NationStates Jolt Archive

Because, you know, every woman who voted for Hillary was joined at the hip to her and to each other, and agreed with every single issue Hillary espoused and could never even IMAGINE having *gasp* a viewpoint or 20 in common with Palin as well as with Hillary.

Sure, that's possible. You give me three issues where Clinton and Palin see eye-to-eye, I'll consider it. Just to help, those issues will probably not include: women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, government spending, the war in Iraq, environmentalism, national security, healthcare or campaign reform. But I'm sure there are lots of others where they agree.

Sure, that's possible. You give me three issues where Clinton and Palin see eye-to-eye, I'll consider it. Just to help, those issues will probably not include: women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, government spending, the war in Iraq, environmentalism, national security, healthcare or campaign reform. But I'm sure there are lots of others where they agree.

Like:

1) the sky is blue

2) water is wet

3) fire is hot

My god, it's like they're psychically linked.:D

This thread is full of people throwing boomerangs..

'Look, Barack Obama is inexperienced'...whirr whirr whirr smack

'Look, John McCain changes his mind'...whirr whirr whirr smack

'Look, Barack Obama is absent from congress'...whirr whirr whirr smack.

'Look, John McCain votes along party lines'...whirr whirr whirr smack.

That's what happens when you argue on the most pointless of subjects.

You and I don't agree about stuff, but this post deserved to be quoted by someone :)

If you think it's ONLY because she's female, then you haven't been paying attention. Clearly the conservative base love her as the VP choice because of her postions and they want her to do what she did in Alaska in Washington. You pretending otherwise is simply you plugging your ears and screaming LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!



edit: alas, it's bed time...
Well, let's think about that...

Yes, it's true, she also has the attractions to the Republican base of being an evironment-raping, civil-rights-attacking, bible-waving, education-stifling, wannabe-censor whose most outstanding political achievments to date have been to kiss-ass to the oil companies and flip-flopping on earmarks like a beached mackerel -- all of which traits are dear to the hearts of the rightwing.

However, I put it to you that she is not the only ignorant, power-abusing, gun-toting, god-botherer out there. The Republican party has plenty to choose from, most of them males and even a few females, too -- and almost every one of them has more and better professional experience than Sarah Palin.

But you know what they don't have? They don't have thick, wavy, long hair swept up in pretty hair-dos. They don't have gangs of children, including an infant, to use to shore up the mommy-cred with the media. They don't have those dangly cross earrings that symbolize how much Christ is on her mind by showing how close he is to her head. They were never beauty queens. When they stand behind McCain, they look they're waiting in line to be next in front. When Palin stands behind McCain, she looks like she is content to adore him from the background and to support him in anything because she believes in him so very much (maybe she practices that expression in the mirror, like her other tv-faces).

Sarah Palin has ZERO qualities to set her above any other potential VP candidate. But she has TONS of qualities that make her the ideal media image that the RNC wants to create. Her sex, her appearance, her personal life are ALL that matter about her to them. It's what they wanted her for. That is clear because that is all she brings to the game.

"You pretending otherwise is simply you plugging your ears and screaming LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!"

I was watching something a few minutes ago, when I heard that she hasn't made a single appearance to date since her nomination, where she hasn't had a teleprompter. Can anyone back this up?

Obama doesn't call himself Maverick, he calls himself 'change' he says we need to do something 'new.' Well how 'new' IS toeing the party line 97%?


Considering we've had 8 years of the same failed policy, and Maverick McCain is at least 90% consistent with those policies - all Obama has to do to be the 'change' candidate... is NOT be a Republican. Which he's already done.

The maverick vs., the change, different words for the same thing, they both claim to be able to reach accross party lines to accomplish tasks, but McCain has three times the actual number of attemps at not voting with his party to get things done as Obama does over the same period of time.

Whereas Obama doesn't even vote enough to get anything done if the Democratic website has any truth to it...

In researching voting records I found the following:

In the 110 Congress-the most recent congressional record

Obama missed 39% of his votes
Clinton missed 28% of her votes

Both too high but looks like Obama is campaigning much more than he is doing his job. No wonder he is doing so well. Wonder what kind of president that would make?

2/28/08 On the Cloture Motion H.R. 3221
Obama didn't even vote on this bill for energy independence
Obama voting record: Moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation. Cloture Motion Rejected (48-46, 3/5 majority required) Not Voting-Senator Obama

On the Cloture Motion S. 2634
A bill to require a report setting forth the global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Cloture Motion Agreed to (89-3, 3/5 majority required) Not Voting-Senator Obama
We are supporting someone because he speaks well and creates energy.But above where words actually moves into action you can see part of Obamas record. There is no action only words that makes everyone feel good.
But at least he's popular.
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/brendakrause/CpvR

Looks to me like Obama doesn't do much Senatoring at all, even as far back as last spring, the date of that link...

'Not casting a vote' can be the right thing to do, too....

I'm not calling Obama a Liar, Obama his insinuating that McCain is a liar, and others here are flat out calling McCAin dishonest for calling himself a Maverick. The entire issue is essentially stupid, a nickname is a nickname.

McCain is a liar.

He's now calling himself the 'change' candidate (talk about cashing in on your opponents?) despite the fact he is PART OF the current regime, and endorses almost all of it's policies.

I don't care about the rest of that stuff, but censoring books would be bad. I agree.

However, the issue isn't so clear cut as that bolded part made it sound.

"Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.

Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin. "


This is business as usual? You get into elected office, you start sending out letters to the people who vote for your enemies threatening their jobs?

Yes, you're right - it's not clear cut.

This is business as usual? You get into elected office, you start sending out letters to the people who vote for your enemies threatening their jobs?

Yes, you're right - it's not clear cut.

There's the "Normal for Norfolk" expression in England. This is "Normal for Republicans".

There's the "Normal for Norfolk" expression in England. This is "Normal for Republicans".

Next thing you know, they'll be politically firing US attorneys. Oh. Wait.

Next thing you know, they'll be politically firing US attorneys. Oh. Wait.

Y'know, if she DARED pull this crap on me I'd be making sure to turn her life into a hellish semiexistence.

This is business as usual? You get into elected office, you start sending out letters to the people who vote for your enemies threatening their jobs?

Yes, you're right - it's not clear cut.

Are you kidding? Appointed postions are like Cabinet postions, they are appointed by the person in office to help them govern. A new person in office is supposed to appoint people to the postions that will inact their campaign issues, and remove those that don't want to or can't enforce the new direction.

Are you kidding? Appointed postions are like Cabinet postions, they are appointed by the person in office to help them govern. A new person in office is supposed to appoint people to the postions that will inact their campaign issues, and remove those that don't want to or can't enforce the new direction.

If you want someone out of an appointed position, you FIRE THEM. If you don't, you DO NOT. You sure as hell DO NOT send them threatening letters to play with their minds on their fears under either, or ANY, circumstances! It's THAT SIMPLE!!!

If you want someone out of an appointed position, you FIRE THEM. If you don't, you DO NOT. You sure as hell DO NOT send them threatening letters to play with their minds on their fears! It's THAT SIMPLE!!!


Asking for everyones resignation is a relatively nice way of firing everyone. Then you are free to re-hire or re-appoint the ones you want to keep or replace the ones you don't want.

Playing with their fears? Why would anyone take a political appointed position if they are afraid of losing their jobs? Once your candidate gets replaced, and they are more than a little likely to get replaced sooner or later, you are pretty much assured to lose your position as well. A few people like Greenspan, for example, survive cabinet after cabinet change.

Are you kidding? Appointed postions are like Cabinet postions, they are appointed by the person in office to help them govern. A new person in office is supposed to appoint people to the postions that will inact their campaign issues, and remove those that don't want to or can't enforce the new direction.

Works for me.

Show me.

A new mayor (it was mayor, right?) is supposed to pressure the chief of police, public works director, finance director and the head of libraries to leave their job. Oh, and disband the position overseeing museums.

Bold assertion - should be easy to prove. I'll wait.


Of course - the source you already provided says it's not true...

Works for me.

Show me.

A new mayor (it was mayor, right?) is supposed to pressure the chief of police, public works director, finance director and the head of libraries to leave their job. Oh, and disband the position overseeing museums.

Bold assertion - should be easy to prove. I'll wait.


Of course - the source you already provided says it's not true...

Perhaps you need a course is Amercian Government, not a newspaper article.

I was watching something a few minutes ago, when I heard that she hasn't made a single appearance to date since her nomination, where she hasn't had a teleprompter. Can anyone back this up?
It is true that she is doing this.

I believe there is also talk going around, based on an isolated statement or unguarded comment from a McCain staffer or strategist, that the campaign has decided that Palin is not going to take any questions from the media that have not been approved in advance. Yes, that's right, we're not allowed to talk to her without supervision.

This is hardly surprising, considering how her first few days went. Who knows what would pop out of her mouth next if they just let her go on talking in public? And it's not as if she wasn't a last minute pick made in apparent desperation. How many speeches and talking points lists do you think they can write, or she can memorize, in such a short time?

Asking for everyones resignation is a relatively nice way of firing everyone. Then you are free to re-hire or re-appoint the ones you want to keep or replace the ones you don't want.

Playing with their fears? Why would anyone take a political appointed position if they are afraid of losing their jobs? Once your candidate gets replaced, and they are more than a little likely to get replaced sooner or later, you are pretty much assured to lose your position as well. A few people like Greenspan, for example, survive cabinet after cabinet change.

...are you ACTUALLY trying to tell someone graduated in language that there was no threatening subtext to LETTERS ASKING FOR RESIGNATION in this one case? I graduated in LANGUAGE, dammit! I know how discourse works, context, text, subtext, paratext! And you're actually trying to convince ME that the intentions here were kosher? Please!

...are you ACTUALLY trying to tell someone graduated in language that there was no threatening subtext to LETTERS ASKING FOR RESIGNATION in this one case? I graduated in LANGUAGE, dammit! I know how discourse works, context, text, subtext, paratext! And you're actually trying to convince ME that the intentions here were kosher? Please!

Sure, its a get in line or get out of my government letter. What I'm saying is that I fully expect a newly elected executive level politician to take that position. What I also said was that she didn't have to ask for resignations at all, she could have just replaced everyone immediately but apparently she didn't feel the need to do that.

Perhaps you need a course is Amercian Government, not a newspaper article.

Yeah, mayors almost always replace non-political positions such as those relating to things like libraries, especially for refusing to censor books.

Oh, wait...

Yeah, mayors almost always replace non-political positions such as those relating to things like libraries, especially for refusing to censor books.

Oh, wait...

Frequency is irrelevant. If you run a campaign of, "Run the bums out" or "root out the corruption" etc., replacing all appointed authority positions is a given.

Frequency is irrelevant. If you run a campaign of, "Run the bums out" or "root out the corruption" etc., replacing all appointed authority positions is a given.

Yeah. Damn those corrupt librarians and their Dewey Decimal System! :mad:

Frequency is irrelevant.
So if it just happens once in one place that makes it standard operating procedure all the time everywhere on your planet?

If you run a campaign of, "Run the bums out" or "root out the corruption" etc., replacing all appointed authority positions is a given.
Yeah, too bad she didn't run that kind of a campaign. She might have gotten away with it then.

Yeah. Damn those corrupt librarians and their Dewey Decimal System! :mad:

Riiiight. :rolleyes: FYI: The Librarian kept her job, she resigned years later before Palin was re-elected. Apparently she kept the position long enough to see if Palin would be re-elected (clearly she was hoping that she would get a new boss).

Yeah. Damn those corrupt librarians and their Dewey Decimal System! :mad:
More like Commie Decimal System!

Riiiight. :rolleyes: FYI: The Librarian kept her job, she resigned years later before Palin was re-elected. Apparently she kept the position long enough to see if Palin would be re-elected (clearly she was hoping that she would get a new boss).

Yeah, she only kept her job because it turned out that Palin didn't have the proper authority to fire her after all.

Doesn't change the fact that she still tried.

Riiiight. :rolleyes: FYI: The Librarian kept her job, she resigned years later before Palin was re-elected. Apparently she kept the position long enough to see if Palin would be re-elected (clearly she was hoping that she would get a new boss).
Yeah, but she only kept her job because the huge (for the size of the town) public outcry against Palin's attempt to force her out made Palin back down.

You poor person. How confusing it must be for you to live in a continuous reality, when you suffer from that handicap that makes you able to perceive and remember only one detail of it at a time.

More like Commie Decimal System!

You're so behind the times, the eternal enemy of our Orwellian war isn't Russia anymore.

It's a Terrorist Decimal System now.

Yeah, but she only kept her job because the huge (for the size of the town) public outcry against Palin's attempt to force her out made Palin back down.

You poor person. How confusing it must be for you to live in a continuous reality, when you suffer from that handicap that makes you able to perceive and remember only one detail of it at a time.

Oh, was it the outcry? I remember reading about there being an outcry, but that she eventually backed down because of a lack of authority, or something.

Perhaps I am confused?

You're so behind the times, the eternal enemy of our Orwellian war isn't Russia anymore.

It's a Terrorist Decimal System now.
Thanks. The way the rightwing keeps trying to drag us back into the past makes me forget sometimes how things have changed.

So if it just happens once in one place that makes it standard operating procedure all the time everywhere on your planet?

lol If it doesn't happen enough, somehow thats a good thing in your book?

Yeah, too bad she didn't run that kind of a campaign. She might have gotten away with it then.

She was a twice elected city councilwoman before becoming mayor, I'm sure she had the data required to have a pretty good idea of who would support her new directions and who would resist change.

Yeah, but she only kept her job because the huge (for the size of the town) public outcry against Palin's attempt to force her out made Palin back down.

And that's how politics in America is supposed to work.

You poor person. How confusing it must be for you to live in a continuous reality, when you suffer from that handicap that makes you able to perceive and remember only one detail of it at a time.

Funny how that boomerang works isn't it?

Oh, was it the outcry? I remember reading about there being an outcry, but that she eventually backed down because of a lack of authority, or something.

Perhaps I am confused?
It was both, actually, I believe. All the accounts of the incident that I have read included both immediate public outcry because the librarian had been in her job many years and was very popular with the community AND a review of the rules by whatever kind of government they have in that little village that determined she couldn't make them fire the librarian anyway. The impression I got from the reports about her early political career was that she was normally very aggressive in trying to get her way by intimidation or force of personality unless it looked like pushing too hard could cost her votes or public support. Then she'd back down and act conciliatory. The librarian story is an example of that. The suggestion is that, without the public outcry, she would have tried to force the town to fire the librarian regardless of the rules. (Note: potentially not dissimilar from the issue in the ethics investigation she is currently under, by the way.)

Yeah, she only kept her job because it turned out that Palin didn't have the proper authority to fire her after all.

Doesn't change the fact that she still tried.

In that you are mistaken. The courts decided that she did have the authority and the Police Cheif was fired...

And that's how politics in America is supposed to work.


The fact that she was pro-censorship in the first place, that she wanted to fire somebody in a non-political position for not voting for her and not censoring books that she didn't like in the first place shows something about her.

Any person who is pro-censorship, who wants to ban books for being "morally objectionable" is not fit for high office, and should be despised by any person who actually cares about the liberties we supposedly treasure in this country.

In that you are mistaken. The courts decided that she did have the authority and the Police Cheif was fired...

The Police Chief != the librarian.
(Of course, that was a corrupt firing in its own right, but I digress...)

The Police Chief != the librarian.
(Of course, that was a corrupt firing in its own right, but I digress...)

The chief filed a lawsuit, but a court dismissed it, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason

The fact that she was pro-censorship in the first place, that she wanted to fire somebody in a non-political position for not voting for her and not censoring books that she didn't like in the first place shows something about her.

Any person who is pro-censorship, who wants to ban books for being "morally objectionable" is not fit for high office, and should be despised by any person who actually cares about the liberties we supposedly treasure in this country.

Build a bigger strawman next time. What book do you say she had banned or censored?

Build a bigger strawman next time. What book do you say she had banned or censored?

She requested the librarian censor a bunch of books and remove them from the library shelves. The librarian, aghast (as any decent librarian-- or indeed any decent person would be), refused. As far as I know, the specific list of books has not been published, but it is irrelevant.
It was after this that said librarian received a letter requesting her resignation.

What a curious coincidence, don't you think? Of course, the attempted firing couldn't have anything at all to do with the refusal to be a party to censorship. That would be ridiculous!

HAHAHAHA!!! Seriously, stop it, B, you're killing me! :D :D I'm going to lose weight thanks to you, because you keep me laughing so hard, I can't even eat. Okay, whew, let me catch my breath for a second.

Okay, to your "points":

lol If it doesn't happen enough, somehow thats a good thing in your book?
Thank you for admitting that you think it is GOOD for elected officials to use their power to politicize non-political public offices, intimidate and threaten those who work for them, and otherwise abuse their positions of public trust in order to benefit themselves and their friends. Thank you for admitting that you support cronyism, nepotism and back-room dealing.

Because that is what we are talking about. And yeah, the less of that that happens, the better I like it.

She was a twice elected city councilwoman before becoming mayor, I'm sure she had the data required to have a pretty good idea of who would support her new directions and who would resist change.
Uh-huh, so what you're saying is she did everything I mentioned above specificially in order to stack her local government full of yes-men/women? Yeah, no duh. Doesn't make her look any better.

And that's how politics in America is supposed to work.
True, when the system works properly, it leads to Sarah Palin backing down and shutting up. Every time. Let's hope it works this time, too.

Funny how that boomerang works isn't it?
You know you might want to watch how you throw around that "boomerang" analogy yourself. The boomerang was the hunting weapon of choice for thousands of years in the southern hemisphere because it works. See, it only comes back if it fails to hit the target it was thrown at. But every criticism and accusation thrown at Palin (and at you) so far has been right on the mark. It seems to me the only ones coming around to smack their originator are the ones you try to throw at us, Captain Ironic Self-Parody.

The chief filed a lawsuit, but a court dismissed it, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason
Except the one that she tried to use to get rid of the librarian who dared to defy her, of course.

Perhaps you need a course is Amercian Government, not a newspaper article.

Your newspaper article says that even Sarah Palin has said, that's not why she did it.

Are you offering to pay for me to take a course in American Government? Because - if you're not - I'm not sure quite how you think that comment is 'evidence'.

lol If it doesn't happen enough, somehow thats a good thing in your book?


You think otherwise?

