Who has two paws and hates Sarah Palin

[savant]

Yes, but McCain is a 72 year old cancer survivor. She might end up having to do a LOT more than those three things.

Depending on who you ask, being a 72yo cancer survivor can attest to his strength or to his frailty.

Either way, I'd like to hear more on her views of foreign issues aside from the "let's kick some terrorist ass" stance she's taking before I arrive at any conclusions.

[gdeangel]

Your last sentence was phrased very poorly, yet from the gist of it I got that you believe that the death penalty should be enacted sooner than later because current forensic evidence usage is enough to reduce false convictions to nil? So in effect we should throw out all appeals, rights, etc. that convicts have because of certain fingerprints, etc. In all practicality it's likely that this won't be changed, and it's common knowledge that people who get assigned the death penalty take up a significant amount more of taxpayers dollars than those who get life sentences. Because of the current death penalty system, prisons are receiving a significant more amount of funds than public schools. I do realize you suggested changing the Consitution, but I doubt by any practical means it will happen.

The death penalty has been panned since the latter part of the 20th century do to two things (1) its cost inefficiency, and (2) inaccuracies/bias in judicial outcomes. So let me say clearly - I am not talking about doing away with appeals. But 15 years of mandatory appeals that may or may not address factual issues de novo are just a waste of taxpayer dollars. If you want to deter criminals from violent crime, they need to understand that they will face death... not death 15 after years on the taxpayer dime (if they were on the street they might not even live 15 years). So I will just say as simply as I can... I support the death penalty and advocates of the death penalty (all that was said about Ms. Palin), but would content that items (1) & (2) need to be fixed to make it work, and if you want to disagree because you don't think they can be fixed, that's different than pandering that the death penalty is something "bad". And part of me thinks that even if you don't fix (2), we may still need to have a death penalty (assuming we fix (1)) as a practical matter.

I've always learned creationism in my school in English. Yet what did we cover in our creationist class? Native American creationism, Greek + Roman creationism, a little bit of bullshit here and there, all literature. There's no scientific evidence of course behind it, so as you said it's out of science class. Social studies does teach about who believed what, there's entire chapters in books devoted to Christianity (people believe around 50 BC a man named Jesus Christ, thought to be the Son of God... etc. etc.). If you want an actual course analyzing the specifics of certain religions? I call bullshit. Why teach Christianity if you're not going to teach some just as legitimate in my eyes crazy dead religion that says the space god's sneezed the earth into existence on accident.

I think we agree. But teaching this stuff should not be completely banned from schools as it is effectively now. Ask any teacher whether they would feel comfortable talking about Adam & Eve - including social studies or English teachers - and they will tell you "Thank you very much but I like my job". Therefore the posters point about Palin, as stated by the poster, does not bother me.

You didn't seem to be against changing the Constitution earlier. The point is that she DOESN'T want to change the Constitution. Why not have semi-automatic blow a massive hole in the while guns for domestic use... which I don't know much on the issue but I know are relatively available...

I would support changing the constitution regarding gun law. There are two stands that one can take... a stand on principle, such as "I support the death penalty", and then try to fix the legal obstacles that stand in the way, or you can take a stand on practice, such as, "even though the supreme law of the land in principle guarantees a right to guns, we will indirectly in practice restrict it". So I think that in the first case, Palin takes a principled stand that I agree with. In the second case, she again appears to take a principled stand, one that I don't unequivocally agree with, but which I say is consistent with the constitution, and therefore I don't fault her that much for it. I would fault someone who said, gee we need to take everyone's guns away, but don't respect the rule of law (i.e., that they have a right under the constitution to have guns), just as I would fault someone who says we need to start applying the death penalty without all the due process bells and whistles without actually recognizing that that would be unconstitutional.

Hehe... oh it's biased all right as her public stance but honestly from her personal point of views I wouldn't be surprised. She's nothing more than another typical Christian who wants to enforce HER beliefs on the law. I doubt more than 5% of the entire anti-homosexual population isn't religious, IF that. Goooooo California!

I like that at least you are being honest about why you don't like her. And that's why most people are trying to detract from her - they are using personal beliefs as a basis for public disqualification. The Reblican's tried to do that with Obama and the muslim and/or radical preacher, and I personally thought that was ridiculous and the media also did not pick it up and treated it like nonsense. Why aren't people taking the same view of the personal attacks on Palin's beliefs when she is a Christian, white woman???

Hardly a good thing - studies show people have sex whatever the hell is told to them. You can look at the situations in foreign countries where they are desperately trying to educate about contraceptive means. You always have to look for the person's INTENTIONS as well behind why she supports certain policies. It's obvious her support of abstinence is due to her religious beliefs, and once again wants that to be enforced in our PUBLIC school system. Teens are going to have sex no matter what, abstinence was preached nonstop to me my freshman year, while I was still a virgin, and you think I gave a shit what was being said? Hell no. And what's so bad with a freshman hooking up with a senior . When I was 17 senior I hooked up with a 15 freshman . Same social peer group.

Twenty or even 10 years ago young women had very little by way of social activities through which they could be accepted in their "peer group" other than spreading their legs. That's no longer true. It's time to look back at abstinence as a viable option for young women. Yes, you don't have to condemn them for not making that choice, but at least they should understand that there are some very specific benefits to it. And this is one where both the means and the ends are the means are within legitimate public interest, setting aside personal beliefs, there is nothing wrong with Palin's position. The example of a 17 y.o. girl hooking up iwth a 15 y.o. freshman is not really analogous, but since you are talking as though your peer group had something to do with the decision, do you think you might have handled things without exposing yourself to as much risk??

Ahaha - more unpopular than the President. That's a MAJOR leap, considering the President has the second lowest approval ratings I believe ever... even higher than what Nixon may of had. Making Iraq a better place? That's the biggest fucking bullshit excuse - sorry I just hate to hear it. Do you know how much of an actual decent ruler Saddam Hussein was? Have you actually researched it? Because I did a damn research paper on the subject. Sure he was a dick - but he helped that country out in TONS of ways. He helped a staggering economy, brought tons of jobs, brought out an established order to the country, etc. Sure he was a dictator and killed people - but do you know how many worse situations exist in Africa and other countries? Do you realize how high the standard of living was in Iraq compared to countless other nations? Iraq may have had a poor ruler in many eyes, but why go there? He was definitely more qualified than how many other nations we could have entered. And what do you mean "something to show for it." As if - if we're there for the wrong purposes, I'm not willing to waste anymore lives and public tax dollars (which is a significant contributor to the national debt - this war has nearly generated no profit, similar to Vietnam. Last time a war helped the economy was like World War II, possibly the one with Korea) to "save face." Save face for what? The world's image of the US has plummeted due to our intervention in foreign countries, so if you do want a reason to stay there, give me an actual reason, not "to have something to show for it."

You have to be kidding. Saddam, pragmatically speaking, did maintain social order, but he killed and tortured ethnic minorities, essentially murdered anyone in the government who opposed him, and maintained a course that saw the country subject to sanctions, starvation and strife so that he could maintain his personal grip on power. Had we gone in with overwhelming force - i.e., followed the Powell doctrine from the first Gulf War - the US could have ousted Saddam and also maintained the social order. Unfortunately, we did not because it was deemed too politically expedient to try a surgical maneuver... not recognizing the anarchy that follows from the creation of a governmental void. As for the surge, what we have "to show for it" will more than likely be, as of the time we hand things over, a viable democratic state where individual rights are respected. To be sure, we can piss that away pretty fast by signaling to Iran that it is open season for religious fundamentalists to "influence" their neighbor. Not the way to go. And, at least as stated last night on national press, the US Congress does have a lower current approval rating among the American people that our <ahem> esteemed current president.

The rest of the issues are just spin from the core base of Obama-wanna's. Don't be deceived. If someone suggests banning a book that is really actually just a how-to guide for anarchy and terrorism, for example, from the shelves of public libraries, is pretty darn reasonable. By the time all of the Obamma-wanna's have spun the story, this morning I heard a caller (he was quoting Plyny, so I'm pretty sure there is about a snowball chance in hell that he's not part of the liberal academia of this country) saying that Palin was dangerous because if you start burning books you next start burning people. I liked that even more than the Obamma-wanna who called in to liken Palin to a Nazi because she made a joke that hockey moms are like pitbulls with lipstick on. She might be scappy, and you might not want to f*ck with her kids, but that's hardly the same as being a freakin' Nazi. It just amazes me the amount of prejudice, and how well it is not being called out by the so-called "objective" media....

[savant]

...and you might not want to f*ck with her kids

Somewhere in there, I'm thinking... no pun intended?

[Simon Viavant]

Yes, but McCain is a 72 year old cancer survivor. She might end up having to do a LOT more than those three things.

Depending on who you ask, being a 72yo cancer survivor can attest to his strength or to his frailty.

Either way, I'd like to hear more on her views of foreign issues aside from the "let's kick some terrorist ass" stance she's taking before I arrive at any conclusions.

I didn't mean that would make him a stronger or weaker president, I mean he might die before his term's up. Maybe that does attest to his strength. But his strength isn't gonna help him stay alive.

[savant]

Yes, but McCain is a 72 year old cancer survivor. She might end up having to do a LOT more than those three things.

Depending on who you ask, being a 72yo cancer survivor can attest to his strength or to his frailty.

