More Palin Lies

[strandinthewind]

I wonder if Hannity licked her vagina while he was licking her a$$ :rolleyes:

I love how she went to Hannity for the soft ball interview, knowing he would never call her on this utter BS explanation (McCain pulled it out of his a$$ yesterday) and then soft shoe over to the insinuation that Obama, the elitist, once again belittles the American worker. Can people not see though this :rolleyes: I mean if McCain was really heralding the "ingenuity of the American people" then why didn't he say that. Once again, utter crapola - but Jesus loves them :rolleyes:

_______________________________________________________________

Sarah Palin, in her second media interview since becoming John McCain’s running mate, told FOX News Wednesday that the economy is a “mess” and defended the Republican presidential nominee against charges that he believes the markets are merely experiencing a hiccup.

Palin told FOX News’ Sean Hannity that it was “unfair” for Barack Obama to criticize McCain earlier in the week for saying “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” She said McCain was clearly talking about the workforce.

“It was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use, because … he means our workforce, he means the ingenuity of the American people,” Palin said. “And of course that is strong and that is the foundation of our economy. So that was an unfair attack there.”

Palin spoke with Hannity in Cleveland, Ohio, a day after the federal government announced it was bailing out American International Group with an $85 billion loan. The move comes on the heels of Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy, Bank of America’s buyout of Merrill Lynch and a federal rescue of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

“Certainly it is a mess though. The economy is a mess,” Palin said. “And there have been abuses on Wall Street, and that adversely affects Main Street.”

She said McCain wants to reform Wall Street by “stopping the abuses and that violation of the pubic trust.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/palin-on-fox-news-economy-is-a-mess-workforce-is-strong/

[strandinthewind]

I actually hope this idiot goes on The View. I would love to see then hen fight :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Emailgate:

http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-email-account-hacked

[estranged4life]

I wonder if Hannity licked her vagina while he was licking her a$$ :rolleyes:



didnt kiss her afterwards...BECAUSE YOU NEVER GO "ASS TO MOUTH"!!!! :D

[strandinthewind]

Follow up

1. Just exactly why do why Palin and her aides shift between public and private e-mail accounts?

2. "In the latest of a series of invasions into Sarah Palin’s personal life," give me a break - she acts like she is the one running for the Pres. of the US. So, her personal life is mostly subject to inspection. Moreover, if she was using this email account as a method for avoiding scrutiny of her official email account, it is not her personal life.


Palin’s E-Mail Account Hacked, Published on Web Site
by FOXNews.com

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

In the latest of a series of invasions into Sarah Palin’s personal life, hackers have broken into the Republican vice presidential candidate’s private e-mail account, and a widely read Web site has published screen grabs from it.

An article Wednesday in Gawker.com posts family photos and snapshots of e-mail exchanges the Alaska governor had with colleagues. Gawker says the-email account has since been shut down, but it will leave the images up on its site for all to see.

“Here are the screenshots of the emails saved before the account went dark, along with the contact list. It’s newsworthy and we will not be taking it down!” the site declares.

Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain, released a statement calling the publication a “shocking invasion of the governor’s privacy and a violation of law.”

“The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these e-mails will destroy them. We will have no further comment,” Davis said.

The article boasts about the lengths to which the reporter went to verify the account, saying he or she even called a phone number listed for Palin’s teenage daughter, Bristol, which apparently went to her voicemail. The site also listed dozens of contact e-mails from the account.

Both WIRED and Gawker reported that members claiming to be with a group known as Anonymous took credit for hacking into Palin’s account. Screen grabs were published on other Web sites and then deleted, Gawker reported.

They reportedly came from a Yahoo e-mail account Palin uses — one separate from another private account that was publicized in The Washington Post last week.

Gawker complained that Palin has since “deleted” the account, and suggested she was trying to “destroy evidence.”

Palin has faced scrutiny for using her private account to do government business. The Washington Post reported last week that a local Republican activist is trying to get Palin to release more than 1,100 e-mails she withheld from a public records request. The appeal reportedly questions why Palin and her aides shift between public and private e-mail accounts.

A spokeswoman in the governor’s office in Alaska declined to comment Wednesday, referring questions from FOXNews.com to the McCain-Palin campaign.

“Primarily we’re referring people to the campaign because honestly people wouldn’t be asking these questions if she wasn’t a candidate for [vice president],” spokeswoman Kate Morgan said.

The Palin family was subjected to intense scrutiny after she was selected as John McCain’s running mate on Aug. 29. Reporters descended on her home town of Wasilla, Alaska, as the media focused on her unwed teenage daughter’s pregnancy.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/palin-on-fox-news-economy-is-a-mess-workforce-is-strong/

[ajmccarrell]

What she said makes sense, but if you don't understand exactly what the economy is, it would be easy to misunderstand her statement. What actually concerns me is a guy who says he wants to raise taxes on anyone making over $250,000.00 when that is the segment who employs people, while we are teetering on the edge of a recession. That is truly a stupid policy. :laugh:

The "economy" is not some entity somewhere, nor is it the condition of the financial markets, stock market, federal government deficit, etc, it is the summary of our spending activity as measured by GDP. Certainly these other things are factors, but it is possible to be in a recession with a strong stock market, a budget surplus, and sound financial markets. Conversely is possible for the economy to be having problems and for the fundamentals to be strong simultaneously. If these things are strong, it is easier for people to spend more money, but just because these are bad doesn't mean that people will all of a sudden close their wallets entirely either. It's kind of hard to summarize several years of economics into a few paragraphs here. Suffice it to say that the average person has a wrong idea of what the economy actually is.

For example, we are having a banking crisis, however the economy is measured by the spending activity of the US population, so we can have a shaky economic condition, but your average person is not yet feeling the effects and may not feel the effects. Your average person isn't likely to stop shopping simply because AIG was bailed out, or because Merrill Lynch is seeking a buyer, or because banks fail. Unline 1929, we do have a safety net, which is the Federal Reserve, so your money is safe as long as it is not in non-FDIC insured investments or accounts.

This crisis is largely self-inflicted. The public ate up bad loans like mad and bankers saw opportunities to get rich by shaky investments backed by assets that lost their value. No one person is responsible, anyone who got a loan that wasn't standard, or any bank who lent without proper documentation, or any person who made risky investments is to blame collectively. All of these bailouts are just likely to stave off the problem long enough for it to snowball even worse than it is now. Government takeovers of banks truly worries me.

[ashton]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;774232]What she said makes sense, but QUOTE]

You didn't bother to explain why it makes sense and instead changed the subject completely.

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;774232]What she said makes sense, but QUOTE]

You didn't bother to explain why it makes sense and instead changed the subject completely.

par for the course :rolleyes:

Moreover, he knows more about the economy than anyone else and that includes Allan Greenspan :laugh:

[ashton]

[QUOTE=ashton;774239]

par for the course :rolleyes:

Moreover, he knows more about the economy than anyone else and that includes Allan Greenspan :laugh:


I always chuckle at his/her/its ability to try and make the entire subject about him/her/it. An ego is a terrible thing to waste.

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;774257]


I always chuckle at his/her/its ability to try and make the entire subject about him/her/it. An ego is a terrible thing to waste.

And, trust me, my ego is larger than the planet - just ask gldstwmn who has been all over the country with me and seven steamer trunks it takes to carry my ego :laugh:

[Musicman408]

Yayyyy I loooove Sarah Palin.:rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;774257]


I always chuckle at his/her/its ability to try and make the entire subject about him/her/it. An ego is a terrible thing to waste.

In another thread, he's telling Brian (estranged4life) to take a trip to China. I think he's needs to get on a slow boat to China, if you know what I mean. :lol:

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=ashton;774260]

And, trust me, my ego is larger than the planet - just ask gldstwmn who has been all over the country with me and seven steamer trunks it takes to carry my ego :laugh:

Yes but you are fun loving and adorable. :xoxo:

[estranged4life]

In another thread, he's telling Brian (estranged4life) to take a trip to China.

I don't like Chinese, I prefer Mexican...and besides, they (Chinese) put pee-pee in Coca-Cola!!!

:D

Brian "Rockers against drugs? That's like saying Christians against Christ...Rock invented drugs" j.

[GoldDustOrphan]

besides, they (Chinese) put pee-pee in Coca-Cola!!!

That is possibly the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards. Funny because it's true.

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;774232]What she said makes sense, but QUOTE]

You didn't bother to explain why it makes sense and instead changed the subject completely.

I did explain it, but you just didn't understand it. Go enroll at your local community college and take econ 101 and it will make sense.

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;774257]


I always chuckle at his/her/its ability to try and make the entire subject about him/her/it. An ego is a terrible thing to waste.

That's because you can't attack my argument and attack me instead. THAT is par for the course for the uneducated. :laugh: The louder, more personal and more shrill someone makes their argument, the harder it is to defend it. :laugh: Why don't you try and attack the point I made instead of attacking me and we can maybe have a conversation. But I guess you would prefer to look like clucking chickens instead. :laugh:

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=ashton;774239]

par for the course :rolleyes:

Moreover, he knows more about the economy than anyone else and that includes Allan Greenspan :laugh:

Based on what? I never made that claim. Go find a claim like that I made! You can't. You're just making stuff up to mask your own ignorance on a very basic subject. :laugh:

What I said was straight out of any undergrad textbook, which I would assume that the people on this thread could understand, but I guess I overestimated my audience, which is why you are attacking me and not my argument. If I posted the alphabet, you'd attack me. I'm long past caring what the bozo's on these political threads think.

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=ashton;774260]

And, trust me, my ego is larger than the planet - just ask gldstwmn who has been all over the country with me and seven steamer trunks it takes to carry my ego :laugh:

The difference is that your ego has no accomplishments to back it up. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=ashton;774260]

That's because you can't attack my argument and attack me instead. THAT is par for the course for the uneducated. :laugh: The louder, more personal and more shrill someone makes their argument, the harder it is to defend it. :laugh: Why don't you try and attack the point I made instead of attacking me and we can maybe have a conversation. But I guess you would prefer to look like clucking chickens instead. :laugh:

res ipsa loquitur

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;774327]

res ipsa loquitur

Ad homonym does not speak for itself. :)

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;774332]

Ad homonym does not speak for itself. :)

Id.

and for the next 400 repetitive repsonses - Id.

[strandinthewind]

The difference is that your ego has no accomplishments to back it up. :xoxo:

Well, it's hard to argue with the Pres. of the night class of the local community college :wavey:

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;774331]

Well, it's hard to argue with the Pres. of the night class of the local community college :wavey:

So, you lead a group, or what exactly does that mean? Sounds good.

As the old adage goes, those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach work for the justice department. Naw, only kidding. From your responses, it sounds like you have an idea most of the time, we are just on different sides. I think you actually understand the issue.

[strandinthewind]

The issue in this thread is Palin is lying c*nt who thinks she has a pipeline to Jusus' teachings when her apparent lack of compassion and outright lies indicate she has none of the above.

Yet, she promises to cut taxes so people like you love her. Never mind that Greenspan, who I suggest knows more than you, me, and everyone on this board cubed knows, said America will have to go deeper into debt to pay for them. Moreover, despite these phantom tax cuts, Palin is for more govt. invasion into our personal lives, which you have professed to be vehemently against.

Those are the issues in this thread.

[gldstwmn]

Ad homonym does not speak for itself. :)


It's ad hominem. :sorry:

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;774348]


It's ad hominem. :sorry:

Okay fine. I'll adjust my spelling. I guess my positions stand, because all you can do is attack my spelling or me personally.

[ajmccarrell]

The issue in this thread is Palin is lying c*nt who thinks she has a pipeline to Jusus' teachings when her apparent lack of compassion and outright lies indicate she has none of the above.

Yet, she promises to cut taxes so people like you love her. Never mind that Greenspan, who I suggest knows more than you, me, and everyone on this board cubed knows, said America will have to go deeper into debt to pay for them. Moreover, despite these phantom tax cuts, Palin is for more govt. invasion into our personal lives, which you have professed to be vehemently against.

Those are the issues in this thread.

What I'm more concerned about is a tax increase. I agree that we are spending into oblivion, but if we change our spending habits first, we change the shape of the Laffer curve so that tax cuts may have a revenue increasing effect by more dollars being counted as income. Greenspan would be welcome over Bernanke.

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=gldstwmn;774383]

Okay fine. I'll adjust my spelling. I guess my positions stand, because all you can do is attack my spelling . . . .

Hypocrite :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

What I'm more concerned about is a tax increase. I agree that we are spending into oblivion, but if we change our spending habits first, we change the shape of the Laffer curve so that tax cuts may have a revenue increasing effect by more dollars being counted as income. Greenspan would be welcome over Bernanke.

The real world - live in it - they are never going to cut spending no matter what they (all of them) say.

Haven't you figured this out yet?

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;774384]

Hypocrite :rolleyes:

I usually attack positions AND spelling, so technically I am not a hypocrite. :laugh:

[ajmccarrell]

The real world - live in it - they are never going to cut spending no matter what they (all of them) say.

Haven't you figured this out yet?

Of course, but why vote for a guy who will cause much worse problems? I do think Obama would give the economy a mercy kill. It's a choice between awful and abhorrent. :laugh: Spending more or cutting taxes is not nearly as bad as trying to raise them right now.

[strandinthewind]

Of course, but why vote for a guy who will cause much worse problems? I do think Obama would give the economy a mercy kill. It's a choice between awful and abhorrent. :laugh: Spending more or cutting taxes is not nearly as bad as trying to raise them right now.

No, Obama can pay for his plan. McSame cannot. This is not advanced math :laugh:

[mylittledemon]

No, Obama can pay for his plan. McSame cannot. This is not advanced math :laugh:

I swear your posts always make me chuckle. And shake my head (with a smile, of course).

[strandinthewind]

I swear your posts always make me chuckle. And shake my head (with a smile, of course).

Lord knows I try :cool:

What can I say, I'm an overblown, self-important windbag :D

[ajmccarrell]

No, Obama can pay for his plan. McSame cannot. This is not advanced math :laugh:

You're right it's not advanced math, Obama said "closing corporate loopholes" would pay for his plan. It's laughable. Let's look at this then, shall we? Currently, social security alone is responsible for about half of our national budget. Go here and look up the population statistics on how much of the population is elderly (55 and older). It is currently 22.7% of the entire US population. 13.6% of the population is currently collecting sosical security now. The other roughly 10% will be in ten years and we do not have enough to pay for them as it is. Obama is promising universal health care coverage, which will be the other 75% of the population, through tax increases. If we are spending half of our budget on 13.6% of the population, how much in taxes are we going to have to raise to pay for the rest? In addition, Obama is promising a "middle class tax cut", which is a joke because you cannot give a tax cut to one part of the population, while raising taxes on another without the group that is getting the cut paying for the increase by way of lower wages, foregone raises, cut benefits, etc. So, we have established now that Obama will raise taxes on the segment of the population that provides the benefits, which will increase the dependency on the government for insurance. So, Obama plans on taking money away from the segment that provides jobs and benefits, which ALWAYS results in higher prices and lost opportunity. Crack any econ book and it will say just this. The only disagreement is to what degree these opportunities are lost. So, we now have fewer jobs and fewer people paying taxes, more people relying on the government for necessities, and corporations leaving the country due to high taxes. Does this sound healthy or sane to you? :laugh:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/age/age_2006.html

[estranged4life]

No, Obama can pay for his plan. McSame cannot. This is not advanced math :laugh:

a man who cannot correctly state how many homes he owns surely cannot be trusted to run this country. Maybe McSame had a 'pretty girl' cover his ass during 'advanced math class' years ago...Oh wait, he is doing that now - My bad.

