a piece of shit, but (assuming these charges are true) I don't really feel comfortable that someone who has been presented the possibility of having such a powerful position as VP would abuse what power they obtained less than 2 years after obtaining it.magicalfreddiemercury wrote: She also faces possible impeachment for abuse of office. Seems the state legislature just voted to hire an independent investigator to see if she used her position to try to have a former brother-in-law - an Alaska state trooper - fired from his job. Yup. More of the same.This ex-brother-in-law cop is pond scum - married and divorced 4 times with a history of alcohol abuse on the job. Assuming, that this charge has any grain of truth ... I ask this question: What would you do if someone threatened to kill your father? ... "he would eat a f'ing lead bullet. I will shoot him." link Not comforting. At all. -update- Oh, and if Sarah Palin was really devoted to battling corruption, she'd battle her own corruption before dealing with the corruption of others. Oh, and I wonder, if Obama really supported such political corruption, it's only expected that the media would jump all over this and plaster it everywhere. But guess what? It's not the case, and I wonder why... *awaiting response blaming media bias* |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 30.08.2008 04:38 |
so the US have a choice between the Irish sounding black dude with the co-runner that sounds like an internationally wanted terrorist in Barry O'Bama or the old right wing pensioner that has a 44 year old ex beauty queen dolly bird newsreader at his side? it doesnt exactly bode well does it? it almost makes Arnie look 'over-qualified' for the job. on a slightly different note if Barry was to ditch his running mate would the headlines in the papers be: Obama Bins Biden? |
magicalfreddiemercury 30.08.2008 08:42 |
Smitty wrote:Agreed, Smitty.Gym Bitch wrote:I agree that her ex-brother-in-law was a piece of shit, but (assuming these charges are true) I don't really feel comfortable that someone who has been presented the possibility of having such a powerful position as VP would abuse what power they obtained less than 2 years after obtaining it. Not comforting. At all. -update- Oh, and if Sarah Palin was really devoted to battling corruption, she'd battle her own corruption before dealing with the corruption of others. Oh, and I wonder, if Obama really supported such political corruption, it's only expected that the media would jump all over this and plaster it everywhere. But guess what? It's not the case, and I wonder why... *awaiting response blaming media bias*magicalfreddiemercury wrote: She also faces possible impeachment for abuse of office. Seems the state legislature just voted to hire an independent investigator to see if she used her position to try to have a former brother-in-law - an Alaska state trooper - fired from his job. Yup. More of the same.This ex-brother-in-law cop is pond scum - married and divorced 4 times with a history of alcohol abuse on the job. Assuming, that this charge has any grain of truth ... I ask this question: What would you do if someone threatened to kill your father? ... "he would eat a f'ing lead bullet. I will shoot him." link And... IF the case against the brother-in-law were true, I would have convinced my sister to press charges against him and offered her protection - because, btw, the recently nominated Democratic VP wrote and enhanced the Violence Against Women Act that has cut domestic violence and rapes nearly in half and, for over a decade, has provided safe-houses for abused women to hide and heal in, and has cops arresting the offending abuser rather than telling him what they'd always told him before Biden's law, which was to 'take a walk around the corner and cool off'. Then, I'd make sure everything was done by the book so there was no chance this guy would get off on any misstep or technicality. What I wouldn't do is abuse my position in office to strong-arm anyone - which is what they believe anti-choice, pro-gun, teach- creationism-not-evolution Sara Palin did. |
AspiringPhilosophe 30.08.2008 08:52 |
Why is it that everyone seems to think that McCain simply picking a woman is going to get him the disgruntled Clinton voters? Is anyone awake? Clinton is a DEMOCRAT! Her die-hard supporters are DEMOCRATS. They support her bids for Universal Health Care, Gay Rights, Pro-Choice, etc. They are NOT going to vote for McCain simply because he has a woman VP. Especially when that woman is Pro-Life, No Gay Rights and doesn't support the idea of Universal Health Care. She may be a woman, but she has completely the opposite beliefs of all of the disgruntled Clinton supporters. |
magicalfreddiemercury 30.08.2008 09:01 |
MasterHistoryGirl wrote: Why is it that everyone seems to think that McCain simply picking a woman is going to get him the disgruntled Clinton voters? Is anyone awake? Clinton is a DEMOCRAT! Her die-hard supporters are DEMOCRATS. They support her bids for Universal Health Care, Gay Rights, Pro-Choice, etc. They are NOT going to vote for McCain simply because he has a woman VP. Especially when that woman is Pro-Life, No Gay Rights and doesn't support the idea of Universal Health Care. She may be a woman, but she has completely the opposite beliefs of all of the disgruntled Clinton supporters.They (and I) think it because of Palin's own words when she was announced as the VP choice. She's the one who brought up Hillary's name. She's the one who referenced Hillary's efforts and the "18 million cracks" in the highest glass ceiling in the country. She's also the one who then said that since Hillary didn't make it, women weren't done yet and they could still break through that ceiling. That sounds very much like she believes she's stepping right in place of Hillary as if she deserves the same respect and support. It's an arrogant and insulting assumption but, IMO, typical of that side. |
AspiringPhilosophe 30.08.2008 09:02 |
Gym Bitch wrote: Here is a profile of Sarah Palin: link Palin, a maverick reformer who battled corruption within her own political party, compares favorably versus Obama, the supporter of Chicago machine politics and Chicago political nepotism ... linkThat's the second time you've quoted this blog here. You do realized that it's a BLOG, an OPINION PIECE, and therefore has no more or less weight than someone who spews their opinions all over the place, right? Bias, thy name is Opinion. Besides, what exactly is your point on Palin anyway? She's the VP candidate; the VP does NOT create policy, the VP doesn't even execute policy that is created by herself. Unless she's a child of the school of Cheney, she's not going to be able to get anything done she wants to because she isn't in a position to. The most she can do is suggest things to McCain and the Legislature that they can take or leave, depending on how they feel about the issue. The only impact she's gunna have on policy is going out and being McCain's attack dog to make sure policy HE decided on and designed is put into place. And if she's a child of the School of Cheney, then this is more of the same from the Republican camp. If he's looking for a strong VP candidate to cover for him, then that indicates he doesn't really want the job if he's willing to pass major bits of it off on a VP. |
Saint Jiub 30.08.2008 13:26 |
Eric Zorn has been a regular (usually liberal) columnist of the Chicago Tribune for many years. You forget that I am a Chicagoland resident and have seen Obama's hypocrocy develop over the past several years. It is a pity that the national media does not cover this. As for Sarah Palin, she would be a heartbeat away from the presidency, so I believe comparing her to Obama is appropriate. Obama only talks the talk, while Palin walks the walk. While Palin has been the agent of change and reform in Alaska, Obama has merely paid lip service to change and reform in Chicago and Illinois. While Obama has been enabling the Chicago Democratic Machine, Palin has been fighting corruption in the Alaskan Republican party. |
iron eagle 30.08.2008 16:47 |
A newly released CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that if Obama does not select Clinton as his running mate, 22 percent of her supporters would stay home this fall -- and another 17 percent would vote for McCain. Hmmmmmmm DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICANS cross party lines all the time in the voting booth...neither you nor I or anyone else can truly know how someone is actually going to vote she got what 48 million votes during the primary? and a total of 39% are either saying they will not vote or they will vote for mccain (and this prior to his VP pick)gee just how strong are those party convictions?? time will tell i suppose would love to see what the polls say now and then again after the GOP convention going to be an interesting ride for sure |
iron eagle 30.08.2008 16:58 |
'It is a pity that the national media does not cover this.' they wont for now because he is the media darling any one else would have been drawn and quartered by now with them. they will turn on him one day though they always do |
AspiringPhilosophe 30.08.2008 21:54 |
@ Gym Bitch While Obama has been enabling the Chicago Democratic Machine, Palin has been fighting corruption in the Alaskan Republican party. Oh really? That's why she's under investigation for abuse of office, and why the Alaskan Republican Party currently has TWO major members facing CRIMINAL CHARGES for things like bribery/cronyism/corruption? Well, seems like she's done a bang up job then. |
Music Man 30.08.2008 22:53 |
It doesn't make any sense for either side to throw around pointless accusations that are either baseless or yet unproven (such as the investigation of Palin, or whatever with Obama). I mean, I suppose it's effective propaganda, but it's simply wrong. |
Saint Jiub 30.08.2008 22:56 |
MasterHistoryGirl wrote: Oh really? That's why ... the Alaskan Republican Party currently has TWO major members facing CRIMINAL CHARGES for things like bribery/cronyism/corruption?... thanks to her effort on ethics reform and taking on the old guard in the Alaskan Republican Party ... link "Sarah Palin's political career is a case study in taking on the big boys. Sarah Palin's reform resume would be remarkable in any political career. She entered politics at 28, winning a seat on the Wasilla city council as an opponent of tax increases. After she defeated Wasilla's three-term incumbent mayor four years later, she swept the mayor's cronies out of the bureaucracy. In 2003, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski appointed her to the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Bear in mind that Mr. Murkowski had already served as junior U.S. Senator from Alaska for 22 years. Mr. Murkowski was junior senator for so long because Senator Ted Stevens (who was recently indicted for corruption) had lifetime tenure in the senior post. Shortly after joining the oil and gas commission, Mrs. Palin commenced an ethics probe of the state's Republican party chairman, Randy Ruedrich, involving conflicts of interest with oil companies. The probe resulted in a $12,000 fine for the party chair. She crossed party lines in 2004 to join a Democratic representative's ethics complaint over an international trade deal against the Republican Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who had ties to the Murkowski machine. Mr. Renkes resigned. In late 2005, Mrs. Palin announced her run for Governor before then-Governor Murkowski had announced his intention to stand for re-election. In a three-way primary, Mrs. Palin got 51% to Mr. Murkowski's 19%. At the center of this campaign was a debate over competing proposals to build a natural gas pipeline across Alaska. These columns wrote about Gov. Murkowski's smashing defeat by Mrs. Palin, noting that his pipeline proposal had been tainted by reports of sweetheart deals with energy companies. The editorial ended: "If Republicans are run out of Congress in November, one big reason will be that, like Mr. Murkowski, they have become far more comfortable running the government than reforming it." That is what happened, as