Either way, I'd like to hear more on her views of foreign issues aside from the "let's kick some terrorist ass" stance she's taking before I arrive at any conclusions.

I didn't mean that would make him a stronger or weaker president, I mean he might die before his term's up. Maybe that does attest to his strength. But his strength isn't gonna help him stay alive.

keith richards is still alive... anything is possible

and why is it that when I post, my post count doesn't go up? I must have posted dozens of times and it's stuck at 8... not that I'm keeping track or anything, just curious.

[Frigidus]

On Creationism:

The simple yet elegantly awkward moose proves God's creation and not evolution is the source of all life. How could something as oddly shaped and silly looking as a moose evolve through so-called "natural selection?" Is evolution a committee? There is nothing natural about a dorky moose! Only God could have made a moose and given it huge antlers to fight off his predatory enemies. God has a well known sense of humor, I mean He made the platypus too.

On oil exploration and drilling in the ANWR:

God made dinosaurs 4,000 years ago as ultimately flawed creatures, lizards of Satan really, so when they died and became petroleum products we, made in his perfect image, could use them in our pickup trucks, snow machines and fishing boats. Now, as to the ANWR, Todd and I often enjoying caribou hunting and one year we shot up a herd big time, I mean I personally slaughtered around 40 of them with my new, at the time, custom Austrian hunting rifle. And guess what? That caribou herd is still around and even bigger than ever. Caribou herds actually need culling, be it by rifles or wolves, or Exxon-Mobil oil rigs, they do just great!

On Alaskans serving overseas in Iraq:

Well, God bless them, and I mean God and Jesus because without Jesus we'd be Muslims too or Jewish, which would be a little better because of the superior Israeli Air Force.

It's decided, I support Obama. I was leaning, but this lady is insane.

Edit: Also, is Fircoal a furry? I mean it wouldn't surprise me, but, you know...

[gdeangel]

On Creationism:

The simple yet elegantly awkward moose proves God's creation and not evolution is the source of all life. How could something as oddly shaped and silly looking as a moose evolve through so-called "natural selection?" Is evolution a committee? There is nothing natural about a dorky moose! Only God could have made a moose and given it huge antlers to fight off his predatory enemies. God has a well known sense of humor, I mean He made the platypus too.

On oil exploration and drilling in the ANWR:

God made dinosaurs 4,000 years ago as ultimately flawed creatures, lizards of Satan really, so when they died and became petroleum products we, made in his perfect image, could use them in our pickup trucks, snow machines and fishing boats. Now, as to the ANWR, Todd and I often enjoying caribou hunting and one year we shot up a herd big time, I mean I personally slaughtered around 40 of them with my new, at the time, custom Austrian hunting rifle. And guess what? That caribou herd is still around and even bigger than ever. Caribou herds actually need culling, be it by rifles or wolves, or Exxon-Mobil oil rigs, they do just great! A bunch of freaking self-anointed intellectual elitists and their disciples from the campus who really view the members of the hard-working middle class with a bit of disbelief, and certainly very little in common with them.

On Alaskans serving overseas in Iraq:

Well, God bless them, and I mean God and Jesus because without Jesus we'd be Muslims too or Jewish, which would be a little better because of the superior Israeli Air Force.

It's decided, I support Obama. I was leaning, but this lady is insane.

You are being swayed by bias and prejudice motivated spin. I could post these quotes up here in the forum, and you'd think I was being sarcastic. We don't have the context, and that's deliberate, and inexcusable. Listen to her over the next few weeks. See how she performs in the VP debates. Then make up your mind.

The reason there has been such a frenzy to slander her (even saying she faked her last pregnancy) is to prejudice the voter, who the Obamma wanna's think can be swayed by rhetoric and one sided presentation of evidence. So sad... that's really what his campaign for change has shown itself to be. A behind the scenes slander machine!

[Dancing Mustard]

I think that McCain should have picked Obama as his VP. That sounds like it would have been a pretty hard teamup to beat, even for Bill Clinton.

[strike wolf]

I think that McCain should have picked Obama as his VP. That sounds like it would have been a pretty hard teamup to beat, even for Bill Clinton.

[got tonkaed]

great populist speech aside, i find it hard to believe people believe she is going to be able to defeat biden in a debate. In a great scenario she would hold her own and make it look like she wouldnt back down and that biden was being far too aggressive.

To much talk about pallin, which probably dies down soon though. Again I am eager to hear a few specifics from the Mccain campaign, as they thus far have been the campaign that has been less transparent with their goals and means for achieveing them.

[Frigidus]

On Creationism:

The simple yet elegantly awkward moose proves God's creation and not evolution is the source of all life. How could something as oddly shaped and silly looking as a moose evolve through so-called "natural selection?" Is evolution a committee? There is nothing natural about a dorky moose! Only God could have made a moose and given it huge antlers to fight off his predatory enemies. God has a well known sense of humor, I mean He made the platypus too.