So - will you be voting for Democrats or Independents this year then?

Or - does running the bums out, and clearing up corruption, only matter when it's not 'our sort' of bums, and 'our sort' of corruption?

Any person who is pro-censorship, who wants to ban books for being "morally objectionable" is not fit for high office, and should be despised by any person who actually cares about the liberties we supposedly treasure in this country.

Hear, hear! Well spoken! Completely agreed.

You think otherwise?

So - will you be voting for Democrats or Independents this year then?

Or - does running the bums out, and clearing up corruption, only matter when it's not 'our sort' of bums, and 'our sort' of corruption?

I'll be voting for the McCain - Palin ticket because McCain showed he was serious when he went and got the only candidate with a proven record of rooting out corruption in any party, including her own party.

She requested the librarian censor a bunch of books and remove them from the library shelves. The librarian, aghast (as any decent librarian-- or indeed any decent person would be), refused. As far as I know, the specific list of books has not been published, but it is irrelevant.
It was after this that said librarian received a letter requesting her resignation.

What a curious coincidence, don't you think? Of course, the attempted firing couldn't have anything at all to do with the refusal to be a party to censorship. That would be ridiculous!


Um, no. Just no. Your version seems to be incorrect, as in, Sarah Palin never asked the Librarian to censor a bunch of books and remove them from the library shelves. That never happened.

http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=6055416

ms palin is going to be interviewed this week by charlie gibson of abc news. he is going to alaska to interview her on thursday and friday.

Um, no. Just no. Your version seems to be incorrect, as in, Sarah Palin never asked the Librarian to censor a bunch of books and remove them from the library shelves. That never happened.

http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=6055416

Oh come now. She claims it was purely rhetorical, but would she even have asked if the librarian would be okay with censoring books if asked if she wasn't planning on or at least considering censoring certain books?

Um, no. Just no. Your version seems to be incorrect, as in, Sarah Palin never asked the Librarian to censor a bunch of books and remove them from the library shelves. That never happened.

http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=6055416

No, but she did ask what the librarian would say to Palin asking her to remove books "should the need arise". The librarian said, basically, "censorship is abhorrent", and Palin replied by asking the librarian to resign.

So no, actual books weren't mentioned by title, but Reichschancellor Palin wanted to know if she could depend on the librarian to carry out censorship requests when they were "needed". To try a metaphor, it isn't murder, but it's asking how you'd feel if I killed you. What would a question like that do to your state of mind with regard to the asker?

To try a metaphor, it isn't murder, but it's asking how you'd feel if I killed you.
More like, "Are you ready to kill my husband when I give you the word?"

More like, "Are you ready to kill my husband when I give you the word?"

Yeah, I knew I'd karked that one up. Thanks for the help!

More like, "Are you ready to kill my husband when I give you the word?"

That's just a hypothetical. Also the person asked should totally be executed for refusing what a jerk.

...Reichschancellor Palin...

Win.

And that's how politics in America is supposed to work.

Funny to see you advocating a Jacksonian Spoils System -- particularly in a small-town where the city government had been relatively non-partisan.

The chief filed a lawsuit, but a court dismissed it, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason

Even funnier to see you claiming that someone's legal ability to do something is tantamount to such action being morally right.

Funny to see you advocating a Jacksonian Spoils System -- particularly in a small-town where the city government had been relatively non-partisan.



Even funnier to see you claiming that someone's legal ability to do something is tantamount to such action being morally right.

Or ethically right, for that matter.

Funny to see you advocating a Jacksonian Spoils System -- particularly in a small-town where the city government had been relatively non-partisan.



Even funnier to see you claiming that someone's legal ability to do something is tantamount to such action being morally right.
Well, come on, everybody knows that might makes right, and if you can get away with something that creates a moral imperative to do it. I mean, what are you even talking about? Next you're going to tell me it would be wrong for me to steal, kill, or dump toxic waste into ground water even if I could conceivably get away with it. If everyone thought the way you do, what would happen to America?

Or ethically right, for that matter.
What? "Ethically"? What's that, some liberal buzz-word that doesn't mean anything unless John McCain defines it for himself?

Well, come on, everybody knows that might makes right, and if you can get away with something that creates a moral imperative to do it. I mean, what are you even talking about? Next you're going to tell me it would be wrong for me to steal, kill, or dump toxic waste into ground water even if I could conceivably get away with it. If everyone thought the way you do, what would happen to America?


What? "Ethically"? What's that, some liberal buzz-word that doesn't mean anything unless John McCain defines it for himself?

It just annoys me that people (And I don't really mean TCT in particular here) invoke Morality as some sort of guiding force behind political action in this country. If anything can be shown by history, it's that such a thing rarely enters into the minds of politicians, let alone guides their actions, as anything more than a political tool. They also tend to be nebulous and subjective to the person spouting off about the "Morality" (or immorality) of their actions (or their opponents' and detractors') actions
Ethics are another story. Ethics can be concrete. They can be voted on, agreed upon to an extent, and enforced, even if the enforcement of such can be lacking at times. It gives us some real basis of comparison for the actions of people that goes beyond right and wrong. It should not be "was it moral for her to ask for the resignation of a librarian opposed to censorship." It should be "is it unethical, is it an abuse of the powers given to a person holding that position of office, to do that."
It certainly should never be an issue of legality. It doesn't matter if something is legal, if it is unethical. It might be perfectly legal for Governor Palin to fire a police chief for almost any reason whatsoever. That does not make it ethical to do so, especially if the reason is of a purely personal nature.

/minirant

I'll be voting for the McCain - Palin ticket because McCain showed he was serious when he went and got the only candidate with a proven record of rooting out corruption in any party, including her own party.

Based on what you've written before, you were never going to vote for any candidate that didn't hit the hardline evangelicals. Pretending it's about corruption or reform is not just disingenuous, but dishonest.

Funny to see you advocating a Jacksonian Spoils System -- particularly in a small-town where the city government had been relatively non-partisan.

Funny you should make that claim, seeing as how the Librarian and Police Chief had publicly endorsed the other candidate, that’s not non-patrician. Its not like she was non-political and was secretly outed...

Even funnier to see you claiming that someone's legal ability to do something is tantamount to such action being morally right.

Of course it's morally right. It is ridiculous that you want us to think that a newly elected mayor who defeated a seated mayor would have to try and work with an administrative staff that actively campaigned for the other candidate. Especially 'appointed' positions, if they campaign for a candidate while they are in an administrative appointed position they would have to be shortsighted indeed to not see a defeat for their candidate impacting their appointment.

Based on what you've written before, you were never going to vote for any candidate that didn't hit the hardline evangelicals. Pretending it's about corruption or reform is not just disingenuous, but dishonest.

Based on what you said just here, you are dishonest. Probably intentionally dishonest. I've already said repeatedly and in more than one thread I think, that I signed a petition to have Sarah Palin enlisted for the VP slot as far back as last spring. The fact that you want to try and pretend that my previous posts haven't mentioned that and yet you bring up my previous posts indicate that your dishonesty is incredibly blatant.

It just annoys me that people (And I don't really mean TCT in particular here) invoke Morality as some sort of guiding force behind political action in this country. If anything can be shown by history, it's that such a thing rarely enters into the minds of politicians, let alone guides their actions, as anything more than a political tool. They also tend to be nebulous and subjective to the person spouting off about the "Morality" (or immorality) of their actions (or their opponents' and detractors') actions
Ethics are another story. Ethics can be concrete. They can be voted on, agreed upon to an extent, and enforced, even if the enforcement of such can be lacking at times. It gives us some real basis of comparison for the actions of people that goes beyond right and wrong. It should not be "was it moral for her to ask for the resignation of a librarian opposed to censorship." It should be "is it unethical, is it an abuse of the powers given to a person holding that position of office, to do that."
It certainly should never be an issue of legality. It doesn't matter if something is legal, if it is unethical. It might be perfectly legal for Governor Palin to fire a police chief for almost any reason whatsoever. That does not make it ethical to do so, especially if the reason is of a purely personal nature.

/minirant
Oh, I agree. I never refer to morals except when trying to get the attention of people who don't know what the word "ethics" means. Morals are amorphous nonsense that require people to all be alike to be considered "good." Ethics are rules of conduct that let you know where you stand with the other person and what you can expect from them regardless of the morals of either of you. I prefer ethics every time. Give me an ethical whore over a unethical choir-child any day of the week.

Based on what you said just here, you are dishonest. Probably intentionally dishonest. I've already said repeatedly and in more than one thread I think, that I signed a petition to have Sarah Palin enlisted for the VP slot as far back as last spring. The fact that you want to try and pretend that my previous posts haven't mentioned that and yet you bring up my previous posts indicate that your dishonesty is incredibly blatant.
So, if McCain hadn't chosen Palin, who would you have voted for and why?

Based on what you said just here, you are dishonest. Probably intentionally dishonest. I've already said repeatedly and in more than one thread I think, that I signed a petition to have Sarah Palin enlisted for the VP slot as far back as last spring. The fact that you want to try and pretend that my previous posts haven't mentioned that and yet you bring up my previous posts indicate that your dishonesty is incredibly blatant.

Let's test that theory.

Would you vote for a pro-choice candidate? SOmeone like... Gravel, who would legalise gay marriage?

Oh, I agree. I never refer to morals except when trying to get the attention of people who don't know what the word "ethics" means. Morals are amorphous nonsense that require people to all be alike to be considered "good." Ethics are rules of conduct that let you know where you stand with the other person and what you can expect from them regardless of the morals of either of you. I prefer ethics every time. Give me an ethical whore over a unethical choir-child any day of the week.

It's saddening that so few people in politics seem to hold this view.

So, if McCain hadn't chosen Palin, who would you have voted for and why?

When McCain beat out Hucakee and Romney, I was disappointed, I didn't see any difference between him and Clinton. If it was McCain vs Clinton, I didn't care who won and I could have voted for a third party candidate to help them ensure public funding... I seldom want a 3rd party candidate to win, but I want them to get their fair share of public funding.

But when Obama won, the McCain option looked more important and I knew I would have to probably vote for him, like it or not. I had to look him over closer, when Obama picked Biden, it was a non-issue. I was most impressed by McCain at his hour long TV interview question and answer period at that California church and then I was sold on McCain when he picked my VP choice.


If McCain didn't do so well at the interview and if he didn't pick Obama, I don't know, I might still have voted for him just for the war effort, but not enthusiastically. Now I'm enthusiastic AND motivated to tell my friends and I don't feel the need to hide my vote...

It's saddening that so few people in politics seem to hold this view.
Well, if people in politics were ethical, how the hell could they ever get rich off bribes and graft? Really, DM, think before you say these things. ;)

When McCain beat out Hucakee and Romney, I was disappointed, I didn't see any difference between him and Clinton. If it was McCain vs Clinton, I didn't care who won and I could have voted for a third party candidate to help them ensure public funding... I seldom want a 3rd party candidate to win, but I want them to get their fair share of public funding.

But when Obama won, the McCain option looked more important and I knew I would have to probably vote for him, like it or not. I had to look him over closer, when Obama picked Biden, it was a non-issue. I was most impressed by McCain at his hour long TV interview question and answer period at that California church and then I was sold on McCain when he picked my VP choice.


If McCain didn't do so well at the interview and if he didn't pick Obama, I don't know, I might still have voted for him just for the war effort, but not enthusiastically. Now I'm enthusiastic AND motivated to tell my friends and I don't feel the need to hide my vote...
So, the short version is, you were going to vote for McCain anyway. No surprise there.

That being the case, why did you care so much to get Palin on the ticket?

Let's test that theory.

Would you vote for a pro-choice candidate? SOmeone like... Gravel, who would legalise gay marriage?

I (would have) voted for Carter the time he lost to Reagan (still in high school but I voted for him in the mock school election), and did vote for Paul Wellstone twice, and Jesse Ventura and even that little pipsqueak Ross Perot (thinking Bush had it locked up I was trying to encourage a third party to develop, not thinking Perot had a chance to win, heck, I didn't want Perot to win, but I did want a strong 3rd party showing). So screw hypotheticals, I don't always vote for republican conservatives.

So, the short version is, you were going to vote for McCain anyway. No surprise there.

That being the case, why did you care so much to get Palin on the ticket?

I'm kind of curious why he thinks Clinton and McCain are pretty similar but thinks Obama and McCain are so different. Near as I can tell Clinton and Obama disagree on relatively little.

So, the short version is, you were going to vote for McCain anyway. No surprise there.

That being the case, why did you care so much to get Palin on the ticket?

I'll quote myself from a previous post...
Why do we believe Sarah Palin was a good choice for VP, other than the fact that she is a female?


1: She will help McCain reform Washington. It’s one of the biggest draws to the Alaskan Governor’s record. She helps to demolish the Democrats' argument that McCain equals Bush, clearly, adding Palin to the ticket represents a challenge the Washington insiders club (of either party)...

2: Palin is an attack on the energy crisis. Her experiences with butting heads and taxing the oil companies and still getting more drilling and pipeline construction done (oil drilling and natural gas pipelines) and her record shows us that she wants to use the money made now to develop renewable energy sources for the future. And unlike the other three candidates on the tickets, she has real expertise in the field, not just talk: she already has experience with decision making and negotiations with the big companies (on the natural gas pipeline, a 40 billion dollar construction project). Whereas the Democrats are spewing the idiotic naysaying that more oil drilling won't solve the problem, Palin has argued that it IS an important part of getting us off the foreign oil addiction now while we improve other renewable sources for the future as well. More info on her economics…
http://kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com/2008/06/drill-drill-drill-my-interview-with_26.html

3: Despite what anyone outside of the party thinks about her, Palin absolutely sodifies the blue collar conservative core that was split between Romney and Huckabee during the primaries. The selection of Palin brings them both back, and not just a little, but enthusiastically and with renewed vigor. Because Palin represents all the social issues and family values that they found lacking (rightfully or not) with McCain.

4: Palin is an advocate for the small business owners and their job creating niche in the economy. She has experience in that and her record shows reform minded there as well.

As other have said:
She’s got an exceptional record of support for small business, and has worked hard to shake up the corrupt elements preying on Alaska’s state government,” said Langer. “When it comes to making choices this fall, the American people are going to be looking at what the candidates have actually done in their public service careers, not the empty rhetoric of campaign promises.”
Andrew Langer , President of the Institute for Liberty, a conservative small business advocacy group

5: Sarah Palin inspires people as the “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” role model she is, a ‘Mom’ who entered into politics to reform what she saw as things that are wrong with the country’s government. And she is not unique in that role. She shares that story with other examples like Madeleine Albright and Nancy Pelosi.

Additionally, I want her to do what she did as Mayor (clean house) and then again as Governor (root out corruption of the 'good old boy club'), and someday (in four years or eight), as President in Washington.

I'm kind of curious why he thinks Clinton and McCain are pretty similar but thinks Obama and McCain are so different. Near as I can tell Clinton and Obama disagree on relatively little.

Foreign Affairs. War Effort. Clinton in the early stages was more like McCain than Obama. Later on McCain sounded more like Obama, but she was desperate by then. Now of course, Obama sounds more like Clinton did earlier. Oh the irony. Move on and Code Pink must be besides themselves with anger over Obama's apparent betrayal.

I'm kind of curious why he thinks Clinton and McCain are pretty similar but thinks Obama and McCain are so different. Near as I can tell Clinton and Obama disagree on relatively little.
I'd be interested to hear why Balderdash thinks it, too, but to be honest I also considered Clinton and McCain to be too similar for my taste. I suspect Baldy and I may differ wildly on what we thought was similar about them. My take on it was that Clinton and McCain both were selling out to corporate special interests on health care, both more likely to continue the Iraq quagmire indefinitely, both more politically dirty and beholden to big campaign donors than Obama and thus more likely to support big money interest on tax issues, foreign trade issues, and regulatory matters. I also had other issues with Cliinton, but those are the areas of similarity I saw between her and McCain.

Foreign Affairs. War Effort. Clinton in the early stages was more like McCain than Obama. Later on McCain sounded more like Obama, but she was desperate by then. Now of course, Obama sounds more like Clinton did earlier. Oh the irony. Move on and Code Pink must be besides themselves with anger over Obama's apparent betrayal.
You keep saying that, but I, for one*, do not see any "betrayal", apparent or otherwise, in anything Obama has said so far.


*And I'm not the only one, actually.

I'll quote myself from a previous post...

1) Bullshit. She uses Washington just like an old pro. $27 million for a podunk town in Alaska from lobbying.
2) Debatable, I honestly don't know enough about her ideas on energy. Though I do know Obama also supports a pipeline across Alaska.
3) True enough. Though you have to wonder how the whole abstinence only education will fly when her daughter got knocked up.
4) Her record isn't really long enough to get a true feel for how she'll do on that or much anything else. Two years as governor and a couple terms as mayor of a tiny town don't tell much.

I'll quote myself from a previous post...


Additionally, I want her to do what she did as Mayor (clean house) and then again as Governor (root out corruption of the 'good old boy club'), and someday (in four years or eight), as President in Washington.
Yeah, I read that earlier. It's bunk. Nothing but a list of talking points from her resume. I dispute your claim that she has rooted out anything at all from Alaskan government -- still one of the most pork-addicted, corporation-ridden states in the union. I also challenge the assertion you made in another post that she is the only Republican to have made any anti-corruption reforms in her immediate vicinity at all. EDIT: I further dispute any claim that this is why she is on the ticket.

You keep saying that, but I, for one*, do not see any "betrayal", apparent or otherwise, in anything Obama has said so far.


*And I'm not the only one, actually.

Oh you of short memory. Code Pink used to protest Hillary, calling her a warmonger and secret republican...
Spark a memory?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCPp6LZC3-w

Yeah, I read that earlier. It's bunk. Nothing but a list of talking points from her resume. I dispute your claim that she has rooted out anything at all from Alaskan government -- still one of the most pork-addicted, corporation-ridden states in the union. I also challenge the assertion you made in another post that she is the only Republican to have made any anti-corruption reforms in her immediate vicinity at all. EDIT: I further dispute any claim that this is why she is on the ticket.

Fun fact, Alaska's earmarks for next year went up:

Source (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html)
Palin claimed to have stood up to Congress on the subject of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, about which we wrote last November.

Palin: I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.