[ajmccarrell]

a man who cannot correctly state how many homes he owns surely cannot be trusted to run this country. Maybe McSame had a 'pretty girl' cover his ass during 'advanced math class' years ago...Oh wait, he is doing that now - My bad.

When you have a prenup and multiple homes are owned in the names of your kids and corporations, etc it's not that simple.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Does this sound healthy or sane to you? :laugh: . . . .

Again, all Obama wants to do is go back to the levels under Clinton, when, as mentioned 762 million times before, we had trillions in surplus. So, something must have worked to get that and despite theoretical economic arguments.

In the end, McSame cannot pay for his plan without borowing billions - at least according to a real economist.

[mylittledemon]

a man who cannot correctly state how many homes he owns surely cannot be trusted to run this country. Maybe McSame had a 'pretty girl' cover his ass during 'advanced math class' years ago...Oh wait, he is doing that now - My bad.

Cindy McCain? Pretty?

*crickets*

[strandinthewind]

When you have a prenup and multiple homes are owned in the names of your kids and corporations, etc it's not that simple.

Your forgot senility and a cavalier attitude.

Moreover, even considering all those trumoed up reasons, clearly he should know how many her personally owns. Again, the man wants to run the most powerful nation in the world and he can't figure out a legal document :eek:

[ajmccarrell]

Again, all Obama wants to do is go back to the levels under Clinton, when, as mentioned 762 million times before, we had trillions in surplus. So, something must have worked to get that and despite theoretical economic arguments.

In the end, McSame cannot pay for his plan without borowing billions - at least according to a real economist.

Again, a surplus or a deficit are irrelevant to the economy, by and large. During the depression we had a surplus and went spent into deficit levels to get out of it. You can afford to raise taxes when things are going good, you cannot raise them when things aren't so hot. What is so hard to grasp here?! If I take more money from you when you are struggling financially, are you worse off or better off? It really is as simple as that. Unlike you, I've actually had to run small businesses and work in the private sector. I've owned a business and worked for several years as a Controller. If you were to raise taxes on many of the businesses I worked for, it would put them under, one of them did go under because of its tax burden. It had no money leftover to sustain operations once uncle sam was paid.

[ajmccarrell]

Your forgot senility and a cavalier attitude.

Moreover, even considering all those trumoed up reasons, clearly he should know how many her personally owns. Again, the man wants to run the most powerful nation in the world and he can't figure out a legal document :eek:

Okay, well you could bring up the 57 states again, or the fact that Obama stated that Palin was the "Governor of Wasili" (sic), I guess that must be state 52. Point is, candidates say stupid stuff. Look at Biden, he has the corner on it, but I don't think he's senile or stupid. He's only a few years younger than McCain.

[estranged4life]

Cindy McCain? Pretty?

*crickets*

I mean the Sarah Failing...

Cindy McCain wouldnt be pretty if she was able to alter the physical plane and become Cindy Brady ("The youngest one in curls")

[strandinthewind]

Okay, well you could bring up the 57 states again, or the fact that Obama stated that Palin was the "Governor of Wasili" (sic), I guess that must be state 52. Point is, candidates say stupid stuff. Look at Biden, he has the corner on it, but I don't think he's senile or stupid. He's only a few years younger than McCain.

HE DID NOT KNOW HOW MANY HOUSES HE HAD

I mean come on :laugh: That is hardly the same as some new campaign issue in a speech.

[mylittledemon]

I mean the Sarah Failing...

Cindy McCain wouldnt be pretty if she was able to alter the physical plane and become Cindy Brady ("The youngest one in curls")

i dont find Palin attractive either. Hmpf.

[estranged4life]

When you have a prenup and multiple homes are owned in the names of your kids and corporations, etc it's not that simple.

why have those homes in the names of your children and corporations? Oh, I forgot...to cheat the system tax-wise, my bad.

[strandinthewind]

why have those homes in the names of your children and corporations? Oh, I forgot...to cheat the system tax-wise, my bad.

Exactly. And, mind you I do not fault him for it because I would do the same thing. The difference is I am not running for President on a holier than thou ticket.

[estranged4life]

i dont find Palin attractive either. Hmpf.

on the eyes (Not my style) but I'm sure Bill Clinton would've liked her as his VP, if ya know what I mean :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

on the eyes (Not my style) but I'm sure Bill Clinton would've liked her as his VP, if ya know what I mean :rolleyes:

If she ate a few pies :laugh:

[estranged4life]

Exactly. And, mind you I do not fault him for it because I would do the same thing. The difference is I am not running for President on a holier than thou ticket.

but his answer to question made him appear to be a deer on a quality control check of a vehicle's headlights. I like politicians who will QUICKLY answer a question without much thought and without a mouthful of BSing coming forth to AVOID the issue.

I agree with the holier than thou ticket (The TV commercials the Gas and Oil Party have been showing here in Bible Belt central are nauseating to say the least), makes me glad I removed my membership from that party years ago.

[strandinthewind]

but his answer to question made him appear to be a deer on a quality control check of a vehicle's headlights . . . .

He looked like an idiot.

[estranged4life]

If she ate a few pies :laugh:

Bill Clinton: "Mrs.Phalin...Come here (Thinking to himself "Ya sexy hunting honey")"

Sarah Phalin: "What Mr.President?"

Bill Clinton: "Isnt it time for your yearly mammogram? If so I can suggest a good mammographer for you...(Thinking to himself "Hillary won't put out since the cigar incident with Monica, and I am in need of some 'oralating' in the 'Oral office', Bill, your such a genius") and here he is...."

<div align=center><img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/Mammogram.jpg"></div>

[gldstwmn]

It's laughable. Let's look at this then, shall we? Currently, social security alone is responsible for about half of our national budget.

Actually it's 21%.

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

[gldstwmn]

Cindy McCain? Pretty?

*crickets*

He means Palin.

[gldstwmn]

During the depression we had a surplus and went spent into deficit levels to get out of it.

False. This statement makes no sense.

[The Catdancer]

In addition, Obama is promising a "middle class tax cut", which is a joke because you cannot give a tax cut to one part of the population, while raising taxes on another without the group that is getting the cut paying for the increase by way of lower wages, foregone raises, cut benefits, etc.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/age/age_2006.html

Get it through your head, that's exactly what Bush has been doing the last 8 years. He gave the rich a tax cut, why not the middle class??? Because he doesn't know the middle class and Obama does. He knows the back bone of America is the middle class. The USA was built on middle class/poor people from Europe. Did you watch Fahrenheit 9/11 in which he says to the rich:"Some call you the elite, I call you my base". There's the answer, that's why the rich get everything and the middle class gets nothing. That's why the country is in disarray right now.

[strandinthewind]

Get it through your head, that's exactly what Bush has been doing the last 8 years. He gave the rich a tax cut, why not the middle class??? Because he doesn't know the middle class and Obama does. He knows the back bone of America is the middle class. The USA was built on middle class/poor people from Europe. Did you watch Fahrenheit 9/11 in which he says to the rich:"Some call you the elite, I call you my base". There's the answer, that's why the rich get everything and the middle class gets nothing. That's why the country is in disarray right now.

Not only that, but W essentially gave a phantom tax cut. While he most certainly cut everyones' taxes at the Federal level, he simultaneously cut funding for many state programs, which caused the states to raise the lost revenue via higher taxes. So, while the average person may have had a few hundred more dollars a year off of their Federal income tax, they likely had a similar amount added to their state taxes or will have it added in the future because the sate (and the Feds) borrowed the money to close the gap.

Moreover, Obama's plan will work because it has in the past and history demonstrates it can correct a huge Federal deficit like the deficit left by another 12 years of insane R rule. In 1993, the Federal deficit exceeded about $300 billion a year. Bill Clinton and Congress raised taxes and slashed spending. The effect was the deficits that had ballooned under Reagan and Bush 41 were tamed. Moreover, we had economic expansion, job creation, a stock boom, and a budget surplus of trillions of dollars when Clinton left office -- compare that to what we have now, which is insane debt, a crashing stock and housing market (due to non-existent regulation) , a ballooned national debt that W promised to pay off while in office with the rev. he expected to generate through the economic growth he promised to obtain through he tax cuts (which McSame was against) :shrug: I get that the Clinton economy was not perfect due to the dot.com bust, but clearly it was much better than the crapola W has let fester. McSame wants to extend that plan though he may (a big if) control the spending slightly better, though his current platform suggests he will not no matter what he says.

In the end, I am for the fair tax because the numbers show the poor will pay no tax and everone else pulls their own weight via a tax on their spending. I would even be for a flat tax where no one making under $75,000 a year is taxed at all. But, that fantasy will never happen. So, in the real world, I am for the plan that has been demonstrated to work very well despite any abstract economic theories that obviously have not worked in their application over the last 30 or so years.

[strandinthewind]

False. This statement makes no sense.

Moreover, he thinks a budget surplus is a bad thing :rolleyes:

[ashton]

[QUOTE=ashton;774239]

I did explain it, but you just didn't understand it. Go enroll at your local community college and take econ 101 and it will make sense.

Then please copy and paste your answer. You most certainly didn't and couldn't answer the question.

If you could also resist the social retardation and not answer like a child who needs a nap and fresh diaper, this would also be helpful. Let's keep the ego in check.

[ashton]

[QUOTE=ashton;774260]

That's because you can't attack my argument and attack me instead. THAT is par for the course for the uneducated. :laugh: The louder, more personal and more shrill someone makes their argument, the harder it is to defend it. :laugh: Why don't you try and attack the point I made instead of attacking me and we can maybe have a conversation. But I guess you would prefer to look like clucking chickens instead. :laugh:


Sweetie, let me give you a tip. When your "argument" is laced with LOLSs and all assorted smiley faces, you can rest assured that you didn't have an argument. Since you know nothing about me, please refrain from speaking of my education, unless you would like to do a complete review of what exactly you know about my education. As usual, you have been reduced to foolish assumptions that tend to only point out how quick you are to simply make things up when you have little else to say. The whining about personal attacks is amusing, especially following the education comment that you pulled out the air. Given your most recent hissy fit and complete meltdown, it is downright laughable.

I look forward to a listing of my complete education, as you know it, and you must be able to provide this based on your comments. Please wear a glove when pulling out this information and wash your hands thoroughly when you are done.

Thanks in advance.

[The Catdancer]

Not only that, but W essentially gave a phantom tax cut. While he most certainly cut everyones' taxes at the Federal level, he simultaneously cut funding for many state programs, which caused the states to raise the lost revenue via higher taxes. So, while the average person may have had a few hundred more dollars a year off of their Federal income tax, they likely had a similar amount added to their state taxes or will have it added in the future because the sate (and the Feds) borrowed the money to close the gap.

Moreover, Obama's plan will work because it has in the past and history demonstrates it can correct a huge Federal deficit like the deficit left by another 12 years of insane R rule. In 1993, the Federal deficit exceeded about $300 billion a year. Bill Clinton and Congress raised taxes and slashed spending. The effect was the deficits that had ballooned under Reagan and Bush 41 were tamed. Moreover, we had economic expansion, job creation, a stock boom, and a budget surplus of trillions of dollars when Clinton left office -- compare that to what we have now, which is insane debt, a crashing stock and housing market (due to non-existent regulation) , a ballooned national debt that W promised to pay off while in office with the rev. he expected to generate through the economic growth he promised to obtain through he tax cuts (which McSame was against) :shrug: I get that the Clinton economy was not perfect due to the dot.com bust, but clearly it was much better than the crapola W has let fester. McSame wants to extend that plan though he may (a big if) control the spending slightly better, though his current platform suggests he will not no matter what he says.

In the end, I am for the fair tax because the numbers show the poor will pay no tax and everone else pulls their own weight via a tax on their spending. I would even be for a flat tax where no one making under $75,000 a year is taxed at all. But, that fantasy will never happen. So, in the real world, I am for the plan that has been demonstrated to work very well despite any abstract economic theories that obviously have not worked in their application over the last 30 or so years.

You've summed it up perfectly. Will you marry me??? :xoxo: ;)

[strandinthewind]

You've summed it up perfectly. Will you marry me??? :xoxo: ;)

Possibly - how much money do you have :D:D

[strandinthewind]

LMAO - Chuck seems not to interested, once again, in the utter crapola known as the party line. And, he is correct. That people are buying into this BS is assinine.

GOP senator: A 'stretch' to say Palin is qualified

Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said his party's vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, lacks foreign policy experience and called it a "stretch" to say she's qualified to be president.

"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Hagel said in an interview published Thursday by the Omaha World-Herald. "You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

Could Palin lead the country if GOP presidential nominee John McCain could not?

"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States," Hagel said.

McCain and other Republicans have defended Palin's qualifications, citing Alaska's proximity to Russia. Palin told ABC News, "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Hagel took issue with that argument. "I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,'" he said. "That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."

Hagel, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In July, Hagel traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Though he didn't expect to be asked, Hagel had said he would have considered serving as Obama's running mate.

Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 6,500, before becoming Alaska's governor in December 2006.

Palin visited soldiers in Kuwait and Germany last year and said in an interview with ABC News that her only other foreign travel had been to Mexico and Canada. She also said she had never met a foreign head of state.

Hagel told the newspaper that other governors have been elected to serve in the White House without experience in Washington. He said judgment and character were also important for the job.

"But I do think in a world that is so complicated, so interconnected and so combustible, you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world," Hagel said. "I think that's just a requirement."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/hagel_palin

[gldstwmn]

Possibly - how much money do you have :D:D

Gold digger. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Gold digger. :laugh:

Dahlin' if you had seven figures to go along with your hulluva figure, we'd be hitched and in "room" 30-H of the Towers right now :cool:

[estranged4life]

in an interview with ABC News that her only other foreign travel had been to Mexico and Canada.

to one saying "I traveled to Kansas and Texas from Oklahoma". I don't particularly consider Mexico and Canada TRUE "foreign travel" (In the sense that I can travel to either country via automobile).

[ashton]

When you have a prenup and multiple homes are owned in the names of your kids and corporations, etc it's not that simple.

Sounds like that should have been his answer then. Odd that it was not. He could have answered the question, been wrong and it probably wouldn't have raised any eyebrows, but he didn't. Instead, he simply said I don't know. Even if he gave a number that people disagreed with, he could have explained that they were investment properties or not his primary residence. Instead, he chose the most bizarre answer possible.

It is rather odd to come up with excuses that the person asked the question hasn't even given.

