Sarah Palin

[rgraham666]

I made only one claim.

I claimed that everything is a tool and so has no ethical qualities. If a tool does bad or good it's because of the people using it.

I did not claim that the idea of diffuse power was impracticable. And I challenge you to find where I said so. I am, in fact, quite fond of the idea.

However the idea that shrinking the government will diffuse power is, in my opinion, a false one. Power exists and if one part of society doesn't claim it the power will be claimed by others. Others over whom we have little say. It will not diffuse power it will concentrate it.

I did not claim that new ideas should be rejected out of hand. And I challenge you to find where I said so. Shrinking government is an old idea though. And I do not reject it. I simply want it done for practical reasons rather than the standard one, 'Government is bad'.

My only statement, so I believe, is that human nature and weakness brings all our systems to grief eventually.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

What does actually sponsoring legislation have to do with what I said????

Have we so quickly forgotten how absolutely irate one party was over Mr. Clinton and his admitted drug use? They LOVE to hammer people on this kind of thing.

(BTW, not talking about the "I didn't inhale" bullshit. I have to admit, that was something I really disliked.)

Bel - I think the "didn't inhale" is what made them irate. I have a pretty convincing argument for that: Smart GOPers understand that they live a glass house, because many or most of their future candidates will have smoked pot. Sure, there's always some yahoos who jump on every possible flaw - it's the equivalent of posters here focusing on an antagonist's typos or spelling errors. It's noise, not taken seriously by the body politic.

As for not sponsoring legislation: J'accuse! J'accuse both political parties and the entire baby boom generation for rank cowardice and dereliction of duty on this issue! Shame, Shame, SHAME! This insane war on drugs is a cancer that is eating away our society, constitution, foreign policy, everything. Both the political establishment and the polity they represent are guilty of perpetuating it and allowing its perpetuation. STOP IT NOW!

</rant>

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

BTW, after last night it should not go unremarked that she is drop-dead beautiful.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

She should have been wearing a bathing suit and high heels and a big sash that read, "MS VICE PRESIDENT".

Just saying.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

How about a mess-o-mall hair, flip-flops, and a KISS MY GRITS tee shirt? Maybe a Glamour-Shots pose?

Palin reminds me of Vera, the ditzy waitress, of ALICE DOESNT LIVE HERE ANYMORE.

 

[Liar]

I propose that the presumptive Rep Veep and the presumptive Dem First Lady duke it out for the White House in a tub of mint jell-o.

Then we can end all this shennanigans and get back to talking about porn and stuffs.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Originally Posted by rgraham666: Tell me then, if The Founders put together such a perfect system, why is your country in such a mess?

Can't resist taking a swing at this one.

First, our country is in much less of a mess than the usual characterizations perpetuated by politicians and the media. That's been true at any given moment over the past 200 years, with the exception of 1861-1865.

That said, the problem today is two-fold: First, an inbred, self-serving poltical class is has escaped the people's control and is manipulating the government to perpetuate their control of it. An aside: The perception that Palin is an opponent of that class is the true source of her appeal, and almost certainly the reason McCain picked her - social conservatives are a dime a dozen, and if that's all he wanted he could have picked Hucksterbee.

Second, government's size and scope has become so massive and its actions so intrusive into so many areas that its inevitable dysfunctions are truly weakening the country. We'd really be screwed if most of the other countries in the world didn't have just as serious a case of this disease - if that ever changes we really will be trouble.

 

[Shwenn]

I did not claim that the idea of diffuse power was impracticable. And I challenge you to find where I said so. I am, in fact, quite fond of the idea.

I believe you used the term "wishful thinking".

I did not claim that new ideas should be rejected out of hand. And I challenge you to find where I said so.

I didn't say you made that claim. My argument was that this this claim is where we end up if we follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion.

My only statement, so I believe, is that human nature and weakness brings all our systems to grief eventually.

So then what is the point of any new political idea? Is there some point to it?

And this applies to every system of government. You can put this forth as an argument against any system I present. And you agree with that.

If you don't think my conclusions from your statements follow, if you believe them to be non sequitur, present yours. My assumption was that the claim you made was meant to go somewhere. If I'm wrong, that is fine. You made a claim which I believe is of no use to us.

Shrinking government is an old idea though. And I do not reject it. I simply want it done for practical reasons rather than the standard one, 'Government is bad'.