This is not the first time Palin has cited her choice to kill the bridge in 2007 as an example of her anti-waste stance. It’s true that she did eventually nix the project. But the bridge was nearly dead already – Congress had removed the earmark, giving the requested money to the state but not marking it for any specific use. Palin unplugged its life support, declaring in 2007 that the funds would not be used for the Gravina bridge.

When she was running for governor, however, Palin expressed a different position. In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted her expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.

Palin, 2006: "People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.”

Palin also answered "yes" to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. "The window is now," she wrote, "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.

The bridge reversal is not the only matter throwing doubt on Palin’s credentials as a government waste reformer. Watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has reported that the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, which had not previously received significant federal funds, hauled in almost $27 million in earmarks while Palin was mayor. (McCain has explicitly criticized several of the Wasilla earmarks in recent years.) To help obtain these earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.

And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009.

You're so behind the times, the eternal enemy of our Orwellian war isn't Russia anymore.

It's a Terrorist Decimal System now.

But you do have to admit that Uncle Vlad is trying to bring the Motherland back into the Number One Spot.

Oh you of short memory. Code Pink used to protest Hillary, calling her a warmonger and secret republican...
Spark a memory?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCPp6LZC3-w
Not one that's relevant to what I said, especially since I'm not a member of Code Pink or MoveOn. If a few protesters feel like he let them down, what do I care? Why should I care about them any more than I care about a few crazy Clinton-worshippers who are determined to vote for McCain just to spite Obama for not being Hillary? You said he betrayed his original position. I say he didn't. Pointing at a handful of disaffected activists is not a counter-argument.

Fun fact, Alaska's earmarks for next year went up:
Oh, yeah, look at Sarah, rooting out that corruption, cleaning up that state government. Whee!

Oh, yeah, look at Sarah, rooting out that corruption, cleaning up that state government. Whee!

She's a real anti-waste crusader! A maverick amongst the boys in Washington!

She's a real anti-waste crusader! A maverick amongst the boys in Washington!
She's a maverick just like McCain's a maverick. They really are soulmates!


(I wish there was a way to replace the 'a' with a heart in 'soulmates' just for the McCain/Palin ticket.)

She's a maverick just like McCain's a maverick. They really are soulmates!


(I wish there was a way to replace the 'a' with a heart in 'soulmates' just for the McCain/Palin ticket.)

Soulm♥tes.

1) Bullshit. She uses Washington just like an old pro. $27 million for a podunk town in Alaska from lobbying.

Makes her a bad Mayor how?

2) Debatable, I honestly don't know enough about her ideas on energy. Though I do know Obama also supports a pipeline across Alaska.

Shes building it, not talking about it. She has to fight federal governments (Canadian and American) to get things done, but shes doing it. Largest private enterprise in the history of the US apparently, 40 billion dollar project.

3) True enough. Though you have to wonder how the whole abstinence only education will fly when her daughter got knocked up.

Daughters getting knocked up and then getting married before the baby is born is, I think, a national tradition going back to the puritans...

4) Her record isn't really long enough to get a true feel for how she'll do on that or much anything else. Two years as governor and a couple terms as mayor of a tiny town don't tell much.

She began her political career in '92. Over a dozen years in elected office, years of records and history to look over, Gas Conservation Commission, where she chaired the Commission from 2003 to 2004, and also served as Ethics Supervisor. ... After resigning, Palin filed formal complaints against the state Republican Party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes. She accused Ruedrich, one of her fellow commissioners, of doing work for the party on public time and working closely with a company he was supposed to be regulating.... (wiki) long enough resume for me.

Yeah, I read that earlier. It's bunk. Nothing but a list of talking points from her resume. I dispute your claim that she has rooted out anything at all from Alaskan government -- still one of the most pork-addicted, corporation-ridden states in the union. I also challenge the assertion you made in another post that she is the only Republican to have made any anti-corruption reforms in her immediate vicinity at all. EDIT: I further dispute any claim that this is why she is on the ticket.

Fine, you think what you want. We've been endorsing Palin since even before it was McCain we were soliciting to select her. I thought Romney could pick her to solidify his ticket and she's a natural for a Huckabee ticket, McCain really really suprised me, I thought he was oblivious to the merits of Palin, but he surprised me. I'm really happy with him now, I didn't give him enough credit before.

Makes her a bad Mayor how?Ne'er said it did. It does make her a liar with the whole reform bullshit.



Shes building it, not talking about it. She has to fight federal governments (Canadian and American) to get things done, but shes doing it. Largest private enterprise in the history of the US apparently, 40 billion dollar project.Project isn't green lighted yet. She has authorized it though. A 26.5 billion dollar project I believe rather than the $40 she quotes. Palin talked about standing up to oil companies and oil lobbyists, citing her work on getting a gas pipeline built in Alaska:

Palin: I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

Actually, construction hasn’t begun on the pipeline, and the project isn't quite a done deal. Palin signed legislation just last week that authorizes the state to give a license in 90 days to TransCanada to start developing the project. The state also can provide $500 million as seed money. She gets credit for moving the pipeline closer to realization after many years of talks. Palin pushed for legislation that would allow a private company to build the 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline, instead of oil companies, which she said were moving too slowly on the issue.

In an Aug. 27 press release, Palin indicated that there was still work to be done before the project would become a reality:

Palin, press release, Aug. 27: After dreaming of a natural gas pipeline for more than 30 years, Alaskans have now created the framework for the project to advance. This legislation brings us closer than we’ve ever been to building a gas pipeline and finally accessing our gas that has been languishing for so many decades on the North Slope.

Washington Post energy correspondent Steven Mufson wrote that the major oil companies have opposed the pipeline project, saying it wasn’t economically feasible. Yet, ConocoPhillips and BP have proposed their own gas pipeline that would compete with the state-backed project. TransCanada estimates it will take 10 years to finish the pipeline, according to its application to the state, and it will cost about $26.5 billion – not $40 billion as Palin said.




Daughters getting knocked up and then getting married before the baby is born is, I think, a national tradition going back to the puritans... True, but as I said it really calls into question the validity of her stance on abstinence only education. It provably doesn't work, evidence in her own home.




She began her political career in '92. Over a dozen years in elected office, years of records and history to look over, Gas Conservation Commission, where she chaired the Commission from 2003 to 2004, and also served as Ethics Supervisor. ... After resigning, Palin filed formal complaints against the state Republican Party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes. She accused Ruedrich, one of her fellow commissioners, of doing work for the party on public time and working closely with a company he was supposed to be regulating.... (wiki) long enough resume for me. Good on her. It doesn't however help establish any credibility on small businesses.

Fun fact, Alaska's earmarks for next year went up:
have you seen any reporting of what projects the bridge money went to?

have you seen any reporting of what projects the bridge money went to?

No really haven't. Oddly enough they like to say they cut funding to the bridge, but they don't mention that they kept the money.

have you seen any reporting of what projects the bridge money went to?

Road and Bridge projects all around Alaska, but I haven't actually seen the list, I'm under the impression that there isn't a list. It sounds to me that the money was simply put into the road and maintenance budget(s) of work already being done or scheduled to be done. More governors should do more of it. Pawlenty (MN Gov.) could have done some more of it, Bridges falling down on his watch and everything. Infrastructure all neglected, can you imagine the hey-day the democrats would be having with that, and that bozo governor, if McCain had selected him?

Road and Bridge projects all around Alaska, but I haven't actually seen the list, I'm under the impression that there isn't a list. It sounds to me that the money was simply put into the road and maintenance budget(s) of work already being done or scheduled to be done. More governors should do more of it. Pawlenty (MN Gov.) could have done some more of it, Bridges falling down on his watch and everything. Infrastructure all neglected, can you imagine the hey-day the democrats would be having with that and that bozo if McCain had selected him?

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/bills/HB314_final.pdf

$315,050,000 transportation budget for 09 fiscal year. The Gravina Island Bridge project was $398,000,000. So that one bridge would more than double their funding. Safe bet since it doesn't appear to of gone into that budget they're using it for other shit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4b/Palin_nowhere.jpg/180px-Palin_nowhere.jpg

Road and Bridge projects all around Alaska, but I haven't actually seen the list, I'm under the impression that there isn't a list. It sounds to me that the money was simply put into the road and maintenance budget(s) of work already being done or scheduled to be done. More governors should do more of it. Pawlenty (MN Gov.) could have done some more of it, Bridges falling down on his watch and everything. Infrastructure all neglected, can you imagine the hey-day the democrats would be having with that, and that bozo governor, if McCain had selected him?
road projects that werent funded yet? or were they moved up when the money became available?

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/bills/HB314_final.pdf

$315,050,000 transportation budget for 09 fiscal year. The Gravina Island Bridge project was $398,000,000. So that one bridge would more than double their funding. Safe bet since it doesn't appear to of gone into that budget they're using it for other shit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4b/Palin_nowhere.jpg/180px-Palin_nowhere.jpg


It looks like it IS their budget. But you can't look at one year alone, they work on cycles of 2, 3, 5 and 10. Some years are twice as much as other years and you have to save your money one year to help you pay for the next year when so-ans-so maintence requirements are due.

road projects that werent funded yet? or were they moved up when the money became available?

I don't know. I'm not going to give an answer if I don't know, and I'll admit I don't know :)

It looks like it IS their budget. But you can't look at one year alone, they work on cycles of 2, 3, 5 and 10. Some years are twice as much as other years and you have to save your money one year to help you pay for the next year when so-ans-so maintence requirements are due.

Unfortunately I'm limited to Alaska's state budget for my information, so can't tell.

I don't know. I'm not going to give an answer if I don't know, and I'll admit I don't know :)
i certainly did not expect you to. i asked because you know more than i do about it.

Soulm?tes.
How'd you do that!? *suspicion*

Fine, you think what you want.
OK, if you insist.

We've been endorsing Palin since even before it was McCain we were soliciting to select her. I thought Romney could pick her to solidify his ticket and she's a natural for a Huckabee ticket, McCain really really suprised me, I thought he was oblivious to the merits of Palin, but he surprised me. I'm really happy with him now, I didn't give him enough credit before.
I'm sure you posted a link to this pro-Palin group of yours earlier, but there are so many Palin threads, I can't find it. Would you care to repost it, please?

How'd you do that!? *suspicion*

Start/Programs/Accessories/System Tools/Character Map/

Not sure where it is on Vista if it's there.

Start/Programs/Accessories/System Tools/Character Map/

Not sure where it is on Vista if it's there.
Oh, I thought you did in the forum format tools. I can do that on my mac too, but I'm not sure it would be readable online. Maybe if I did it text edit...

Testing...

SOULM♡TES

:) Can anyone else see that?

Oh, I thought you did in the forum format tools. I can do that on my mac too, but I'm not sure it would be readable online. Maybe if I did it text edit...

Testing...

SOULM♡TES

:) Can anyone else see that?

That one looks like a lopsided triangle before I quote it.... sort of. But when I quote it, while I'm typing, I can see the heart shape better, not good, but better. But when in italics and quoted, it's pure leaning triangle.

That one looks like a lopsided triangle before I quote it.... sort of. But when I quote it, while I'm typing, I can see the heart shape better, not good, but better. But when in italics and quoted, it's pure leaning triangle.
Ah...hm... *returns to drawing board*

EDIT: OH, I forgot to say what it's supposed to look like: an open outline of a heart.

Fine, you think what you want. We've been endorsing Palin since even before it was McCain we were soliciting to select her. I thought Romney could pick her to solidify his ticket and she's a natural for a Huckabee ticket, McCain really really suprised me, I thought he was oblivious to the merits of Palin, but he surprised me. I'm really happy with him now, I didn't give him enough credit before.

Palin only brings to the ticket two X chromosomes and an "I'm his sexy secretary" look, besides the vote of the insane religious fringe of unpeople that hope women get raped and have to spit the baby out, probably out of glee in hurting women through violation and a sensation of empowerment, not unlike, mmm, should I finish this line of thought?

Ah...hm... *returns to drawing board*

EDIT: OH, I forgot to say what it's supposed to look like: an open outline of a heart.

I see the outline of the heart, but only when it's being quoted. Perhaps if I increased the font size I'm viewing...

I can't fix it.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't seem to be able to insert the heart from the symbols on Vista 64 bit through the Explorer I'm using, when I paste it it turns into a copyright symbol instead of a heart...


edit again:
♥

Oh I get it, you have to use a heart Arial or some other font from the ones listed in your browser on this website....

Palin only brings to the ticket two X chromosomes and an "I'm his sexy secretary" look, besides the vote of the insane religious fringe of unpeople that hope women get raped and have to spit the baby out, probably out of glee in hurting women through violation and a sensation of empowerment, not unlike, mmm, should I finish this line of thought?

Um, yeah. Okay, whatever. *shuts door and locks deadbolt*

Foreign Affairs. War Effort. Clinton in the early stages was more like McCain than Obama. Later on McCain sounded more like Obama, but she was desperate by then. Now of course, Obama sounds more like Clinton did earlier. Oh the irony. Move on and Code Pink must be besides themselves with anger over Obama's apparent betrayal.

Later on, McCain sounded more like Obama, but she was desparate by then?

What does that even mean? Last I checked, those two were both running as 'boys' in this election.

Okay - so you don't respect Obama because... he changed his position?

For the same reason, I assume you don't respect McCain? (Who has started portraying himself as a 'change' candidate... that sounds so familiar... and who has sold out the moderates and centrists he's been courting by picking a theofascist running mate.)

Right?

Fun fact, Alaska's earmarks for next year went up:

So - she's not a reformist, and not anti-corruption, at all?

So - she's not a reformist, and not anti-corruption, at all?

Exactly.


Ill respect Palin as a "reformist" when she stops getting facials from big oil.

Exactly.

Ill respect Palin as a "reformist" when she stops getting facials from big oil.

Eww. Thanks for that.

On an unrelated note, is it just me that has to keep editing her name? For some reason, on my keyboard, she's Sarah Plain.

Balderdash, I noticed you quoted yourself about a page back, so I thought I'd quote my response to that post, which you completely ignored.

Oh, this should be good.


Reform Washington how? Yes, she has some experience pushing for legislation in Alaska, which is about as Republican as you can get. What experience does she have with legislation in anything even remotely bi-partisan or on a national level? How will she reform Washington when the Democrats have a majority in both houses? What does she intend to do to reform Washington specifically?

That's not an attack on the energy crisis. That's a "Let's try to keep doing the same thing we've been doing that's stopped working anywhere nearly as well and will continue to get worse" policy. That's an ostrich policy, in other words, and it's not a very good one, because oil's not going to stick around forever.

Energy independence requires not just some domestically produced oil(it does require that for a short time; after all, it's not like we can magick in new infrastructure overnight) but a vast amount of different sources, from the various renewables to fission and other, potential sources of energy we've yet to fully discover, such as fusion, or maybe that really interesting idea I read in a hard science fiction novel involving the Higgs bosen. It also requires a complete and total infrastructure overhaul.

I'm not seeing the Republicans pushing for that. I am, however, seeing McCain pushing for some nuclear and clean coal, which is about the only good policy decision I've seen him make so far. But it's not enough.


Family values such as taking away the choice of reproductive rights from women. Family values such as treating violence like it's a wonderful okay thing to use all the time. Family values like preventing homosexuals from marrying and adopting children and generally being human beings just because of some religious belief. Family values like pushing those religious beliefs on everyone in so many other ways.

I think you can see why I would disagree here.


Source, please. I want to say she's done some manipulating on this, but I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly so I don't want to make a false claim

I'm sorry, but she's not that inspiring, not to most women. She is to some, I admit, but those who can see her for what she is--the representation of an oppressive ideology that countermands everything she does and would happily remove her ability to go into politics at all if it could turn the clock back that far--she's not inspiring at all. She's despicable.

Balderdash, I noticed you quoted yourself about a page back, so I thought I'd quote my response to that post, which you completely ignored.

Sadly, it looks like he's fled for now.

Sadly, it looks like he's fled for now.

He'll be back.

He'll be back.

Probably without a response to your post, at that.

Funny you should make that claim, seeing as how the Librarian and Police Chief had publicly endorsed the other candidate, that’s not non-patrician. Its not like she was non-political and was secretly outed...

Um. Perhaps you should check the definition of nonpartisan (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonpartisan).

You might also want to reign in your loose use of facts. In Alaska, municipal elections are officially nonpartisan and copious articles analyzing Palin's history remark on how she turned the mayorial election into a partisan affair.

Of course it's morally right. It is ridiculous that you want us to think that a newly elected mayor who defeated a seated mayor would have to try and work with an administrative staff that actively campaigned for the other candidate. Especially 'appointed' positions, if they campaign for a candidate while they are in an administrative appointed position they would have to be shortsighted indeed to not see a defeat for their candidate impacting their appointment.

I see. Might makes right and to the winner goes the spoils. Even with a nonpartisan municipal office in a small-town. Smacks of machine politics, not a crusader for reform.

And, again, you are being very loose with your facts. Wassila had six administrative departments. After Palin made wild allegations against the then mayor, five of the six department heads wrote a letter to the local paper rebutting Palin's characterizations of the city government. (Noting, among other things, than Palin was on the city council she was alleging was misguided and "do-nothing.")

I haven't seen evidence that the department heads "actively campaigned" against Palin, but let us suppose they did. Doesn't that say something about her candidacy that she outraged and alienated so many civil servants?

And before you crow about how she won the election: she won by 200 votes, getting a total of 616 votes. 616 votes. Definitely Presidential material.

While we are on the subject, Wasilla had about 50 employees. There are local fast-food chains that carry that much responsibility to run.

Regardless, you've made it clear that Palin walks on water because you like her radical religious agenda. To pretend you like her because of her stunning career as a small-town mayor is ridiculous, so let's drop the charade. (And I'll gladly admit that I don't give a shit how good a mayor she was, I don't want her near the Oval Office.)

Sadly, it looks like he's fled for now.

He might, actually, have some kind of life away from the keyboard, and need to eat food, or do some work, or see some friends or family about something.

A 26.5 billion dollar project I believe rather than the $40 she quotes.
Oh, don't worry, I'm sure the price tag will pass 40 billion long before it's finished :p

He might, actually, have some kind of life away from the keyboard, and need to eat food, or do some work, or see some friends or family about something.

Bullshit. Everyone knows Generalites have no lives. That's why I'm still here.

You know you might want to watch how you throw around that "boomerang" analogy yourself. The boomerang was the hunting weapon of choice for thousands of years in the southern hemisphere because it works. See, it only comes back if it fails to hit the target it was thrown at.