[strandinthewind]

Sounds like that should have been his answer then. Odd that it was not. He could have answered the question, been wrong and it probably wouldn't have raised any eyebrows, but he didn't. Instead, he simply said I don't know. Even if he gave a number that people disagreed with, he could have explained that they were investment properties or not his primary residence. Instead, he chose the most bizarre answer possible.

It is rather odd to come up with excuses that the person asked the question hasn't even given.

Moreover, it is that simple. He and his wife own a finite number of homes. if a corp. or his kids own the homes, then he and his wife do not :shrug: I know people far richer than the McCains and they are very aware of what they actually own and what they have given away :rolleyes:

[GoS]

[QUOTE=ashton;774239]

I did explain it, but you just didn't understand it. Go enroll at your local community college and take econ 101 and it will make sense.

Just one more example of the Republicans looking down at the rest of us. And who are you calling elitist again? Maybe if the Republicans could understand that people can disagree on issues and still both be putting "country first" and still both be intelligent.

Has anyone else noticed that so far in this election McCain has mainly focused on personal attacks and then laughed at, or insulted, Obama for trying to bring this back to helping the majority of Americans? Why is this, you may ask- it's because they know they will get there butts handed to them if they go out there and say what they stand for, what they want to do & why, or talk about who they are actually trying to help.

[BombaySapphire3]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;774325]



Has anyone else noticed that so far in this election McCain has mainly focused on personal attacks and then laughed at, or insulted, Obama for trying to bring this back to helping the majority of Americans? Why is this, you may ask- it's because they know they will get there butts handed to them if they go out there and say what they stand for, what they want to do & why, or talk about who they are actually trying to help.

This is why it is very important that Obama and Biden press them for anwers to these questions in the upcoming debates and not allow them to skirt or divert in their responses..I have a feeling that Palin in particular is gonna be in deep bullmoose popo if she gets tipped off of her script.

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=GoS;774641]

This is why it is very important that Obama and Biden press them for anwers to these questions in the upcoming debates and not allow them to skirt or divert in their responses..I have a feeling that Palin in particular is gonna be in deep bullmoose popo if she gets tipped off of her script.

True - look at how flustered McCain became on The View and those women, with the exception of Walters, are not really pros at hard core political interviews.

I really want somneone to nail the c*nt to the wall by asking exactly how the D's hae railroaded an investigation she agreed to last July. I would make her name exact things or tell her it is a shame that she thinks she is above the law by refusing to comply with subpoenas she set in motion with a bi partisan commitee she sanctioned.

Then, the second she launched into the rhetoric, I would remind her that she was all for transparency in govt., when it did not apply to her. Therefore, what kind of real reform could we expect from her in D.C. when she is unwilling to get to the truth publicly in her own state.

I would be entirely different than the a$$ kissing Hannity did on Faux News. I mean do you think the McCain camp handed him a script. Myabe they both had teleprompters. What a waste of space on this earth :rolleyes:

[BombaySapphire3]

[QUOTE=BombaySapphire3;774715]



I really want somneone to nail the c*nt to the wall by asking exactly how the D's hae railroaded an investigation she agreed to last July. I would make her name exact things or tell her it is a shame that she thinks she is above the law by refusing to comply with subpoenas she set in motion with a bi partisan commitee she sanctioned.

Then, the second she launched into the rhetoric, I would remind her that she was all for transparency in govt., when it did not apply to her. Therefore, what kind of real reform could we expect from her in D.C. when she is unwilling to get to the truth publicly in her own state.



I like the way you use the C word to describe Mooseilin.i I use it very sparingly myself but in her case it fits like a glove.Anyway I think Biden is perfectly capable of nailing her to the wall as you described. I just hope he doesn't feel he has to hold back in fear of Repubs whining that he "beat up on a girl"Now this stupid ,crooked b*tch could end up President and very soon if fate turns the wrong way so she should not be given a free pass on gender or anything else.This is where I humbly admit I was wrong in my glee that Barack would not choose Hillary..I would pay to see her mop up the floor with this "barracuda"who would have to soon change her theme song to "Thrown Down "Although if he had picked Hillary chances are we would not have been treated to the tacky Jerry Springeresque sideshow that is Sarah Palin and clan.

[strandinthewind]

^^

It is my fav. word :o

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;774327]


Sweetie, let me give you a tip. When your "argument" is laced with LOLSs and all assorted smiley faces, you can rest assured that you didn't have an argument. Since you know nothing about me, please refrain from speaking of my education, unless you would like to do a complete review of what exactly you know about my education. As usual, you have been reduced to foolish assumptions that tend to only point out how quick you are to simply make things up when you have little else to say. The whining about personal attacks is amusing, especially following the education comment that you pulled out the air. Given your most recent hissy fit and complete meltdown, it is downright laughable.

I look forward to a listing of my complete education, as you know it, and you must be able to provide this based on your comments. Please wear a glove when pulling out this information and wash your hands thoroughly when you are done.

Thanks in advance.

You have AGAIN failed to attack my argument and are running down a bunny trail. Come on, who do you think you're fooling? If people say something stupid, people are likely to assume you are. So, maybe you should list your own education. Hmmm?! :laugh:

[ajmccarrell]

[quote] Originally Posted by strandinthewind
Not only that, but W essentially gave a phantom tax cut. While he most certainly cut everyones' taxes at the Federal level, he simultaneously cut funding for many state programs, which caused the states to raise the lost revenue via higher taxes. So, while the average person may have had a few hundred more dollars a year off of their Federal income tax, they likely had a similar amount added to their state taxes or will have it added in the future because the sate (and the Feds) borrowed the money to close the gap.

Moreover, Obama's plan will work because it has in the past and history demonstrates it can correct a huge Federal deficit like the deficit left by another 12 years of insane R rule. In 1993, the Federal deficit exceeded about $300 billion a year. Bill Clinton and Congress raised taxes and slashed spending. The effect was the deficits that had ballooned under Reagan and Bush 41 were tamed. Moreover, we had economic expansion, job creation, a stock boom, and a budget surplus of trillions of dollars when Clinton left office -- compare that to what we have now, which is insane debt, a crashing stock and housing market (due to non-existent regulation) , a ballooned national debt that W promised to pay off while in office with the rev. he expected to generate through the economic growth he promised to obtain through he tax cuts (which McSame was against) I get that the Clinton economy was not perfect due to the dot.com bust, but clearly it was much better than the crapola W has let fester. McSame wants to extend that plan though he may (a big if) control the spending slightly better, though his current platform suggests he will not no matter what he says.

In the end, I am for the fair tax because the numbers show the poor will pay no tax and everone else pulls their own weight via a tax on their spending. I would even be for a flat tax where no one making under $75,000 a year is taxed at all. But, that fantasy will never happen. So, in the real world, I am for the plan that has been demonstrated to work very well despite any abstract economic theories that obviously have not worked in their application over the last 30 or so years.[quote]




I hesitate to think that you honestly believe that the economic situation when Bill Clinton raised taxes is THE SAME as the economic climate today?! Do you really want to be making that claim? Again, take an econ course and we can discuss it. Until then, you are talking out of your ass and expressing meaningless opinions. To sum up your argument, Obama should #1. raise taxes, #2, increase spending to unprecedented levels as he has promised to do, #3 cut benefits as a bi-product of tax increases and the banks will suddenly stop failing and the birds will be singing and everything will be okay. This is truly the stuff of parody. I really thought you had a better grasp of the issues than this. Yes, the fair tax would work. You are correct there.

Also, my theories are not vague, they are taught in EVERY economics classroom all around the world, from Harvard to the crappy falling apart trade school down the road. You claimed the be some night school president, which you are obviously not, otherwise you would have consulted your econ instructor, which you didn't. Go to the library, pick up a book and (gasp) read it. Talking out of your rear is a poor substitute for actual knowledge on a subject. You might actually learn something by reading.

Also, we did have a surplus DURING Clinton's term, but we'd hit a mild recession at the end of it that started eating up the surplus. We then had a stock crash, because of the dot.com bust, or did you skip that year or two? We had much the same thing going on with banks now, where businesses did IPO's for businesses that had no line of business. People lost their shirts, but you conveniently forgot that. Our surplus was also nowhere near "the trillions" as you said. We have NEVER at any point in history had a surplus that high. Look it up, facts are readily available. Or am I being "too tedious" by directing you to facts because it contradicts your "thoughts"?

[GoS]

I hesitate to think that you honestly believe that the economic situation when Bill Clinton raised taxes is THE SAME as the economic climate today?! Do you really want to be making that claim? Again, take an econ course and we can discuss it. Until then, you are talking out of your ass and expressing meaningless opinions. To sum up your argument, Obama should #1. raise taxes, #2, increase spending to unprecedented levels as he has promised to do, #3 cut benefits as a bi-product of tax increases and the banks will suddenly stop failing and the birds will be singing and everything will be okay. This is truly the stuff of parody. I really thought you had a better grasp of the issues than this. Yes, the fair tax would work. You are correct there.


Tell me if I am not understanding you here, but you seem to think McCain continuing Bush's policies will fix this problem. How exactly would that work? If Bush's policies made this problem, then made it worse, when are they suddenly going to make it all okay again? Obama can say what he will do EXACTLY (which McCain cannot) and where he will get the money do the things we will do (again, McCain has not, probably because he cannot). McCain himself said that the fundamentals of the American economy are the workers, Obama's tax plan will give them tax CUTS where McCain will give them INCREASES. Won't that help them a bit? And Obama will raise taxes for the rich, who do not need tax cuts. The only reason McCain can say Obama will raise taxes is because McCain's taxes will be going up, a fact which does not make him happy.

[ajmccarrell]

Tell me if I am not understanding you here, but you seem to think McCain continuing Bush's policies will fix this problem. How exactly would that work? If Bush's policies made this problem, then made it worse, when are they suddenly going to make it all okay again? Obama can say what he will do EXACTLY (which McCain cannot) and where he will get the money do the things we will do (again, McCain has not, probably because he cannot). McCain himself said that the fundamentals of the American economy are the workers, Obama's tax plan will give them tax CUTS where McCain will give them INCREASES. Won't that help them a bit? And Obama will raise taxes for the rich, who do not need tax cuts. The only reason McCain can say Obama will raise taxes is because McCain's taxes will be going up, a fact which does not make him happy.

Lets' get a few things straight. #1. The president does not control the economy and a candidate can make all the promises he wants to about fixing the economy but the plain and simple truth is that they cannot. #2. They can only set tax policy, which either constricts or loosens the flow of cash. #3. I don't agree that Bush's policies did this in the first place, I'm not so stupid as to blame the president for everything that goes wrong. I didn't waste 6 years of my life in college studying business and economics to completely disregard it and assume that the president controls markets. #4. The people who control the economy are just that; the people. The economy is measured by GDP, which is the summary of all domestic spending activity. If we stop spending money, the economy tansk, if we spend money, the economy does well. That basically sums up the VERY BASIC mechanics of the economy. #5. The problem we are having is because of personal greed on the part of both homebuyers and of lenders, as well as lax regulation that allowed mortgages to be traded as securities. Here's how this worked step by step: a. lenders found ways to get people loans that otherwise should not have had them such as jumbo loans 0 down financing, etc, b. stupid consumers who could not budget signed on the dotted line without considering the consequences, c. this continued for the last 15 years and started a housing supply shortage to the point where housing prices were bid up to ridiculous levels and appreciation was at historic levels, d. banks started buying these mortgages and trading them on the markets as investments which set up chain reactions of profits everywhere, e. as people started running out of money because their low introductory rates expired, the banks started calling the loans and prices fell, as there were no longer enough qualified buyers who were willing to pay inflated prices and housing values fell dramatically, f. the banks had to suddenly start coming up with the cash for the loans that were defaulted on while their assets (the homes themselves) were now worth pennies on the dollar and the banks started collapsing because they no longer had enough in assets to secure their liabilities. This was a complete market problem and a failure of the banking regulations. The president is not solely responsible, but this bonanza started long before Bush was even president. It took 15 years to happen.

I have continually cited here and elsewhere that Obama cannot even begin to pay for his plans. For one, there is a diminishing returns effect on any tax increase, because business slows down. Raising taxes on the segment he plans to will make life harder for everyone else, because tax increases on any segment are passed down to the next few tax brackets by way of higher prices and lost opportunity. If you look up a term called "price elasticity" you will see that taxes play into this as well. A tax increase put on any segment is then passed along to the poorer brackets by way of higher prices. Conversely, when you cut taxes, people are more likely to invest and create jobs. Obama really needs a basic econ course. Everything he has suggested would make today seem like the good 'ol days. Simply raising taxes and closing loopholes will only work, "Ceteris paribus" meaning all things remaining equal. However, because of the inherent inefficiencies we see in the medicare system, the same thing will happen to the Obama health care system. One major reason why health care costs are so high is because Medicare is willing to pay $200 for a foam pad and $80 for a metal cane, as suppliers know they can charge whatever they want to because the government won't negotiate. This is a very basic function of supply and demand. If Obama had his way, his $150 Billion dollar health care plan would rise exponentially, because it increases the demand curve, while doing nothing to stifle price increases due to increased demand. It is painfully shortsighted. In addition, raising taxes on people who are employers will increase dependancy on the government for medical care, as employers will use the omney they are spending on your benefits to pay for their tax increases. The costs will then continue to rise and instead of 40 million in uninsured, we would see maybe 100 million uninsured and taxes would have to go up yet again to pay for it and the cycle gets worse, or we increase deficit spending and the national debt to pay for it, which lowers the value of the dollar and imports (since most of the manufacturing companies are already gone, or will leave after the tax hikes) will be vastly more expensive and the cost of living will rise further. We will then be in a full fledged depression and not just a recession. Anyway, this is a lot to digest, so if you have more questions, feel free to ask. In short, you would be living on "hope & change" and you might have to eat it too.

One last note, a fundamental fact is that I have never been hired by a poor person. By making the rich pay more in taxes, you chase companies overseas where taxes are lower, as well as limit opportunities for raises and new jobs. I have worked for businesses who were put under by their tax burdens, as well as another that went to Mexico because of government regulation and high taxes. Being an accountant, I'm a little closer to the subject than your average person. McCain will not raise taxes and never said he would. He has a strong record on taxes. A good few years or so studying taxes in economics courses, as well as about ten years of work experience at a level to know the consequences of tax policy, raising taxes on one segment always raises the taxes on another because consumers always foot the bill. That nifty tax cut Obama would give you would be eaten up in higher prices and higher costs due to his tax increases on the brackets above you. But, I guess it's nice to see a middle class tax cut, however it won't mean much when you don't have a job.

[shackin'up]

Stop the international interferences and you guys can pay for everything the USA needs. A decent healthplan to start with.

[GoS]

Stop the international interferences and you guys can pay for everything the USA needs. A decent healthplan to start with.

Exactly. We need to fix ourselves at home before we can even think of anything else. And at this point,if McCain got his way and we went to war with Russia, who would we send?

[ajmccarrell]

Stop the international interferences and you guys can pay for everything the USA needs. A decent healthplan to start with.