On oil exploration and drilling in the ANWR:

God made dinosaurs 4,000 years ago as ultimately flawed creatures, lizards of Satan really, so when they died and became petroleum products we, made in his perfect image, could use them in our pickup trucks, snow machines and fishing boats. Now, as to the ANWR, Todd and I often enjoying caribou hunting and one year we shot up a herd big time, I mean I personally slaughtered around 40 of them with my new, at the time, custom Austrian hunting rifle. And guess what? That caribou herd is still around and even bigger than ever. Caribou herds actually need culling, be it by rifles or wolves, or Exxon-Mobil oil rigs, they do just great!

On Alaskans serving overseas in Iraq:

Well, God bless them, and I mean God and Jesus because without Jesus we'd be Muslims too or Jewish, which would be a little better because of the superior Israeli Air Force.

It's decided, I support Obama. I was leaning, but this lady is insane.

You are being swayed by bias and prejudice motivated spin. I could post these quotes up here in the forum, and you'd think I was being sarcastic. We don't have the context, and that's deliberate, and inexcusable. Listen to her over the next few weeks. See how she performs in the VP debates. Then make up your mind.

The reason there has been such a frenzy to slander her (even saying she faked her last pregnancy) is to prejudice the voter, who the Obamma wanna's think can be swayed by rhetoric and one sided presentation of evidence. So sad... that's really what his campaign for change has shown itself to be. A behind the scenes slander machine!

Dude, I don't care about context in this case, if those words came out of her mouth in that order she's a lunatic.

[Sentinel XIV]

On Creationism:

The simple yet elegantly awkward moose proves God's creation and not evolution is the source of all life. How could something as oddly shaped and silly looking as a moose evolve through so-called "natural selection?" Is evolution a committee? There is nothing natural about a dorky moose! Only God could have made a moose and given it huge antlers to fight off his predatory enemies. God has a well known sense of humor, I mean He made the platypus too.

On oil exploration and drilling in the ANWR:

God made dinosaurs 4,000 years ago as ultimately flawed creatures, lizards of Satan really, so when they died and became petroleum products we, made in his perfect image, could use them in our pickup trucks, snow machines and fishing boats. Now, as to the ANWR, Todd and I often enjoying caribou hunting and one year we shot up a herd big time, I mean I personally slaughtered around 40 of them with my new, at the time, custom Austrian hunting rifle. And guess what? That caribou herd is still around and even bigger than ever. Caribou herds actually need culling, be it by rifles or wolves, or Exxon-Mobil oil rigs, they do just great!

On Alaskans serving overseas in Iraq:

Well, God bless them, and I mean God and Jesus because without Jesus we'd be Muslims too or Jewish, which would be a little better because of the superior Israeli Air Force.

It's decided, I support Obama. I was leaning, but this lady is insane.

You are being swayed by bias and prejudice motivated spin. I could post these quotes up here in the forum, and you'd think I was being sarcastic. We don't have the context, and that's deliberate, and inexcusable. Listen to her over the next few weeks. See how she performs in the VP debates. Then make up your mind.

The reason there has been such a frenzy to slander her (even saying she faked her last pregnancy) is to prejudice the voter, who the Obamma wanna's think can be swayed by rhetoric and one sided presentation of evidence. So sad... that's really what his campaign for change has shown itself to be. A behind the scenes slander machine!

Dude, I don't care about context in this case, if those words came out of her mouth in that order she's a lunatic.

I just hope you're willing to look it up yourself, and not just go off of the things posted here.

[gdeangel]

Dude, I don't care about context in this case, if those words came out of her mouth in that order she's a lunatic.

I might have agreed with you in abstract. But you have to judge the person. The speech was impressive and she comes across as someone with an unapologetic view of who she is and what she believes, but, and maybe this was just good speech writing, there was no hint of trying to proselytize America to share her views.

If you are a creationist, and want to convey how committed you are to that view, you might say these quotes. If you are a pro-same-sex marriage person, you might come up with a dozen even more absurd things to say to a crowd to show how committed you are to your belief. That doesn't make you nuts. In fact, it's called hyperbole, and we all do it plenty. Don't be stupid... you are falling into the trap of the Obamma-wanna's, who, being trapped themselves by the silver tongue of an excellent orator, have no idea of what substance means anymore, or how to judge character and motives. The only reason you are hearing about this stuff is because Obamma has got his small army of dirt-diggers at work combing every word this lady ever said in her life, and well as every bit of dirt about her husband, her kids, and so forth.