Actually, it's my understanding that a proper hunting boomerang DOESN'T return. It's too heavy and not balanced properly. The ones that return are toys.

Balderdash, I noticed you quoted yourself about a page back, so I thought I'd quote my response to that post, which you completely ignored.

Okay fine, I didn't respond specifically because most of your points are addressed in other posts in this thread. But since you brought it back...

Reform Washington how? Yes, she has some experience pushing for legislation in Alaska, which is about as Republican as you can get. What experience does she have with legislation in anything even remotely bi-partisan or on a national level? How will she reform Washington when the Democrats have a majority in both houses? What does she intend to do to reform Washington specifically?

She’s not running for senator or congresswoman, she’s running to be the VP. Legislation is not her primary objective. Her daily job will be up to McCain. What I hope he does is assign her an inside watchdog position OR singular tasks or objectives, such as energy oversight. Use her expertise in helping the states that aren’t used to writing permits for the big oil companies to drill off their shores ensure that the oil companies aren't running them over but instead are paying their fair share of taxes on those new wells, but still be productive and not pusing it too far. Exactly what she’s done to Alaska she can help every other state have a place in the Federal Government to as for help. Hopefully these other states will be able to drill for oil off their shores someday soon. Another objective for her could be to create transparency in government. Like McCain promised that if anyone brings excessive pork barrel to his desk, he will veto it and then make them ‘famous,’ Palin could fulfill that role, she’s been doing it for years in Alaska, in every role she’s had, taking on corruption and bringing it to light in both parties, wherever she finds it.

That's not an attack on the energy crisis. That's a "Let's try to keep doing the same thing we've been doing that's stopped working anywhere nearly as well and will continue to get worse" policy. That's an ostrich policy, in other words, and it's not a very good one, because oil's not going to stick around forever.

Same thing we’ve been doing? Really? We haven’t really been drilling for our own oil in decades. We need to start drilling our own oil again and with the new taxes generated on that oil we need to spend it on researching and developing new renewable sources of energy. Everyone knows oil won’t last forever, but we can make money for research through taxing it’s production and we will save money that would have been spent on overseas oil as well.

Energy independence requires not just some domestically produced oil(it does require that for a short time; after all, it's not like we can magick in new infrastructure overnight) but a vast amount of different sources, from the various renewables to fission and other, potential sources of energy we've yet to fully discover, such as fusion, or maybe that really interesting idea I read in a hard science fiction novel involving the Higgs bosen. It also requires a complete and total infrastructure overhaul.

Neither party is currently against advancing nuclear power again (after the mini nuclear dark ages that's been the US from the 70's-until now). Thanks for the lesson though.

I'm not seeing the Republicans pushing for that. I am, however, seeing McCain pushing for some nuclear and clean coal, which is about the only good policy decision I've seen him make so far. But it's not enough.

And Palin has been talking about wind, solar, wave and geothermal in Alaska, together, Palin and McCain have it covered. Go watch the CNBC energy interview of Palin done before the VP choice was made, I'm sure they have it on their website still. It's significantly longer than they have online (I saw in over the air when it was broadcast, but it's still enough to catch the idea of what she's been doing in Alaska)

Family values such as taking away the choice of reproductive rights from women. Family values such as treating violence like it's a wonderful okay thing to use all the time. Family values like preventing homosexuals from marrying and adopting children and generally being human beings just because of some religious belief. Family values like pushing those religious beliefs on everyone in so many other ways.

I think you can see why I would disagree here.

I understand and do not argue that she disagrees with you on the social issues, many people agree with her more than they do with you. This is one of the fundamental differences that explains why we have more than one party.

Source, please. I want to say she's done some manipulating on this, but I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly so I don't want to make a false claim

I gave a source for that statement: I quoted Andrew Langer , President of the Institute for Liberty, a conservative small business advocacy group.

I'm sorry, but she's not that inspiring, not to most women. She is to some, I admit, but those who can see her for what she is--the representation of an oppressive ideology that countermands everything she does and would happily remove her ability to go into politics at all if it could turn the clock back that far--she's not inspiring at all. She's despicable.

And with stuff like this I’m supposed to respond to your posts? Fine, you hate her guts. I think she rocks. I’m voting for her, you’re voting for someone else.

Actually, it's my understanding that a proper hunting boomerang DOESN'T return. It's too heavy and not balanced properly. The ones that return are toys.

To quote the great Terry Pratchett,
He was also holding a boomerang, and it wasn't one of those toy ones that came back. This was one of the big, heavy, gently curved sort that didn't come back because it was sticking in something's ribcage.

I think she rocks.

And that, in the end, says more about you than all the rest of your blather combined.

...many people agree with her more than they do with you..

This isn't you bringing up your already-proved-wrong interpretation of abortion statistics again, is it?

And that, in the end, says more about you than all the rest of your blather combined.

More importantly - the claim that - if you don't agree with her politics, then 'you hate her guts' is very telling.

I'll add another thing, I don't know if people have actually been watching these two over the last few days but John McCain seems a little overwhelmed by her. I think she has a very strong personality and I would wonder whether she will dominate the headlines if not the agenda, he's looked like a deer caught in headlights at times.

many people agree with her more than they do with you.

Source. Because Im sure youre wrong.


Anyone else amussed by the fact that the Republican leadership has stated she wont be on any talk shows or news shows or anything? It seems like they are trying their hardest to keep her as quite as possible.

Could it be because shes totally batshit insane and will probably say something so crazy that it will show her to be exactly what she is: a religious extremist nut who most of America would be repulsed by if she spoke?

They even tried (yet failed) to get her out of the VP debates. Partly to keep her quite Id assume, but probably also because they know Biden will curb stomp her pretty little ass.

Um. Perhaps you should check the definition of nonpartisan (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonpartisan).

Really? You think Palin asked for their resignations because they were democrats? If so, produce your source. Otherwise, it's you that is misconstruing personal differences in how to advance their departments and the city government, not party affiliation prejudices.

You might also want to reign in your loose use of facts. In Alaska, municipal elections are officially nonpartisan and copious articles analyzing Palin's history remark on how she turned the mayorial election into a partisan affair.

She seems to have campaigned on issues that hadn't been overly discussed in previous administrations, I can agree with that until shown evidence contrariwise. But her, you know what else, most people used to ride their horses on main street in Dodge City too, but things change. Good or Bad, times change.

I see. Might makes right and to the winner goes the spoils. Even with a nonpartisan municipal office in a small-town. Smacks of machine politics, not a crusader for reform.

And, again, you are being very loose with your facts. Wassila had six administrative departments. After Palin made wild allegations against the then mayor, five of the six department heads wrote a letter to the local paper rebutting Palin's characterizations of the city government. (Noting, among other things, than Palin was on the city council she was alleging was misguided and "do-nothing.")

I haven't seen evidence that the department heads "actively campaigned" against Palin, but let us suppose they did. Doesn't that say something about her candidacy that she outraged and alienated so many civil servants?

And before you crow about how she won the election: she won by 200 votes, getting a total of 616 votes. 616 votes. Definitely Presidential material.

200 hundred votes you say? Okay, I have no reason to doubt your source. According to you, (and for all I know, I agree) all the administration of the last mayor is publicly advocating against her, but the people still thought she was right in the end didn't they? And they liked her so much they elected her again after the first time so that shows it wasn't a one term 'mistake' according to the voters who know what their town was before and after Palin better than you and I do. The second time it is said that she won in a landslide, but I admit I haven't seen what the numbers were.

While we are on the subject, Wasilla had about 50 employees. There are local fast-food chains that carry that much responsibility to run.

And she's done what since then? Took down a corrupt governor, removed other corrupt officials in different departments and managed to double the state taxes on oil production in less than two years.

Regardless, you've made it clear that Palin walks on water because you like her radical religious agenda. To pretend you like her because of her stunning career as a small-town mayor is ridiculous, so let's drop the charade. (And I'll gladly admit that I don't give a shit how good a mayor she was, I don't want her near the Oval Office.)

I agree that you don't like her. Nor should you, she doesn't represent anything you stand for (except for maybe the 2nd Amendment, I've seen you post not too long ago that you recently converted to supporting 2nd Amendment rights, perhaps you still do).

I like Sarah Palin, I've already said so in many different ways. I pointed out that I like her even before McCain picked her. You and others here want to pretend that nobody likes Sarah but fruitcakes and wingnuts, well fine for you, but your underestimate the number of us that do like her and what she represents, a less corrupt and more transparent government.

Source. Because Im sure youre wrong.

Source for what? Many people agree with her more than they agree with you, did not mean the number of people who believe one way or the other, its refering to the people that do agree with her agree with her on more than one issue, and his objections aren't going to sway them out of it because they don't agree with his issues...

Really? You and others here want to pretend that nobody likes Sarah but fruitcakes and wingnuts

Whose pretending?

More importantly - the claim that - if you don't agree with her politics, then 'you hate her guts' is very telling.

It proves you don't read... surely, his statment: for what she is--the representation of an oppressive ideology that countermands everything she does and would happily remove her ability to go into politics at all if it could turn the clock back that far--she's not inspiring at all. She's despicable. can be translated into, he hates her guts.

But as usual, your ability to discern what an author means with his written word is brought into question.

Source. Because Im sure youre wrong.


Anyone else amussed by the fact that the Republican leadership has stated she wont be on any talk shows or news shows or anything? It seems like they are trying their hardest to keep her as quite as possible.

Could it be because shes totally batshit insane and will probably say something so crazy that it will show her to be exactly what she is: a religious extremist nut who most of America would be repulsed by if she spoke?

They even tried (yet failed) to get her out of the VP debates. Partly to keep her quite Id assume, but probably also because they know Biden will curb stomp her pretty little ass.

You only have to look at her politics to see she's batshit insane. Look at what she stands for, and then try to apply it to the real world?

The extremist christofascists will lap it up, but - to more moderate America, she's going to be pretty horrifying, if they let her talk. Which is why they won't. She's going to be 'managed' pretty tightly till November, I'd imagine.

They'll work on the assumption that - once she's in, it's too late.

I'll add another thing, I don't know if people have actually been watching these two over the last few days but John McCain seems a little overwhelmed by her. I think she has a very strong personality and I would wonder whether she will dominate the headlines if not the agenda, he's looked like a deer caught in headlights at times.

I would that she was on top of the ticket. But I remind myself, the newly drafted star Quarterback waiting to start their first game is usually better off with a few years learning under the aging more experienced veteran..

I would that she was on top of the ticket. But I remind myself, the newly drafted star Quarterback waiting to start their first game is usually better off with a few years learning under the aging more experienced veteran..

Oh, dont worry, if McCain wins (big if) the horrid fuck ups such an administration is sure to bring as well, as the abhorance the American people will feel for your religious wingnut messiah will ensure she will never have any career in politics again outside of bumpkin deliverance esc small towns in the deep south.

oops, missed this one.

Later on, McCain sounded more like Obama, but she was desparate by then?

What does that even mean? Last I checked, those two were both running as 'boys' in this election.

My bad, misspoke through the keyboard. Thinking Clinton, typing McCain. My apologies for any confusion that may have brought you.

Okay - so you don't respect Obama because... he changed his position?

For the same reason, I assume you don't respect McCain? (Who has started portraying himself as a 'change' candidate... that sounds so familiar... and who has sold out the moderates and centrists he's been courting by picking a theofascist running mate.)

Right?

Really, when did I say that bolded part? I didn't did I. In fact, your attempt to assign someone elses argument to me is evidence that you have no actual argument. I've said all along that I like Obama more now than I did before, because now he sounds more like Clinton did a year ago. Too bad I don't trust him anymore, because he says he hasn't changed at all. If he admitted he's changed positions, then I could believe that he's 'learned' something, but since he says he's always been this way, I don't trust him to tell me the truth about how he really feels.

It proves you don't read... surely, his statment: for what she is--the representation of an oppressive ideology that countermands everything she does and would happily remove her ability to go into politics at all if it could turn the clock back that far--she's not inspiring at all. She's despicable. can be translated into, he hates her guts.

But as usual, your ability to discern what an author means with his written word is brought into question.

Oh, ad hominem? How original!

I think Sarah Palin represents an oppressive ideology. I find her uninspiring. I think she is pretty despicable, too. I also find her unattractive, both physically and as a person. But I don't hate her.

You chose to say you read an expression of distate with what she stands for... as hating her guts. That's more telling about you, than about anyone you try to tar with that brush.

Okay fine, I didn't respond specifically because most of your points are addressed in other posts in this thread. But since you brought it back...
You're better than CH, I'll give you that.


She’s not running for senator or congresswoman, she’s running to be the VP. Legislation is not her primary objective. Her job will be up to McCain. What I hope he does is assigns her an inside the cabinate watchdoge position or singular tasks and objectives, such as energy oversight. Use her expertise in helping the states that aren’t used to writing permits for the big oil companies to drill of their shores ensure that the oil companies are paying their fair share of taxes but still being able to be productive. Exactly what she’s done to Alaska to every state that will hopefully be able to drill for oil of their shores someday soon. Another objective for her could be to create transparency in government. Like McCain promised that if anyone brings excessive pork barrel on to his desk, he will veto it and then make them ‘famous,’ Palin could fulfill that role, she’s been doing it for years in Alaska, in every role she’s had their, taking on corruption in both parties, wherever she finds it.

I'm sorry, did you not know that the VP's primary job--outside of being the replacement for the President--is to be the President of the Senate? The VP is the President's primary GATEWAY to legislation! That's pretty much the whole point!

As for the whole idea of vetoing pork barrel stuff, I do believe you may have missed the scores of evidence regarding the earmarks that SHE called in...

Same thing we’ve been doing? Really? We haven’t really been drilling for our own oil in decades. We need to start drilling our own oil again and with the new taxes generated on that oil we need to spend it on researching and developing new renewable sources of energy. Everyone knows oil won’t last forever, but we can make money for research through taxing it’s production and we will save money that would have been spent on overseas oil as well.


Wait, what?

We've been drilling for oil this whole time. We haven't opened NEW refineries, true, but we've still been drilling. Oil drilling in the U.S. declined because we hit our peak oil production.

Unfortunately, what's left to potentially drill for would give us maybe three years at current use rates. More unfortunate still, that's three years AFTER approximately five to ten years needed to set up the drilling sites to begin with.

It's not worth it. The resources that would be consumed in the process would be far better spent more towards alternative energy sources. Oil isn't going to disappear in the next few years, but it's not going to last as a serious contender, energy wise, for more than a couple decades more.

Neither party is currently against advancing nuclear power again (after the mini nuclear dark ages that's been the US from the 70's-until now). Thanks for the lesson though.

Well, that's good at least.

And Palin has been talking about wind, solar, wave and geothermal in Alaska, together, Palin and McCain have it covered. Go watch the CNBC energy interview of Palin done before the VP choice was made, I'm sure they have it on their website still. It's significantly longer than they have online (I saw in over the air when it was broadcast, but it's still enough to catch the idea of what she's been doing in Alaska)

I've been looking through their polices on their websites. It's not enough. They'll be spending too many resources on oil and not enough on alternative energy sources. This isn't the sort of thing we can gamble at this point. Right now we've still got time to build new infrastructure and renovate things without too much cost or upset, but only if we start acting NOW. We go through four more years of this crap and we might start running into very serious problems.


I understand and do not argue that she disagrees with you on the social issues, many people agree with her more than they do with you. This is one of the fundamental differences that explains why we have more than one party.

True indeed.


I gave a source for that statement: I quoted Andrew Langer , President of the Institute for Liberty, a conservative small business advocacy group.

I meant a source that I could check, not just a quote.


And with stuff like this I’m supposed to respond to your posts? Fine, you hate her guts. I think she rocks. I’m voting for her, you’re voting for someone else.
I don't hate her. Not at all. I find her attitude and policy positions despicable, not her as a person. Please forgive my lack of clarification.

In fact, your attempt to assign someone elses argument to me is evidence that you have no actual argument.

No it's not. Who taught you how to debate?

Really, when did I say that bolded part? I didn't did I. In fact, your attempt to assign someone elses argument to me is evidence that you have no actual argument. I've said all along that I like Obama more now than I did before, because now he sounds more like Clinton did a year ago. Too bad I don't trust him anymore, because he says he hasn't changed at all. If he admitted he's changed positions, then I could believe that he's 'learned' something, but since he says he's always been this way, I don't trust him to tell me the truth about how he really feels.

Horseshit.

He says when he's changed position, and he says why. His position on Iraq, for example, he says has to be tempered by the actual information on the ground. He still wants to pull the troops out, ASAP, but he'll take advice.

How is that bad? It's not even a change of position - it's just moderating ambition with a little knowledge.


I notice that the Republicans have actually moved towards his position, now...

I see the outline of the heart, but only when it's being quoted. Perhaps if I increased the font size I'm viewing...

I can't fix it.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't seem to be able to insert the heart from the symbols on Vista 64 bit through the Explorer I'm using, when I paste it it turns into a copyright symbol instead of a heart...


edit again:
?

Oh I get it, you have to use a heart Arial or some other font from the ones listed in your browser on this website....
Okay, good tips. Let's try this, then.

SOULM?TE

EDIT: Nope, doesn't seem to work. I'll have to fiddle with it.

Horseshit.

He says when he's changed position, and he says why. His position on Iraq, for example, he says has to be tempered by the actual information on the ground. He still wants to pull the troops out, ASAP, but he'll take advice.

How is that bad? It's not even a change of position - it's just moderating ambition with a little knowledge.


I notice that the Republicans have actually moved towards his position, now...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7605481.stm

Indeed. 8000 troops out of Iraq, with some to Afghanistan.

I'll add another thing, I don't know if people have actually been watching these two over the last few days but John McCain seems a little overwhelmed by her. I think she has a very strong personality and I would wonder whether she will dominate the headlines if not the agenda, he's looked like a deer caught in headlights at times.
He always looks like that lately. But I do think she is being shown off as the most whiz-bang wonderful thing since Tang, and that rather puts him in the background, which must feel strange since he's the presidential candidate and all.

...
I don't hate her. Not at all. I find her attitude and policy positions despicable, not her as a person. Please forgive my lack of clarification.

Then I withdraw the summary I made in error of your feelings about her. ;)

Source. Because Im sure youre wrong.


Anyone else amussed by the fact that the Republican leadership has stated she wont be on any talk shows or news shows or anything? It seems like they are trying their hardest to keep her as quite as possible.

Could it be because shes totally batshit insane and will probably say something so crazy that it will show her to be exactly what she is: a religious extremist nut who most of America would be repulsed by if she spoke?

They even tried (yet failed) to get her out of the VP debates. Partly to keep her quite Id assume, but probably also because they know Biden will curb stomp her pretty little ass.
McCain's campaign manager was on one of the Sunday AM news shows announcing that she won't do any interviews unless the campaign is certain she will be show the proper "respect and deference." His words.

"Deference."

Yeah, Princess Sarah, Prince John and their courtiers can get their "deference" out of my rear-end. They're politicians. That makes them public servants. That means they work for us, not the other way around. We are the citizens. They address us as "Sir" and "Ma'am." And when we or our journalists ask questions, they fucking answer them. End of discussion.

Really, when did I say that bolded part? I didn't did I. In fact, your attempt to assign someone elses argument to me is evidence that you have no actual argument.

Missed this.

You told us that, once Obama got the pick, the McCain option became what... more important? I can't remember the exact wording. You've also repeatedly attacked what you claim you see as Obama shifting position.

If you don't mean the things you say - what are your real reasons? You won't vote for him because he's black? A democrat? What?

I'm not assigning someone esle's argument to you - I'm assigning what APPEARS to be YOUR argument to you. If it's not your argument, I'm not to blame. What IS your argument?

And - of course - I notice you didn't address, at all, the rest of the post. Is it worth me waiting?

Okay, good tips. Let's try this, then.

SOULM?TE

EDIT: Nope, doesn't seem to work. I'll have to fiddle with it.

Hey, look at that, when you quoted my heart, it turned into a question mark in the quote... but when I look at my post you quoted, it's still a heart there.

I'm not going to pretend that I know what that means, but I bet it means something like 'that' heart isn't a part of your font options and your system converted it when you had to type it... :confused:

McCain's campaign manager was on one of the Sunday AM news shows announcing that she won't do any interviews unless the campaign is certain she will be show the proper "respect and deference." His words.

"Deference."

Yeah, that Princess Sarah, Prince John and her courtiers can get their "deference" out of my rear-end. They're politicians. That makes them public servants. That means they work for us, not the other way around. We are the citizens. They address us as "Sir" and "Ma'am." And when we or our journalists ask questions, they fucking answer them. End of discussion.

Translation:

Shes only coming on if she gets softball questions. Tough questions and issue based questions are not allowed. Only questions about how much she loves America and how much Obama doesnt. Oh, and she gets to read off cue cards we write her.

Oh, dont worry, if McCain wins (big if) the horrid fuck ups such an administration is sure to bring as well, as the abhorance the American people will feel for your religious wingnut messiah will ensure she will never have any career in politics again outside of bumpkin deliverance esc small towns in the deep south.

Unfortunately, after the administration leaves office, there's a possibility that the United States will cease to exist as a nation, rather being one massive collection of states or city-states typical of post-apocalypse action flicks.

Then I withdraw the summary I made in error of your feelings about her. ;)

That's great.

Now please respond to the rest of my post rather than ignoring it again.

Missed this.

You told us that, once Obama got the pick, the McCain option became what... more important? I can't remember the exact wording. You've also repeatedly attacked what you claim you see as Obama shifting position.

If you don't mean the things you say - what are your real reasons? You won't vote for him because he's black? A democrat? What?

I'm not assigning someone esle's argument to you - I'm assigning what APPEARS to be YOUR argument to you. If it's not your argument, I'm not to blame. What IS your argument?

And - of course - I notice you didn't address, at all, the rest of the post. Is it worth me waiting?


Why would I address the rest of your post when at the beginning you started with what was a misconception of my position? The rest of it was off base, to say the least.

You only have to look at her politics to see she's batshit insane ... The extremist christofascists will lap it up.

You should be aware that using language like that to demonize the candidate
won't convince anyone to switch away from her
is actively annoying the moderates here
hurts your causeExcesses from the left do more to further the cause of the right than anything McCain or Palin have said to date. If you want to win hearts and minds (and arguments), try toning down your rhetoric.

You should be aware that using language like that to demonize the candidate
won't convince anyone to switch away from her
is actively annoying the moderates here
hurts your causeExcesses from the left do more to further the cause of the right than anything McCain or Palin have said to date. If you want to win hearts and minds (and arguments), try toning down your rhetoric.

Yet as the past 8 years have proven, being nice and reasonable in politics gets you a term in office as a doormat for the right wing and its noise machine.

Why would I address the rest of your post when at the beginning you started with what was a misconception of my postion? The rest of it was off base, to say the least.

So, you don't respect McCain, and you DO think he's jumping at least as many fences as you say Obama is?

You should be aware that using language like that to demonize the candidate
won't convince anyone to switch away from her
is actively annoying the moderates here
hurts your causeExcesses from the left do more to further the cause of the right than anything McCain or Palin have said to date. If you want to win hearts and minds (and arguments), try toning down your rhetoric.

Which particular part?

The 'batshit insane' wasn't my invention.

The 'christofascist'? Hardright, verging on totalitarian - it's a hundred times more appropriate than the 'islamofascist' moniker we see being attached to cell-structure partisans.

Which part is hurting my cause?


And, of course, from my perspective - there are no 'moderates' in American politics. There are the far-right, and the slightly-less-far-right.

So, you don't respect McCain, and you DO think he's jumping at least as many fences as you say Obama is?

But for the new question you asked there, I should have answered it then... I don't like Obama because I didn't agree with him when he started. I haven't agreed with him in three years. I was for the surge, I'm for winning in Iraq (as we finally seem to be) and then moving the bulk to Afghanistan (as it seems we will soon be able to do). I'm not in favor of his position on guns, or his more taxes (even if it's on the 'rich' and the companies that employ us) and I'm not in favor of his lassiefaire attitude towards abortion not restricting abortion, I'm not in favor of his attitude towards dealing with foreign opinions.

The quote of his I dislike the most was the: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
Link (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w)

The Hell I can't! I can expect to drive whatever I can afford, eat whatever I want and can afford, and if I want to leave the thermostat at 72 degree it's none of the rest of the worlds damned business. I want a President that is going to represent ME and my neighbors, not the rest of the world. We don't want a President that represents the rest of the worlds opinions over ours.

He has a fundamental flaw in his philosophy to even think stuff like that and then think it would make working class Americans agree with him. If he wants to represent the world's concern, then appoint him to the UN and let him gab there. But for here, I want a President that is working for US, not them. Things like that is what's wrong with Obama.


As for McCain, I wasn't rooting for him. I expected and wanted either Romney or Huckabee. I got neither, but McCain has done MUCH better over the last few months. And now, with his hour long interview at that California church, and then with his selection of Palin, I'm tickled pink and looking forward to voting for the man. Apparently I judged him too harshly before.

soulm♥te

You should be aware that using language like that to demonize the candidate
won't convince anyone to switch away from her
is actively annoying the moderates here
hurts your causeExcesses from the left do more to further the cause of the right than anything McCain or Palin have said to date. If you want to win hearts and minds (and arguments), try toning down your rhetoric.

Why is it that the left is alone held to this standard? The right can spew vitrolic rhetoric for days and days unabated, but if the left responds in kind, then they are condemned. There's this unrealistic duality in politics in the United States, where the left is expected to obey certain rules that the right openly violates.

It's a catch-22 for the left: either play by these ridiculous standards, and be at a constant competitive disadvantage, or stoop to the level that the right operates on, at which point the left is criticized for lowering themselves.

The Hell I can't! I can expect to drive whatever I can afford, eat whatever I want and can afford, and if I want to leave the thermostat at 72 degree it's none of the rest of the worlds damned business. I want a President that is going to represent ME and my neighbors, not the rest of the world. We don't want a President that represents the rest of the worlds opinions over ours.

Certainly is the mindset of a Republican, can't argue with that.

Don't forget to add that rights for other people aren't as important, a woman's right to control her body, the definition of marriage, the right of science to come to, you know, scientific conclusions.

No, it's about YOU, no one else.

The 'batshit insane' wasn't my invention.


Ill take credit for that one (even though I dont know if I said it first). I learned in 2000 and then again in 2004 that nice guys finish last in American politics. Since then, Ive been calling them as I see em, and if it upsets the far right to be called what they are, then maybe they need to rethink their draconian and narrow minded stance.

soulm?te
OK, now this is pissing me off.

That's it. I'm just freaking bookmarking your post and will just link to it for this word. Dammit.

EDIT: Aha! Another that defaults out when it's quoted. Hm...

That's great.

Now please respond to the rest of my post rather than ignoring it again.

No. We both understand what the other is saying. I disagree with you, you disagree with me, but it's not from a lack of communication.

I think we can get more oil now, faster, and bring it to market faster than you think we can. Additionally, I think we can tax it and make money from that new oil production for our development of renewable energy sources. Plus, I think that we will keep that oil money in America instead of sending it overseas to other countries to spend in their economies. I buy American, I think oil companies can buy American too.

And renewable sources, like American grown biofuels, American dug clean coal, American produced Nuclear energy, are good things for us. And on this at least, you and I agree. I think McCain with Palin's help can get it done, she's actually dealing with oil companies, drilling and doubling the oil companies taxes now. Obama isn't. McCain is my candidate for issues like that.

On the social issues, you and I disagree, we understand what each other is objecting to, but what else is there to talk about there in this thread?

soulm♥te
it must be a font difference.



or maybe the jolt gods dont like you.

OK, now this is pissing me off.

That's it. I'm just freaking bookmarking your post and will just link to it for this word. Dammit.

EDIT: Aha! Another that defaults out when it's quoted. Hm...

*Morgan Freemanesque narrator voice*

Unhindered by past defeats, Mury continues on her quest to find the elusive heart Unicode symbol.

You should be aware that using language like that to demonize the candidate
won't convince anyone to switch away from her
is actively annoying the moderates here
hurts your causeExcesses from the left do more to further the cause of the right than anything McCain or Palin have said to date. If you want to win hearts and minds (and arguments), try toning down your rhetoric.

Why is it that the left is alone held to this standard? The right can spew vitrolic rhetoric for days and days unabated, but if the left responds in kind, then they are condemned. There's this unrealistic duality in politics in the United States, where the left is expected to obey certain rules that the right openly violates.

It's a catch-22 for the left: either play by these ridiculous standards, and be at a constant competitive disadvantage, or stoop to the level that the right operates on, at which point the left is criticized for lowering themselves.
Indeed. Honesty is the best policy, every time. I do my level best always to avoid giving inadvertent offense. For that reason, I never say anything I don't mean and can't explain the reasoning of, and what I do say, I do mean and have thought out thoroughly. And if it offends someone, then as long as it's the right person, so be it.

Why is it that the left is alone held to this standard? The right can spew vitrolic rhetoric for days and days unabated, but if the left responds in kind, then they are condemned. There's this unrealistic duality in politics in the United States, where the left is expected to obey certain rules that the right openly violates.

It's a catch-22 for the left: either play by these ridiculous standards, and be at a constant competitive disadvantage, or stoop to the level that the right operates on, at which point the left is criticized for lowering themselves.

Utter nonsense, I assure you I've been warned for crossing the polite discourse line here as well.

it must be a font difference.



or maybe the jolt gods dont like you.

I'm thinking its the fonts options on her machine, it can't reproduce the ♥ to type it, but her video driver can show it to her.

M, perhaps you can find a fonts file to load on your machine at an Apple website?

No. We both understand what the other is saying. I disagree with you, you disagree with me, but it's not from a lack of communication.

I think we can get more oil now, faster, and bring it to market faster than you think we can. Additionally, I think we can tax it and make money from that new oil production for our development of renewable energy sources. Plus, I think that we will keep that oil money in America instead of sending it overseas to other countries to spend in their economies. I buy American, I think oil companies can buy American too.
A
nd renewable sources, like American grown biofuels, American dug clean coal, American produced Nuclear energy, are good things for us. And on this at least, you and I agree. I think McCain with Palin's help can get it done, she's actually dealing with oil companies, drilling and doubling the oil companies taxes now. Obama isn't. McCain is my candidate for issues like that.

On the social issues, you and I disagree, with understand what each other is objecting to, but what else is there to talk about there in this thread?
Ah, well, okay then. I just wanted to make sure you weren't skipping over it and hoping I wouldn't notice. CH has pulled that too many times for me to let anyone else get away with it.

And I disagree, but as you said, we both know that. Not much more to talk about on this bit, I suppose.

Cruci: The thing is, Frisbee is at least partially right. On the whole, in general, people do not listen when you bluster at them about their OWN opinions. When you're blustering about opinions they already share and reinforce them, then yeah, insults do work. But they don't work when they go against opinions.

You'll notice THAT is what won the past two elections, the reinforcement, not somehow convincing Democrats/whatevers in droves with insults.

it must be a font difference.



or maybe the jolt gods dont like you.
They don't like me. I have often failed to make the appropriate sacrifices at the appropriate times and have even said bad things about them when they have frozen up on me. No hearts for my soulmates, I guess. Sigh.

But at least others can do it!! And THAT'S what matters. :D

I'm thinking its the fonts options on her machine, it can't reproduce the ? to type it, but her video driver can show it to her.

M, perhaps you can find a fonts file to load on your machine at an Apple website?
Or, alternatively, I could...you know...get over it. ;)

*Morgan Freemanesque narrator voice*

Unhindered by past defeats, Mury continues on her quest to find the elusive heart Unicode symbol.

I have been spoiled by the British: I just gave Morgan Freeman an English accent in my head when I read that.

I fail at narrating.

Muravyets: Please. ;)

Cruci: The thing is, Frisbee is at least partially right. On the whole, in general, people do not listen when you bluster at them about their OWN opinions. When you're blustering about opinions they already share and reinforce them, then yeah, insults do work. But they don't work when they go against opinions.

You'll notice THAT is what won the past two elections, the reinforcement, not somehow convincing Democrats/whatevers in droves with insults.

Not exactly. The questions over whether Kerry 'earned' his war medals, were a thinly veiled insult. And - consdiering where they were coming from, it's laughable - but no one laughed.

Indeed - those same people turned round and have started saying, this election, that what America needs during wartime is a president that actually served. Strange that that didn't matter four years ago.

It's because positions like that are pure bullshit, tailored to JUSTIFY, not reasons.

It's because politics in America, at the moment, largely IS about insults... thinkly veiled, or otherwise. And it basically comes down to who gets in fast enough (Dems came really unstuck having so much as a contendor for President, who had a name that even sounds like Osama...), or who gets heard loudest, longest. "Flip-flopper" is another perfect example.

The Democrats tried not to offend 'the moderates' last time, and it lost them the election. Kerry should have told Bush 'fuck you', and called him a coward for buying his way out of service. Playing nice doesn't work.

Not exactly. The questions over whether Kerry 'earned' his war medals, were a thinly veiled insult. And - consdiering where they were coming from, it's laughable - but no one laughed.

Indeed - those same people turned round and have started saying, this election, that what America needs during wartime is a president that actually served. Strange that that didn't matter four years ago.

It's because positions like that are pure bullshit, tailored to JUSTIFY, not reasons.

It's because politics in America, at the moment, largely IS about insults... thinkly veiled, or otherwise. And it basically comes down to who gets in fast enough (Dems came really unstuck having so much as a contendor for President, who had a name that even sounds like Osama...), or who gets heard loudest, longest. "Flip-flopper" is another perfect example.

The Democrats tried not to offend 'the moderates' last time, and it lost them the election. Kerry should have told Bush 'fuck you', and called him a coward for buying his way out of service. Playing nice doesn't work.
There's a difference between calling people on bullshit and outright returning the favor with the same sort of insults and hatred. I'm all for calling bullshit.

But what you're advocating is the same sort of tactics. I know you're not advocating lying, but it's still insulting and it's still going overboard. By all means, as I said, call bullshit, but don't just return invective with invective. That gets no one nowhere.

The quote of his I dislike the most was the: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
Link (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w)

The Hell I can't! I can expect to drive whatever I can afford, eat whatever I want and can afford, and if I want to leave the thermostat at 72 degree it's none of the rest of the worlds damned business. I want a President that is going to represent ME and my neighbors, not the rest of the world. We don't want a President that represents the rest of the worlds opinions over ours.
because the USA isn't part of the rest of the World is it? It is it's own seperate little planet orbiting far off in space with no connection to Earth.

Doesn't occur to you that he is representing what's best for the USA?

Kinda hard to tackle Global Climate change when you're the worst offender. Why would any other country (for eg. China or India) want to do anything when the US is using up resources like there's no tomorrow. Let alone the wasteful lifestyle is having on GCC

Resources aren't infinite. Shocking news I know, but sadly true. They do come from somewhere - and that somewhere is mostly outside planet USA. Which makes it the world's business. One day they might just decide to stop selling to you. In addition, your obsession to waste as much as possible is one of the primary causes for the massive trade deficit, which is certainyl going to come back and bite you. Heed Obama's council, reduce your waste and you reduce the trade deficit. And that's bad --- how?

Here lies the exact problem Obama has with America. He looks ahead and around, whereas all they want is a burger with fries, fuck the rest of the world and fuck tomorrow. His vision is one completely removed from their own selfish, physical, live-for-today, needs.

Ridiculous choice by McCain. It just further convinced me not to vote for him because now theres a creationist running for Veep.

Ridiculous choice by McCain. It just further convinced me not to vote for him because now theres a creationist running for Veep.
To be fair, it is a step-up from the cretin that's been in the Whitehouse the past 8 years. McCain's added 3 vowels and 2 consonants!

There's a difference between calling people on bullshit and outright returning the favor with the same sort of insults and hatred. I'm all for calling bullshit.

But what you're advocating is the same sort of tactics. I know you're not advocating lying, but it's still insulting and it's still going overboard. By all means, as I said, call bullshit, but don't just return invective with invective. That gets no one nowhere.

Being a shining knight facing a bunch of backstabbing thugs only leaves you a dead nekkid bitch. Heroes are only for movies and video games. And they lose in video games too.

To be fair, it is a step-up from the cretin that's been in the Whitehouse the past 8 years. McCain's added 3 vowels and 2 consonants!

Well I don't care. I'm not voting for McCain

I hear Palin uses her state-troopers on political rivals in Alaska. :eek: Not to arrest them, but to annoy them.

Pray away the gay. That's catchy.

"Okay folks, we're going to need all your help to pray away the great evil that's plaguing this country. We need to pray for--no, no, not the war. We need to--no, not more jobs. We need--no, not global warming, or an end to genocide, or the 20% of Americans living in poverty that are children!! We need to pray for the GAYS. That Tim Gunn is ruining us with his fashion savvy and the sex he probably might have with other men behind closed doors!"
Ya know that Focus on The Family mention? That's why you should shelter your children from Spongebob Squarepants.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6852828/
+
http://www.firedupmissouri.com/node/578 (humours' sake)

I remember how he was amused that other people would consider him ridiculous over this.

McCain's added 3 vowels and 2 consonants!
This is the Wheel-of-Misfortune or the Scrabble vote speaking?

To be fair, it is a step-up from the cretin that's been in the Whitehouse the past 8 years. McCain's added 3 vowels and 2 consonants!

I-n-a-n-e?

As I see it, Palin is one step forward for womans civil representation, but 19 steps back for civil rights across the board.

I made a prediction earlier this year that if the republicans win this year, after 8 more years of republican rule, the US will no longer be the dominant superpower in the world. In the past 8 years, we have seen the US's economy sink, while other countries economies have flourished. The value of the US dollar has sunk to half what it was 8 years ago. We have seen that the US can't even win a war against a bunch of il-organised terrorists with no national support, army or leader, so we can only imagine how big the fail will be should an actual enemy attack the US. We have also seen that someone has gotten away with the biggest terrorist attack in history, killing over 3000 US citizens, on US soil, and seven years later, this person is still free. What kind of message does that send to prospective terrorists?

Bush has failed in epic proportions, and McCain represents a continuation of that fail.

McCain will not only continue but amplify the failed policies of the Bush mob. Can any sane person with at least half a brain honestly say that McCain will do anything beneficial for the US's economy, when he is nothing more than a continuation of Bush?

Regardless of whether you agree with them on some issues or not, the US NEEDS a Democrat president, 'else the countries economy will fall too far to be picked up. Regardless of their stance on abortions or health care or social welfare or guns or any other irrelevant issues at this time, the US needs to abandon supply-side economics, and the only way that will happen will be by not electing McBush in November.

Simply, anyone voting for McCain is condemning the US to destitution, and either they know it and don't care, or they are too stupid to realise it.

because the USA isn't part of the rest of the World is it? It is it's own seperate little planet orbiting far off in space with no connection to Earth.

Doesn't occur to you that he is representing what's best for the USA?

He seems to think so. I think that the rest of the world doesn't pay our taxes or vote.

Kinda hard to tackle Global Climate change when you're the worst offender. Why would any other country (for eg. China or India) want to do anything when the US is using up resources like there's no tomorrow. Let alone the wasteful lifestyle is having on GCC
Who's the worst offender? How do you measure 'worst'? It must be different than I measure it. I suggest we compare cubic feet of air polution. I suggest that Europe and Eastern Europe combined produces more, and China alone and then again India, ALL produce more cubic feet of air polution than the US does. I don't have a link to prove Europe combined with eastern Europe does more but here's National Geographic's report about China and India http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070709-china-pollution.html

As to wasteful lifestyle, which type of wasteful are you most worried about? If I develop renewable sources of energy, like growing my own crops for biofuels AND feed my own population, then what concern is that to someone in a different country? They are free to do the same for themselves. The US is not even getting close to maximizing it's production levels because grains (for example) are too cheap, and the more people that grow them, the less that will be able to sell them at a sustenance level of profit.

Resources aren't infinite. Shocking news I know, but sadly true. They do come from somewhere - and that somewhere is mostly outside planet USA. Which makes it the world's business. One day they might just decide to stop selling to you.

And I hope they do stop under selling our own products. We don't produce enough oil ourselves, for example, because up until recently it was cheaper to buy it somewhere else than to drill for our own. Companies can't afford to produce products here if the product is underpriced when it gets to market. That can change. Let the world stop selling the US cheap products and we'll produce our own and maintain an even higher standard of living than we do now, not a lower standard of living.

In addition, your obsession to waste as much as possible is one of the primary causes for the massive trade deficit, which is certainyl going to come back and bite you. Heed Obama's council, reduce your waste and you reduce the trade deficit. And that's bad --- how?

Nonsense, see above. Underpricing products we can produce here is the reason for the trade deficit.


Here lies the exact problem Obama has with America. He looks ahead and around, whereas all they want is a burger with fries, fuck the rest of the world and fuck tomorrow. His vision is one completely removed from their own selfish, physical, live-for-today, needs.

So if its a moose burger on an an organic bun with lettuce and tomoto grown in my own back yard... I'm fucking tomorrow? :rolleyes:

Okay then... *hands you your tinfoil hat*

As I see it, Palin is one step forward for womans civil representation, but 19 steps back for civil rights across the board.

I made a prediction earlier this year that if the republicans win this year, after 8 more years of republican rule, the US will no longer be the dominant superpower in the world. In the past 8 years, we have seen the US's economy sink, while other countries economies have flourished. The value of the US dollar has sunk to half what it was 8 years ago. We have seen that the US can't even win a war against a bunch of il-organised terrorists with no national support, army or leader, so we can only imagine how big the fail will be should an actual enemy attack the US. We have also seen that someone has gotten away with the biggest terrorist attack in history, killing over 3000 US citizens, on US soil, and seven years later, this person is still free. What kind of message does that send to prospective terrorists?

Bush has failed in epic proportions, and McCain represents a continuation of that fail.

McCain will not only continue but amplify the failed policies of the Bush mob. Can any sane person with at least half a brain honestly say that McCain will do anything beneficial for the US's economy, when he is nothing more than a continuation of Bush?

Regardless of whether you agree with them on some issues or not, the US NEEDS a Democrat president, 'else the countries economy will fall too far to be picked up. Regardless of their stance on abortions or health care or social welfare or guns or any other irrelevant issues at this time, the US needs to abandon supply-side economics, and the only way that will happen will be by not electing McBush in November.

Simply, anyone voting for McCain is condemning the US to destitution, and either they know it and don't care, or they are too stupid to realise it.
^^ This. Quoted in its entirety for absolute truth.

And when we spend all our time arguing with trolls who post bullshit so outrageous (see thread) that it amounts to little more than baiting, instead of focusing on WHY the outcome of this election matters (see above), we lose.

It doesn't matter whether we want to be polite about it, or call shit by its name to its face. What matters is that I am sick of letting the enemy (and I do see them as my enemy) dictate the terms of the debate.

The sexist reasons for choosing Palin have already been established. I propose we now stop letting the sexists who chose her succeed in their strategy of using her sex as a wedge to make us argue with each other instead of her.

There's a difference between calling people on bullshit and outright returning the favor with the same sort of insults and hatred. I'm all for calling bullshit.

But what you're advocating is the same sort of tactics. I know you're not advocating lying, but it's still insulting and it's still going overboard. By all means, as I said, call bullshit, but don't just return invective with invective. That gets no one nowhere.

I'm not advocating any sort of tactics. I'm just not hiding what I see in overly delicate langauge just to make it palatable to people who will vote to remove rights from minorities, but get a sad on if I say a bad word.

He seems to think so. I think that the rest of the world doesn't pay our taxes or vote.


Lots of people vote - just not in our elections.

The problem is, the sort of foreign policy you recommend is what? Not acting like part of the international community? Some kind of go-it-alone mentality? That's where McCain falls down - he thinks the US can keep up it's bully-boy mentality indefinitely

It's never worked yet. It has a history of not working... indeed, it has a history of not working, even for us. Even a casual view of recent complications on the world stage shows that most of the time - we made the problem in the first place.


Who's the worst offender? How do you measure 'worst'? It must be different than I measure it. I suggest we compare cubic feet of air polution. I suggest that Europe and Eastern Europe combined produces more, and China alone and then again India, ALL produce more cubic feet of air polution than the US does. I don't have a link to prove Europe combined with eastern Europe does more but here's National Geographic's report about China and India http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070709-china-pollution.html


So - you cite Europe... but then have to admit it was hot air. And you KNOW that Europe is cleaner than the US, so you decide to expand your catch a little... call in the Eastern Europeans, who are recovering economies.

So, we fall back on two developing countries - that's how far you have to go to find something comparable, nations that are only NOW industrialising.

You know that nations with the same investment and technology we have, are kicking our asses on air pollution. You even know that the developing world is doing better - resource for resource - than we are on pollution - and that they will soon overtake us - and then we'll have no excuses left.

Well, they're pretty poor excuses, right now. The rest of the world knows that protectionism is the only factor that matters in the US approach to climate and pollution.


As to wasteful lifestyle, which type of wasteful are you most worried about? If I develop renewable sources of energy, like growing my own crops for biofuels AND feed my own population, then what concern is that to someone in a different country? They are free to do the same for themselves. The US is not even getting close to maximizing it's production levels because grains (for example) are too cheap, and the more people that grow them, the less that will be able to sell them at a sustenance level of profit.


Basic supply and demand - if the grains could be used for something, they would be pulling a higher price. We've seen that happen recently with corn prices.

As to what concern it is to some other country - this is a global world. What you do in your country affects what everyone else does in their country - on every level. Shared technology, shared techniques.... shared pollution. The acid rain you make here falls in Canada.

If we want to test how you really feel about that issue, we could do a little thought experiment.

Let's you and I set up two little environments on a river bank. We'll both grow our crops, enough to feed us all, and we'll both gain our power from waterwheels. Cute little vision so far. You make yourself a nice little bathroom, but I'm a backwards barbarian, and I just wade out in the river a little upstream from you, to shit in your drinking-water.


And I hope they do stop under selling our own products. We don't produce enough oil ourselves, for example, because up until recently it was cheaper to buy it somewhere else than to drill for our own. Companies can't afford to produce products here if the product is underpriced when it gets to market. That can change. Let the world stop selling the US cheap products and we'll produce our own and maintain an even higher standard of living than we do now, not a lower standard of living.


We don't produce our own products because it would cost more to make them here. If the US stopped buying foreign goods, the cost of living in the US would skyrocket, and the standardd of living would plummet.

No plastics, just for a start.


Nonsense, see above. Underpricing products we can produce here is the reason for the trade deficit.


The products produced outside the US are not being 'underpriced'. They are being priced at what the market will bear, considering both (each) involved economy. From OUR point of view, the product is cheap - because we couldn't make the same products as inexpensively.


So if its a moose burger on an an organic bun with lettuce and tomoto grown in my own back yard... I'm fucking tomorrow? :rolleyes:

Okay then... *hands you your tinfoil hat*

Conspiracy theory? That's your idea of a response?

If everyone in the US goes out and shoots a moose tomorrow, how sustainable is that situation?

Why is it that the left is alone held to this standard? The right can spew vitrolic rhetoric for days and days unabated, but if the left responds in kind, then they are condemned. There's this unrealistic duality in politics in the United States, where the left is expected to obey certain rules that the right openly violates.

Or perhaps "taking the high road" and "leading by example" might be debate concepts worth exploring.

As for the standard, I should have made it clear that my comments were in 'player' persona. In my 'moderator' persona, I can assure you that the standards apply to everyone equally.

Or perhaps "taking the high road" and "leading by example" might be debate concepts worth exploring.

As for the standard, I should have made it clear that my comments were in 'player' persona. In my 'moderator' persona, I can assure you that the standards apply to everyone equally.

"Taking the high road"... it's a nice concept, but one only has to review the last 8 years to see what it's intrinsic value to the arena of (American) politics is.

"Leading by example" suggests that people would follow a 'good' example. Again, the last 8 years suggests the most effective thing you can do, in the run-up to election, is come up with an effective insult.

'Batshit insane' isn't really an insult, per se. It's a rhetorical flourish (we see that a lot, recently). It's a way of describing a particular type of mindset that ignores rational, logical themes, and adheres to bizarre and often contradictory principles.

To me - a person pushing themselves as a progressive candidate, and a feminist, no less - that brings to the table a catalogue of rights they intend to see revoked, and equalities that they personally seek to see un-equalised, is not a bad candidate for the description. Palin's politics are 'batshit insane'.

sarah palin is

a sexy BEASTT!!!!!!!!!

sarah palin is

a sexy BEASTT!!!!!!!!!

Please, no.

On SOOO many levels.

"Taking the high road"... it's a nice concept, but one only has to review the last 8 years to see what it's intrinsic value to the arena of (American) politics is.

"Leading by example" suggests that people would follow a 'good' example. Again, the last 8 years suggests the most effective thing you can do, in the run-up to election, is come up with an effective insult.

'Batshit insane' isn't really an insult, per se. It's a rhetorical flourish (we see that a lot, recently). It's a way of describing a particular type of mindset that ignores rational, logical themes, and adheres to bizarre and often contradictory principles.

To me - a person pushing themselves as a progressive candidate, and a feminist, no less - that brings to the table a catalogue of rights they intend to see revoked, and equalities that they personally seek to see un-equalised, is not a bad candidate for the description. Palin's politics are 'batshit insane'.

And then there's the fact that "people" like Michael Savage have called liberalism a mental disease, and he himself actually outright SAID liberals are perverts and/or pedophiles. HE SAID THAT! And all I can do is wish for his slow, painful and repulsive death. Why the hell do we not react?

Link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802463_5.html?sid=ST2008032002026

"Liberalism is a mental disorder, and it is also a cover," he says. "All this do-gooderness is a cover for very, very, very evil deeds."

He continues: "You say, 'Are you generalizing?' The answer is no. I have long tried to comprehend the madness of the American left. I have long tried to figure out what motivates them to hate the family, the church, the police, the military. In fact, why they hate the male, the patriarch. The answer is because they know they're no good, they're know they're dirty and are afraid of being found out. They're afraid Daddy will punish them for what they're doing."

Liberals and progressives, he says, are "degenerates" who are "on an express train to Hell."

How can Savage possibly cap this performance? Ah, here we go:

"I am warning you that many of your progressive friends--the permissive ones, the ones who laugh at conservatives, the ACLU types, the antiwar types? If they have children, I am warning you to watch your children when they go over to their houses."

And then there's the fact that "people" like Michael Savage have called liberalism a mental disease, and he himself actually outright SAID liberals are perverts and/or pedophiles. HE SAID THAT! Why the hell do we not react?

Well, I probably didn't react because I've no idea who it is. :)

The reason there's no collective response, is that 'liberalism' is the empathic answer. 'Liberalism' is what is left when you subtract unfair and destructive. Liberalism is the high road. That's it's strength, but it's also it's greatest weakness in a culture that votes on popularity and brand loyalty, not on actually thinking about the issues.

Well, I probably didn't react because I've no idea who it is. :)

The reason there's no collective response, is that 'liberalism' is the empathic answer. 'Liberalism' is what is left when you subtract unfair and destructive. Liberalism is the high road. That's it's strength, but it's also it's greatest weakness in a culture that votes on popularity and brand loyalty, not on actually thinking about the issues.

I, for one, don't think we should take that high a road. I yearn for the day a child porn stash is found in Savage's house, with him not "knowing" how it got there as he's wheeled off to prison to be violated and raped, possibly eventually crippled or killed, inside it. I yearn for the day Rush Limbaugh, that hoped for riots, deaths of innocents and destructuion of property with his "operation chaos" (meanwhile Eric Idle got fined $ 5,000 for uttering the word "fuck" on the air. Where is Limbaugh's punishment for actively trying to cause destruction of property and murder?) dies the slowest and most painful death a disease can offer! THEY DESERVE IT! They called for our deaths, they called for treating us as pariahs! Let them die! They all deserve to die! I am pissed off and sick of it!

Lots of people vote - just not in our elections.

The problem is, the sort of foreign policy you recommend is what? Not acting like part of the international community? Some kind of go-it-alone mentality? That's where McCain falls down - he thinks the US can keep up it's bully-boy mentality indefinitely

It's never worked yet. It has a history of not working... indeed, it has a history of not working, even for us. Even a casual view of recent complications on the world stage shows that most of the time - we made the problem in the first place.

Never worked yet? America is an abstract failure? I disagree.

So - you cite Europe... but then have to admit it was hot air. And you KNOW that Europe is cleaner than the US, so you decide to expand your catch a little... call in the Eastern Europeans, who are recovering economies.

I do not know that Europe and Eastern European countries are cleaner than the US, which Europe are you thinking of? Is Serbia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Georgia and Romania the places you are thinking of?

So, we fall back on two developing countries - that's how far you have to go to find something comparable, nations that are only NOW industrialising.

They represent somewhere near half the worlds population combined, somehow it’s only okay for you to compare us to the world, but when I do it it’s somehow not fair? lol

You know that nations with the same investment and technology we have, are kicking our asses on air pollution. You even know that the developing world is doing better - resource for resource - than we are on pollution - and that they will soon overtake us - and then we'll have no excuses left.

Now which America are you thinking of? The California America? The Iowa America? The Delaware America? You think they are all failing their environmental responsibilities and yet places like Italy and Spain somehow aren't? Gotta source for that or just a feeling that gets you to that conclusion of yours?

Well, they're pretty poor excuses, right now. The rest of the world knows that protectionism is the only factor that matters in the US approach to climate and pollution.
Sure, we’re going to protect Americans first, that’s our governments primary objective and reason for existence. Perhaps you should consider that American Government class again, it covers things like this.


Basic supply and demand - if the grains could be used for something, they would be pulling a higher price. We've seen that happen recently with corn prices.

That’s why I used grains as an example...

As to what concern it is to some other country - this is a global world. What you do in your country affects what everyone else does in their country - on every level. Shared technology, shared techniques.... shared pollution. The acid rain you make here falls in Canada.

If we want to test how you really feel about that issue, we could do a little thought experiment.

Let's you and I set up two little environments on a river bank. We'll both grow our crops, enough to feed us all, and we'll both gain our power from waterwheels. Cute little vision so far. You make yourself a nice little bathroom, but I'm a backwards barbarian, and I just wade out in the river a little upstream from you, to shit in your drinking-water.

Fine, if I start pissing in your river, stop me. But don’t worry too much, your hypothetical is simplistic to the absurd. If me and my neighbors are all pissing in our own river, waterfront property values are going to go way down. There’s your simplistic answer. When America stops building sewage waste management plants, then you have a topic…

We don't produce our own products because it would cost more to make them here. If the US stopped buying foreign goods, the cost of living in the US would skyrocket, and the standardd of living would plummet.