I partially agree. I think we spend a ridiculous amount in foreign aid, however part of the problem with health care IS the governmental interference. Vendors can charge whatever they want to because Medicare will pay for it, which is one of the largest reasons why supplies are so expensive. Secondly, we have the most restrictive regulation on drugs in the world, which makes drugmaking extremely expensive, thirdly we need caps on lawsuits. Fixing all of those would fix our health care problems. Government run health care hasn't worked anywhere. Our system USED to work before the government got to it.

[ajmccarrell]

Exactly. We need to fix ourselves at home before we can even think of anything else. And at this point,if McCain got his way and we went to war with Russia, who would we send?

He said last night on 60 Minutes that he didn't want a war with Russia. The NATO treaty mandates "response" from all allies which isn't the same as war. This idea doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, so I guess it's beyond the democrats.

[shackin'up]

Our system USED to work before the government got to it.

No it didn't. It only worked for the upperclass, and you know it. But I guess that's the way you want it.

[ajmccarrell]

No it didn't. It only worked for the upperclass, and you know it. But I guess that's the way you want it.

This is just pathetic. Do you have anything to support your point of view? I'd like EVERYONE to be rich, thank you. I don't need you telling me how I feel.

[shackin'up]

Government run health care hasn't worked anywhere.

You should visit Scandinavia and The Netherlands, dude. You just don't know what you're assessing here.

[ajmccarrell]

You should visit Scandinavia and The Netherlands, dude. You just don't know what you're assessing here.

My old boss came from the Netherlands, he didn't think it worked either, and he even supports Obama. I guess it depends on what your definition of "works" is. From what he said, there were a lot of derelicts and druggies over there because no one has to work if they don't want to and he said the system there perpetuated this kind of thing. He thought we got much better care over here and that the work or starve idea propelled people to be more productive here. :]

[shackin'up]

My old boss came from the Netherlands, he didn't think it worked either, and he even supports Obama. I guess it depends on what your definition of "works" is. From what he said, there were a lot of derelicts and druggies over there because no one has to work if they don't want to and he said the system there perpetuated this kind of thing. He thought we got much better care over here and that the work or starve idea propelled people to be more productive here. :]

OK. Your old boss is right. The mentioned countries have worldwide acknowledged healthplans, but your boss is the one you listen to. Sleep well.

[ajmccarrell]

OK. Your old boss is right. The mentioned countries have worldwide acknowledged healthplans, but your boss is the one you listen to. Sleep well.

It wasn't that long ago that Cuba seemed to be the bees knees with American liberals for their health care plan because of Michael Moore's "Sicko". The world also puts their faith in the UN, so just because the rest of the world likes something, it's usually a pretty good indication that I should have a healthy suspicion of it. I will research it though and see what it's all about.

[GoS]

He said last night on 60 Minutes that he didn't want a war with Russia. The NATO treaty mandates "response" from all allies which isn't the same as war. This idea doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, so I guess it's beyond the democrats.

He has said countless times one thing and later said/done the opposite. When he said that he did not want war he meant not this moment. Compare the McCain 2000 voting record vs the McCain 2008 ideas for an example.

[ajmccarrell]

He has said countless times one thing and later said/done the opposite. When he said that he did not want war he meant not this moment. Compare the McCain 2000 voting record vs the McCain 2008 ideas for an example.

Name one thing where he's said something and done the opposite. One thing people usually say about McCain is that he's consistent if nothing else.

[rubytuesday]

Government run health care hasn't worked anywhere.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

care to back that up? I know some people in america want public health and some are against it but your statement is absolutely ridiculous. America is the only wealthy country without government health isn't it? Does that mean that every other country has a collapsed health system?

[ajmccarrell]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

care to back that up? I know some people in america want public health and some are against it but your statement is absolutely ridiculous. America is the only wealthy country without government health isn't it? Does that mean that every other country has a collapsed health system?

I didn't say collapsed, but they often do have inferior care in that there are longer waits, you get one level of care, etc. Not that it doesn't work at all. We do actually have government health in a variety of ways and it caused problems. In my state, Washington, our ER's are clogged with welfare recipients with runny noses and real emergencies have to wait. I had a temperature of over 105 back in March and I had to wait in the ER for 5 hours to get treated. Had I just gone to my neighborhood clinic, I could have gotten right in. The ER is government mandated, whereas my neighborhood clinic is market based. Our laws here are written in such a way that no ER can refuse someone on welfare, so they just go into the ER whenever there is a problem and it's gotten to the point where the hospitals are financially strained because of the load the government has put on them. Plus, insurance costs are ridiculous here because of government mandates. We have something very close to socialized health care here and it is broken beyond belief. Other states are not nearly this bad. We also have medicaid on the federal level and suppliers rip the government off because the process is too big and cumbersome for proper oversight. We would be a lot better off with some serious health care reform here certainly, but a government takeover would compound the problems.

[Sorceress]

Name one thing where he's said something and done the opposite. One thing people usually say about McCain is that he's consistent if nothing else.

Well, he co-sponsored two immigration bills in 2006 and 2007 and now says that he himself wouldn't vote for either of them. He and his staff actually coauthored the bills, but apparently the views that informed their creation are no longer politically expedient.

It's disengenous to hold McCain above the ugliness of politics, paint him as an outsider, or pretend he's not a part of the demonized "elite". He may have been a maverick at one point and wasn't afraid to work with whomever needed to get things done, but this election has proven that he can abandon principles as fast as needed to win over the Right.

[ajmccarrell]

Well, he co-sponsored two immigration bills in 2006 and 2007 and now says that he himself wouldn't vote for either of them. He and his staff actually coauthored the bills, but apparently the views that informed their creation are no longer politically expedient.

It's disengenous to hold McCain above the ugliness of politics, paint him as an outsider, or pretend he's not a part of the demonized "elite". He may have been a maverick at one point and wasn't afraid to work with whomever needed to get things done, but this election has proven that he can abandon principles as fast as needed to win over the Right.

That's a bit of an oversimplication. The bills ended up becoming something other than what he had originally intended. I mean, look up any bill, I just looked up the housing rescue today and there were about 100 amendments attached to it. I'm sure McCain's immigration bills were no different.

[rubytuesday]

I didn't say collapsed, but they often do have inferior care in that there are longer waits, you get one level of care, etc. Not that it doesn't work at all. We do actually have government health in a variety of ways and it caused problems. In my state, Washington, our ER's are clogged with welfare recipients with runny noses and real emergencies have to wait. I had a temperature of over 105 back in March and I had to wait in the ER for 5 hours to get treated. Had I just gone to my neighborhood clinic, I could have gotten right in. The ER is government mandated, whereas my neighborhood clinic is market based. Our laws here are written in such a way that no ER can refuse someone on welfare, so they just go into the ER whenever there is a problem and it's gotten to the point where the hospitals are financially strained because of the load the government has put on them. Plus, insurance costs are ridiculous here because of government mandates. We have something very close to socialized health care here and it is broken beyond belief. Other states are not nearly this bad. We also have medicaid on the federal level and suppliers rip the government off because the process is too big and cumbersome for proper oversight. We would be a lot better off with some serious health care reform here certainly, but a government takeover would compound the problems.

how does any of that back up the statement that "Government run health care hasn't worked anywhere"? The statement is just pure fiction.

[ajmccarrell]

how does any of that back up the statement that "Government run health care hasn't worked anywhere"? The statement is just pure fiction.

How about rephrasing. Government run health care is not as efficient as free market healthcare. I don't think it works quite as well, and most Canadians would agree with me. :thumbsup: Everything I said above explains why it won't work here.
Here's a great article by Walter E. Williams, the head of the Economics Department at George Mason University on the subject and he is exactly right:

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/07/25/health_care_government_vs_private
Yet another great article on the subject:

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/02/14/do_we_want_socialized_medicine

Yet another great one
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/freehealthcare.html

A great movie about Canadian brain surgery

http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/brainsurgery.html

A great article on how single payer health care can lead to loss of liberty:
http://www.voiceofthetimes.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1011&Itemid=2&cid=0&ei=ml_7R8jUDovcywTh6fzvDA&usg=AFrqEzfEm4rPo83QstFI_WFAM2sjpplAyQ

A great article with nice figures explaining why this is a bad idea:

http://www.zianet.com/nmiri/e_free_healthcare_072804.htm

[Sorceress]

That's a bit of an oversimplication. The bills ended up becoming something other than what he had originally intended. I mean, look up any bill, I just looked up the housing rescue today and there were about 100 amendments attached to it. I'm sure McCain's immigration bills were no different.

You requested an example of a switch-up. I provided one. Please don't dismiss it based on an erroneous assumption.

Actually, the bills proposed such things as amnesty and increasing the number of people allowed to immigrate legally. Now he is saying that his primary focus is to seal the borders. It's quite a turn-around, really.

Don't believe everything you hear, and don't assume that just because he's a Republican, he's faultless. McCain was never the darling of the Right. He used to be, in fact, the darling of the press. Now he participates in the disingenuous media bashing, ditches his unpopular moderate views, and chooses a VP even he must know is unqualified--all in an attempt to pander to the Right. He thinks he can't win without the Evangelicals and the Neo-Cons. It's sad to watch him lose integrity in order to satisfy his personal ambition.

[ajmccarrell]

You requested an example of a switch-up. I provided one. Please don't dismiss it based on an erroneous assumption.

Actually, the bills proposed such things as amnesty and increasing the number of people allowed to immigrate legally. Now he is saying that his primary focus is to seal the borders. It's quite a turn-around, really.

Don't believe everything you hear, and don't assume that just because he's a Republican, he's faultless. McCain was never the darling of the Right. He used to be, in fact, the darling of the press. Now he participates in the disingenuous media bashing, ditches his unpopular moderate views, and chooses a VP even he must know is unqualified--all in an attempt to pander to the Right. He thinks he can't win without the Evangelicals and the Neo-Cons. It's sad to watch him lose integrity in order to satisfy his personal ambition.

It was never an amnesty bill. It came with stiff penalties and other measures to punish those who remained. He always said he planned on sealing the border too. Don't give me that.
He was never a moderate, the media just liked to play it up when he disagreed with his party. If you look at his voting record, he has a conservative record of 82%, whereas uberconservative Fred Thompson has an 86%. He always was a conservative. He was just more fun than the rest.

Palin actually has executive experience, as does McCain when he commanded the country's largest Navy battalion. Obama and Biden have zip. Palin has a wee bit more experience than Obama does. Obama has been running for president the entire time he's been in the Senate and has logged 144 days. Palin actually went to work for Alaska and has something of a record to run on, such as reforming her party and cleaning house. She also oversaw a state budget of 10 Billion and managed 12,000 employees. Obama has run his Senate office staff. His own boss when he was a community organizer said that Obama accomplished little to nothing. Obama has very minor accomplishments and even tried to lie last night on 60 minutes when he said he and McCain had the same amount of executive experience, despite McCain running a Navy Battalion. He actually said that running a campaign qualified him to be president. :lol: David Axelrod runs his campaign. I don't know why the Obama/Biden ticket isn't reversed.
I don't believe McCain is faultless, he admits his own imperfections, I just think he'll screw things up a lot less than Obama would. Obama, on the other hand, plays up on the idea he's some sort of change messiah, when he's really just a skilled politician old-school Chicago style and utterly helpless without a teleprompter. McCain is smart enough to know when he doesn't have the answers and needs to ask for help. Obama is arrogant enough to think that he knows it all.

[GoS]

Name one thing where he's said something and done the opposite. One thing people usually say about McCain is that he's consistent if nothing else.

I invite you to read John Kerry's speech at the DNC he went into depth on the subject. McCain has done or said things that he previously/later called stupid.

Here is an excerpt of Kerry's Speech
I have known and been friends with John McCain for almost 22 years. But every day now I learn something new about candidate McCain. To those who still believe in the myth of a maverick instead of the reality of a politician, I say, let’s compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain.

Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain’s own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you’re against it.

The full thing is here (http://www.demconvention.com/john-kerry/)

[Sorceress]

It was never an amnesty bill. It came with stiff penalties and other measures to punish those who remained. He always said he planned on sealing the border too. Don't give me that.
He was never a moderate, the media just liked to play it up when he disagreed with his party. If you look at his voting record, he has a conservative record of 82%, whereas uberconservative Fred Thompson has an 86%. He always was a conservative. He was just more fun than the rest.



I have close personal experience with the immigration bill, and I know what was in it. You're mischaracterizing McCain's position, which was widely criticized by the Right at the time, which he has had refocus in order to gain their favor.

I'm not sure where you got the 82% Conservative record, but look at the trend in his voting.

From FactCheck.org: "According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001)." I believe he has voted with Bush's explicitly supported bills 100% of the time in 2008.

I guess he can still call himself a maverick if he wants to, but only in the sense that he's been voting with W when Americans clearly don't approve of what he's doing.

[strandinthewind]

That anyone suggests McCain will do anything other than what the RNC wants him to do is either ignorant of history or ignorant of how the R party works.

Also, Palin - she's just so trustworthy isn't she :rolleyes: Actually, I see her as an opportunistic c*nt who also uses Christianity in a way that sickens me. Anyone who thinks this "woman" will not also stab them in the back or that she is not pushing a clearly pentacostal agenda for her own benefit and with lies is not wanting to face the facts as illustrated in this expose - read it and judge for yourself:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/23/palin/print.html

Mean girl

Sarah Palin has a way of using "old boys" -- then dumping them when they become inconvenient.

By David Talbot

Sep. 23, 2008

Before Sarah Palin decided to run for the Wasilla mayor's office in 1996 against incumbent John Stein, the Palins and Steins were friends. John Stein had helped launch Palin's political career, mentoring the hockey mom during her 1994 run for City Council, along with veteran council member Nick Carney. Stein's wife, Karen Marie, went to aerobics classes with Palin.

But when she announced her candidacy for Stein's seat, vowing to overturn the city's "old boy" establishment, a different Sarah Palin emerged. "Things got very ugly," recalled Naomi Tigner, a friend of the Steins. "Sarah became very mean-spirited."

The Wasilla mayor's seat is nonpartisan, and Mayor Stein, a former city planner who had held the post for nine years, ran a businesslike campaign that stressed his experience and competency. But Palin ignited the traditionally low-key race with scorching social issues, injecting "God, guns and abortion into the race -- things that had nothing to do with being mayor of a small town," according to Tigner.

Palin's mayoral campaign rode the wave of conservative, evangelical fervor that was sweeping Alaska in the '90s. Suddenly candidates' social values, not their ability to manage the roads and sewer systems, were dominating the debate. "Sarah and I were both Republicans, but this was an entirely new slant to local politics -- much more aggressive than anything I'd ever seen," said Stein, looking back at the election that put Palin on the political map.

There was a knife-sharp, personal edge to Palin's campaign that many locals found disturbing, particularly because of the warm relationship between Palin and Stein before the race.

"I called Sarah's campaign for mayor the end of the age of innocence in Wasilla," said Carney.