My mind's pretty much made up, but we'll see what happens in the next 6 weeks. I could be wrong. But this type of words-out-of-context pawning (whether they were uttered from her lips or not - I don't really care) of sound bites should just push the critical thinker to ask... if she's so nuts, why isn't Obama's campaign confident that I will be able to tell that from the debates? from the speech? What is it they don't want me to see, or think for myself about?

[jonesthecurl]

Apparently she has been enthusiastic for the cause of Alaskan Independence, and in fact sent a welcoming video message to the Alaskan Independence Party's latest convention.

There: no slant, no opinion, just a fact.
What do you all make of that?

[strike wolf]

I don't really like her but I don't like Obama either. Either way I'll probably end up voting McCain.

[pimpdave]

Apparently she has been enthusiastic for the cause of Alaskan Independence, and in fact sent a welcoming video message to the Alaskan Independence Party's latest convention.

There: no slant, no opinion, just a fact.
What do you all make of that?

Seward's Folly, the Sequel.

[gdeangel]

Apparently she has been enthusiastic for the cause of Alaskan Independence, and in fact sent a welcoming video message to the Alaskan Independence Party's latest convention.

There: no slant, no opinion, just a fact.
What do you all make of that?

I don't know if that's true. I also don't know what the Alaskan Independence movement is about. But if I were to hazard a guess, she might have the same views on problems as this party does with the federal government waste and corruption. I would not be to concerned if she was telling them, "Hey, I want to deal with your issues. I am going to/have already taken on our corrupt Congressmen who are/were looting the state. You don't need to try to push separation. Come see what I'm doing with the Alaska republican party- it's stuff you'll like." then that wouldn't bother me at all, and that seems pretty plausible given what she's done by way of taking on the entrenched Washington crowd. But again, this is a sound bite. It sounds bad on its face. But the facts are probably actually much more nuanced and specific to Alaska than we can appreciate.

Clearly she made some enemies in Alaska as a reformer. She was probably trying to make some new friends who would appreciate her reforms.

[Frigidus]

If you are a creationist, and want to convey how committed you are to that view, you might say these quotes. If you are a pro-same-sex marriage person, you might come up with a dozen even more absurd things to say to a crowd to show how committed you are to your belief. That doesn't make you nuts. In fact, it's called hyperbole, and we all do it plenty.

I'm for same sex marriage, but if I saw some politician saying that we need more tea bagging in the street, I'd be concerned. Calling dinosaurs "satan lizards" is a little bit out there.

Don't be stupid... you are falling into the trap of the Obamma-wanna's, who, being trapped themselves by the silver tongue of an excellent orator, have no idea of what substance means anymore, or how to judge character and motives. The only reason you are hearing about this stuff is because Obamma has got his small army of dirt-diggers at work combing every word this lady ever said in her life, and well as every bit of dirt about her husband, her kids, and so forth.

Every politican does that, it's not like Obama's an exception. Also, how am I being trapped by a silver tongue? Compared to a legendary orator like, say, Cicero, Obama is as much of an orator as George W. Frankly, I don't listen to many of his speeches. Fine words mean little to me. But how can you be so apologetic to Palin that you let these bat shit insane quotes by without a glance? Seems to me that you're just writing off the opposition as hypnotized or something.

My mind's pretty much made up, but we'll see what happens in the next 6 weeks. I could be wrong. But this type of words-out-of-context pawning (whether they were uttered from her lips or not - I don't really care) of sound bites should just push the critical thinker to ask... if she's so nuts, why isn't Obama's campaign confident that I will be able to tell that from the debates? from the speech? What is it they don't want me to see, or think for myself about?

What?! It's not like Obama's spreading rumors or some shit, she said that! You could say the same thing about the Reverend Wright bit, he's about on par with Palin in a religious sense. They aren't covering anything up, they aren't trying to trick you...I'm just at a loss for words.

[got tonkaed]

Dude, I don't care about context in this case, if those words came out of her mouth in that order she's a lunatic.

I might have agreed with you in abstract. But you have to judge the person. The speech was impressive and she comes across as someone with an unapologetic view of who she is and what she believes, but, and maybe this was just good speech writing, there was no hint of trying to proselytize America to share her views.

If you are a creationist, and want to convey how committed you are to that view, you might say these quotes. If you are a pro-same-sex marriage person, you might come up with a dozen even more absurd things to say to a crowd to show how committed you are to your belief. That doesn't make you nuts. In fact, it's called hyperbole, and we all do it plenty. Don't be stupid... you are falling into the trap of the Obamma-wanna's, who, being trapped themselves by the silver tongue of an excellent orator, have no idea of what substance means anymore, or how to judge character and motives. The only reason you are hearing about this stuff is because Obamma has got his small army of dirt-diggers at work combing every word this lady ever said in her life, and well as every bit of dirt about her husband, her kids, and so forth.