No plastics, just for a start.

The first part you said simply repeated what I said, the conclusion you made though shows your lack of understanding. Where are plastics made? Personally, I wish they did get rid of 75% of all plastics, but hey, I can’t stop the fact that plastics are made in America, I think you must be thinking of the late twentieth century US economy, not the 21st century US economy. It’s cheaper now to build plastic molded toys and products in America than it is to ship them here anymore. Time to update your knowledge base I think.

The products produced outside the US are not being 'underpriced'. They are being priced at what the market will bear, considering both (each) involved economy. From OUR point of view, the product is cheap - because we couldn't make the same products as inexpensively.

They are being ‘underpriced’ because the labor and materials and lack of environmental regulations keep their prices artificially low. They produce a product that doesn’t help their own economy enough to raise themselves out of poverty and they continue to suffer even with those jobs, and then the company sells that product in a different country which undercuts the production of that product there. If you choose to buy American, you can do so now. If you want to buy all your stuff at walmart prices and then expect the government to bail you out of not having a good economy anymore, you’re building your own casket…

Conspiracy theory? That's your idea of a response? Not conspiracy theory, paranoid delusions.

If everyone in the US goes out and shoots a moose tomorrow, how sustainable is that situation?

Good thing we have beef ranchers, and buffalo ranchers, and ostrich ranchers, and chicken farmers and pig farmers and sheep herders then isn’t it. They need to make a living too, I’ll buy some of their stuff so they can turn around buy some of my products right back.

I, for one, don't think we should take that high a road. I yearn for the day a child porn stash is found in Savage's house, with him not "knowing" how it got there as he's wheeled off to prison to be violated and raped, possibly eventually crippled or killed, inside it. I yearn for the day Rush Limbaugh, that hoped for riots, deaths of innocents and destructuion of property with his "operation chaos" (meanwhile Eric Idle got fined $ 5,000 for uttering the word "fuck" on the air. Where is Limbaugh's punishment for actively trying to cause destruction of property and murder?) dies the slowest and most painful death a disease can offer! THEY DESERVE IT! They called for our deaths, they called for treating us as pariahs! Let them die! They all deserve to die! I am pissed off and sick of it!

Here, have a tissue, you're foaming at the mouth and you're drooling on yourself.

Here, have a tissue, you're foaming at the mouth and you're drooling on yourself.

That's your whole answer? Not address any of the points made, you're problem is the rant tone?

That's your whole answer? Not address any of the points made, you're problem is the rant tone?

Is Limbaugh or Savage posting in this thread about Palin and McCain?

Never worked yet? America is an abstract failure? I disagree.


Yes, you do. Your're wrong, and that's the point.

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that America is not the grand totality of all history or foreign policy. Let's pretend that saying that kind of foreign policy has never worked might only mean the US.

Isolationism didn't work. Regime building hasn't worked. Interventionism hasn't worked. Al Qaeda are a big problem - but they are a problem we created. North Korean nuclear threat... theocratic Iran - problems we made.


I do not know that Europe and Eastern European countries are cleaner than the US, which Europe are you thinking of?


The one in Europe.


Is Serbia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Georgia and Romania the places you are thinking of?


So - in your post, you separate the main body of Europe from Eastern Europe (not unreasonably, given the the geographic, historical and economic differences)... but now you're acting like you don't know or see a difference?



They represent somewhere near half the worlds population combined, somehow it’s only okay for you to compare us to the world, but when I do it it’s somehow not fair? lol


China and India are developing economies. Sheer number of people is a bad measure for attempts to control pollution. Now - if you want to compare India and China NOW, with the US when it was industrialising, you might have something worth saying.

Or - of course, we could just look at per capita.


Now which America are you thinking of? The California America? The Iowa America? The Delaware America? You think they are all failing their environmental responsibilities and yet places like Italy and Spain somehow aren't? Gotta source for that or just a feeling that gets you to that conclusion of yours?


Hehe, that's cute - so now you're dissecting the US into individual states? It's not the fault of the WHOLE US that it is such a major polluter, just those nasty states that, coincidentally, keep the rest of the US above water.


Sure, we’re going to protect Americans first,


Killing everyone on the planet is not protecting americans first.

I think you're confusing 'industrial protectionism' with being about protecting people.


...that’s our governments primary objective and reason for existence.


What is? Ensuring the value of the dollar? If so - they're doing a shoddy job right now.


Perhaps you should consider that American Government class again, it covers things like this.


Perhaps you should. I'd say you need it more, to be honest.


That’s why I used grains as an example...


Yes. You pick a deliberately bad example to make a point... but that point is a nonsense because it ONLY works if you set up the bad example.


Fine, if I start pissing in your river, stop me. But don’t worry too much, your hypothetical is simplistic to the absurd.


No - it's really not. The fact that you don't grasp that is what is holding you back so hard in this topic.

If weather patterns carry 90% of Canadian rain into the US, and Canada allows a laissez-fairre approach to pollution regulation - where will the acid rain fall?

If Colorado uses ALL the water in it's watershed, what flows downstream into New Mexico?

Environment doesn't care for your little lines on maps.


If me and my neighbors are all pissing in our own river, waterfront property values are going to go way down.


Irrelevent. What are you going to drink? Bathe in?


There’s your simplistic answer. When America stops building sewage waste management plants, then you have a topic…


And this is a further clue that you really dont know what you are talking about. America already HAS problems with toxic water, and non-potable drinking-water supplies.

Try actually researching the subject. Try looking up contamination in downstream reservoirs, there was a good study last year about pharmaceutical grade contamination of (US) drinking water reservoirs.


The first part you said simply repeated what I said, the conclusion you made though shows your lack of understanding.


I really appreciated this. You acting so pompous and condescending just made this part more fun.


Where are plastics made?


The more important question is WHAT are they made FROM?


Personally, I wish they did get rid of 75% of all plastics, but hey, I can’t stop the fact that plastics are made in America, I think you must be thinking of the late twentieth century US economy, not the 21st century US economy. It’s cheaper now to build plastic molded toys and products in America than it is to ship them here anymore. Time to update your knowledge base I think.


That's the problem. My 'out of date' knowledge. Not the fact that you apparently don't know isolating us from foreign oil supplies would remove our plastics industry.


They are being ‘underpriced’ because the labor and materials and lack of environmental regulations keep their prices artificially low.


Two from three isn't bad. The kind of technology that makes industry more environmentally friendly, also makes it more efficient - and thus, more profitable.

But, you're right on the other two. Except, there's nothing 'artificial' about it.


They produce a product that doesn’t help their own economy enough to raise themselves out of poverty and they continue to suffer even with those jobs, and then the company sells that product in a different country which undercuts the production of that product there. If you choose to buy American, you can do so now. If you want to buy all your stuff at walmart prices and then expect the government to bail you out of not having a good economy anymore, you’re building your own casket…


No - a lot of Americans buy at Wal-Mart because the money here is worth less than the constitution, and that's now nothing but highgrade toilet tissue.


Not conspiracy theory, paranoid delusions.


The fact that you apparently don't understand the concpet of finite resources, doesn't make any who DOES understand paranoid or delusional.


Good thing we have beef ranchers, and buffalo ranchers, and ostrich ranchers, and chicken farmers and pig farmers and sheep herders then isn’t it. They need to make a living too, I’ll buy some of their stuff so they can turn around buy some of my products right back.

Forget why you were making the moose burger argument?

Is Limbaugh or Savage posting in this thread about Palin and McCain?

I don't have access to that information.

Here, have a tissue, you're foaming at the mouth and you're drooling on yourself.

Oh, gee. I wonder how the hell would you react if Oprah Winfrey called you and all your peers pedophiles on national television.

Is Limbaugh or Savage posting in this thread about Palin and McCain?

Probably not, but, then, neither are that piece of nice meat known as Sarah Palin or that piece of rotten meat known as John McCain. Shall we refrain from discussing them as well, on account of neither being posting here, even though they are also relevant to the argument at hand, namely in the behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals? Have WE ever called you America-haters as an attempt to win an argument by appealing to fear? Have WE ever called you friggin' PEDOPHILES? HAVE WE?

Really? You think Palin asked for their resignations because they were democrats? If so, produce your source. Otherwise, it's you that is misconstruing personal differences in how to advance their departments and the city government, not party affiliation prejudices.

Now you are turning the discussion on it's head. I said that Palin had turned a traditionally nonpartisan (and friendly) small-town mayoral contest into a partisan (and heated) affair. I also criticized Palin's Jacksonian Spoils approach to government where she felt the need to replace civil servants with lackeys and cronies.

You haven't really responded to either criticism. Instead, you tried to make the blame the partisanship on the administrative leaders of Wasilla that objected to some of Palin's campaign themes. As I've pointed out that is neither factually correct nor a persuasive argument that Palin is a reformer.


She seems to have campaigned on issues that hadn't been overly discussed in previous administrations, I can agree with that until shown evidence contrariwise. But her, you know what else, most people used to ride their horses on main street in Dodge City too, but things change. Good or Bad, times change.

200 hundred votes you say? Okay, I have no reason to doubt your source. According to you, (and for all I know, I agree) all the administration of the last mayor is publicly advocating against her, but the people still thought she was right in the end didn't they? And they liked her so much they elected her again after the first time so that shows it wasn't a one term 'mistake' according to the voters who know what their town was before and after Palin better than you and I do. The second time it is said that she won in a landslide, but I admit I haven't seen what the numbers were.

You don't seem to know as much about Palin as you pretend to know.

Regardless, if you think injecting partisan machine politics into a small town was a good thing, fine. But don't pretend it is the sign of a maverick reformer. Palin was just the opposite.


And she's done what since then? Took down a corrupt governor, removed other corrupt officials in different departments and managed to double the state taxes on oil production in less than two years.

Um. I'd deal with Palinomics in a separate post, but "[t]ook down a corrupt governor?" Murkowski was proven to be corrupt? I don't think so. Further it is interesting that winning an election is being touted as in and of itself doing something meritorious.


I agree that you don't like her. Nor should you, she doesn't represent anything you stand for (except for maybe the 2nd Amendment, I've seen you post not too long ago that you recently converted to supporting 2nd Amendment rights, perhaps you still do).

How big of you. Of course I don't like her. Not only does she not represent anything I stand for, almost everything she represents I am actively opposed to.

Not to create a side discussion, but I do support the Second Amendment and it's protection of individual gun rights. That doesn't mean I support every lifetime member of the NRA 'cuz they love dem guns.

I like Sarah Palin, I've already said so in many different ways. I pointed out that I like her even before McCain picked her. You and others here want to pretend that nobody likes Sarah but fruitcakes and wingnuts, well fine for you, but your underestimate the number of us that do like her and what she represents, a less corrupt and more transparent government.

You have yet to show evidence that Palin actually represents a less corrupty and more transparent government. I've cited facts that indicate the contrary.

But my point was that you don't really like Palin because of her "reformer" or "anti-corruption" positioning, but rather because of her conservative agenda -- particularly her radical religious agenda. C'mon, Baldy, just admit it.

Palin's supporters make exagerrated, false, and/or misleading claims about her record both in Wasilla and as governor.

Michael Kinsley sets some of the record straight in the following article from Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1839724-1,00.html) (emphasis added):

Sarah Palin thinks she is a better American than you because she comes from a small town and a superior human being because she isn't a journalist and has never lived in Washington and likes to watch her kids play hockey. Although Palin praised John McCain in her acceptance speech as a man who puts the good of his country ahead of partisan politics, McCain pretty much proved the opposite with his selection of a running mate whose main asset is her ability to reignite the culture wars. So maybe Governor Palin does represent everything that is good and fine about America, as she herself maintains. But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative.

Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie that she said "No, thanks" to the famous "bridge to nowhere" (McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending). In fact, she said "Yes, please" until the project became a symbol and political albatross.

Back to reality. Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.

Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices. Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.

As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.

Under the state constitution, the governor of Alaska has unusually strong powers to shape the state budget. At the Republican National Convention, Palin bragged that she had vetoed "nearly $500 million" in state spending during her two years as governor. This amounts to less than 2% of the proposed budget. That's how much this warrior for you (the people) against it (the government) could find in wasteful spending under her control.

One thing Barack Obama and McCain disagree on is an oil windfall–profits tax. McCain is against it, on the theory that it is a tax and therefore bad, and also that it would discourage domestic production. Obama is for it, on the theory that if oil companies can make a nice profit when oil sells for $50 per bbl., they can still make a nice profit when it sells for more than $100, even if the government takes a bit and spreads the money around to those who are hurting from higher oil prices.

Although Palin's words side with McCain in this dispute, her actions side with Obama. Her major legislative accomplishment has been to revamp Alaska's windfall-profits tax in order to increase the state's take. Alaska calls it a "clear and equitable share" tax. The state assumes that extracting oil from the tundra costs about $25 per bbl. and takes as much as 75% of the difference between that and the sale price.

Why is a windfall-profits tax good for Alaska but not for the U.S.? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? People in Alaska are better than people in the rest of the U.S. They're more American. Although there are small towns and farms and high school hockey teams in the lower 48, there are fewer down here, per capita, than in Alaska. And there are many more journalists and pollsters and city dwellers and other undesirables who might benefit if every American had the same right to leech off the government as do the good citizens of Sarah Palin's Alaska.

...snip...

Let's cut to the chase, its too bad for you that I didn't argue for isolationism, you had a good momentum going there too. Wanting the US government to work for US citizens before working for world citizens =/= advocating Isolationism.

China and India are developing economies. Sheer number of people is a bad measure for attempts to control pollution. Now - if you want to compare India and China NOW, with the US when it was industrialising, you might have something worth saying.

Or - of course, we could just look at per capita.

...

Forget why you were making the moose burger argument?

No, I didn't forget why we were talking about eating burgers, did you? Per capita? You mean that makes a difference? You know, I agree. Like how in the CIA World Factbook and our little calculator we can see that China has about 959 people per sq km of arable land, India has like 790 people per sq km of arable land, Sweden has something like 371 people per sq km of arable land, France has something like 299 people per sq km of arable land and the US overall only has 184 people per sq km of arable land. And how about those states with ranching, like Montana and Wyoming, with Wikipedia we can see that they have a population density of less than 3 persons per sq km of land. I think rules of population, pollution and renewable environmental resources are not the same for the US as it is in other countries. It's not even the same between a state like Delaware (170 density) and Minnesota (25 density). So yes, I think I need to break America down into sections to make environmental decisions. One set of rules for the entire country would be ridiculous. Arizona's (21) cattle regulations and ranching stardards aren't very useful in Conneticut (271) and livestock laws laws in New York (157) make zero sense in Kansas (12). And I want a President that recognizes that and works for the US citizens before he works for the planets population.

Let's cut to the chase, its too bad for you that I didn't argue for isolationism, you had a good momentum going there too. Wanting the US government to work for US citizens before working for world citizens =/= advocating Isolationism.You should found an organization called America First to promote that goal.

Palin's supporters make exagerrated, false, and/or misleading claims about her record both in Wasilla and as governor.
...snipped blog opinion piece...

Does this mean it's okay for me to start posting entire The Weekly Standard Editorial Opinion pieces? :rolleyes:

Does this mean it's okay for me to start posting entire The Weekly Standard Editorial Opinion pieces? :rolleyes:

Depends. Will they raise independently verifiable facts that some people will try to ignore because they are inconvenient?

Or can we just respond to everything you say by saying, "yeah, but that comes from Baldy." :rolleyes:

Does this mean it's okay for me to start posting entire The Weekly Standard Editorial Opinion pieces? :rolleyes:

reality fucking exists.
there are statements that are true and statements that are false - and those values are independent of the speaker of the statement.

It turns out she's less anti-corruption than we thought:

"ANCHORAGE - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

The governor's daughters and husband charged the state $43,490 to travel and many of the trips were to and from their house in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents show."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26616212

So, Palin is okay with corruption - when she's the one making the money.

It turns out she's less anti-corruption than we thought:

"ANCHORAGE - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

The governor's daughters and husband charged the state $43,490 to travel and many of the trips were to and from their house in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents show."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26616212

So, Palin is okay with corruption - when she's the one making the money.

B-b-but MSNBC and the Washington Post are clearly liberal mouthpieces. We've got to disregard everything they say! Even if it is based entirely on facts!

/hand-waving

Does this mean it's okay for me to start posting entire The Weekly Standard Editorial Opinion pieces? :rolleyes:

A published editorial for TIME MAGAZINE is now a blog piece? Seriously, who taught you how to debate?

It turns out she's less anti-corruption than we thought:

"ANCHORAGE - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

The governor's daughters and husband charged the state $43,490 to travel and many of the trips were to and from their house in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents show."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26616212

So, Palin is okay with corruption - when she's the one making the money.

Remember Boys and Girls. Republicans are special. They can do the exact same things we'd have to jail or execute those dirty librul Democrats for even thinking of trying.

Let's cut to the chase, its too bad for you that I didn't argue for isolationism, you had a good momentum going there too. Wanting the US government to work for US citizens before working for world citizens =/= advocating Isolationism.


Isolationism comes under 'historical American Foreign Policy".

I did have a good momentum going - on that much you were correct - and American foreign policy has continuously bit America in the ass.

End of story. Your semantic quibbling about protectionism and isolationism is irrelevent.


No, I didn't forget why we were talking about eating burgers, did you?


Apparently you did. Because your two posts contradict one another.

Hoping no one would notice?


Per capita? You mean that makes a difference?


Well, let's see. Pollution has a proportion that is directly anthropogenic, and a portion that is indirectly anthropogenic.

So... yeah.


You know, I agree. Like how in the CIA World Factbook and our little calculator we can see that China has about 959 people per sq km of arable land, India has like 790 people per sq km of arable land, Sweden has something like 371 people per sq km of arable land, France has something like 299 people per sq km of arable land and the US overall only has 184 people per sq km of arable land. And how about those states with ranching, like Montana and Wyoming, with Wikipedia we can see that they have a population density of less than 3 persons per sq km of land.


That's 'population density'...


I think rules of population, pollution and renewable environmental resources are not the same for the US as it is in other countries. It's not even the same between a state like Delaware (170 density) and Minnesota (25 density). So yes, I think I need to break America down into sections to make environmental decisions.


You think the rules are not the same? You think that, do you? You're right - the US lags behind the rest of the developed world on this issue, as it does on several issues. That's not a big surprise.

What IS a big surprise is that you seem to be arguing that a president should both represent the country as a whole... AND represent the nation NOT as a whole. What the next president SHOULD do, is get on board with Kyoto. If the developing world can do it, there's nothing but excuses holding us back.


One set of rules for the entire country would be ridiculous.


Like 'no rape'? Yes. You're right. Rape should be legal or illegal depending on which county you're in.

No - because making local laws can be stupid. Some things are better handled universally.


Arizona's (21) cattle regulations and ranching stardards aren't very useful in Conneticut (271) and livestock laws laws in New York (157) make zero sense in Kansas (12). And I want a President that recognizes that and works for the US citizens before he works for the planets population.

Which is a ridiculously egocentric view of the procedure.

I notice you dropped most of the post. That's okay - you got served, and rather than admit it, you just ignore it. I'd kind of hoped you'd front up to your failings, but I guess I'll remain disappointed.

B-b-but MSNBC and the Washington Post are clearly liberal mouthpieces. We've got to disregard everything they say! Even if it is based entirely on facts!

/hand-waving

Well, it's probably possible for the reports to be examined by others... although they might make it hard (or impossible) for people like me to get to them.

The article does actually read like it's attempting to be partisan - but slanting towards the GOP, not against... justifying how it's okay that she's paying for her childrens flights, because there's a gray area or loophole.

But, before Palin even came on the scene, Alaska has had scandals about people claiming a per diem for staying at home. What she did was corrupt, and she KNOWS it was corrupt.

Once again, McCain's lack of research may cost him dearly (but, to be honest, probably won't).

...
Apparently you did. Because your two posts contradict one another.

Hoping no one would notice?

In your minds eye you imagine ranching to be unsustainable and somehow inherently bad for the environment. If you were correct, then we should carpet bomb Africa to wipe out all those Gnu water buffalo, and all those elephants giraffes and zebras, just sitting around shitting in the water supply and farting greenhouse gases. :eek2:

But rather, I think after the last five thousand years of buffalo roaming the vast grasslands of the American west we pretty much can put your paranoia to rest. Large amounts of hoofed beast all living at once are not going to greenhouse gas the planet into an early Apocalypse. Rather, the earth can support much larger herds than what we have now and it will be quite sustainable, I assure you.


What IS a big surprise is that you seem to be arguing that a president should both represent the country as a whole... AND represent the nation NOT as a whole. What the next president SHOULD do, is get on board with Kyoto. If the developing world can do it, there's nothing but excuses holding us back.

I do expect the President to represent the entire country AND regulate the nation location specific. As to Kyoto, I couldn't care less. The federal government is wise to restrict it's promise to obey treaties that make America economically disadvantaged but continue to allow exceptions for China and India. Fix Kyoto and maybe someone will submit it for ratification.


Like 'no rape'? Yes. You're right. Rape should be legal or illegal depending on which county you're in.

Wow, that's quite disturbing. We are talking about livestock and you start thinking about rape laws. eww


Which is a ridiculously egocentric view of the procedure.

I notice you dropped most of the post. That's okay - you got served, and rather than admit it, you just ignore it. I'd kind of hoped you'd front up to your failings, but I guess I'll remain disappointed.

I got served a moose burger on my plate, what did you get?

It turns out she's less anti-corruption than we thought:

"ANCHORAGE - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

The governor's daughters and husband charged the state $43,490 to travel and many of the trips were to and from their house in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents show."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26616212

So, Palin is okay with corruption - when she's the one making the money.

Your own link says this:

Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski. He traveled often in an executive jet that Palin called an extravagance during her campaign. She sold it after she was sworn into office.

"She flies coach and encourages her cabinet to fly coach as well," said Garnero, whose job is equivalent to state controller. "Some do, some don't."

yeah, shes the big spender alright. :rolleyes:

You do realize how big Alaska is don't you, you can't exactly drive all around the place in any reasonable amount of time.

Your own link says this:

Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski. He traveled often in an executive jet that Palin called an extravagance during her campaign. She sold it after she was sworn into office.

"She flies coach and encourages her cabinet to fly coach as well," said Garnero, whose job is equivalent to state controller. "Some do, some don't."

yeah, shes the big spender alright. :rolleyes:

You do realize how big Alaska is don't you, you can't exactly drive all around the place in any reasonable amount of time.


Well she's marginally less corrupt than her predecessor. Bravo.

Your own link says this:

Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski. He traveled often in an executive jet that Palin called an extravagance during her campaign. She sold it after she was sworn into office.

"She flies coach and encourages her cabinet to fly coach as well," said Garnero, whose job is equivalent to state controller. "Some do, some don't."

yeah, shes the big spender alright. :rolleyes:

You do realize how big Alaska is don't you, you can't exactly drive all around the place in any reasonable amount of time.

Skipped straight over the claiming 300 days of per diems for days she was in her own home, eh?

I would too, if I were you.

And - 'big spender'? So - corruption only matters if it's millions of dollars? If she's only taking enough to - for example - pay one person's salary for an entire year, it doesn't matter?

Corruption is corruption. Your virgin turned out to be a whore.

I do expect the President to represent the entire country AND regulate the nation location specific. As to Kyoto, I couldn't care less. The federal government is wise to restrict it's promise to obey treaties that make America economically disadvantaged but continue to allow exceptions for China and India. Fix Kyoto and maybe someone will submit it for ratification.


Kyoto wouldn't make America economically disadvantaged.

If you know nothing about the subject, feel free to just stop talking.


Wow, that's quite disturbing. We are talking about livestock and you start thinking about rape laws. eww


You were talking about local laws, and I was talking about why that's a bad idea. The connection between livestock and rape is your creation, not mine.

Skipped straight over the claiming 300 days of per diems for days she was in her own home, eh?

I would too, if I were you.

I'll assume you mean 30, not 300 and it was a typo, not an intentional dishonesty on your part. BTW: it was in the period of time directly after giving birth to her son ... How much maternity leave is normal anyway?

The popular governor collected the per diem allowance from April 22, four days after the birth of her fifth child, until June 3, when she flew to Juneau for two days. Palin moved her family to the capital during the legislative session last year, but prefers to stay in Wasilla and drive 45 miles to Anchorage to a state office building where she conducts most of her business, aides have said.

Palin rarely sought reimbursement for meals while staying in Anchorage or Wasilla, the reports show.

She wrote some form of "Lodging -- own residence" or "Lodging -- Wasilla residence" more than 30 times at the same time she took a per diem, according to the reports. In two dozen undated amendments to the reports, the governor deleted the reference to staying in her home but still charged the per diem.

As for me, I don't have a problem with her trying to work so quickly after giving birth, I'd would have asked my wife to wait longer than that before going back to work, but clearly, Palin is a driven governor.

And - 'big spender'? So - corruption only matters if it's millions of dollars? If she's only taking enough to - for example - pay one person's salary for an entire year, it doesn't matter?

Corruption is corruption. Your virgin turned out to be a whore.

Wow, you've entirely blown your entire wad haven't you. Calling a newly birthed working mother a whore for taking pier diem for thirty days at her home after giving birth to a child ... especially when it is already known that normally the Governor of Alaska is alloted their own chef to do her cooking for her but she dismissed that position. For this short period she took the extra allotment and you hold it against her.

I think the cheese slipped off your cracker their buddy, you might want to pick it up before you step in it any further.

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26616212

I'll assume you mean 30, not 300


The article says 300. Indeed, it says 312, to be specific.


...and it was a typo, not an intentional dishonesty on your part. BTW: it was in the period of time directly after giving birth to her son ... How much maternity leave is normal anyway?


Irrelevent. A 'per diem' is a business expenditure, as I'm sure you know, to cover certain discretionary costs whilst one is engaged in work that requires one to be away from home. Most 'per diem' policies have fairly strict codes of what can and can not be included under discretionary spending on a 'per diem', and the issue of claiming per diem at home HAS been a scandal in Alaska before.


As for me, I don't have a problem with her trying to work so quickly after giving birth, I'd would have asked my wife to wait longer than that before going back to work, but clearly, Palin is a driven governor.


Again, still irrelevent. What is the maternity policy for governors in Alaska? That might be relevent.


Wow, you've entirely blown your entire wad haven't you.


You talk pretty, but not that pretty.


Calling a newly birthed working mother a whore


It was a literary reference - as I'm sure you know, because - clearly, with at least one child already old enough to be expecting her OWN child, Sarah Palin is clearly not an actual, biological, 'virgin'.

If you need me to explain the literary reference, I can.


...for taking pier diem for thirty days at her home after giving birth to a child ...


The 'child' part actually being irrelevent, and something of an appeal to emotion here.


...especially when it is already known that normally the Governor of Alaska is alloted their own chef to do her cooking for her but she dismissed that position.


Irrelevent. If she outlawed whaling, is it okay to kick in baby's faces? No - because the two things have sod-all to do with one another.

(And, of course, let's ignore the fact that she sacked the chef, NOT as a cost cutting exercise, but because she said she wanted to cook for her own family. Virtuous in it's own right, perhaps... but not the virtue you might try to sell it as).


For this short period she took the extra allotment and you hold it against her.


I don't hold it against her at all. I think maternity leave is a good thing. But, we're not talking about maternity leave - we're talking about her claiming an expense account where there was no expense - which is possibly illegal (it says it's a gray area in Alaska law), and is definitely corrupt.


I think the cheese slipped off your cracker their buddy, you might want to pick it up before you step in it any further.

Err. Okay. I don't even know what that means. I stepped on cheese? It's that, like, a Wisconsin euphemism, or something?

sarah palin is

a sexy BEASTT!!!!!!!!!

no way. This is a sexy beast:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2005/09/20/bfray2.jpg

Palin's got nothing on him!

Err. Okay. I don't even know what that means. I stepped on cheese? It's that, like, a Wisconsin euphemism, or something?

It's basically a slightly cleaner version of stepping on your own poo I suspect. It's nice to see that Balderdash is living up to his name by spewing nothing but balderdash, and no, I don't mean the game.

It's basically a slightly cleaner version of stepping on your own poo I suspect. It's nice to see that Balderdash is living up to his name by spewing nothing but balderdash, and no, I don't mean the game.

Wasn't that Boulderdash? Hmm - different game, I think.

That would make more sense, kind of. Well, it might if the point it had followed was genuine. Thanks. I learned something new!

*snip*

You seriously don't know what per diem is, do you?

First, it's ONLY for expenses incured due to your job. It's not extra compensation. It's a repayment or prepayment for those expenses. I'm almost certain having a baby doesn't fit, but if you think it does, I'd love to see that definition of per diem. Why is her birth relevant at all?

That said, she was traveling home from where she'd relocated for her role as Governor. It's still a bit of an abuse, but not as bas as it sounds. (Read that again before you reply, because I'm defending her a bit.)

I can say some of the things she's being lambasted for there, isn't that strange. Some of my business makes arrangements to include families in trips and that would be more necessary in a political role. Also, she was attacked for attending events her family would be going to anyway. It's not uncommon in my business to bill a company for travel made necessary or restricted because of company business.

Here comes the criticism. 312 days means that she billed like half the time a per diem while staying in her home. Whether or not it's legal under the Alaskan system, it's clearly and obviously wrong. Per diem is to cover expenses caused by her job and this was not that. There isn't any business justification for what she did. It's a "I did it because I can" situation.

Abuse of per diem really pisses me off, because half of the paperwork I have to fill out relating to expenses is because people exploit the laws well beyond the intent of this necessary expense. Traveling sucks and I shouldn't be punished for doing it. If they choose to specially compensate me, they should. However, per diem is not that special compensation.

no way. This is a sexy beast:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2005/09/20/bfray2.jpg

Palin's got nothing on him!

MY EYES! MY EYES! :eek:

MY EYES! MY EYES! :eek:

By the by, sorry about misspelling your name several times. Somehow in the years I've know you, you've always been murry-a-vets in my head. It was only after repeatedly writing your name in the last thread that I noticed I was misreading it.

By the by, sorry about misspelling your name several times. Somehow in the years I've know you, you've always been murry-a-vets in my head. It was only after repeatedly writing your name in the last thread that I noticed I was misreading it.
Thanks, but I didn't notice. Lots of people misspell my name in this forum and lots of people misspell my name real life, too. As long as it's right on my passport, ID and bank documents, I don't care.

Thanks, but I didn't notice. Lots of people misspell my name in this forum and lots of people misspell my name real life, too. As long as it's right on my passport, ID and bank documents, I don't care.

Strangly, lots of people misspell my first name. It's Eric. Seriously, Eric. How hard is that?

I've gotten tons of magazines to Erice.

Strangly, lots of people misspell my first name. It's Eric. Seriously, Eric. How hard is that?

I've gotten tons of magazines to Erice.

try being "Lee". So, what's that short for? Nothing, it's short for nothing, you obnoxious prick.

try being "Lee". So, what's that short for? Nothing, it's short for nothing, you obnoxious prick.

My grandfather's initials are OK. Trying having those initials in the Army, or filling out any kind of contract, etc. He's got us all beat.

But, seriously, how does anyone think that's short for something. What the hell could it be short for?

Is Limbaugh or Savage posting in this thread about Palin and McCain?

Dont know about Savage, but Limbaugh's probably high and passed out on prescritpion drugs somewhere. Or in the Carribean partaking in underaged prostitutes.

Strangly, lots of people misspell my first name. It's Eric. Seriously, Eric. How hard is that?

I've gotten tons of magazines to Erice.

try being "Lee". So, what's that short for? Nothing, it's short for nothing, you obnoxious prick.
Mine is Jen. And people misspell that. HOW, I ask you?

Mine is Jen. And people misspell that. HOW, I ask you?

Shoot, I forgot you were female, too. That explains your sexist views of Palin. ;)

Shoot, I forgot you were female, too. That explains your sexist views of Palin. ;)
*shoots Jocabia* There. There now.*



(*movie reference, by the way.)

Thanks, but I didn't notice. Lots of people misspell my name in this forum and lots of people misspell my name real life, too. As long as it's right on my passport, ID and bank documents, I don't care.

Lucky you. My bank's fucked up my first name on my bank account for the entire time I've had the account. I've tried to have them correct it, even had a teller once put the correction into the computer while I was standing there to no avail.

Oddly enough, the resulting disparity between my driver's license name and my bank account name doesn't seem to inconvenience people at all, even those that have to scrutinize both to make sure it is, indeed, my card.

Mine is Jen. And people misspell that. HOW, I ask you?

That's...it?

My name starts with three consonants that don't appear together pretty much anywhere else. Evar. *curses parents*

http://jimtreacher.com/youhavebeenwarned.jpg

*shoots Jocabia* There. There now.*



(*movie reference, by the way.)

If that's a tranquilizer, I swear I'll bear your child. That's right, I'll make the impossible possible for a little sleep.

If that's a tranquilizer, I swear I'll bear your child. That's right, I'll make the impossible possible for a little sleep.

Have you seriously not slept at all today? I figured you'd have passed out some time this afternoon.

That's...it?

My name starts with three consonants that don't appear together pretty much anywhere else. Evar. *curses parents*

Khpenisface?

http://jimtreacher.com/youhavebeenwarned.jpg

What your point? Links to an ill-informed, pathetic, right wing nutbag blog doesnt really "prove" or argue for anything...

Have you seriously not slept at all today? I figured you'd have passed out some time this afternoon.

No. I can't figure out why. It's seriously beginning to be a problem.

For those who don't know, I've had about the equivalent of a nights sleep in four nights.

Mine is Jen. And people misspell that. HOW, I ask you?

Jenn, Jenny, Gen, Genn, Genny, Gennifer.

Pie. Easy as.

:)

If that's a tranquilizer, I swear I'll bear your child. That's right, I'll make the impossible possible for a little sleep.
Oh, sleep deprivation, is that your excuse? :p

No it was from the Hitchcock movie "Marnie" and it was pivotal to the plot. Since you can't sleep you may as well rent it and that way you'll get the full effect of my post. ;)

http://jimtreacher.com/youhavebeenwarned.jpg

Imageleeching from a site that doesn't allow imageleeching is a real convincing argument.

Jenn, Jenny, Gen, Genn, Genny, Gennifer.

Pie. Easy as.

:)

Damnit, now I have "27 Jennifers" stuck in my head.

@Jocabia: Have you considered alcohol? In large quantities? You've got some catching up to do anyway, methinks.

Khpenisface?

It's a testament to how tired I am that it took me a while to get that.

Sadly, no. And I'm not listing my real name either, as it would lead to some inconvenience seeing as I'm one of 3 people in the country (so far as I can tell) who has this name.

Jenn, Jenny, Gen, Genn, Genny, Gennifer.

Pie. Easy as.

:)
You think you're joking. You just hit all the most common ones. It's bad enough if they're trying to guess how it's spelled -- because, as you can see, it's tricky -- but they'll do that even if they are replying to a written communication in which my name is spelled correctly for them. Idiots.

It's a testament to how tired I am that it took me a while to get that.

Sadly, no. And I'm not listing my real name either, as it would lead to some inconvenience seeing as I'm one of 3 people in the country (so far as I can tell) who has this name.

Mr. Mxyzptlk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Mxyzptlk)?

Mr. Mxyzptlk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Mxyzptlk)?

I'm a bit taller, but as far as world-shattering power goes, it's about right.

muahahahahaha

No. I can't figure out why. It's seriously beginning to be a problem.

For those who don't know, I've had about the equivalent of a nights sleep in four nights.
I hate insomnia. I'm not a big fan of meds, but I'd make two suggestions:

-- Some raw celery and/or onion with dinner, no caffeine or sugar, a hot shower immediately before bed, and some relaxation breathing techniques in bed -- lie on your back, arms at your side, breathe deeply and evenly, and progressively relax every muscle you can feel, starting with your feet and working up to your face, concentrate only on your breathing. That works for me most of the time.

-- My mom, who suffers a lot of job stress, recommends Tylenol PM, which she takes if she's super-stressed and suffering related muscle pain, on Friday nights. She swears she sleeps straight through the night, while on nights she doesn't use it, she wakes up repeatedly.

It's a testament to how tired I am that it took me a while to get that.

Sadly, no. And I'm not listing my real name either, as it would lead to some inconvenience seeing as I'm one of 3 people in the country (so far as I can tell) who has this name.
Which of you is the one the FBI are looking for?