Even though Palin knew that Stein is a Protestant Christian, from a Pennsylvania Dutch background, her campaign began circulating the word that she would be "Wasilla's first Christian mayor." Some of Stein's supporters interpreted this as an attempt to portray Stein as Jewish in the heavily evangelical community. Stein himself, an eminently reasonable and reflective man, thinks "they were redefining Christianity to mean born-agains."

The Palin campaign also started another vicious whisper campaign, spreading the word that Stein and his wife -- who had chosen to keep her own last name when they were married -- were not legally wed. Again, Palin knew the truth, Stein said, but chose to muddy the waters. "We actually had to produce our marriage certificate," recalled Stein, whose wife died of breast cancer in 2005 without ever reconciling with Palin.

"I had a hand in creating Sarah, but in the end she blew me out of the water," Stein said, sounding more wearily ironic than bitter. "Sarah's on a mission, she's an opportunist."

According to some political observers in Alaska, this pattern -- exploiting "old-boy" mentors and then turning against them for her own advantage -- defines Sarah Palin's rise to power. Again and again, Palin has charmed powerful political patrons, and then rejected them when it suited her purposes. She has crafted a public image as a clean politics reformer, but in truth, she has only blown the whistle on political corruption when it was expedient for her to do so. Above all, Palin is a dynamo of ambition, shrewdly maneuvering her way through the notoriously compromised world of Alaska politics, making and breaking alliances along the way.

"When Palin takes credit for knocking off the old-boy network in Alaska, it drives me crazy," said Andrew Halcro, an Anchorage businessman and radio talk show host who ran against her in the 2006 GOP primary race for governor. "Sarah certainly availed herself of that network whenever it was expedient."

With its frontier political infrastructure and its geyser of oil money, Alaska has become as notorious as a third-world petro-kingdom. In recent years, scandal has seeped throughout the state's political circles -- and at the center of this widening spill is Alaska's powerful patronage king, Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, and wealthy oil contractor Bill Allen.

Despite Palin's reform reputation, she has maintained a delicate relationship with Stevens over the years -- courting his endorsement for governor, then distancing herself after his 2007 federal indictment on corruption charges, and then cozying up again when it appeared he might survive politically. As for Allen -- the former oil roughneck whose North Slope wealth has greased many a palm in Alaska -- Palin found nothing wrong with his money when she ran for lieutenant governor in 2002.

But once a powerful patron becomes a major liability, Palin is quick to jettison him. Alaska state Rep. Victor Kohring, another key Palin supporter during her political rise in Mat-Su Valley, found this out after he became a victim of the FBI's oil corruption sting operation. Kohring, who used to accompany Palin on her campaign jaunts, angrily points out that he was abandoned by his fellow Christian conservative before he even went to trial. The former Alaska legislator, who now resides in the Taft minimum security prison outside Bakersfield, Calif., communicated his views of Palin through his friend, Fred James. Kohring, said James, feels "betrayed" by Palin.

"After Vic's indictment, she didn't give him the time of day," said James. "She never went to him personally and asked if the charges were true. This is a man who helped her get started in government. She turned her back on him well before he even went on trial. Vic resents the hell out of that. He thinks she's an opportunist, pure and simple. She saw how the press were moving on Vic, and even before he had his day in court, she called on him to resign his office. He regarded that as a great insult, a personal betrayal."

Palin's reputation as a reformer stems primarily from her headline-grabbing ouster of state GOP chairman Randy Ruedrich from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for flagrant conflict-of-interest abuses. At the time, Palin was heralded in the press as a whistle-blower, but it was later revealed that she was guilty of the same charge that she had brought against Ruedrich -- using state office equipment for partisan political business. (While still mayor of Wasilla, she sent out campaign fundraising appeals from her office during her race for lieutenant governor.)

Others suspect that Palin had self-serving reasons for taking on Ruedrich and resigning her seat on the commission. The state energy panel had ignited a public firestorm in Palin's home base, Mat-Su Valley, by secretly leasing sub-surface drilling rights on thousands of residential lots to a Colorado-based gas producer. Outraged farmers and homeowners, who woke up one morning to find drilling equipment being hauled onto their land, were in open revolt against the commission. While Palin initially supported the leasing plan, she was shrewd enough to realize it was political suicide to alienate conservative property owners in her own district. According to some accounts, she was also growing tired of commuting to state offices in Anchorage and poring over dry, tedious technical manuals for her job. All in all, it seemed like the right move to jump ship -- and going out a hero was an added plus.

"Sarah quit the commission to make political hay," Halcro asserted.

In the end, Ruedrich admitted wrongdoing and settled the ethics case by paying $12,000 in civil fines. But Palin did not drive the well-connected Republican operative into exile. In fact, he remains the party's state chairman and he could be seen on the floor of the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., hugging the newly crowned vice-presidential candidate and cheering her feisty speech against greedy old boys like, well, him.

"The idea that Sarah shook up the state's old-boy network is one big fantasy, it's complete bull****," Halcro said. "She got all this public acclaim for throwing people who backed her under the bus -- but she only did it after they became expendable, when she no longer needed them.

"The good old boys in Alaska are still the good old boys -- they're alive and kicking. Randy is still running the Republican Party -- he wasn't happy about being turned into a national poster boy for corruption, but he went along with the program. Ted Stevens is still running for reelection. And [scandal-tainted Alaska Rep.] Don Young is, too. So where's the new era of change that Palin supposedly brought to Alaska?"

[strandinthewind]

Here's more of the same from Time:

Tuesday, Sep. 02, 2008

Mayor Palin: A Rough Record

By Nathan Thornburgh / Wasilla, Alaska

John McCain was clear about why he picked half-term Alaska governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate. "I found someone with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies," he said in introducing her in Dayton, Ohio, on Friday. Palin was someone, he noted, "who reached across the aisle and asked Republicans, Democrats and independents to serve in government."

It is a powerful reinforcement of McCain's own political brand: tough, reform-minded, willing to break with his own party for the right cause. And it's true that her high-profile crusade against corruption and complacency in her own state party over the past few years has made Palin the Frank Serpico of Alaska politics: she publicly ratted out her state party chairman; whupped the good old boys' network, as she likes to put it, in a gubernatorial primary; and fought a general election in which the scandal-stained state GOP didn't lift a finger on her behalf. She won only because she had the enthusiastic backing of independents and grass-roots activists.

But in the first major race of her career — the 1996 campaign for mayor of her hometown, Wasilla — Palin was a far more conventional politician. In fact, according to some who were involved in that fight, Palin was a highly polarizing political figure who brought partisan politics and hot-button social issues like abortion and gun control into a mayoral race that had traditionally been contested like a friendly intramural contest among neighbors.

In the early '90s, Wasilla was little more than half as big as it is today, and much more loosely confederated. The main issue then, says longtime resident Chas St. George, was public safety. "We needed a police department," he says. "So we set up a group to make it happen." That group — Watch on Wasilla — included a handful of the town's most influential figures: St. George; the town's mayor, John Stein; and Palin, who wasn't in elected office yet. Her father-in-law Jim Palin and his wife Faye were also in the group.

Eventually, they started a police department, led by chief Irl Stambaugh. Kaylene Johnson, author of Sarah, a Palin biography published earlier this year, says one place where the power group met was a step-aerobics class that Stambaugh and Stein took along with Palin. That class signed the original petition for Palin's first political race, for city council in 1992, which she won.

Four years later, she took on her former workout buddy in a race that quickly became contentious. In Stein's view, Palin's main transgression was injecting big-time politics into a small-town local race. "It was always a nonpartisan job," he says. "But with her, the state GOP came in and started affecting the race." While Palin often describes that race as having been a fight against the old boys' club, Stein says she made sure the campaign hinged on issues like gun owners' rights and her opposition to abortion (Stein is pro-choice). "It got to the extent that — I don't remember who it was now — but some national antiabortion outfit sent little pink cards to voters in Wasilla endorsing her," he says.

Vicki Naegele was the managing editor of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman at the time. "[Stein] figured he was just going to run your average, friendly small-town race," she recalls, "but it turned into something much different than that." Naegele held the same conservative Christian beliefs as Palin but didn't think they had any place in local politics.

"I just thought, That's ridiculous, she should concentrate on roads, not abortion," says Naegele.

St. George worked on Stein's campaign at the time, and while he says he has no reason to dispute Stein's recollection of events, he doesn't remember Palin's conduct being beyond the pale. "Our tax coffers were starting to grow," he says. "John was for expanding services, and Sarah wasn't. That's what the race was about."

One thing all sides agree on is that the valley was in flux. The old libertarian pioneer ethos was giving way to a rising Christian conservatism. By shrewdly invoking issues that mattered to the ascendant majority, Palin won the mayor's race. But while she may have been a new face, says Naegele, she was no maverick — not yet. "The state party gave her the mechanism to get into that office," says Naegele. "As soon as she was confident enough to brush them off, she did. But she wasn't an outsider to start with. She very much had to kowtow to them."

Governing was no less contentious than campaigning, at least to begin with. Palin ended up dismissing almost all the city department heads who had been loyal to Stein, including a few who had been instrumental in getting her into politics to begin with. Some saw it as a betrayal. Stambaugh, the police chief and a member of Palin's step-aerobics class, filed a lawsuit for wrongful termination, alleging that Palin terminated him in part at the behest of the National Rifle Association, because he had opposed a concealed-gun law that the NRA supported. He eventually lost the suit. The animosity spawned some talk of a recall attempt, but eventually Palin's opponents in the city council opted for a more conciliatory route.

At some point in those fractious first days, Palin told the department heads they needed her permission to talk to reporters. "She put a gag order on those people, something that you'd expect to find in the big city, not here," says Naegele. "She flew in there like a big-city gal, which she's not. It was a strange time, and [the [ITALIC "Frontiersman"]] came out very harshly against her."

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

St. George, however, points out that Palin couldn't have seen everything through an Evangelical lens. She did, he says, notably resist calls to restrict operating hours for the bars in town. And even if faith did play an unusually large role in her decision-making as mayor, it may have only reflected the continued rise of Evangelicalism in the valley, a growth that continues to this day.

"We like to call this the Bible Belt of Alaska," says Cheryl Metiva, head of the local chamber of commerce. Churches proliferate in Wasilla today, and among the largest and most influential is the Wasilla Bible Church, where the Palins worship.

At the 11:15 a.m. Sunday service, hundreds sit in folding chairs, listening to a 20-minute sermon about the Book of Malachi and singing along to alt-rock praise songs. The only sign of culture warring in the whole production is an insert in the day's program advertising an upcoming Focus on the Family conference on homosexuality in Anchorage called Love Won Out. The group promises to teach attendees how to "respond to misinformation in our culture" and help them "overcome" homosexuality.

When Palin, who went on to win re-election by a landslide, was forced out of the Mayor's office by term limits in 2002, her husband Todd's stepmother Faye Palin ran for mayor. She did not, however, get Sarah Palin's endorsement. A couple of people told me that they thought abortion was the reason for Palin not supporting her family member — Faye, they say, is pro-choice, not to mention a Democrat. A former city council member recalls that it was a heated race, mainly because of right-to-life issues: "People were writing BABYKILLER on Faye's campaign signs just a few days before the election." Faye Palin lost the race to the candidate that Sarah backed, Dianne Keller, who is still mayor of Wasilla. (Over the weekend, Faye Palin told the New York Daily News that she liked listening to Barack Obama speak and that she wasn't sure who she would vote for in November.)

By the time Sarah Palin was entering state politics, the hottest issue in Alaska wasn't gay marriage or even abortion. It was corruption and cronyism. Andrew Halcro, a noted Palin critic who ran against her as an independent in the governor's race, says she knew instinctively that the issues were changing. Plus, he says, her opponents, such as incumbent governor Frank Murkowski, whom she defeated in the primary, were just as hard-right on abortion and guns as she was.

She needed a new political identity to make it to the next level, so ethics reform became her calling card. "She's a very savvy politician," says Halcro. "So wedge issues were not part of the portfolio."

"If anything," he says, "she got tired of answering questions about them." Halcro recalls one debate in October 2006 in which, after repeated questions about her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest, she looked at the moderator with exasperation and asked if they were going to talk about anything besides abortion. It was detracting from her new message: cleaning up the capitol.

Nor has Palin made social issues the cornerstone of her governorship. When a parental consent law was struck down by Alaska's highest court in 2007, Palin called the decision "outrageous" but refused calls from conservatives to remedy the defeat by introducing antiabortion legislation in a session that was supposed to be about drilling rights.

Wearing her faith quietly fits more with Palin's personality, says St. George. "In all the years I've known Sarah and her parents, we never talked about right-to-life or any of that," he says. "She doesn't let those issues get in the way of getting things done for the community."

In the end, her political journey from banner-waving GOP social conservative to maverick reformer may simply be about good timing. It's what former journalist Bill McAllister, who now works for Palin's press staff, used to call "Sarah-dipity" — that uncanny gift of knowing exactly what voters are looking for at a particular moment. And, of course, the political will to give them what they want.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

[Zombie]

I didn't say collapsed, but they often do have inferior care in that there are longer waits, you get one level of care, etc. Not that it doesn't work at all. We do actually have government health in a variety of ways and it caused problems. In my state, Washington, our ER's are clogged with welfare recipients with runny noses and real emergencies have to wait. I had a temperature of over 105 back in March and I had to wait in the ER for 5 hours to get treated. Had I just gone to my neighborhood clinic, I could have gotten right in. The ER is government mandated, whereas my neighborhood clinic is market based. Our laws here are written in such a way that no ER can refuse someone on welfare, so they just go into the ER whenever there is a problem and it's gotten to the point where the hospitals are financially strained because of the load the government has put on them. Plus, insurance costs are ridiculous here because of government mandates. We have something very close to socialized health care here and it is broken beyond belief. Other states are not nearly this bad. We also have medicaid on the federal level and suppliers rip the government off because the process is too big and cumbersome for proper oversight. We would be a lot better off with some serious health care reform here certainly, but a government takeover would compound the problems.

We do need serious healthcare reform, but I'm certainly not sure a government takeover would make the problems <i>worse</i>. We've got to do <i>something</i>, because it's already awful, and as you said, we'd be better off with some serious change.

The rich are taken care of because they can afford to pay. The welfare recipients aren't as well taken care of as the rich are, but they do get care via the government medical programs. It might not always be the BEST care, but they do get it.

The problem with our current system is that the people that suffer most are the working poor, and the middle class. These are people that make slightly too much to get gov't help, but not enough to pay for insurance on their own.

I would venture a guess that a lot of those people in the ER waiting room with you were not actually welfare recipients, but the working poor - those with no insurance at all.

The costs of a doctor visit are prohibitive if you do not have insurance. People with no insurance can't afford preventative care, so when they do get sick, they end up having to wait and see if it gets better, and if it doesn't, then they have to go to the ER because it's the only choice they've got - the ER can't turn you away. And by the time they get there, perhaps whatever problem they had to begin with has gotten so much worse that the stakes are upped and they require more intervention than they might've if they could have just seen a regular doctor 2 weeks before to get an antibiotic.

