Sarah Palin

[starrkers]

This appeared in Sydney's top newspaper's online edition today.
McCain booed for backing Obama

So did this
Todd Palin the "shadow governor"

 

[shereads]

This appeared in Sydney's top newspaper's online edition today.
McCain booed for backing Obama

So did this
Todd Palin the "shadow governor"

There is no escape.

 

[Belegon]

Bel, I am not slinging any mud. I have said little about Biden but I have said nothing about Obama except to express my respect and admiration for him. I have chided him for his associations with known, unrepentant terorists, such as Ayers and Dohrn. That isn't slinging mud; that is citing the FBI description of those two. I have also mentioned listening to the racist rants of Rev. Wright for twenty years. Apparently, he agrees with this, because he has now disdavowed the man but, after that long, it seems a bit late now.

I have said that I don't think Obama is ready to be CIC yet, and he has little or no foreign policy experience. Some of the things he has said about his intentions are actually dangerous. The last time we had diplomatic relations with Iran, for instance, they imprisoned the embassy staff.

If you want to read mud being slung, look at the posts of those with whom you agree. They are slinging mud like a fire hose slings water.

You say you aren't slinging mud... then you sling mud. Unsubstantiated opinions in which you decide that the associations of the man you are arguing against are damaging despite having experience with neither and having no talking points except those espoused by people who clearly are motivated to cast a negative on the man.

I say again. Let's talk policy.

 

[shereads]

For one thing, W has never been a member of Congress, so how can anybody vote with him?

WTF?!

You just made me exhale Diet Coke through my sinuses. Was that meant to be a joke?

 

[Belegon]

Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright, however, are mentors of Obams or, at least, they are sponsors and supporters of him. Louis Farrakhan, the notorious racist, who is definitely a Muslim, has declared Obama to be "The Chosen One."

Wright was a true associate. Farrakhan's only role with Obama is to comment about him. Ayers' was the 1997 Chicago Man of the Year and was a respected educator serving on the Annenberg Project with Obama when he met him. He had no reason to start an investigation into his past. Do you start with the suspicions when you meet someone who is clearly respected by those who introduce you to him?

Of course not.

Box, this is mudslinging. That IS what you are doing, despite your denials.

 

[shereads]

For one thing, W has never been a member of Congress, so how can anybody vote with him?

Bumping this out of sheer amazement.

Box, I think I know why you defend Sarah Palin. You are Sarah Palin.

 

[SlickTony]

I'm just a simple erotic writer with democratic leanings, but it seems to me that you can't applaud Hilary's attempts to revamp America's health care and at the same time say that Todd Palin had no right to try to influence his wife's decisions as governor. The fact that Hilary was trying to do something for the whole country, at least people who were underserved WRT healthcare, and Todd was trying to help his wife do something for her sister notwithstanding.

 

[Belegon]

I'm just a simple erotic writer with democratic leanings, but it seems to me that you can't applaud Hilary's attempts to revamp America's health care and at the same time say that Todd Palin had no right to try to influence his wife's decisions as governor. The fact that Hilary was trying to do something for the whole country, at least people who were underserved WRT healthcare, and Todd was trying to help his wife do something for her sister notwithstanding.

There is a big difference between helping with public policy initiatives and shaking hands and having conversations in congress and making phone calls to push a personal agenda and try to get a man to unlawfully fire someone because you have a personal grudge against them.

The report is, to me, very disturbing.

A person who does their job as the law says they should do it should never have to fear for their livelihood because an elected official's family thinks an employee was disciplined too lightly.

 

[SlickTony]

I do hate it when my attempts at satire fall flat...

 

[Guest]

I'm just a simple erotic writer with democratic leanings, but it seems to me that you can't applaud Hilary's attempts to revamp America's health care and at the same time say that Todd Palin had no right to try to influence his wife's decisions as governor. The fact that Hilary was trying to do something for the whole country, at least people who were underserved WRT healthcare, and Todd was trying to help his wife do something for her sister notwithstanding.

I missed the satire too, sorry.

 

[Belegon]

I do hate it when my attempts at satire fall flat...

Oops.

Guess I'm just too used to hearing people say they don't understand what the big deal is...

Should have considered the source. Sorry.

 

[Liar]

I do hate it when my attempts at satire fall flat...

You have to use smileys. It's the laxative for irony in the Series of Tubes.

 

[shereads]

You have to use smileys. It's the laxative for irony in the Series of Tubes.

I like this line so much that when I eventually claim credit for it, I'll probably think it's mine.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wright was a true associate. Farrakhan's only role with Obama is to comment about him. Ayers' was the 1997 Chicago Man of the Year and was a respected educator serving on the Annenberg Project with Obama when he met him. He had no reason to start an investigation into his past. Do you start with the suspicions when you meet someone who is clearly respected by those who introduce you to him?

Of course not.

Box, this is mudslinging. That IS what you are doing, despite your denials.

Your definition of mudslinging and mine must be far apart. I am attacking Obama, but it is his public persona, not his private person. I haven't even mentioned his wife, except in passing, but Todd Palin and Cindy McCain are considered by the people here to be a legit targets.

Ayers is certainly a well known figure, and he was just as well known in Chicago as an unconvicted terroist when he was introduced to Obama. Certainly Obama knew who he was, besides being Chicago's "Man of the Year."

I wonder if John Dillinger ever won that award.

 

[Liar]

Your definition of mudslinging and mine must be far apart. I am attacking Obama, but it is his public persona, not his private person. I haven't even mentioned his wife, except in passing, but Todd Palin and Cindy McCain are considered by the people here to be a legit targets.

Ayers is certainly a well known figure, and he was just as well known in Chicago as an unconvicted terroist when he was introduced to Obama. Certainly Obama knew who he was, besides being Chicago's "Man of the Year."

I wonder if John Dillinger ever won that award.

Oh, I'll bet he was aware of Ayer's history. It's pretty public record.

So?

It only shows that he judje people on what they are, not what they were. And what Ayers is, is a central figure in the Chicago political landscape, a very active promoter of education projects that are niether radical nor controversial, and supported and sponsored by dems and reps of both sides.

This is such a non-issue that it's comical.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Waging war against your own countrymen to help a foreign country? Sounds treasonous by at least one definition of treason. And don't delude yourself. The anti-war movement often directly sided with North Vietnam (remember Jane Fonda and the infamous NVA tank). Since we were at war with North Vietnam, that was a very subversive act.

To blow up government buildings to aid a hostile foreign country? Very immoral, not to mention illegal.

We were not at war with North Vietnam. No declaration of war had ever been made. That was a big part of the whole problem, the whole basis for calling it an illegal war. The official position of the United States was that we were in South Vietnam helping the South Vietnamese and that was it. We were never officially at war with North Vietnam.

Johnson and later Nixon were acting under the temporary 1964 War Powers Act which gave the President authority to use military force to protect US interests in Southeast Asia. This was granted following the "attack" by North Vietnamese Patrol boats on the Navy destroyer Maddox in the Gulf on Tonkin in August of that year, an attack that was later proven to have been faked just so Johnson could get war powers and militarily intervene in Vietnam.

There never was a declaration of war. The American people wouldn't have stood for it. The Vietnam war was the White House's War, just like Iraq is the White House's War.

Now you know why some of us were so furious about granting Bush powers to invade Iraq. We've been down this road before, lied to by a president for his own political ends, and it's happened again, hasn't it?

What do they say about those who don't learn from the past? Doomed to repeat it?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The fulminations, recriminations, hair-pulling and garment rending that follow this post are drearily predictable, but I wonder if anyone will even try to challenge a single fact it provides. RA

America's Second Wake-Up Call!
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 10, 2008
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308530236252361


Well, the surge in Iraq has worked, we are winning decisively and, as a result, now have a new democracy and strong ally in the Mideast. Meanwhile, seven years have passed since 9/11, and we still haven't had another major terrorist attack on our soil.

Yet the media give no credit at all to President Bush, the only president to do something about the terrorist attacks that we had suffered repeatedly beginning in 1992.

I'll take on your first points. I don't have time to wade through all of them.

Credible reports from iraq suggest that it's not the surge alone that's working as much as it's the new American strategy of buying off the terrorists with big cash stipends along with changes in tactics such as the use of remote controlled surveillance drones to surveil and monitor insurgent activity. Saying that we now have a "new democracy and strong ally in the middle east" is a tad optimistic and premature, I'd say, especially since they want us the hell out and we have no intention of leaving, and they probably won't last a year without our army there.

Besides, let's put this in context. Before we invaded, we didn't have any damned problems in Iraq whatsoever. So 4000+ deaths and 700 billion dollars later, things are still nowhere near as good as they were when we walked into the place and fucked it up royally in the first place. So just what are we celebrating again?

We're still churning out terrorists faster than we can kill them. The place is still a death trap. The middle class is gone. I still wouldn't give you a nickel for their chances of survival when we leave, so we're still bogged down there. They're a country under occupation. So what are we slapping ourselves on the back about? The fact that we're not finding 100 headless bodies in the street every morning? That's victory? We should thank Bush for that?

We took a perfectly functional country and fucked it over good, made millions of enemies the world round, and if we get a stable democracy out of this, I'll personally tear up my ACLU card and write Bush a fervent apology. But it's never going to happen. The place is fucked. You know as well as I that as soon as we leave, the guns come out and it's Sunni against Shia till another Saddam emerges and it goes back to the way it was.

And how about that no terror attacks since 9/11! Wow! I guess all those airport searches and phone taps really paid off! How many bombs did they find again? How many plots did they foil? Like one? Richard Reed trying to light his shoes with a match?

Did it ever occur to anyone that there haven't been any more terrorist attacks because Bush panicked and over reacted to this whole terrorist thing and there just haven't been any? Because no one's tried any? Because they're like not interested? They made their point? A handful of religious maniacs got lucky and killed 3000 people and scared the shit out of us and that's where the thing ended?

That's my theory. This whole War on Terror thing is so much bullshit, a political con job to keep this administration in power. That's what it's always been. Terrorism is a law-enforcement problem. Not a military problem. If you want to know what kind of job the dept of Homeland Security is doing, just look at FEMA. Case closed.

As for the rest of the points, you know how it goes: coulda, shoulda, woulda. The republicans had the watch, they were responsible. If they were so serious about Freddie and Fannie, they should have pushed something through. They had the muscle. They were at the helm, they get the blame.

And that Dow vs Nasdaq chart; very interesting. I have a chart that correlates Dow volatility during republican administrations with the bowling averages of Venezuelen dentists. I'll have to post it. You can draw some startling conclusions.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

From another forum:

"If you vote for Obama your a disgrace to white people...!"

which was replied to with...

"If you wote for McCain your a disgrace to people who think!"

 

[shereads]

I'll take on your first points. I don't have time to wade through all of them.

Credible reports from iraq suggest that it's not the surge alone that's working as much as it's the new American strategy of buying off the terrorists with big cash stipends along with changes in tactics such as the use of remote controlled surveillance drones to surveil and monitor insurgent activity. Saying that we now have a "new democracy and strong ally in the middle east" is a tad optimistic and premature, I'd say, especially since they want us the hell out and we have no intention of leaving, and they probably won't last a year without our army there.

Besides, let's put this in context. Before we invaded, we didn't have any damned problems in Iraq whatsoever. So 4000+ deaths and 700 billion dollars later, things are still nowhere near as good as they were when we walked into the place and fucked it up royally in the first place. So just what are we celebrating again?

We're still churning out terrorists faster than we can kill them. The place is still a death trap. The middle class is gone. I still wouldn't give you a nickel for their chances of survival when we leave, so we're still bogged down there. They're a country under occupation. So what are we slapping ourselves on the back about? The fact that we're not finding 100 headless bodies in the street every morning? That's victory? We should thank Bush for that?

We took a perfectly functional country and fucked it over good, made millions of enemies the world round, and if we get a stable democracy out of this, I'll personally tear up my ACLU card and write Bush a fervent apology. But it's never going to happen. The place is fucked. You know as well as I that as soon as we leave, the guns come out and it's Sunni against Shia till another Saddam emerges and it goes back to the way it was.

And how about that no terror attacks since 9/11! Wow! I guess all those airport searches and phone taps really paid off! How many bombs did they find again? How many plots did they foil? Like one? Richard Reed trying to light his shoes with a match?

Did it ever occur to anyone that there haven't been any more terrorist attacks because Bush panicked and over reacted to this whole terrorist thing and there just haven't been any? Because no one's tried any? Because they're like not interested? They made their point? A handful of religious maniacs got lucky and killed 3000 people and scared the shit out of us and that's where the thing ended?

That's my theory. This whole War on Terror thing is so much bullshit, a political con job to keep this administration in power. That's what it's always been. Terrorism is a law-enforcement problem. Not a military problem. If you want to know what kind of job the dept of Homeland Security is doing, just look at FEMA. Case closed.

As for the rest of the points, you know how it goes: coulda, shoulda, woulda. The republicans had the watch, they were responsible. If they were so serious about Freddie and Fannie, they should have pushed something through. They had the muscle. They were at the helm, they get the blame.

And that Dow vs Nasdaq chart; very interesting. I have a chart that correlates Dow volatility during republican administrations with the bowling averages of Venezuelen dentists. I'll have to post it. You can draw some startling conclusions.

Brains are so sexy.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Too bad he doesn't have any.

 

[Guest]

Too bad he doesn't have any.

To whom are you referring?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I'm referring to dr_mabeuse. He ended up on my Ignore List after a debate where he was an a-hole. I tend do that to people who not only make poor arguments, but also defend things that I find despicable. It was a long time ago, but I think the topic at the time was weed.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

A sense of grievance spilling into rage has gripped some events as McCain supporters see his presidential campaign lag against Obama. Some in the audience are making it personal, against the Democrat.

Shouts of "traitor," "terrorist," "treason," "liar," and even "off with his head" have rung from the crowd at McCain and Sarah Palin rallies, and gone unchallenged by them.

McCain changed his tone when supporters at a town hall on Friday pressed him to be rougher on Obama. A voter said, "The people here in Minnesota want to see a real fight." Another said Obama would lead the US into socialism. Another said he did not want his unborn child raised in a country led by Obama.

"If you want a fight, we will fight," McCain said. "But we will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments." When people booed, he cut them off.

I get a vision of americans sitting in the Circus Maximus, screaming at Caesar to kill the gladiators...

 

[Belegon]

edited because I confused personalities here...

while I still feel that Zoot's arguments make sense to me, I was confusing a post by Zade for one by Svenska.

I plead lack of coffee.

 

[CharleyH]

On the face of it , a brilliant choice but she better not drop the ball. Makes Biden look very old hat, but we shall see

I wonder what Hillary thinks?

Is she as funny as Michael?

Well, Hillary probably laughs with Tina Fey: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/vp-debate-open-palin-biden/727421/