disgusted GOP voters turned away from their own party and ceded control of Congress to the Democrats. Against the odds, Mrs. Palin won that 2006 election against the state's former Democratic governor Tony Knowles. Most recently, she promoted the effort of her GOP lieutenant governor to unseat U.S. Congressman Don Young, who with Senator Stevens created the earmark that sank the GOP, the notorious "bridge to nowhere." Experience? For starters, we'd say Governor Palin's credentials as an agent of reform exceed Barack Obama's. Mr. Obama rose through the Chicago Democratic machine without a peep of push-back. Alaska's politics are deeply inbred and backed by energy-industry money. Mr. Obama slid past the kind of forces that Mrs. Palin took head on. This is one reason her selection -- despite its campaign risks -- seems to have been so well received by Republicans yesterday. They are looking for a new generation of leaders." |
Charlie Brown 02.09.2008 01:31 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: She also faces possible impeachment for abuse of office. Seems the state legislature just voted to hire an independent investigator to see if she used her position to try to have a former brother-in-law - an Alaska state trooper - fired from his job, and then fired the guy who refused to fire the brother-in-law. Yup. More of the same.Hi Magical, you seem like a pleasant lady but people with your views seem to love to throw all sorts of accusations against people with different views, yet someone like Senator Edward M. (Teddy) Kennedy kills a girl in a car accident link and receives no punishment and you have no problem with it. Or a congressman with your views link can embezzle millions in public funds and you don't bat an eyelash. Or wanting to teach creationism is bad but using racist anti-semtic preachers like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeramiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan to gin up the ghetto vote is great. |
magicalfreddiemercury 02.09.2008 07:19 |
Charlie Brown wrote:You are assuming - and fabricating - quite a lot about my opinions, and if what you've said here were not so far fetched, I might be pissed. But just for the record, this thread is about Sara Palin, not Kennedy, Sharpton, Jackson, Wright or Farrakhan. And btw, the information in my post, which you quoted, is being reported in the paper and on the news. She IS being investigated. It's fact, not assumption nor fabrication.magicalfreddiemercury wrote: She also faces possible impeachment for abuse of office. Seems the state legislature just voted to hire an independent investigator to see if she used her position to try to have a former brother-in-law - an Alaska state trooper - fired from his job, and then fired the guy who refused to fire the brother-in-law. Yup. More of the same.Hi Magical, you seem like a pleasant lady but people with your views seem to love to throw all sorts of accusations against people with different views, yet someone like Senator Edward M. (Teddy) Kennedy kills a girl in a car accident link and receives no punishment and you have no problem with it. Or a congressman with your views link can embezzle millions in public funds and you don't bat an eyelash. Or wanting to teach creationism is bad but using racist anti-semtic preachers like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeramiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan to gin up the ghetto vote is great. |
The Mir@cle 02.09.2008 08:14 |
iron eagle wrote: it helps shore up the conservative wing of the party--How will that wing react hearing that her 17-years old daughter is pregnant? Having sex before marriage at that age? :O |
Yara 02.09.2008 08:22 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: so the US have a choice between the Irish sounding black dude with the co-runner that sounds like an internationally wanted terrorist in Barry O'Bama or the old right wing pensioner that has a 44 year old ex beauty queen dolly bird newsreader at his side?Hahaha. |
Holly2003 02.09.2008 08:22 |
This woman cannot be trusted: look what she has named her children. Trig Track Willow Piper Bristol What's up with that shit? Those aren't American names. Unless they are named after oilfields, I would suggest they're some kind of commie names -- possible code for something about gay marriage. |
Yara 02.09.2008 08:51 |
Why holding elections? Obama has already been elected by the world and the media. I never saw anything like this. Here, in Brazil!, people don't stop talking about Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, I can't stand it anymore, every time we turn on the tv here there's one of his speeches being broadcast or commented on. I mean...what's this? People were saying here that his last speech was a benchmark in the HISTORY OF HUMANITY. I'm not kidding - and it was in a serious news channel. I mean, what the hell is happening!? |
magicalfreddiemercury 02.09.2008 09:04 |
Yara wrote: Why holding elections? Obama has already been elected by the world and the media. I never saw anything like this. Here, in Brazil!, people don't stop talking about Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, I can't stand it anymore, every time we turn on the tv here there's one of his speeches being broadcast or commented on. I mean...what's this? People were saying here that his last speech was a benchmark in the HISTORY OF HUMANITY. I'm not kidding - and it was in a serious news channel. I mean, what the hell is happening!?The religious right is being energized again and so the balance has shifted against logic. Obama may be "it" in Brazil but in the states, well, there's that same select bunch who is still not so sure. You know that bunch - they voted for Bush not once but twice. |
Micrówave 02.09.2008 10:14 |
The Mir@cle wrote:I dunno. Probably the same way they react to Obama being born when his momma was 18 and unmarried.iron eagle wrote: it helps shore up the conservative wing of the party--How will that wing react hearing that her 17-years old daughter is pregnant? Having sex before marriage at that age? :O |
Mr.Jingles 02.09.2008 10:58 |
Holly2003 wrote: This woman cannot be trusted: look what she has named her children. Trig Track Willow Piper Bristol What's up with that shit? Those aren't American names. Unless they are named after oilfields, I would suggest they're some kind of commie names -- possible code for something about gay marriage.Did she name her kids after Santa's raindeers? I don't mind McCain, but what the fuck was he thinking when he picked this woman? Here's this ultra conservative woman who apparently didn't raise her daughter properly enough to tell her to keep her panties on (since safe sex is not an option according to Palin's moral code). I appreciate McCain's "reaching across the aisle" approach, but at his age there's the possibility that he might croak while in office. I seriously don't want to see in the White House a woman with a 1950s mentality whose "family values" don't seem to even work at home, let alone the entire nation. |
magicalfreddiemercury 02.09.2008 19:31 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Here's this ultra conservative woman who apparently didn't raise her daughter properly enough to tell her to keep her panties on (since safe sex is not an option according to Palin's moral code). I appreciate McCain's "reaching across the aisle" approach, but at his age there's the possibility that he might croak while in office. I seriously don't want to see in the White House a woman with a 1950s mentality whose "family values" don't seem to even work at home, let alone the entire nation.We can only hope the majority of voters feel the same way as this. |
AspiringPhilosophe 02.09.2008 19:41 |
You know, I swear that McCain is ACTIVELY trying to lose this election: 1) Palin has retained a private lawyer to represent her in the investigation over her alleged abuse of power. 2) She was a member of a group for 2 years that has tried to push for secession from the US. 3) And have you guys seen the church video she's got out? In June she spoke to the graduating class from her home church (in her official capacity as governor, not as a private citizen). In the speech, she says that the soldiers in Iraq are sent there "by our national leaders on a mission from God, and we have to pray that God's will be done" and that, apparently, God also wills companies to unite to build the Alaska oil pipeline. The video is at: link I realize it comes from an ultra-liberal blog. But you don't have to read the blog. In fact, I recommend not reading it. Just scroll down the page until you find the video (taken straight from the church's website) and watch what she says. *Shudders* |
john bodega 02.09.2008 21:44 |
Haha. Knocked Up. |
inu-liger 02.09.2008 23:43 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Haha. Knocked Up.Maybe she was trying to join the Jamie Lynn Spears club (csp?) |
Charlie Brown 03.09.2008 02:00 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Ofcourse people like John Edwards who cheats on his cancer ridden wife and Eliot Spitzer who consorts with prostitutes have such wholesome "family values". Their behaviour must be the end result of not receiving any progressive sex ed in high school.Holly2003 wrote: This woman cannot be trusted: look what she has named her children. Trig Track Willow Piper Bristol What's up with that shit? Those aren't American names. Unless they are named after oilfields, I would suggest they're some kind of commie names -- possible code for something about gay marriage.Did she name her kids after Santa's raindeers? I don't mind McCain, but what the fuck was he thinking when he picked this woman? Here's this ultra conservative woman who apparently didn't raise her daughter properly enough to tell her to keep her panties on (since safe sex is not an option according to Palin's moral code). I appreciate McCain's "reaching across the aisle" approach, but at his age there's the possibility that he might croak while in office. I seriously don't want to see in the White House a woman with a 1950s mentality whose "family values" don't seem to even work at home, let alone the entire nation. |
Charlie Brown 03.09.2008 02:04 |
MasterHistoryGirl wrote: You know, I swear that McCain is ACTIVELY trying to lose this election: 1) Palin has retained a private lawyer to represent her in the investigation over her alleged abuse of power. 2) She was a member of a group for 2 years that has tried to push for secession from the US. 3) And have you guys seen the church video she's got out? In June she spoke to the graduating class from her home church (in her official capacity as governor, not as a private citizen). In the speech, she says that the soldiers in Iraq are sent there "by our national leaders on a mission from God, and we have to pray that God's will be done" and that, apparently, God also wills companies to unite to build the Alaska oil pipeline. The video is at: link I realize it comes from an ultra-liberal blog. But you don't have to read the blog. In fact, I recommend not reading it. Just scroll down the page until you find the video (taken straight from the church's website) and watch what she says. *Shudders*No Mrs. Palin was not a member of the Alaska Independence Party. That lie was debunked before the end of the day. But Walter Hickel was link He was twice elected governor of Alaska and served as Secretary Of The Interior under President Nixon. Bulletin, according to Michael Moore and Donald Fowler former chairmen of the democratic party Hurricane Gustav was proof god was on the side of the democrats. I wonder if any of you have ever read or listened to Franklin Roosevelts D-Day prayer? I doubt it. A quote "With Thy blessings we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy". I wonder though what the Almighty thought about Bill Clinton sending 20,000 troops to Haiti in 1994 in order to return drug trafficker and Fidel Castro lover Jean Bertrand Aristide to power? |
magicalfreddiemercury 03.09.2008 08:30 |
MasterHistoryGirl wrote: I realize it comes from an ultra-liberal blog. But you don't have to read the blog. In fact, I recommend not reading it. Just scroll down the page until you find the video (taken straight from the church's website) and watch what she says. *Shudders*Shudder for sure. The gathering at which she spoke on this video was the graduation service of the Wasilla Assembly of God's "School of Ministry, Master's Commission Wasilla Alaska." Now... has anyone seen the "Masters Commission" video or "trailer" If not, check it out - link |
AspiringPhilosophe 03.09.2008 09:17 |
@ Charlie Brown...there is a VAST difference between the tie you try to make to Bill Clinton and his sending troops to Haiti. He NEVER claimed that God told him to do it. He NEVER said that he was on a "mission from God" to do what he did. He mentioned God as much as any President; in this white Puritan-founded nation a president can't get away without doing that a few times (rather unfortunately, I think, but that's another matter). Mentioning God, and even praying to him before a major advance like D-Day is COMPLETELY different than saying that it's "God's Will" that you invade someone, and that the soldiers are on a "mission from God". God has nothing to do with the process; and trying to attribute things like this to God only leads to the worst bloodshed in human history. I'm not saying bad stuff can't happen if you don't attribute it to God, but if you think you are on some kind of crusade for the Almighty, you aren't likely to stop no matter how much proof is provided that what you are doing is a BAD move. (See any number of historical events for proof: I'd recommend the Bloodshed of the Crusades, Protestant Reformation Massacres and various Bloody Inquisitions) Saying that something is "God's Will" is a cop out. It shows a DANGEROUS lack of thought about the action, a complete failure to consider the consequences of your events, and an unwillingness to let any contrary proofs or events sway you. I don't know about you, but I've had ENOUGH of that type of thinking for the last 8 years; with this woman occupying a position where she is a breath away from the Presidency (as McCain is in his 70's), this is the last thing I think most Americans want to see. |
Mr.Jingles 03.09.2008 09:27 |
Charlie Brown wrote:John Edwards is not waving the "family values flag" and rubbing it on people's faces. For a woman who has such a hard issue on sex-ed by putting abstinence as the only option, Sarah Palin is an absolute embarrassment as the role model she wants to make of a mother.Mr.Jingles wrote:Ofcourse people like John Edwards who cheats on his cancer ridden wife and Eliot Spitzer who consorts with prostitutes have such wholesome "family values". Their behaviour must be the end result of not receiving any progressive sex ed in high school.Holly2003 wrote: This woman cannot be trusted: look what she has named her children. Trig Track Willow Piper Bristol What's up with that shit? Those aren't American names. Unless they are named after oilfields, I would suggest they're some kind of commie names -- possible code for something about gay marriage.Did she name her kids after Santa's raindeers? I don't mind McCain, but what the fuck was he thinking when he picked this woman? Here's this ultra conservative woman who apparently didn't raise her daughter properly enough to tell her to keep her panties on (since safe sex is not an option according to Palin's moral code). I appreciate McCain's "reaching across the aisle" approach, but at his age there's the possibility that he might croak while in office. I seriously don't want to see in the White House a woman with a 1950s mentality whose "family values" don't seem to even work at home, let alone the entire nation. I'm not defending John Edwards. Cheating is always despicable, especially when you're married and your wife is suffering of a life threatening disease. However, John Edwards was not telling men to stay loyal to their wives. Eliiot Spitzer comes across as hypocrite for cracking down on prostitution, and then hiring a escort service. |
Winter Land Man 06.09.2008 22:09 |
She's still fuckable, but she's a mental case. |
thomasquinn 32989 07.09.2008 06:05 |
Microbrain wrote:Yeah, the difference being that they were never going to vote for Obama in the first place ("Wha? Yer 'spectin' me ter go vote fer a niggur? Get m'gun, momma!").The Mir@cle wrote:I dunno. Probably the same way they react to Obama being born when his momma was 18 and unmarried.iron eagle wrote: it helps shore up the conservative wing of the party--How will that wing react hearing that her 17-years old daughter is pregnant? Having sex before marriage at that age? :O |
Micrówave 09.09.2008 11:06 |
MasterHistoryGirl wrote: Mentioning God, and even praying to him before a major advance like D-Day is COMPLETELY different than saying that it's "God's Will" that you invade someone, and that the soldiers are on a "mission from God". God has nothing to do with the process; and trying to attribute things like this to God only leads to the worst bloodshed in human history.Whoa, whoa, whoa... (1) She was speaking to a church group in Alaska. Maybe about 30-40 people. You make it sound like she started a cult, armed a militia, and grabbed a crucifix, then began the assault. (2) Tell the millions of muslims that "God has nothing to do with this process". Every critic wants to sit back and say the same thing, that and blame oil for this war. Go over there. Once you're there, you'd see this has nothing to do with oil. Oil is a side player. This has EVERYTHING to do about God... and it has for hundreds of years. I don't think I need to elaborate on that here. There are hundreds of websites & thousands of books chronicling the history of the Middle East. You're worried because our new VP told 30-40 people this? C'mon! What did Biden have to say? "Let's go to war!" then later "Let's not". |
Mr.Jingles 09.09.2008 15:27 |
Microwave wrote: Whoa, whoa, whoa... (1) She was speaking to a church group in Alaska. Maybe about 30-40 people. You make it sound like she started a cult, armed a militia, and grabbed a crucifix, then began the assault....and that's where she should stay, in a church. If those are her views, fine, go ahead and say whatever you want. There's a first amendment that gives you the right to say anything you want despite of how absurd or ignorant it might sound. Words don't hurt people, but giving someone like Palin a position of power where she will enforce her views is indeed dangerous. Do we want someone with such radical views to lead the nation?... HELL NO!! |
Micrówave 09.09.2008 17:14 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: ...enforce her views... Do we want someone with such radical views to lead the nation?... HELL NO!!Well, Congress has to declare war, so she'd have to convince THEM that we're on God's mission. The Vice President does not: (1) declare War (2) make laws and pass legislation And you, Jingles, are one of those "Change is NOW" people. You want Change. Obama is your beacon of hope for Change. Only a radical is going to change anything. Either you want change or you don't. You're confusing me. Also, how does one "enforce her views"? Did Bush "enforce his views?" If so, how? |
7Innuendo7 10.09.2008 16:32 |
hmmm...I may be wrong on this one point, but I think the President can send troops anywhere at any time for any reason, or no good reason, and has 90 days to justify it to Congress & get their stamp of approval. It's a fact that Iraq never violated the sovereign territory of the US. Or...think contras vs sandinistas. Ronald Reagan was a coke dealer, and Oliver North was his mule. as for the VP not declaring war or passing legislation, that's a really beautiful theory, but in the real world the last 11 yrs, the answer is Dick Cheney. see: Iraq War, USA Patriot Act. Pay great attention to the man behind the curtain in the remote location. Cheney's been involved in the Trilateral Project since the Nixon administration. He just happens to be carrying the ball this time around. Would Palin be different? Of course. She's McCain's third trophy wife, and that's all. how does Palin enforce her views, eg Wasilla Master's Commission? by using inflammatory rhetoric TOTALLY devoid of scriptural exegesis, claiming YHVH chose AK as a 'refuge' state during judgement day. this is literally leading the sheep to the slaughter. When the massive surge in solar flare activity happens, rather violently creating "a new heaven and a new earth," try not to be anywhere north of the equator. No, I can't say when exactly that will be, but based on the evidence available to me, Palin seems completely ignorant of Psalm 24. Studying P24 might be one way for her to reach out to Eskimo citizens in AK that have a different perspective on the environment than herself. Or is Palin just a classic example of "white is right" prejudice in the USA? How does Bush enforce his views? other than calling relatives in the media to report inaccurate vote tallies in FL, try the No Child Left Behind Act. Which could be called the Every Child Left Behind Act. Ask any teacher in rural USA with the tax base eroded by the export of jobs. Visit Preston County, WV or Fayette County, PA and speak with elementary & high school teachers. Witholding funding-- and the threat of it-- is how Bush enforces his views. (BTW, Happy Birthday Lisser!) Or, try touting terribly inadequate intelligence work re:enriched uranium, and Valerie Plame-Wilson. Who is the modern Machiavelli? Karl Rove. Palin also is in the crowd that chooses to think homosexuality is a "choice" that can be "cured." Now, let's think about that, Queenzoners! How would this view get enforced? Very subtly, then very openly -- take your pick of any number of changes in federal funding that affect San Francisco. The election of McPalin would result in an even greater stream of homophobic discourse in America (Ann Coulter very briefly comes to mind), and an increase in homophobic acts of violence. Additionally, there would be war with Iran, and we would see pictures of Iranian children on CNN, maimed by the US military. It's commendable that Palin asks folks to pray for servicemen & servicewomen in harm's way--I'll take her advice there--but it's the selectivity she does it with that's a problem. Has Sarah Palin ever asked anyone to pray that homosexuals in the US military be protected from harm? Or from prejudice? It would be a real test to see if she's actually on the path. Palin is NOT a princess in any sense of the word. Microwave, I totally agree with you that Obama is not a source of true, lasting political change for the US, although the exception should be improved race relations. Seriously, I respect your point of view, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic with you or flame you! I apologize if I sound that way. Still Obama's the better choice. But, MasterHistoryGirl and MagicalFreddieMercury make more relevant points imho. As for the stereotype Thomas Quinn refers to...sadly, oh sh*t. Palin's just a more sophisticated example. I remember footage from around our primary and some folks are 'convinced' Obama's a closet Muslim. If that's true...shouldn't we have better diplomatic relations with the Middle East as a result? And, cheap oil again? So, as for the Iraq war being about religion and not oil, well, I sort of agree. I'm not a socialist, mostly libertarian. Saddam Hussein didn't want any Shiites OR Sunnis in power -- as a Baathist, he was in favor of secular Pan-Arab unity, envisioning a post-modern Ottoman Empire that could rival the Asian powers and the West, with oil supply as its main leverage. BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India & China) are changing the way the US acquires natural resources through competition. Thus, the Iraq War is about the religion of US politicians: the $$$$$$. |
AspiringPhilosophe 11.09.2008 20:52 |
Sheesh, I go out of town and away from the internet for a few days and this one comes back. :-) OK, well Danny has just about covered it, but here's my response Microwave. 1) I never implied she started a cult. If you read my post, you will see that I fully admit that she was in a church, and politicians when speaking in churches always say things that would be shocking outside of it. So some leeway is granted. But when she is a member of a church that believes that Alaska is going to be a "safe state" during Armageddon and will serve as the re-staging point for humanity after the ultimate battle with the Devil and says these things to it's audience, it's hard to give her the leeway of "Well, it was a church audience." I do not want ANYONE who believes that God has anything to do with this anywhere near a position of power. 2) I fully agree with you that the war is about religious beliefs. Remember, you are speaking to a student of Middle Eastern History several times over; I'm well aware of the history of the region and the cause of this conflict. But, I ask you, what happens when two sides scream that "God Wills It!" at the top of their lungs, killing each other constantly in the process and trying to out-scream the other? Answer? More killing, more death. The only way to stop the process is to remove this point of view from the equation. The Islamic Extemists think that Allah tells them to do this; OK, that's true. But the Extemists are a minority within the larger Muslim society, where the arguments are more political in nature. If we put someone in a position of authority who screams that the soldiers are there on a mission from God, how likely is it that she'll listen to reason? Not much. What we need is someone to take the initiative to try and solve the problem with the larger Muslim society; they will in turn repress the Extemists who are causing the violence to be rained down on them. With religion in play here, there is no end until one side or the other is converted. So take out the religion and you can solve the conflict easier. 3) The President, as you know, can send troops wherever he wants to and keep them there for 90 days. That's how the War on Terror started. Sure, Congress can call them back in 90 days, but let us think about this logically. Say we send troops into Iran for example, on the orders of a McCain/Palin administration and they are there wreaking havoc for 90 days. Then Congress calls them back home. Do you think Iran is going to let it end there? Hell no!! They declare war on us, which means Congress is FORCED to authorize troops to defend the country, giving the administration the war it wanted in the first place. That's the loophole that got us into the mess we find ourselves in currently. And say all you want about Palin being the VP; she's serving under a man in his 70's who has had cancer SEVERAL times over and has permanent health problems from his days as a POW in Vietnam. That puts her closer to the helm than Biden would get in all likelihood. |
john bodega 12.09.2008 00:12 |
I saw Obama on Letterman last night. I still don't know what to think of him; my first impression is that it was nice to have a potential future president speak in positive language, constructive language. But after 8 years of listening to Bush, I'm forced to think maybe there were pupeteers on hand during this interview. It's just not possible to have someone aiming at the top job without being a total buffoon. |
pma 12.09.2008 06:56 |
A mission from God, eh? Just like Winthrop and his Puritans then. Almost 400 years and nothing has changed, not for the better. |
john bodega 12.09.2008 08:20 |
pma wrote: A mission from God, eh? Just like Winthrop and his Puritans then. Almost 400 years and nothing has changed, not for the better.If the mission from God involved getting The Band back together, I'd be all for it. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 12.09.2008 11:41 |
so,how is the 'lipstick pig' doing in the polls now? and i cant see anything wrong in having Michael Palin as VP as long as John Cleese is Minister of silly walks.it is Michael Palin right? |
Micrówave 12.09.2008 11:55 |
I'm glad you're back. Regarding your points:
MasterHistoryGirl wrote: 1. But when she is a member of a church that believes that Alaska is going to be a "safe state" during Armageddon and will serve as the re-staging point for humanity after the ultimate battle with the Devil and says these things to it's audience, it's hard to give her the leeway of "Well, it was a church audience." I do not want ANYONE who believes that God has anything to do with this anywhere near a position of power.Yet, Obama is masking his religious affiliation and you have no problem with that? And do you have any source other than your assumption that she believes everything the church shoves down her throat? Do you? I go to catholic church but not EVERY Sunday. I have had pre-marital sex. Does this make me a bad catholic and thus unable to assume my duties at work? I don't think so. 2) So take out the religion and you can solve the conflict easier.Yes, but how is one going to do that? I don't think either candidate has a solid lead on the other one there. 3) The President, as you know, can send troops wherever he wants to and keep them there for 90 days.That is correct. I said the President can't DECLARE WAR on another country, as someone suggested a maverick president could one day do. By the way, is Joe Biden still alive? I haven't heard anything of or about him lately. Think he's loving that? |
AspiringPhilosophe 13.09.2008 22:27 |
^^Sorry...went for a mini vacation with friends. But I'm back now for the foreseeable future LOL 1) The information on what the church believes is available from it's website, or from the recruitment video for the teen group that she was speaking to. 2) I don't think it's a far cry to say that she agreed with the tenants of the church; she ACTIVELY attending her whole adult life. Now your example, you are a member of a church. But she was ACTIVE in the church, ACTIVE in attending. One is not active with groups that one doesn't agree with. 3) You assume I'm pro-Obama; I am not. I am a political observer. Rather like a Watcher, I observe and record. He masks his religious affiliations, because he has to after the Rev. Wright incident. It would not be politically expedient to be associated with someone inflammatory like that, and lets face it, politics is perception and the race for the presidency is a contest. The point I was trying to make has nothing to do with religious views. People are free to have whatever views they want (anything from crazy Christian to just as crazy Atheistic). The caveat is that we in this country do NOT have to have the views of others shoved down our throat. Using religion as a moral compass to guide your own personal decisions is fine (though you can have a moral compass without religion), but when you are in a governing position your personal views take a back seat to the needs of your constituency. Now someone who lets their religious views drive their decision making is someone I am inherently uncomfortable with. You can be anti-abortion, that's fine with me; but if you try to ban it, you are now forcing your POV on other people, and that is wrong. And that is only one example. The thing that makes me nervous about Palin is that she doesn't seperate her religious views from her work (Republicans generally have a hard time with this). And someone who thinks that the troops in Iraq are on a mission from God is dangerous in a position of authority, IMHO. 4) As far as my remarks on taking the religion out of the conflict in Iraq, I wasn't speaking of the Presidential candidates. I was speaking of Iraqis and Americans. You are right, neither candidate has the grounding for that (although I personally believe Obama might have a better shot here since classically Republicans have tended to be very religious in their governing decisions). 5) Your last argument is down to semantics. Yes, the President cannot declare war. But he can get the war he wants by using the loophole I pointed out earlier. It's only on a technicality that he can't declare war; in the end, if he follows the loop hole, the effects are the same. If the effects are the same in the end, then you might as well give the President the power to declare war, as that's what he can achieve already. |
littlekillerham 21.11.2008 20:11 |
Sara Palin is ugly, just like you. Besides, you nonsharing every man for himself, let's get into debt republican, YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!! |
thomasquinn 32989 22.11.2008 07:05 |
Zebonka12 wrote:pma wrote: A mission from God, eh? Just like Winthrop and his Puritans then. Almost 400 years and nothing has changed, not for the better.If the mission from God involved getting The Band back together, I'd be all for it. If you spell The Band like that, you're in for a lot of trouble, as Richard Manuel and Rick Danko are dead. |
Cincinnati Bow Tie 22.11.2008 12:06 |
Sarah Palin has shit for brains. |
thomasquinn 32989 22.11.2008 12:36 |
Elmer Fudd Gantry wrote: Sarah Palin has shit for brains. Please tell me you didn't just find that out today. |
Winter Land Man 22.11.2008 13:04 |
Micrówave wrote: I'm glad you're back. Regarding your points:MasterHistoryGirl wrote: 1. But when she is a member of a church that believes that Alaska is going to be a "safe state" during Armageddon and will serve as the re-staging point for humanity after the ultimate battle with the Devil and says these things to it's audience, it's hard to give her the leeway of "Well, it was a church audience." I do not want ANYONE who believes that God has anything to do with this anywhere near a position of power.Yet, Obama is masking his religious affiliation and you have no problem with that? And do you have any source other than your assumption that she believes everything the church shoves down her throat? Do you? I go to catholic church but not EVERY Sunday. I have had pre-marital sex. Does this make me a bad catholic and thus unable to assume my duties at work? I don't think so.2) So take out the religion and you can solve the conflict easier.Yes, but how is one going to do that? I don't think either candidate has a solid lead on the other one there.3) The President, as you know, can send troops wherever he wants to and keep them there for 90 days.That is correct. I said the President can't DECLARE WAR on another country, as someone suggested a maverick president could one day do. By the way, is Joe Biden still alive? I haven't heard anything of or about him lately. Think he's loving that? The president can declare war. Vietnam??? |
Winter Land Man 22.11.2008 13:04 |
Micrówave wrote: I'm glad you're back. Regarding your points:MasterHistoryGirl wrote: 1. But when she is a member of a church that believes that Alaska is going to be a "safe state" during Armageddon and will serve as the re-staging point for humanity after the ultimate battle with the Devil and says these things to it's audience, it's hard to give her the leeway of "Well, it was a church audience." I do not want ANYONE who believes that God has anything to do with this anywhere near a position of power.Yet, Obama is masking his religious affiliation and you have no problem with that? And do you have any source other than your assumption that she believes everything the church shoves down her throat? Do you? I go to catholic church but not EVERY Sunday. I have had pre-marital sex. Does this make me a bad catholic and thus unable to assume my duties at work? I don't think so.2) So take out the religion and you can solve the conflict easier.Yes, but how is one going to do that? I don't think either candidate has a solid lead on the other one there.3) The President, as you know, can send troops wherever he wants to and keep them there for 90 days.That is correct. I said the President can't DECLARE WAR on another country, as someone suggested a maverick president could one day do. By the way, is Joe Biden still alive? I haven't heard anything of or about him lately. Think he's loving that? The president can declare war. Vietnam??? |
thomasquinn 32989 22.11.2008 13:06 |
The war in Vietnam was never officially declared. That is part of the problem with that war. |
Erin 22.11.2008 13:43 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kjM1asH-8 [img=/images/smiley/msn/confused_smile.gif][/img] |
Cincinnati Bow Tie 22.11.2008 14:19 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:Elmer Fudd Gantry wrote: Sarah Palin has shit for brains.Please tell me you didn't just find that out today. Dan Quayle told me. |