In our failure to ensure that these people have the means to keep themselves well, we only manage to collectively shoot ourselves in the foot. The working poor are the backbone of the country - these are the people that bag your groceries, make your restaurant food, clean your office building, run the checkout lane at Target, assemble things in factories, and serve lunch in your child's cafeteria. We rely on these people for so many things, but we do not make sure they are healthy enough to do them. Even worse, we punish them when they do get sick - a week or even a day off of work at a job like those mentioned above can sink you financially when you live paycheck to paycheck, and that's without taking into account the fact that you might lose that job entirely for being gone anyway.

If one of the causes of the staggeringly high healthcare costs is the number of people on gov't assistance, then I think it would make sense to make sure that we prevent people from ending up in a situation where they NEED that welfare - like, say, the checkout girl with bronchitis that couldn't afford a doctor visit to get help before it got really bad, ended up missing a week of work because she couldn't breathe, subsequently lost her job, and ended up on the dole...or worse.

And yes, there is a "worse" - the pack of jackals that I call my children and I live with the catastrophic consequences of American healthcare in its current incarnation every day, and I know we are not alone - the stories might differ, but the message is the same: if you can't afford to pay for a doctor, then you don't count. You don't matter. You're not worth it.

We've put healthcare in the same category of luxury items like yachts and private jets and Escalades, and it sets up its own little version of the Mason-Dixon line - if you've got the money, then you deserve medical care, but if you don't have the money, then you shouldn't have been so stupid as to go and get yourself some cancer in the first place, dumbass. It essentially turns the US government into the mother of all suburban housewives, scolding, "THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!" should any of its offspring be so careless as to break a limb without being able to afford to get the bone reset. We are setting a finite dollar amount on the value of a life, and letting millions of Americans know that they just don't stack up.

People in countries with socialized medicine may have to wait for their care when it comes to certain procedures, but at least they know they'll get it at some point, that they're considered worth it. And even if you're absolutely convinced (erroneously or otherwise) that the socialized medicine systems of other countries are no good, there's nothing saying we can't devise a program that <i>does</i> "work" whether it's similar to what they do <i>or</i> completely different. We (theoretically) have the monetary resources, so why not attempt to correct the problem by finding a solution that benefits EVERYONE?

The system we have now has done nothing more than create sick people that can't afford to get sick, but can't afford to get well, either - and really, when all is said and done, what does it say about us as both a nation and as human beings that something so basic as health can be described as a "luxury"?

[strandinthewind]

. . . the pack of jackals that I call my children . . . .

Okay - I just laughed out loud!!!!

Also, here is Obama's Health Care plan http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/. It is not anything close to socialized medicine.

[Zombie]

Okay - I just laughed out loud!!!!

Also, here is Obama's Health Care plan http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/. It is not anything close to socialized medicine.

It's funny cos it's true. ;)

Obama's plan is interesting - I am curious to see how it would actually play out.

[Sorceress]

Here's an interesting opinion piece by Sam Harris from this week's Newsweek:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080

When Atheists Attack
A noted provocateur rips Sarah Palin—and defends elitism.

Let me confess that I was genuinely unnerved by Sarah Palin's performance at the Republican convention. Given her audience and the needs of the moment, I believe Governor Palin's speech was the most effective political communication I have ever witnessed. Here, finally, was a performer who—being maternal, wounded, righteous and sexy—could stride past the frontal cortex of every American and plant a three-inch heel directly on that limbic circuit that ceaselessly intones "God and country." If anyone could make Christian theocracy smell like apple pie, Sarah Palin could.

Then came Palin's first television interview with Charles Gibson. I was relieved to discover, as many were, that Palin's luster can be much diminished by the absence of a teleprompter. Still, the problem she poses to our political process is now much bigger than she is. Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism. However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride, upon the camera operator who happened to capture her fall, upon the television network that broadcast the good lady's misfortune—and, above all, upon the "liberal elites" with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.

The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth's surface (she didn't have a passport until last year), or that she's never met a foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a straight-faced claim that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia gave her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a perfectly wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American success story—but she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled into small-town politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling into, or upon, world history.
The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn't: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events. Needless to say, she shares this belief with mil-lions of Americans—but we shouldn't be eager to give these people our nuclear codes, either. There is no question that if President McCain chokes on a spare rib and Palin becomes the first woman president, she and her supporters will believe that God, in all his majesty and wisdom, has brought it to pass. Why would God give Sarah Palin a job she isn't ready for? He wouldn't. Everything happens for a reason. Palin seems perfectly willing to stake the welfare of our country—even the welfare of our species—as collateral in her own personal journey of faith. Of course, McCain has made the same unconscionable wager on his personal journey to the White House.

In speaking before her church about her son going to war in Iraq, Palin urged the congregation to pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God; that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan." When asked about these remarks in her interview with Gibson, Palin successfully dodged the issue of her religious beliefs by claiming that she had been merely echoing the words of Abraham Lincoln. The New York Times later dubbed her response "absurd." It was worse than absurd; it was a lie calculated to conceal the true character of her religious infatuations. Every detail that has emerged about Palin's life in Alaska suggests that she is as devout and literal-minded in her Christian dogmatism as any man or woman in the land. Given her long affiliation with the Assemblies of God church, Palin very likely believes that Biblical prophecy is an infallible guide to future events and that we are living in the "end times." Which is to say she very likely thinks that human history will soon unravel in a foreordained cataclysm of war and bad weather. Undoubtedly Palin believes that this will be a good thing—as all true Christians will be lifted bodily into the sky to make merry with Jesus, while all nonbelievers, Jews, Methodists and other rabble will be punished for eternity in a lake of fire. Like many Pentecostals, Palin may even imagine that she and her fellow parishioners enjoy the power of prophecy themselves. Otherwise, what could she have meant when declaring to her congregation that "God's going to tell you what is going on, and what is going to go on, and you guys are going to have that within you"?

You can learn something about a person by the company she keeps. In the churches where Palin has worshiped for decades, parishioners enjoy "baptism in the Holy Spirit," "miraculous healings" and "the gift of tongues." Invariably, they offer astonishingly irrational accounts of this behavior and of its significance for the entire cosmos. Palin's spiritual colleagues describe themselves as part of "the final generation," engaged in "spiritual warfare" to purge the earth of "demonic strongholds." Palin has spent her entire adult life immersed in this apocalyptic hysteria. Ask yourself: Is it a good idea to place the most powerful military on earth at her disposal? Do we actually want our leaders thinking about the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy when it comes time to say to the Iranians, or to the North Koreans, or to the Pakistanis, or to the Russians or to the Chinese: "All options remain on the table"?

It is easy to see what many people, women especially, admire about Sarah Palin. Here is a mother of five who can see the bright side of having a child with Down syndrome and still find the time and energy to govern the state of Alaska. But we cannot ignore the fact that Palin's impressive family further testifies to her dogmatic religious beliefs. Many writers have noted the many shades of conservative hypocrisy on view here: when Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, it is considered a symptom of liberal decadence and the breakdown of family values; in the case of one of Palin's daughters, however, teen pregnancy gets reinterpreted as a sign of immaculate, small-town fecundity. And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who "intends" to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of "the dysfunction in the black community"?

Teen pregnancy is a misfortune, plain and simple. At best, it represents bad luck (both for the mother and for the child); at worst, as in the Palins' case, it is a symptom of religious dogmatism. Governor Palin opposes sex education in schools on religious grounds. She has also fought vigorously for a "parental consent law" in the state of Alaska, seeking full parental dominion over the reproductive decisions of minors. We know, therefore, that Palin believes that she should be the one to decide whether her daughter carries her baby to term. Based on her stated position, we know that she would deny her daughter an abortion even if she had been raped. One can be forgiven for doubting whether Bristol Palin had all the advantages of 21st-century family planning—or, indeed, of the 21st century.

We have endured eight years of an administration that seemed touched by religious ideology. Bush's claim to Bob Woodward that he consulted a "higher Father" before going to war in Iraq got many of us sitting upright, before our attention wandered again to less ethereal signs of his incompetence. For all my concern about Bush's religious beliefs, and about his merely average grasp of terrestrial reality, I have never once thought that he was an over-the-brink, Rapture-ready extremist. Palin seems as though she might be the real McCoy. With the McCain team leading her around like a pet pony between now and Election Day, she can be expected to conceal her religious extremism until it is too late to do anything about it. Her supporters know that while she cannot afford to "talk the talk" between now and Nov. 4, if elected, she can be trusted to "walk the walk" until the Day of Judgment.

What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:

"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"

"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."

"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."

"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."
The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery. Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

I believe that with the nomination of Sarah Palin for the vice presidency, the silliness of our politics has finally put our nation at risk. The world is growing more complex—and dangerous—with each passing hour, and our position within it growing more precarious. Should she become president, Palin seems capable of enacting policies so detached from the common interests of humanity, and from empirical reality, as to unite the entire world against us. When asked why she is qualified to shoulder more responsibility than any person has held in human history, Palin cites her refusal to hesitate. "You can't blink," she told Gibson repeatedly, as though this were a primordial truth of wise governance. Let us hope that a President Palin would blink, again and again, while more thoughtful people decide the fate of civilization.

*I added the bold type to emphasize what I find so disturbing about this woman and the half of America that thinks she'll be just peachy as VP.

[strandinthewind]

It's funny cos it's true. ;)

Obama's plan is interesting - I am curious to see how it would actually play out.

Well, now that everything as gone to hell in a handbasket thanks to W's administration, I do not see how we can afford to do anything. I mean a trillion for the unneeded war, a trillion to bail out the markets that the admin. turned a blind eye to and that became far less regulated thanks mainly to the R's in 1999, etc. What scares me the most is if we deregulate health care. Perhaps we'll just pay for that R mess with lives instead of trillions, though paying with both is likely.

[strandinthewind]

. . . I believe that with the nomination of Sarah Palin for the vice presidency, the silliness of our politics has finally put our nation at risk. The world is growing more complex—and dangerous—with each passing hour, and our position within it growing more precarious. Should she become president, Palin seems capable of enacting policies so detached from the common interests of humanity, and from empirical reality, as to unite the entire world against us. When asked why she is qualified to shoulder more responsibility than any person has held in human history, Palin cites her refusal to hesitate. "You can't blink," she told Gibson repeatedly, as though this were a primordial truth of wise governance. Let us hope that a President Palin would blink, again and again, while more thoughtful people decide the fate of civilization.


I agree with this. I get that Obama has little experience, but the experience he has is better. Palin ran a relatively unpopulated state for a very short time period. Her implying that she knows about Russia's complicated political dealings because you (not really her mind you) can see Russia from certain parts of Alaska (has she been to any one them?) - defies believe that. How does the ability to see maybe a few miles of frozen Russia tundra qualify her to deal with Russia or any other country on a national and international level? The answer is it does not. Anyone who says differently is deluded unless they can come up with some intelligent link there :shrug: Conversely, Obama has been on four Senate Committees including:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Clearly his Senate tenure (which is two years longer than Palin's stint as Gov., which began in 06) qualifies him, at the least, more than the statement regarding seeing Russia from some part of Alaska :shrug: The fact that he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004 also qualifies him way more than Palin on promulgating law in the United States.

But, people will blindly defend Palin for the reasons asserts in the article and/or they actually believe that McCain's tax cuts are going to see the light of day (note Greenspan already said we cannot afford the tax cuts without significant cuts in spending. How are these significant cuts in spending to happen when we are likely to spend initially a trillion dollars on these bailouts? Moreover, if McCain's tax cuts see the light of day, it is more than likely that any amount saved in the tax cuts will lost by the taxes, which is exactly what happened to W's tax cuts, which BTW McCain called immoral because we were going to war, but is now for even though we are still at war :rolleyes:

[David]

Her implying that she knows about Russia's complicated political dealings because you (not really her mind you) can see Russia from certain parts of Alaska (has she been to any one them?) - defies believe that. How does the ability to see maybe a few miles of frozen Russia tundra qualify her to deal with Russia or any other country on a national and international level? The answer is it does not. The answer is definitely it does not. But that island arc is one of the most seismically active regions on Earth, & generates surging tsunamis once a year or more.

[strandinthewind]

. . . But that island arc is one of the most seismically active regions on Earth, & generates surging tsunamis once a year or more.

I know. I was fairly close to it in 05 and was a little unnerved with that knowledge, esp. considering the huge cruise ship was rocking and swaying the whole time in normal water :eek:

[strandinthewind]

Palin press may boycott UN conference

Kenneth P. Vogel

NEW YORK – Journalists, displeased with Sarah Palin’s efforts to restrict their access to her, are threatening not to cover her events surrounding the United Nations conference here unless they're allowed more access.

The unfolding boycott is the latest development in a rocky relationship between Palin’s handlers and the press, in which the campaign has sought to tightly control her interactions with the media.

The campaign had originally indicated that the print reporters following her campaign would be among the small group of journalists allowed to attend the so-called “pool sprays” before Palin’s meetings with dignitaries on the sidelines of the U.N. meetings.

The sprays are basically glorified photo opportunities during which journalists can snap photos and film footage and – if they’re lucky – shout a question or two at Palin and her company before she adjourns for private meetings. On Tuesday, those meetings were to include Afghan President Karzai and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

But the imbroglio began developing Tuesday morning when Palin’s handlers informed the small print press contingent covering her campaign that the print reporter designated to cover the events, Elizabeth Holmes of the Wall Street Journal, would not be allowed to cover the sprays.

The campaign’s reasoning was that there were not going to be questions or statements at the sprays, so they were only appropriate for photographers and cameramen.

The campaign also at first moved to bar CNN, the television network designated for pool duty, from sending its editorial producer – basically a hybrid print/video journalist – though the campaign budged when the network threatened to withhold its cameras as well.

With Palin’s first meeting set to begin at noon, that leaves the print reporters on the outs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080923/pl_politico/13783&printer=1;_ylt=AjIEDNOQsydK1_jI1QzfjzfCw5R4

________________________________________________________

Waht is the big deal? She wants to lead the free world (just an expression) and she can't field one or two questions from the press during her introduction to foreign dignitaries and, therefore, political foreigners in general on a national scale (all a month and half before the election mind you) ?

[David]

I know. I was fairly close to it in 05 and was a little unnerved with that knowledge, esp. considering the huge cruise ship was rocking and swaying the whole time in normal water :eek:The only thing you'd have to worry about on a cruise ship would be a storm (with wind-driven wave activity).

I think Governor Palin reminds me of Paula Prentiss. Or maybe Jill St. John.

[strandinthewind]

The only thing you'd have to worry about on a cruise ship would be a storm (with wind-driven wave activity).

It was so bad that at times my cocktail kept falling over :eek:

I think Governor Palin reminds me of Paula Prentiss. Or maybe Jill St. John.

Exactly!!!!!!!!

[Zombie]

Thank you for posting that, Sorceress. Mr. Harris is absolutely right. We really want to elect someone like this as vice president? Reason over faith, people! Reason over faith!

Whenever I think of her, I am reminded of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34CGPY6QhDE">this</a> and I would not be surprised to find out she thinks highly of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind">good ol' Dr. Dino</a>.

Sigh.