Why else would you get rid of something? You want us to get rid of government because we love it? There are many reasons why different people say it's bad but that is always going to be the main reason to get rid of it.

 

[Shwenn]

BTW, after last night it should not go unremarked that she is drop-dead beautiful.

Beautiful the way Dan Quayle was handsome? Do we need to make sure she can spell potato?

 

[Pure]

rox BTW, after last night it should not go unremarked that she is drop-dead beautiful.

pure: She and Bristol are very pretty indeed. Too bad whatever native intelligence they have is overlain with crap. Reminds me of that Florida beauty queen who used to be prominent in the Anti-Gay movement.

This VPILF is of a type with other hot, bubbly, fierce, and totally sincere Baptist ladies i know who indeed get your cock up.... provided you'll sit and listen to 'why jesus is my personal lord and savior.'

Your man Rush calls her the 'babe.'

--
not sure if this is faked, but fwiw:

http://www.codewolf.com/media/sarah-palin-hot.jpg

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Beautiful the way Dan Quayle was handsome? Do we need to make sure she can spell potato?

As I said in Ami's thread, she didn't knock-off a sitting, establishment-governor in a primary by being just a pretty face and a good teleprompter reader.

~~~~

She is a babe. Adj., babous.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

She should have been wearing a bathing suit and high heels and a big sash that read, "MS VICE PRESIDENT".

Just saying.

Yeah, she didn't do anything for me, either. They're quite the "beautiful" couple, she and her husband. Like Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver for a new era. And with about as much substance underneath...at least, that's my sense.

 

[Shwenn]

As I said in Ami's thread, she didn't knock-off a sitting, establishment-governor in a primary by being just a pretty face and a good teleprompter reader.

~~~~

She is a babe. Adj., babous.

People see a pretty face and stop thinking clearly. We know this to be true. She isn't unqualified in exactly the same way as Quayle. She is far from being as dumb.

I would say Quayle was far more unqualified than he was handsome while she is as unqualified as she is pretty.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Yeah, she didn't do anything for me, either. They're quite the "beautiful" couple, she and her husband. Like Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver for a new era. And with about as much substance underneath...at least, that's my sense.

One more time, she didn't knock-off a sitting, establishment-governor in a primary by being just a pretty face and a good teleprompter reader.

But if y'all wanna underestimate her, be my guest.

Prediction (Stella noted I've been doing a lot of fortune telling recently): She will eat Biden's lunch in a debate.

(Confidence: 60 percent? Above 50/50.)

PS. Biden's had a free ride electorally for 36 years. He's never gotten far enough in his prez candidates to get a real workout. He might possibly be flabby. Apollo Creed.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

One more time, she didn't knock-off a sitting, establishment-governor in a primary by being just a pretty face and a good teleprompter reader.

But if y'all wanna underestimate her, be my guest.

Prediction (Stella noted I've been doing a lot of fortune telling recently): She will eat Biden's lunch in a debate.

(Confidence: 60 percent? Above 50/50.)

I'll take that bet. She's gonna crumble like the little cookie she is...

 

[epiphany65]

Can't resist taking a swing at this one.

First, our country is in much less of a mess than the usual characterizations perpetuated by politicians and the media. That's been true at any given moment over the past 200 years, with the exception of 1861-1865.

That said, the problem today is two-fold: First, an inbred, self-serving poltical class is has escaped the people's control and is manipulating the government to perpetuate their control of it. An aside: The perception that Palin is an opponent of that class is the true source of her appeal, and almost certainly the reason McCain picked her - social conservatives are a dime a dozen, and if that's all he wanted he could have picked Hucksterbee.

Second, government's size and scope has become so massive and its actions so intrusive into so many areas that its inevitable dysfunctions are truly weakening the country. We'd really be screwed if most of the other countries in the world didn't have just as serious a case of this disease - if that ever changes we really will be trouble.

I agree with all of that and would like to add that I think a lot of the problems with The US now stem from Bush thinking that the Constitution is "...just a goddamned piece of paper." That's sort of like saying The Lord's Prayer is just a nice poem.

 

[Shwenn]

But if y'all wanna underestimate her, be my guest.

PS. Biden's had a free ride electorally for 36 years. He's never gotten far enough in his prez candidates to get a real workout. He might possibly be flabby. Apollo Creed.

A) We can't estimate her. That is the problem with a person being unqualified. You can't estimate them with any degree of accuracy.

B) Your P.S. is a tu quoque. If Biden were the least qualified person on earth, Palin would remain unqualified.

 

[DesertPirate]

A) We can't estimate her. That is the problem with a person being unqualified. You can't estimate them with any degree of accuracy.

B) Your P.S. is a tu quoque. If Biden were the least qualified person on earth, Palin would remain unqualified.

A) That's the same problem I have with Obama.

B) Your opinion, I disagree.

 

[Shwenn]

A) That's the same problem I have with Obama.

Me too.

B) Your opinion, I disagree.

I will restate:
If Biden were the least qualified person on earth, it would have no bearing on how qualified Palin is.

 

[DesertPirate]

Me too.



I will restate:
If Biden were the least qualified person on earth, it would have no bearing on how qualified Palin is.

This election will elect a sitting Senator for only the third time in history. There is a reason we choose Governors over Senators.

The other two were Harding and Kennedy.

 

[sweetness6280]

This election will elect a sitting Senator for only the third time in history. There is a reason we choose Governors over Senators.

The other two were Harding and Kennedy.

While basic facts are true (i.e. sitting senator), that statement makes it seem that choosing Senators is a rare thing.

In total, we have elected 15 Senators, sitting or non.

James Monroe Senator, 1790-1794 President, 1817-1825

John Quincy Adams Senator, 1803-1808 President, 1825-1829

Andrew Jackson Senator, 1797-1798; 1823-1825 President, 1829-1837

Martin Van Buren Senator, 1821-1828 President, 1837-1841

William Henry Harrison Senator, 1825-1828 President, 1841

John Tyler Senator, 1827-1836 President, 1841-1845

Franklin Pierce Senator, 1837-1842 President, 1853-1857

James Buchanan Senator, 1834-1845 President, 1857-1861

Andrew Johnson Senator, 1857-1862; 1875 President, 1865-1869

Benjamin Harrison Senator, 1881-1887 President, 1889-1893

Warren G. Harding Senator, 1915-1921 President, 1921-1923

Harry S. Truman Senator, 1935-1945 President, 1945-1953

John F. Kennedy Senator, 1953-1960 President, 1961-1963

Lyndon B. Johnson Senator, 1949-1961 President, 1963-1969

Richard M. Nixon Senator, 1950-1953 President, 1969-1974

Information from www.senate.gov

 

[sweetness6280]

In fairness, I did a check.

The governors who became President are:

Thomas Jefferson, Governor of Virginia, 1779-81
James Monroe, Governor of Virginia, 1799-1802
Andrew Jackson, Governor of the Florida Territory, 1821
Martin Van Buren, Governor of New York, 1829
William Henry Harrison, Territorial Governor of Indiana, 1801-13
John Tyler, Governor of Virginia, 1825-26
James Knox Polk, Governor of Tennessee, 1839-41
Andrew Johnson, Governor of Tennessee, 1853-57, Military Governor of Tennessee, 1862-65
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Governor of Ohio, 1868-72, Governor of Ohio, 1876-77
Grover Cleveland, Governor of New York, 1883-85
William McKinley, Governor of Ohio, 1892-96
Theodore Roosevelt, Governor of New York, 1898-1900
William Howard Taft, Governor of the Philippines, 1901-04
Woodrow Wilson, Governor of New Jersey, 1911-13
Calvin Coolidge, Governor of Massachusetts, 1919-20
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Governor of New York, 1929-33
James Earl Carter, Jr., Governor of Georgia, 1971-75
Ronald Wilson Reagan, Governor of California, 1967-75
William Jefferson Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, 1978-80, 1982-92
George Walker Bush, Governor of Texas, 1995-2000

In total, 20, but some men make both lists.

 

[DesertPirate]

While basic facts are true (i.e. sitting senator), that statement makes it seem that choosing Senators is a rare thing.

In total, we have elected 15 Senators, sitting or non.