My mind's pretty much made up, but we'll see what happens in the next 6 weeks. I could be wrong. But this type of words-out-of-context pawning (whether they were uttered from her lips or not - I don't really care) of sound bites should just push the critical thinker to ask... if she's so nuts, why isn't Obama's campaign confident that I will be able to tell that from the debates? from the speech? What is it they don't want me to see, or think for myself about?

I realize this may perhaps be harsh, but allow me to offer a potential reason why. Ive mentioned in a few other threads that you have had a few quick changes of mind. This is nothing out of the ordinary of course, espcially in a political season. However, i think its worth mentioning via some quotes (all yours from the last few weeks).

On the budget quote one (from the ross perot thread)

I think there is really only one way out of this problem, and that isredistribution of wealth coupled with eradication of the notion of fundamental right to be a non-contributor to society. It's time to call a duck for what it is - a duck.

There is one central force driving America's financial crisis. I did not watch the Perot clip, but I did look at some of the slide and read some of the stuff on this site. I have to generally agree with what I think he's saying... the US's problem is government spending that exceeds the ability of the country to fund while retaining the private incentive for wealth accumulation that keeps the middle class working hard to become members of the upper-middle class. Take that away, and they become just like the equivalent of the renouned Italian broomsmen of the 20th century (I can say that, I'm Italian).

When the government sets out to borrower against its defecit, it has to borrower from foreign governments, either directly, or indirectly by soaking up private investment dollars that then forces American business to go abroad (e.g., to the sovereign wealth funds) for their capital. Once those foreigners hold dollar denominated debt, they have an incentive to prop up the dollar. An artificially strong dollar leads to trade defecits. Trade defecits lead to, ironically, more dollars in foreigners hands. (Now they have dollars and dollar denominated debt - they are in the water with both feet). And to get rid of some of that exposure to the dollar, they force the dollars back into the US by doubling down on the debt (i.e., cheap credit). So what looks like one thing - and over abundance of cheap credit driving excessive consumption - is in fact, due to not enough private capital available to fund both business growth and government deficits.

Solution = cut government budget defecit. How? You can't raise taxes, or you kill your economy and will have a serious loss of confidence in the American economy / dollar, leading to downward spiral. You can't cut spending, because there is a significant portion of the population that is underserved nearly to the point of bankrupting states with unmanageable prison populations and driving people to loot, carjack, and generally become indifferent to human life.

The answer... why not a socialist coup? The world focus on China suggests that there are certainly much worse possibilities.

budget quote two (again from the ross perot thread)

After 30+ years of entitlements, and an expansive Supreme Court interpretation of procedural due process, it is practically speaking impossible to cut spending in a meaningful way. You cannot privatize the military - cf.Blackwater and Haliburton. You can't eliminate most of the entitlement programs out there without significant negative social consequences, like no opportunities for the inner city except become gang bangers. You would end up with massive lawlessness, and the cost of maintaining someone in prison (or even executing them with all of the legal hurdles out there), means that once you hit the critical threshold of lawlessness, you will end up paying the same if not more than you were paying for entitlement programs just to lock people up in jail. For you see, jail is not what it used to be. It's not a great place to end up, particularly the first time because of the effects of having a record. But once your there, or have been there before, in many cases its not as scary a place as it traditionally has been throughout the history of modern society. And without that "fear" element, prisons are not a crime deterrent, no matter how much money is pumped into the prison system.

On iraq (From the president bush did what was right for the country)

Have any of you seen the Wide Angle feature that aired last night on PBS? This is a must see for anyone who thinks they can talk about the destabilization of Iraq. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episo ... ction/811/

As I watched, I thought about what happened in New Orleans after the middle class, i.e., people who had the ability to leave, got the hell out of dodge, did so in anticipation of Hurricane Katrina. And those thugs and looters were home grown American citizens. Why would we expect anything less from a place like Iraq when the plan for rebuilding does not make it worth while for anyone who has a choice to stay in the country, even if leaving means the type of struggle that is portrayed in this program.

And in the long run, barring massive resettlement, this situation will create even more distrust of foreign involvement in the region, if we do ultimately prevent an all out Iraqi civil war.

One of a few different quotes on social security privatization (the social security thread from bedub)

I wouldn't call it investing and more than buying into a Ponzi scheme is investing.

But brother, the idea that the private sector investment is going to be a panacea really misses the mark too. The market for anything, whether it's stocks, commodities, or real estate, often will get you a nice fat negative return. There is no magic bullet here. Lots of those "private sector" investments, e.g., oil at $170/barrel, some REIT stocks, or stock of Google were/are just attempts to make money through the same "find-a-bigger-fool" strategy.

What you really should be able to do is self-direct the money, either into investments that reduce your current cash expenses (to enabling more savings as well as service a need that will exist at retirement), for example, paying down a mortgage, funding children eduction (assuming successful kids will be there to help out when you retire), purchasing long term care insurance, etc. or, if you are risk loving, making some of the "private investments" that we typically think of as generating decent returns. That's too much micro-managing by the government for most people to swallow - dare I say it sounds almost communist - so we muddle on the crappy farce of an insolvent social security trust fund.

Ive ultimately chosen to leave out the most glaring example the Quotes from the looks like its Biden thread. You switch from being initially disgusted with the Biden selection, to claiming you sided with obama after hearing the strength of Bidens speech. You then changed sides again as soon as Obama spoke, something rather rare in my own estimation.

Now i don want to paint you in the wrong light, you certainly are an independent thinker, one who probably sides slightly democrat (i could be wrong, just a guess) but is willing to go the other way if you seem so moved. However to the point...until about a week ago, you primarily were concerned with issues when you posted with threads, very rarely discussing candidates personality, subjective leadership qualities and the like. In the course of a week you have completely changed to the point you are putting together an impressive polemic against the qualities of obama. I think its therefore fair to assume the democratic campaign is a bit worried the palin nomination could cause some voters to lose sight of some of the issues in exchange for the type of personality vote that has hurt our country in the last 8 years. I know you pride yourself lately on being able to see through the obama speak, but i ask you use your same critical gaze here:

Are you the one who is perhaps seeing what someone else wants you to see?

[Simon Viavant]

btw, The Alaskan Independence Party is a group of people who want Alaska to become it's own country. I live in Alaska and I've been following Sarah Palin's policies as governor, and she was talking out of her ass in the speech. She hasn't really done anything while she was elected. She's an opportunist who took credit for busting a lot of corrupt politicians, when actually, she had nothing to do with that. (If you want proof, Bill Allen and several others were convicted before she was elected and Bill Allen has now gone whistle blower on the others in an attempt to lower his sentence.) I can't believe some of the rumors the republicans have started about her. I heard a rumor that she lowered taxes while in office somehow, even though Alaska doesn't have any state taxes. If the media really was on Obama's side, then they wouldn't have spun the rumor that the media was on Obama's side. Her experience as city council doesn't count, for practical purposes she has 2 years as governor. She has NO foreign policy experience, whereas civil rights and social issues were Obama's job before he got into politics. And he's been in the Senate 4 years, not 2. And he heads the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs, so he obviously has foreign policy experience. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has been mayor of a trailer-trash town of 9,000, and then governor of Alaska for two years where she avoided making decisions on anything unless the whole state was for it. She has zero foreign policy experience. Just watch what happens in the debate when she doesn't have a speech written out for her and she actually has to talk about real issues instead of blabbing on about herself and making petty attacks on Obama.

[gdeangel]

Interesting thoughts and I appreciate them.

I think the critical moment was seeing watching Obama's speech in the "rock star" motif of the Grecian columns, where he promised everything to everyone at what will be my expense, and he didn't even come right out and respectfully acknowledge that he is asking for a sacrifice from me and the rest of the aspiring upper-middle class. Just a "let's go tax those bad guys and that will fix everything".

I do consider myself more concerned with the issues than personality, but I've said from the beginning, based on what I know about Obama's "campaign" tactics in the Illinois senate race, as well as the spin tactics that the core bought into against Hillary at many stages in the primary, I have been critical from the start and really do believe history will show that he is the Richard Nixon of the Democratic party. (Someone mentioned that originally Nixon was a "clean campaigner" who lost to Kennedy and the Daley Chicago Democratic machine, so it's probably more accurate to say that Obama is the heir to the Kennedy legacy, but noone would understand that I mean behind the scenes dirty politics and not Camelot). I was still willing to support Obama despite my dislike of his politics, if I believed he would do what is going to get the country back on track.

And my series of posts in here is just trying to respond, with some incredulity, to the character assassinations that are going on against Sarah Palin. But she connected in a way that was genuine... in a way that you can't fake with rhetoric. She claims to be for fiscal responsibility. She claims to be for social programs that are needed to support a productive workforce. And I believe she is committed to those things because of her personal beliefs and experiences, not pollster math. At the end of the day, do I believe that the family that "left big law" to have a quality of life with their children while still drawing down $500,000 a year is going to be committed to affordable childcare for working parents, or to protection of workers pensions and the right to organize in order to challenge the 'market first' forces that have been destabilizating American communities everywhere? Not at all. The Obamas are the jet set. And they talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Palin's husband is a member of the United Steelworkers Union. She disclosed that but what's telling is that she said it in a speech to a hall full of conventioneers from a party that had traditionally blamed organized labor for choking up the economy. There was a very muted applause, but she had the guts to say it, even though it was unpopular, and when the chips are down, I think she is going to execute on the issues in a way that I support, and for the other issues where I don't support her personal view (like creationism), there are two things: those are areas protected by constitutional case law, and the measures they can constitutionally implement don't bother me. And are there fundamentalists that would put a right to life amendment on the ballot - sure. But what the Republicans are doing by spotlighting someone with street cred on the abortion issue is saying, look, here's an example that not everyone in the world runs out to get an abortion just because the law allows it, even when there are medical issues and even when its and unwed mother. And we as a country can advance the ideals of real choice for mothers to-be without striking down Roe and forcing them to carry a child to term. That's what Palin's nomination says to me, at least, and it's very close to what the Democrats adopted as their party plank which panders to anti-abortion voters saying they are going to advance the value of inutero life but not take on Roe. I would like abstinence taught in school, along with all the rest of sex ed., and I am certainly not a bible toter in the least. And I take those quotes about dinosaurs being devil's servants, ask where did the depiction of the devil and demons come from? Whether or not the devil is real, the depictions are man made - the horns, the tails, and fangs, etc. Someone dug up some bones and that's what they saw. As an anthropologist, you can say, those dinosaur remains sitting in the ground are nothing but what's left of such a wonderful gift, that all it gave us was the conceptualization of demons on earth. But the point of the statement is just this - when you look at the quote here's what I suspect it would mean in context: "I don't give a crap about what the preservationists want to preserve. They are idiots. Compared to the realities of an energy crisis, the remains of a bunch of dead, extinct species are here for us to exploit." That's all the quote was mostly likely meant to convey if you were to track down the context and treat the hyperbole as what is is, an exclamation point on the conviction of the speaker. And if you are making the speach in response to zealots who claim that the environment is the most precious gift we have, you make the point by saying that there are other ways of looking at this gift folks, in terms of human utility.

I have the belief that you don't solve the country's problems with hope and popular promises. I don't think Obama can do anything but that. And if his promises require unpopular means to deliver them... do I think a person of his pedigree is going to suck it up and do what needs to be done (i.e., cut entitlements, trim government, control costs of higher education, revitalization of organized labor and restriction of imports and the consumer driven economy), or will he flip flop over to the next "popular" pipe dream, like "green jobs"? He's already done it with NAFTA.

And the diversion from that weakness is name calling by his supporters. Many are not ashamed to call Palin "trailer trash" publicly. Has anyone called Obama an Oreo? A privileged minority from a white suburb? We're all much to above board for that sort of talk, right?

[jonesthecurl]

Apparently she has been enthusiastic for the cause of Alaskan Independence, and in fact sent a welcoming video message to the Alaskan Independence Party's latest convention.

There: no slant, no opinion, just a fact.
What do you all make of that?

I don't know if that's true. I also don't know what the Alaskan Independence movement is about. But if I were to hazard a guess, she might have the same views on problems as this party does with the federal government waste and corruption. I would not be to concerned if she was telling them, "Hey, I want to deal with your issues. I am going to/have already taken on our corrupt Congressmen who are/were looting the state. You don't need to try to push separation. Come see what I'm doing with the Alaska republican party- it's stuff you'll like." then that wouldn't bother me at all, and that seems pretty plausible given what she's done by way of taking on the entrenched Washington crowd. But again, this is a sound bite. It sounds bad on its face. But the facts are probably actually much more nuanced and specific to Alaska than we can appreciate.

Clearly she made some enemies in Alaska as a reformer. She was probably trying to make some new friends who would appreciate her reforms.

She did also used to be a member of the AIP.

[The1exile]

there's gotta be a way to get a only 5% fat jibe in here somewhere, surely?

[superFLINT]

Wow, I am having a great laugh at you Americans...Using "facts" from facebook to base your vote upon...

Pretty much all of the world hates you, you invade countries like they are going out of style just to steal their oil and gas...Iraq has WMDs, yeah right, you just made that up so you could justify to the world that you were in the right to invade, which you were not...And now you want to impose sanctions against Russia for invading Georgia, talk about the pot calling the kettle black...I think we should all impose sanctions against the US because you are the biggest threat to the world!!! And this Guantanamo Bay, if that is not a concentration camp I dunno what is...The US hates Cuba and has imposed many sanctions against them but when it comes time to build a torture chamber you are Cuba's best friend, I guess if you do the torturing in another country than it is alright...

It does not matter who you vote for president, big oil runs the US!!! Make up a story, oil prices rise and you have more money for your wars...Or cut back production and say there is a shortage, then bang, prices rise...

If I were an American I would vote for Sara, at least you would have something good to look at for the next 4 years...It is not like it will make a difference in how the country is run!!!

[Simon Viavant]

Yeah, this is the legacy America's had for the last 8 years, if you want it to continue, vote John McCain.