Well, now that everything as gone to hell in a handbasket thanks to W's administration, I do not see how we can afford to do anything. I mean a trillion for the unneeded war, a trillion to bail out the markets that the admin. turned a blind eye to and that became far less regulated thanks mainly to the R's in 1999, etc. What scares me the most is if we deregulate health care. Perhaps we'll just pay for that R mess with lives instead of trillions, though paying with both is likely.

If we deregulate healthcare, then we might as well all hang up our hats. I have a feeling everything is going to get worse before it gets better, but I would like to see someone try to pull something like that off anyway.

[Sorceress]

Reason over faith, people! Reason over faith!



Or even reason AND faith. Palin is beyond reason. Even the midwestern Lutherans and the Methodists and the reasonable people of any faith or denomination should be very afraid of this woman ever becoming president.

Oh, and that Hovind guy is a trip. Wow.

[Sorceress]

I agree with this. I get that Obama has little experience, but the experience he has is better. Palin ran a relatively unpopulated state for a very short time period. Her implying that she knows about Russia's complicated political dealings because you (not really her mind you) can see Russia from certain parts of Alaska (has she been to any one them?) - defies believe that. How does the ability to see maybe a few miles of frozen Russia tundra qualify her to deal with Russia or any other country on a national and international level? The answer is it does not. Anyone who says differently is deluded unless they can come up with some intelligent link there :shrug: Conversely, Obama has been on four Senate Committees including:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Clearly his Senate tenure (which is two years longer than Palin's stint as Gov., which began in 06) qualifies him, at the least, more than the statement regarding seeing Russia from some part of Alaska :shrug: The fact that he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004 also qualifies him way more than Palin on promulgating law in the United States.

But, people will blindly defend Palin for the reasons asserts in the article and/or they actually believe that McCain's tax cuts are going to see the light of day (note Greenspan already said we cannot afford the tax cuts without significant cuts in spending. How are these significant cuts in spending to happen when we are likely to spend initially a trillion dollars on these bailouts? Moreover, if McCain's tax cuts see the light of day, it is more than likely that any amount saved in the tax cuts will lost by the taxes, which is exactly what happened to W's tax cuts, which BTW McCain called immoral because we were going to war, but is now for even though we are still at war :rolleyes:

Thank you for clearly explaining the difference in experience. It's important for people not to be distracted by the Republican spin on the topic.

And you're right about the bailout sapping all the money for much of what both candidates are promising. How this all turns out should be very interesting.

[estranged4life]

Even the midwestern Lutherans and the Methodists and the reasonable people of any faith or denomination should be very afraid of this woman ever becoming president.

who are indeed reasonable people. When I read about the Methodists, Of course I am reminded of a great line from the movie "A River Runs Through It":

"Methodists - Baptists who can read".

Brian "Branson - Las Vegas for people without teeth" j.

[strandinthewind]

Thank you for clearly explaining the difference in experience. It's important for people not to be distracted by the Republican spin on the topic.

And you're right about the bailout sapping all the money for much of what both candidates are promising. How this all turns out should be very interesting.

To be fair, she also was the commander in chief of the 4,00o or so member Alaskan National Guard for a year or so, which is something. However, to my knowledge, nothing significant happened during that time period that required using the guard on any large scale that would have required her oversight (think Katrina) - Also, much of the Alaskan National Guard was deployed in Iraq and the Middle East. In any event:

Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin "extremely responsive and smart" and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.

But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.
_______________________________________________________

So, the argument that being the "Commander in Chief" of the Alaskan National Guard is of, at best, limited value on the national stage.

Here is a cool opt ed setting forth the R spin. I think people should read it and judge for themselves whether any of the reasons set forth by the R's overwhelmingly make Palin more qualified than Obama's Senatecommittee experience, his history as a Constitutional teacher, his Harvard Law degree, etc. Moreover, Obama has a family as well. So, that rather makes Palin's "I raised a family" argument moot or or very limited comparative value when equating raising a family to running the nation :shrug:

In sum, Obama's four years in the Senate seemingly are of greater value than the reasons asserted by the R's in favor of Palin.

Alaska National Guard General: Palin Plays No Role In National Defense Activities Even When They Involve The Alaska National Guard

TED ANTHONY | August 31, 2008 04:56 PM EST |

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Wait, now, say the Republicans. You think that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin lacks experience? You think that at 44, with less than two years running the nation's northernmost state, she doesn't have what it takes yet to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

Pshaw.

What about the fact that she stood up to embattled Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens? What about her oversight of her state's National Guard contingent? Her experience as a mother? And, hey _ what about the fact that she runs a state that happens to be very close to Russia?

Each of these characteristics has been cited by a Republican since Friday as an ingredient in John McCain's conclusion that Palin is qualified to become vice president of the United States.

"She has experience not only in politics but in life," former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee said Sunday on CNN.

None of this suggests that Sarah Palin is not a skilled, competent, multitalented public servant. But it means that, in the face of fierce Democratic assertions that she is too green to be elevated to vice president, the GOP is looking for whatever it can to show that's not the case and to bolster her credentials, particularly in national security.

And in some cases, the responses from Republicans who showed up on the Sunday morning talk-show circuit to promote Palin's qualifications are unexpected, to say the least.

Thompson: "She's a mother of five children. ... And she has more experience than Barack Obama."

Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina: "Governor Palin took on Ted Stevens. If she can take him on, she can take on the Russians." Stevens, a Republican senator, is facing corruption charges and running for re-election.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty: "Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard." The state's Guard has about 4,000 members.

From McCain's wife, Cindy, came a geographic assessment of qualification: "Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia. So, it's not as if she doesn't understand what's at stake here."

What these traits say about Palin's ability to serve as vice president or, in an emergency, as president is not entirely clear. But the flurry of comments by leading Republicans hint at a flood-the-zone strategy when it comes to Palin, whose gender, Christian faith and conservative chops infused a lively crackle into John McCain's campaign during the weekend between the two national conventions.

The GOP has also implied that Democratic reactions to Palin's selection are sexist, particularly since, they contend, her time as Alaska's governor gives her the edge over Barack Obama in executive experience. Obama, 47, has spent almost 12 years in office, all of it as a lawmaker _ eight years as an Illinois state senator and nearly four as a U.S. senator. Palin's total is 12 _ she spent 10 as a city council member and mayor, and nearly two as governor.

"If they want to go down that route, in all candor, she has far more experience than Senator Obama does," McCain said Sunday in St. Louis.

Democrats insist sexism isn't at play. "It's not the woman issue at all," former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota said Sunday on CNN. "There are a lot of other Republican women who could have filled this role if that is what he was looking for" _ such as Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," saw a kindred spirit in Palin's experience as mayor, despite the fact that her town, Wasilla, has about 7,000 people and his had nearly 8 million when 9/11 happened.

"Maybe it's my own background as a mayor and United States attorney, but this whole idea of executive experience to me would really qualify her," Giuliani said. He dismissed questions about the size of the town she ran. "You know why? She had to make decisions. All Sen. Obama has had to do is talk. That's all he does."

Some of the comments seemed a bit non-sequitur. Russia, for example.

Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin "extremely responsive and smart" and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.

But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.

Stephen C. Donehoo, managing director of Kissinger McLarty Associates in Washington, and former military intelligence officer specializing in Latin America:

"No doubt the campaign staff have her hooked up to a fire hose on foreign policy issues," said Stephen C. Donehoo, managing director of Kissinger McLarty Associates in Washington and a former military intelligence officer.

"No doubt they fear a debate with Joe Biden that touches foreign affairs," Donehoo said. "My guess is Graham and (Joe) Lieberman are doing a lot of tutoring."

Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota appears to have no such worries, given what he considers to be Obama's lack of experience.

"The president sets the tone," Coleman said. "The experience issue is on the other side. The No. 1 guy there is the guy without the experience."

Contributing to this report were AP writers Tom Raum, Jim Kuhnhenn, Glen Johnson and Nestor Ikeda in St. Paul and Anne Sutton in Juneau, Alaska.

____________________________________________

and another:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-guard6-2008sep06,0,4238012.story

Sarah Palin as Alaska National Guard commander
The job involves important managerial responsibilities but provides little, if any, foreign policy experience, military officials say.

By Julian E. Barnes
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 6, 2008

WASHINGTON — Seeking to buttress the foreign policy credentials of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Republicans have repeatedly cited the vice presidential nominee's experience as commander of the Alaska National Guard.

As governor, Palin oversees military units whose duties include serving overseas, search-and-rescue missions across the state's vast landscape and manning key elements of the U.S. missile defense system at Ft. Greely.

But foreign deployments of Guard units and the operation of national defense assets like the Ft. Greely missile interceptors are not the responsibility of state governors. Those functions come under the regular U.S. military chain of command.

Commanding the Alaska National Guard is hardly an insignificant job, military officials say. Still, they acknowledge that it provides little, if any, foreign policy experience.

Overseeing a state Guard is a "chief executive role" with real management responsibilities, said Mark Allen, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau, the federal office that coordinates state National Guards.

"I don't think people should think it is a casual relationship, or is like the king putting on the medals," Allen said. "It is not that at all. But the role of the governor is to use the Guard to help the citizens of a state, as opposed to declaring war on a neighboring state."

The Alaska National Guard is unusual in that its jobs include manning part of the U.S. missile defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion works on interceptor missiles designed to shoot down intercontinental missiles.

Members of the Alaska National Guard also were deployed to Iraq, and Palin visited their unit in July 2007. The McCain campaign has pointed to that experience as an example of Palin's foreign policy background.

"She's been the commander of Alaska's National Guard, who's been deployed overseas," Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman, said on CNN in one of several recent references to Palin's gubernatorial responsibility for the Guard. "That's foreign policy experience."

Since governors have no role in overseeing Guard members federalized for service in Iraq, military experts said that should not count as foreign policy experience.

National Guard officials said visits such as Palin's trip to Iraq may be important because state officials can lobby the federal government for better training and more equipment if they are needed. There is no indication that during her trip Palin found major problems with how the Alaska Guard was trained or equipped.

Closer to home, the bread-and-butter duties of most state National Guards are natural disasters. During Palin's 21 months in office, there has been one declared disaster: widespread flooding in June and July this year. Palin quickly signed a disaster declaration, officials said. The Guard's role was limited to providing two water tanks and 30,000 sandbags to local authorities.

The Alaska Air National Guard, with 1,946 service members, is involved in an exceptional number of search-and-rescue missions. Since Palin became governor in December 2006, the Air Guard has flown 521 missions, saving 200 lives and assisting with the rescue of 77 more people, said Kalei Brooks, a spokeswoman for the Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.

"Our rescue squadron is the busiest in the nation," she said.

In recent years, the department has overseen a reorganization of the 1,900-member Army National Guard. Following a U.S. Army restructuring plan, officials have helped assign soldiers to new units.

But training requirements for Guard units are established not by governors, but by the Army, the Air Force and the National Guard Bureau.

"That requirement comes down from the United States Army and Air Force," Allen said. "But that training and that equipment become very important when they are needed within the states."

[Zombie]

Or even reason AND faith. Palin is beyond reason. Even the midwestern Lutherans and the Methodists and the reasonable people of any faith or denomination should be very afraid of this woman ever becoming president.

Oh, and that Hovind guy is a trip. Wow.

Well, as long as the "faith" part doesn't cancel out the "reason" part entirely, I'm fine. I say "reason over faith" because the reason has to come first to avoid ridiculous situations like electing a Young Earther as vice president, potentially putting her in a position where she may one day have access to the button that launches the nukes.

And yes, Hovind is very...special. He's another Young Earther, and he's got a lot of people that think he's right. He believes man walked with the dinosaurs and that pterodactyls are still alive and well and buzzing around in the skies over Papau New Guinea.

And we want to elect someone with similar views to the vice presidency? I despair. We can do better. We <i>must</i> do better.

[Sorceress]

Well, as long as the "faith" part doesn't cancel out the "reason" part entirely, I'm fine.

Right. I think we're on the same page.

[strandinthewind]

Right. I think we're on the same page.

See, there's the rub. I am all for people having faith. I think most of the different churches have done great things in moving people to live better lives, administering to the sick and poor, and other good deeds. I say kudos to them for that. I am not really talking about those people when I am talking about some right wing nutcase like Palin apparently is. I mean I can see this chick actually thinking God wants her to push the button.

[Zombie]

See, there's the rub. I am all for people having faith. I think most of the different churches have done great things in moving people to live better lives, administering to the sick and poor, and other good deeds. I say kudos to them for that. I am not really talking about those people when I am talking about some right wing nutcase like Palin apparently is. I mean I can see this chick actually thinking God wants her to push the button.

Her thinking God wants her to push the button is a very good example faith coming before reason. That's not something we need, regardless of our various religious beliefs or lack thereof.

I'm fine with religious folks as long as they don't bother me with it or bother those with a different flavor of religion with it. Do what you want, whatever floats your boat, etc, just keep it off my lawn, and I will kindly keep my lack of belief off yours. And then we're all happy and fine.

But the possibility of a wackadoo like Palin hearing a voice she thinks is God telling her to push the button scares the bejesus out of this here atheist, and should also scare the bejesus out of anyone else with half a brain, regardless of religious affiliation.

No matter how religious people are, and no matter how secure they feel in the veracity of their various faiths - do they really want to put someone in office that may hear voices telling her to do things that would cause catastrophic disaster for the entire planet?

Sure, hearing voices might be evidence of deities, but it's more likely that it's evidence of mental illness, or even more likely than <i>that</i>, evidence of someone capitalizing on the tendency of the population to accept that the "still small voice" is real, and using it to further destructive agendas.

If I say I hear a transmission from space vibrating through my fillings that tells me to knock over a gas station, you'd think I'm crazy and throw me in the nut hatch, and rightly so. But if I say Jesus talks to me and tells me he wants Alaska to have a pipeline, this is somehow less worrisome, and I don't think it should be.

[BombaySapphire3]

But the possibility of a wackadoo like Palin hearing a voice she thinks is God telling her to push the button scares the bejesus out of this here atheist, and should also scare the bejesus out of anyone else with half a brain, regardless of religious affiliation.

No matter how religious people are, and no matter how secure they feel in the veracity of their various faiths - do they really want to put someone in office that may hear voices telling her to do things that would cause catastrophic disaster for the entire planet?

Sure, hearing voices might be evidence of deities, but it's more likely that it's evidence of mental illness, or even more likely than <i>that</i>, evidence of someone capitalizing on the tendency of the population to accept that the "still small voice" is real, and using it to further destructive agendas.


This is exactly why I keep wanting to pinch myself and say this woman cannot be real.John McCain whom I once admired could not have made this ominous choice. In the year 2008 in America she could not become President with the failure of the health of a 72 year old 4 time cancer survivor.I am just stunned that many more people are not as alarmed as we are.Particularly in light of all that has happened in the last decade in the name of religious fundamentalism.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Particularly in light of all that has happened in the last decade in the name of religious fundamentalism.

I think most Americans support the religious fundamentalism, at least to the degree that they think it will not affect them because they are Christians of some nature.