James Monroe Senator, 1790-1794 President, 1817-1825

John Quincy Adams Senator, 1803-1808 President, 1825-1829

Andrew Jackson Senator, 1797-1798; 1823-1825 President, 1829-1837

Martin Van Buren Senator, 1821-1828 President, 1837-1841

William Henry Harrison Senator, 1825-1828 President, 1841

John Tyler Senator, 1827-1836 President, 1841-1845

Franklin Pierce Senator, 1837-1842 President, 1853-1857

James Buchanan Senator, 1834-1845 President, 1857-1861

Andrew Johnson Senator, 1857-1862; 1875 President, 1865-1869

Benjamin Harrison Senator, 1881-1887 President, 1889-1893

Warren G. Harding Senator, 1915-1921 President, 1921-1923

Harry S. Truman Senator, 1935-1945 President, 1945-1953

John F. Kennedy Senator, 1953-1960 President, 1961-1963

Lyndon B. Johnson Senator, 1949-1961 President, 1963-1969

Richard M. Nixon Senator, 1950-1953 President, 1969-1974

Information from www.senate.gov

How many had been Governors after the Senate?
A Governor has more executive branch experience than any Senator.
Senators know the Legislative branch.
That's what I'm saying.
Look at the last 2 on that list, 2 of the worst in many ways, not all, but many.

 

[sweetness6280]

How many had been Governors after the Senate?
A Governor has more executive branch experience than any Senator.
Senators know the Legislative branch.
That's what I'm saying.
Look at the last 2 on that list, 2 of the worst in many ways, not all, but many.

I understand what you are saying, but (depending on the state, the issues faced by each governor, and the structure of the state government), many of the governors don't have real executive experience either. In my state, Texas, the governor actually has less power than the Lt. Gov.

It doesn't matter whether they were before or after, Senator or Governor. There are wonderful and terrible examples on both lists. In truth, neither top candidate has executive experience. OK. So we look at the issues. Novel concept, that.

I just don't think that experience or the lack thereof can be the issue here. One cannot effectively compare apples and oranges, nor can one predict the efficacy of a President based on whether he was a Governor, Senator, or held both of those positions before becoming President.

It comes down to whose stance on which issues most closely matches one's own. And whose policies will be better for the country. The experience issue, in this particular race, has to be a moot point.

 

[rengadeirishman]

I won't argue your facts, DG. You'll notice I didn't attempt to argue the last time you posted information from a site most people realize is seriously slanted in their approach to the truth.

But here are the selections from Snopes you boasted about. You'd better do a bit of reading, since they paint you misinformed again.

Did you go to Snopes . com or somewhere else?

About Obama saying pledge - http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

About Obama's church being Muslim - http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp

About someone claiming Revelations describing Obama as the antichrist - http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp

The email about Obama's 50 Lies - all proven as false - http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

The reference to Obama saying 57 states - http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

The reference to Obama not having his hand over his heart - there are photos of him with his hand over his heart, and one where he did not - for heaven's sake this is silly! http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp

The lapel pin? Here is a false email circulating pretending to be Obama - http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp

I don't give two hoots if someone wears a lapel pin with a flag. I don't own one, neither does my dad or my father in law and both are veterans. My father in law has a purple heart, for heaven's sake, and he doesn't wear a lapel pin. What on earth should that matter? Are you telling me my father isn't a patriot? That my dad in law lost his foot in battle but his opinion and loyalty to the flag mean nothing because he doesn't wear a lapel pin?

That's political nonsense, DG.

In this country we have the right to choose to display our patriotism in different ways. We have. That is America. Freedom.

And as to the point about being Christian. Does it matter if someone isn't Christian? I mean really?

Obama has sworn time and time again that he is not Muslim. (And Snopes does back him up on this.) All these "rumors" that have been sent about in emails - I wonder by whom? - have been proven false.

But even if he were Muslim, why would that matter?

Only Christians should be allowed in this country? Only Christians are important?

And which specific Christian faith is the true one? They all seem to interpret the Bible differently.

America was founded on the very idea that our religions should be private. We shouldn't be forced to alter our beliefs to suit another. We should be allowed to practice our beliefs without duress.

I am so tired of fear being touted as fact. You'd better watch out what happens if this person is elected!

You know what? I'm afraid now because of who was already elected. We're in a mess and it's getting worse.

That's true fear. And it has nothing to do with whether or not he wears a lapel pin.

I read those snopes things, and im particularly shocked that people would possibly believe that obama is the antichrist based on that email.

That email says that Revelation says that the antichrist will be of muslim descent. That makes me chuckle, because when revelation was written around 90 A.D. there wouldnt be muslims for some 5 and a half centuries.