[Zombie]

I think most Americans support the religious fundamentalism, at least to the degree that they think it will not affect them because they are Christians of some nature.

Unfortunately, I think this is true.

The American voting public is prone to voting based on kneejerk reactions to certain words like "abortion" and "separation of church and state," or childish things like who has better hair. Throw the word "Jesus" into the mix and everyone immediately shuts down and says, well, that's a good choice - if she likes Jesus, she must be a-okay, because I like Jesus and I am a-okay.

They're <i>wrong</i>to think that just because they are also Christian, they are "safe," though, because they aren't all going to be subscribing to the same version, and each denomination has a habit of thinking it's the right one and everyone else is wrong. They are just as bad off as those of us non-Christians may end up...and they may even be worse off because they won't have seen it coming like we do.

[Zombie]

This is exactly why I keep wanting to pinch myself and say this woman cannot be real.John McCain whom I once admired could not have made this ominous choice. In the year 2008 in America she could not become President with the failure of the health of a 72 year old 4 time cancer survivor.I am just stunned that many more people are not as alarmed as we are.Particularly in light of all that has happened in the last decade in the name of religious fundamentalism.

I hear ya. I keep wanting to run out and grab McCain and shake him while saying, "Why you do dis to me, Dimmy? Why?"

He is not a stupid man - in fact, he is far from it. I am certain that the reason behind adding YoungEarthy McMooseKiller over there to the ticket was because he knows he's a bit lacking in the charisma department and that she would pique the interest of the Great Unwashed. Whatever else Palin is, you can't deny she gives good speech, and McCain is not overly skilled in that department, no matter how bright he is.

Of course, once you take the teleprompter away, she chokes, but that can be controlled to a certain extent. If she can keep it together long enough to not get annihilated in the debates AND McCain wins, she'll have served her purpose and I imagine he'll promptly shove her in a room somewhere with a few shiny toys to keep her occupied and leave her there.

That being said, I am not willing to chance it, so I cannot in good conscience vote for McCain now with Senora Psychopath on the ticket. Same thing in regards to his age or health - while he probably won't kark it in office, I just can't take the chance. And that makes me sad, yo.

I'm not stunned that more people aren't alarmed like we are, because I am a professional Surly Bitch, and while I find the depths of human stupidity to be fascinating, I am rarely surprised by it. We're real busy in Pakistan right now, but how many Americans know what's happening? Not many. We're all much more concerned about where Palin gets her hair done. Oh boy, oh boy.

[GoS]

They're <i>wrong</i>to think that just because they are also Christian, they are "safe," though, because they aren't all going to be subscribing to the same version, and each denomination has a habit of thinking it's the right one and everyone else is wrong. They are just as bad off as those of us non-Christians may end up...and they may even be worse off because they won't have seen it coming like we do.

I would say that in many cases, they are less safe. I am not saying anything about all Christians or all Christian politicians, but it has been my experience that a portion of politicians with religions that have very rigid views on how life should be lived mix their beliefs and their political stances.

Again, I am not saying this is always true or true for everyone, I am just making an observation. If some one puts their personal beliefs on top of what is best for the country, the fine line between religion and political positions might maybe sometimes be crossed. And we, as Americans, cannot let anyone, Republican or Democrat, pass a law that was motivated more by the church than by what will be best for America, that was what we were founded on.

I attend a Catholic church and am not trying to make a generalization or offend anyone, so please don't call me names on that account.

[Zombie]

I would say that in many cases, they are less safe. I am not saying anything about all Christians or all Christian politicians, but it has been my experience that a portion of politicians with religions that have very rigid views on how life should be lived mix their beliefs and their political stances.

Again, I am not saying this is always true or true for everyone, I am just making an observation. If some one puts their personal beliefs on top of what is best for the country, the fine line between religion and political positions might maybe sometimes be crossed. And we, as Americans, cannot let anyone, Republican or Democrat, pass a law that was motivated more by the church than by what will be best for America, that was what we were founded on.

I attend a Catholic church and am not trying to make a generalization or offend anyone, so please don't call me names on that account.

I'm not going to call you names. We need more people like you that are willing and able to recognize the importance of putting the welfare of all of us as a nation before our individual religious beliefs and practices. So bravo to you, my friend. Bravo to you. :xoxo:

[GoS]

I'm not going to call you names. We need more people like you that are willing and able to recognize the importance of putting the welfare of all of us as a nation before our individual religious beliefs and practices. So bravo to you, my friend. Bravo to you. :xoxo:

Thank you. And we need people like Obama who understand that we can feel one way but realize what is best for the country (I think he said that abortion was morally wrong but the alternative would be very bad).

[Sorceress]

And we, as Americans, cannot let anyone, Republican or Democrat, pass a law that was motivated more by the church than by what will be best for America, that was what we were founded on.

I attend a Catholic church and am not trying to make a generalization or offend anyone, so please don't call me names on that account.

No, I won't call you names either! You brought up an important reason why fundamentalists should not be in charge--They believe that the dictates of their religious beliefs ARE what's best for America.

[gypsysoul]

An American friend has put this opinion piece on my website. If you like it or agree with it (or dislike it and disagree) feel free to comment on that site or here and I'll pass it on.
I know she'd love to have feedback (what ever the opinion)

http://www.assetsworld.com/assetsblog/?p=647

[ajmccarrell]

This is exactly why I keep wanting to pinch myself and say this woman cannot be real.John McCain whom I once admired could not have made this ominous choice. In the year 2008 in America she could not become President with the failure of the health of a 72 year old 4 time cancer survivor.I am just stunned that many more people are not as alarmed as we are.Particularly in light of all that has happened in the last decade in the name of religious fundamentalism.

That could be that most American actually attend churches that aren't that much different from this and don't believe that reason has been replaced by faith. The two are not exclusory. :laugh:

[ajmccarrell]

No, I won't call you names either! You brought up an important reason why fundamentalists should not be in charge--They believe that the dictates of their religious beliefs ARE what's best for America.

Can you find anyone who actually said this that actually holds a public high office? No, because no one has. It's a xenophobic remark by someone who is afraid of religious people. As far as you are concerned, there is no distiction between your local church and the Taliban. According to people who think like you, fundamentalists are waiting in the wings with suicide bombs to take out abortion clinics and are waiting for Jesus to return to do it. I see faith (on your part) replacing reason here.

[GoS]

Can you find anyone who actually said this that actually holds a public high office? No, because no one has. It's a xenophobic remark by someone who is afraid of religious people. As far as you are concerned, there is no distiction between your local church and the Taliban. According to people who think like you, fundamentalists are waiting in the wings with suicide bombs to take out abortion clinics and are waiting for Jesus to return to do it. I see faith (on your part) replacing reason here.

Actually, that is what we call "extremists." And why do many hard-core republicans oppose gay marriage, not because they feel that allowing it would destroy america, because the Church said so.

[ajmccarrell]

Actually, that is what we call "extremists." And why do many hard-core republicans oppose gay marriage, not because they feel that allowing it would destroy america, because the Church said so.

That statement isn't true. Most of the evangelicals I know believe gay marriage would destroy America because they believe it would weaken the family, which causes crime, etc. I do agree that the view is misguided, as marriage is already weakened by other cultural forces much more powerful than gay marriage. Also, statistics don't bear the view out, as children of gay marriages are not more likely to commit crimes, however they do report lower levels of happiness and contentment. To me gay marriage is irrelavent because I don't think that the government has any business in relationships one way or the other. The evangelical argument is that government has a vested interest in the success of marriage because stable families are more likely to rear children that are law abiding citizens. I disagree with that point, but calling that view "extreme" IS extreme, IMO. Certainly there are SOME who hold the view you describe as much as there might be some on the left who hold views, like Nancy Pelosi has admitted, where they believe that redistribution was mandated by Jesus, which I think also misstates Jesus' actual teachings. The basic point is that evangelicals do want what they think is best for America. My view is that Jesus never commanded government to do anything, but commanded us to do things individually.

BTW thank you for having a respectful debate with me.

[GoS]

That statement isn't true. Most of the evangelicals I know believe gay marriage would destroy America because they believe it would weaken the family, which causes crime, etc. I do agree that the view is misguided, as marriage is already weakened by other cultural forces much more powerful than gay marriage. Also, statistics don't bear the view out, as children of gay marriages are not more likely to commit crimes, however they do report lower levels of happiness and contentment. To me gay marriage is irrelavent because I don't think that the government has any business in relationships one way or the other. The evangelical argument is that government has a vested interest in the success of marriage because stable families are more likely to rear children that are law abiding citizens. I disagree with that point, but calling that view "extreme" IS extreme, IMO. Certainly there are SOME who hold the view you describe as much as there might be some on the left who hold views, like Nancy Pelosi has admitted, where they believe that redistribution was mandated by Jesus, which I think also misstates Jesus' actual teachings. The basic point is that evangelicals do want what they think is best for America. My view is that Jesus never commanded government to do anything, but commanded us to do things individually.



I completely agree that Jesus never commanded the government to to anything, and that he told us how we should live. It is also true that government has no business interfering here; this is just as personal a decision as religion or political party. I may not like the way you live, but I have no place telling you who to marry, what to believe, what music to like etc. I certainly am not saying that everyone who is Christian, and is against gay marriage is only like that because they have been told that by the Church. I just do not think that it is fair to say there is not a relation between church and party (I can only imagine what what percentage of certain religions like Christianity must be Republican, and there are religions that lean to the left). The values associated with the Republican party line up more closely with those of the Christian church, some of those people can back up their beliefs with facts (like you) and others cannot, which is what I have a problem with.

BTW thank you for having a respectful debate with me.

Well we can't have a respectful debate unless both sides are doing so :thumbsup:!

[Zombie]

That could be that most American actually attend churches that aren't that much different from this and don't believe that reason has been replaced by faith. The two are not exclusory. :laugh:

I agree that the two are certainly not mutually exclusive but I have to tack "to a degree" onto the end of it.

If faith itself is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence for things unseen" (Heb.11:1), then certain aspects of all religions end up inherently not based in reason - for the essence of reason is based in the search for truth utilizing rational means, regardless of the destination that search leads us to.

So, for our purposes, the ability of reason and faith to remain mutually exclusive in regards to government rests on the ability of people to rationally examine what's going on and to be capable of discerning what's best for us as a whole as opposed to what's best for us as compartmentalized, separate individuals or small groups.

I may personally think Palin's religious proclivities are frackin' goofy, and Palin may think I'm going to burn forever in a fiery pit or whatever, but that's fine. What I worry about is our leaders not being able to set aside things like that in order to accomplish things that benefit ALL of us. I am not convinced that's something Palin is capable of, whether it's by direct conscious choice or just because her mental warehouse was never stocked with the tools to get that done in the first place.

And that, at base, is what alarms me most about her.

Extremism hurts everyone, even the extremists.

In fact, it's likely the extremists themselves that are hurt the most. :o

[Zombie]

The values associated with the Republican party line up more closely with those of the Christian church, some of those people can back up their beliefs with facts (like you) and others cannot, which is what I have a problem with.


That might be true now, but it wouldn't be if the GOP still embraced the tenets it originally stood for rather than saying it does without actually doing anything crazy like also <i>behaving</i> like it does. ;)

[GoS]

That might be true now, but it wouldn't be if the GOP still embraced the tenets it originally stood for rather than saying it does without actually doing anything crazy like also <i>behaving</i > like it does. ;)

As for the behaving, touché. Foley,Stevens, What-ever's-his-name-in-the-airport-bathroom, and their friends make sure of that.

As for the first part, both parties have flipped several times on who stands for what. If you remember Lincoln and the original Republicans founded the party to be anti-slavery and thus got African-American support. But how many non-white people were there when McCain gave his acceptance speech? 10? And it would be nice if eople actually did what they said that they were going to do. Bush said he was going to unite the country and all that other stuff and got basically none of it done. Fine, 911 did disrupt his first term and set a very important agenda for him, but that was not mutually exclusive with his original plans. And okay he did unite 75% or so of the country, just not on the side he had hoped for:laugh:. I'm off to watch the debate.

[Zombie]

As for the behaving, touché. Foley,Stevens, What-ever's-his-name-in-the-airport-bathroom, and their friends make sure of that.

As for the first part, both parties have flipped several times on who stands for what. If you remember Lincoln and the original Republicans founded the party to be anti-slavery and thus got African-American support. But how many non-white people were there when McCain gave his acceptance speech? 10? And it would be nice if eople actually did what they said that they were going to do. Bush said he was going to unite the country and all that other stuff and got basically none of it done. Fine, 911 did disrupt his first term and set a very important agenda for him, but that was not mutually exclusive with his original plans. And okay he did unite 75% or so of the country, just not on the side he had hoped for:laugh:. I'm off to watch the debate.

Oh, I know they've all flipped - that wasn't intended to sound like some pinko liberal slam against the GOP. I'm actually more of a Republican than anything else - just the kind of Republican that sticks closer to the days of yore - less government, fiscally conservative, blah blah.

Also off to watch the debates!

Everybody Wang Chung Tonight,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Overly Wordy Person

[Sorceress]

Can you find anyone who actually said this that actually holds a public high office? No, because no one has. It's a xenophobic remark by someone who is afraid of religious people. As far as you are concerned, there is no distiction between your local church and the Taliban. According to people who think like you, fundamentalists are waiting in the wings with suicide bombs to take out abortion clinics and are waiting for Jesus to return to do it. I see faith (on your part) replacing reason here.


An example of an elected politician using her religion to justify policy decisions that affect everyone?
I'm sure you're more familiar than you pretend to be:
Sarah Palin: "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get the gas line built, so pray for that."
Sarah Palin: (regarding the soldiers fighting in Iraq) "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."


Come on, ajm, you're being disingenuous here. Why this inflammatory post based on 1. A premise that even you must know is easily disproven
and, 2. erroneous assumptions about me and what I believe? I took the time to provide contrary evidence to your assertions earlier in the thread, yet you have nothing to say about that. You'd rather call me names and mischaracterize what I'm saying.

[Zombie]

An example of an elected politician using her religion to justify policy decisions that effect everyone?
I'm sure you're more familiar than you pretend to be:
Sarah Palin: "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get the gas line built, so pray for that."
Sarah Palin: (regarding the soldiers fighting in Iraq) "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."


Come on, ajm, you're being disingenuous here. Why this inflammatory post based on 1. A premise that even you must know is easily disproven
and, 2. erroneous assumptions about me and what I believe? I took the time to provide contrary evidence to your assertions earlier in the thread, yet you have nothing to say about that. You'd rather call me names and mischaracterize what I'm saying.

There's also the exciting video footage from her church where she talks about how Bishop Muthee, the witch hunter guy, didn't know anything about her but prayed and prayed that she'd win her spot as Governor, and look! She did! Amazing.

That's the guy that also later prayed over her to protect her from witches.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/igFiyyFTF88&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/igFiyyFTF88&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Not a major Olbermann fan, but the piece pulls from both videos and the CS Monitor piece, so it's a good summary. If those videos don't give everyone pause regardless of religious affiliation, then all hope is gone, y'all. To the Prayer Cave! :blob1: