My girlfriend is a liberal Californian. Much more liberal than me i must say, i think i would be a republican if i was American.. well.. if it wasnt for the whole.. crazy God thing. You know.. half of them being evolution deniers or Mormons or whatever.
Anyway, she HATES the red states, she rants about how they should just make their own county because you have nothing in common, and she whines about being constantly embarrassed by the "ignorance" of the bible belt.
I know weve slated Palin to death, but be honest. Republican voters, if Palin is the actual winner of the Primary and is the forerunner in the presidential race, not just the VP. Would you still vote for them? Or go with a independant?
My missus claims that you guys would vote for her regardless. I would like to prove her wrong!
Oh and this video started our conversation. The woman is an absolute fething disgrace.
I wouldn't vote for her, that should be clear though. I'm of the opinion that she is perhaps the single most destructive candidate the reds could put up for office. She can't win, she is only attractive to a highly vocal minority of conservatives and self identified independents.
That said, she isn't a democrat, so it still wouldn't be an absolute landslide.
Well, I can't speak for the republicans or thee democrats, but I can speak from the standpoing of a moderate independant. That being said, there is but one thought that crosses my mind when the terms "Sarah Palin" and "Presidential Candidate" are used in the same suggestion....
Oh dear, holy feth, NO!
Then I black out and wake up naked in an abandoned gym, soaked in blood, holding a brick and surrounded by a bunch of republicans and femanists that appear to have been bludgeoned to death by some sort of rectangular object... I'm not sure if there's a correlation there or not.
Probably depends on who the other candidate is, but it still all boils down to the lesser of two evils. I love Sarah Palin for the sole reason that liberals go batsh*t crazy when she's the topic of any converstion. I've never seen them so frightened of any one single person. It's really funny to watch.
Oh, and tell her that The People's Republic of Kalifornia is more than welcome to secceed anytime they feel like it.
mattyrm wrote:My girlfriend is a liberal Californian. Much more liberal than me i must say, i think i would be a republican if i was American.. well.. if it wasnt for the whole.. crazy God thing. You know.. half of them being evolution deniers or Mormons or whatever.
Anyway, she HATES the red states, she rants about how they should just make their own county because you have nothing in common, and she whines about being constantly embarrassed by the "ignorance" of the bible belt.
I know weve slated Palin to death, but be honest. Republican voters, if Palin is the actual winner of the Primary and is the forerunner in the presidential race, not just the VP. Would you still vote for them? Or go with a independant?
My missus claims that you guys would vote for her regardless. I would like to prove her wrong!
Oh and this video started our conversation. The woman is an absolute fething disgrace.
The healthiest nation in the world?!
Sorry I didn't catch
What race?
Who were the other candidates.
You have to answer these first.
Vladigar wrote:Probably depends on who the other candidate is, but it still all boils down to the lesser of two evils. I love Sarah Palin for the sole reason that liberals go batsh*t crazy when she's the topic of any converstion. I've never seen them so frightened of any one single person. It's really funny to watch.
Oh, and tell her that The People's Republic of Kalifornia is more than welcome to secceed anytime they feel like it.
Agreed on both points, but only if Kalifornia takes its debt with it.
Hah.. i suppose she is kinda attractive for her age...
Anyway, Frazz what i mean is, if she won the next primary, you know, beat the other Republican candidates, and therefore was the choice for presidential race instead of the dem, so, i guess thats Obama right?
As ive mentioned on here before, our lass didnt vote for Obama, as i dislike him so much i talked her into voting for an independant! But my point was, if i absolutely had to pick between her and him, id pick him. I liked McCain, but Palin is just a freak. Albeit, a rather tasty freak for an auld lass!
So you're saying that if it came down to a race between Palin and Obama you'd choose the guy that had filibuster-proof majorities in both houses of Congress for a year and still couldn't get his "landmark" legilation passed? All you bro...
But don't worry. I doubt she would consider a run for president. She'd have to take a pay cut.
Vlad, sorry i dont speak teenage what does "all you bro" mean?
If you mean "its silly to vote for Obama" i agree with you.
I stongly dislike the man, but the point it, Palin is an utter fethwit of astronomical proportions. So if my hand was forced i would vote for the guy i dislike over the woman i am utterly convinced could actually bring about armageddon if she was given the nuclear codes.
You seem to have almost been offended by my decision?
Vladigar wrote:So you're saying that if it came down to a race between Palin and Obama you'd choose the guy that had filibuster-proof majorities in both houses of Congress for a year and still couldn't get his "landmark" legilation passed? All you bro...
But don't worry. I doubt she would consider a run for president. She'd have to take a pay cut.
Barack Obama has little to do with influencing the legislature. It's not his fault it didn't pass.
Congressional democrats wanting to be "diplomatic" (in this particular case, read as: p*ssies) killed that by allowing the minority to trample them (somehow).
Between that and the town hall meetings, where those "Tea party" yahoos, when presenting questions, couldn't actually be bothered to pose real questions, and instead spent their time shouting down anything that was presented to them in a rather logical light, there was no way in the holy realm of Terra that it was ever getting passed. Furthermore, now that it's faded from the public eye, the insurance lobby is gonna sink their teeth in nice and deep, and you'll never hear about it again.
So you're saying that if it came down to a race between Palin and Obama you'd choose the guy that had filibuster-proof majorities in both houses of Congress for a year and still couldn't get his "landmark" legilation passed? All you bro...
A. No he didn't. B. No he didn't.
Funny how we ignore the economic armageddon PresBO is perpetrating before our very eyes and say nothing.
At least Palin didn't run Alaska into economic meltdown.
You're a bad economist, and it's funny that you would have defended Bush as he led us into the economic apocalypse that actually happened. You also haven't been paying close attention to Alaskas budget issues.
Vladigar wrote:So you're saying that if it came down to a race between Palin and Obama you'd choose the guy that had filibuster-proof majorities in both houses of Congress for a year and still couldn't get his "landmark" legilation passed? All you bro...
But don't worry. I doubt she would consider a run for president. She'd have to take a pay cut.
Barack Obama has little to do with influencing the legislature. It's not his fault it didn't pass.
Congressional democrats wanting to be "diplomatic" (in this particular case, read as: p*ssies) killed that by allowing the minority to trample them (somehow).
Between that and the town hall meetings, where those "Tea party" yahoos, when presenting questions, couldn't actually be bothered to pose real questions, and instead spent their time shouting down anything that was presented to them in a rather logical light, there was no way in the holy realm of Terra that it was ever getting passed. Furthermore, now that it's faded from the public eye, the insurance lobby is gonna sink their teeth in nice and deep, and you'll never hear about it again.
Abama has a great amount to do with it. he let the letwing elements of the party go amok on the GOvernment Spendathon plan which poisoned the well for everything after. Further, he's stated he's focused like a laser beam (tee hee) on the economy at least three or four times now, and then two days later starts talking about his godawful healthcare plans again. news flash ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID.
Abama has a great amount to do with it. he let the letwing elements of the party go amok on the GOvernment Spendathon plan which poisoned the well for everything after. Further, he's stated he's focused like a laser beam (tee hee) on the economy at least three or four times now, and then two days later starts talking about his godawful healthcare plans again. news flash ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID.
Wasn't banking reform, the stimulus, transparent fund appropriations, and a reworking on trade laws something done in relation to the economy? Was he supposed to find out the moon was made of gold and oil or something? Healthcare is the single most important economic issue in this dumbass country, and if it doesn't get tackled we will go out of business.
Yeah, it's a slang phrase for "more power to you" or similar thoughts.
You haven't offended me in the least. It simply amuses me though that a woman with experience in government from the local to the state level is considered an "utter fethwit of astronomical proportions". You can't tell me that if, instead of the (R) beside her name, there was a (D) that the same people deriding her experience wouldn't be championing her as the model female politician.
Vladigar wrote:You haven't offended me in the least. It simply amuses me though that a woman with experience in government from the local to the state level is considered an "utter fethwit of astronomical proportions". You can't tell me that if, instead of the (R) beside her name, there was a (D) that the same people deriding her experience wouldn't be championing her as the model female politician.
You haven't offended me in the least. It simply amuses me though that a woman with experience in government from the local to the state level is considered an "utter fethwit of astronomical proportions". You can't tell me that if, instead of the (R) beside her name, there was a (D) that the same people deriding her experience wouldn't be championing her as the model female politician.
People call her a fethwit because she is, every interview she's ever been in and every debate she's every tried to engage in has proven as much. People call her inexperienced because she is. She quit her job job, and hasn't been in government particularly long. If she were a democrat she wouldn't be in the position she's in, she likely would have been marginalized long ago.
Dronze wrote:Barack Obama has little to do with influencing the legislature. It's not his fault it didn't pass.
You're kidding me, right?
no... really, I'm not. That's sort of a "Cool that he's doing it, but it's not his job" thing. He's executive branch, he's there to enforce the legislation, not to get it passed.
ShumaGorath wrote:People call her a fethwit because she is, every interview she's ever been in and every debate she's every tried to engage in has proven as much. People call her inexperienced because she is. She quit her job job, and hasn't been in government particularly long. If she were a democrat she wouldn't be in the position she's in, she likely would have been marginalized long ago.
She'd be marginalized in the GOP too if she wasn't slightly useful as a figurehead for the nutcase wing of the party. If the GOP can find an alternative who can deliver those votes without being a blithering idiot, watch them kick her to the curb.
Edit: Some of the things she did to the McCain campaign show she can't be trusted. I'm sure the higher-ups in the GOP know this. Give the GOP some credit. They aren't going to hitch their wagons to that particular "star."
ShumaGorath wrote:People call her a fethwit because she is, every interview she's ever been in and every debate she's every tried to engage in has proven as much. People call her inexperienced because she is. She quit her job job, and hasn't been in government particularly long. If she were a democrat she wouldn't be in the position she's in, she likely would have been marginalized long ago.
She'd be marginalized in the GOP too if she wasn't slightly useful as a figurehead for the nutcase wing of the party. If the GOP can find an alternative who can deliver those votes without being a blithering idiot, watch them kick her to the curb.
She is appealing to them precisely because she is a blithering idiot, as are they. They wouldn't want some token intellectual ruining their fun by trying to actually inject reality into the conversation.
ShumaGorath wrote:People call her a fethwit because she is, every interview she's ever been in and every debate she's every tried to engage in has proven as much. People call her inexperienced because she is. She quit her job job, and hasn't been in government particularly long. If she were a democrat she wouldn't be in the position she's in, she likely would have been marginalized long ago.
She'd be marginalized in the GOP too if she wasn't slightly useful as a figurehead for the nutcase wing of the party. If the GOP can find an alternative who can deliver those votes without being a blithering idiot, watch them kick her to the curb.
She is appealing to them precisely because she is a blithering idiot, as are they. They wouldn't want some token intellectual ruining their fun by trying to actually inject reality into the conversation.
You assume that there are republicans that qualify as intellectuals....
ShumaGorath wrote:People call her a fethwit because she is, every interview she's ever been in and every debate she's every tried to engage in has proven as much. People call her inexperienced because she is. She quit her job job, and hasn't been in government particularly long. If she were a democrat she wouldn't be in the position she's in, she likely would have been marginalized long ago.
She'd be marginalized in the GOP too if she wasn't slightly useful as a figurehead for the nutcase wing of the party. If the GOP can find an alternative who can deliver those votes without being a blithering idiot, watch them kick her to the curb.
She is appealing to them precisely because she is a blithering idiot, as are they. They wouldn't want some token intellectual ruining their fun by trying to actually inject reality into the conversation.
You assume that there are republicans that qualify as intellectuals....
Reality and self identification are different. They aren't all idiots, and many conservative points aren't based on and don't really require a logical or even handed worldview to be held (you can be an intellectual and be an absolute free market conservative that is anti gay and anti abortion).
Dronze wrote:
You assume that there are republicans that qualify as intellectuals....
I'll be honest. I don't really know who in the republican party would qualify as an
intellectual. However, they've won 4 presidential campaigns in the years I've been
alive and part of that success has been anti-intellectualism. Reagan and Bush Jr.
seem to have gotten by on a projection of strength and regular joe'ism. My over
simplification probably reveals my ignorance, but that's my impression of the big
two republican presidents.
ShumaGorath wrote:People call her inexperienced because she is. She quit her job job, and hasn't been in government particularly long.
4 years on a city council
6 years as a city mayor
2 1/2 years as a state governor
Over 10 years of government experience.
Four years in city council: Don't care.
Sixyears as a city mayor: A little better, it would be a good amount of experience to run for governor or senator on.
Two and a half years as a state governor: I didn't know we elected those every two and a half years.
Dronze wrote: You assume that there are republicans that qualify as intellectuals....
I'll be honest. I don't really know who in the republican party would qualify as an intellectual. However, they've won 4 presidential campaigns in the years I've been alive and part of that success has been anti-intellectualism. Reagan and Bush Jr. seem to have gotten by on a projection of strength and regular joe'ism. My over simplification probably reveals my ignorance, but that's my impression of the big two republican presidents.
Now look at what schools they all went too and what families they belong too. No conservative would self identify and an intellectual because their voting base is composed of blithering loud idiots who would prefer to have someone they can drink with in office over someone who could teach them something. These people by in large (well, except bush jr) are not idiots.
I also agree Cali can leave the union when ever they want to.
It's amusing how people are willing to throw out the worlds seventh largest economy because of budget issues and how much they hate "hollywood types".
I love how the Democrats want to say their the most educated and the Republicans are idiots, but The main voting block for the Democrats are high school and lower educated poor families.
jbunny wrote:I love how the Democrats want to say their the most educated and the Republicans are idiots, but The main voting block for the Democrats are high school and lower educated poor families.
A: It's they're. Don't get that wrong when defending intelligence.
B: Highschoolers can vote now?
jbunny wrote:I love how the Democrats want to say their the most educated and the Republicans are idiots, but The main voting block for the Democrats are high school and lower educated poor families.
I can't speak for anyone else on this board, but I do believe that 2, The Ranting Gryphon said it best...
The assumption that "if you're not a member of the Immaculate Disciples of Enlightenment therough Blunt Head Trauma, then you're automatically part of the Divine Order of Ross Perot's Accent Worshippers" is just kinda, well, wrong.
Assuming it's Palin vs. The Rock Obama...er, Barack Obama, I would vote for four more years! I can't stand Palin. Now, if it was a choice of Palin or P. Hilton (Perez or Paris), I would vote for None of the Above, although writing in Ralph Nader or Darth Vader would be tempting.
A.Was not defending intelligence, pointing out that not all democrats are intilligent.
B. Most high schoolers are not old enough to vote, but i did not say high schoolers, I said high school educated. Meaning the most education they have is a high school diploma, or never graduated high school.
For someone so "Educated" you figure you could have understood what I said.
jbunny wrote:A.Was not defending intelligence, pointing out that not all democrats are intilligent.
B. Most high schoolers are not old enough to vote, but i did not say high schoolers, I said high school educated. Meaning the most education they have is a high school diploma, or never graduated high school.
For someone so "Educated" you figure you could have understood what I said.
Your sentence read "high school and lower educated", that can read both as highschool educated and lower, or highschool (as in attending highschool) and lower educated (GEDs, diplomas, etc). Situations like this are where punctuation (and the citation of relevant statistics) is your friend. It sounded like you were on the defensive since no one had said that all democrats were intelligent. I would also note that neither parties primary voting populace is constructed largely of persons with degrees.
Dismissing facts because you don't care to recognize them...
Painting people with broad stereotypical brushstrokes...
Spewing knee-jerk hate-filled generalizations...
Yeah, I'm loving the intellectualism on this thread.
Yeah i have to disagree mate, my missus is a democrat who would never vote republican, but i can assure you 100% that if Palin was a dem she sould not be hailing her as a "model politician"
Vladigar wrote:Dismissing facts because you don't care to recognize them...
Painting people with broad stereotypical brushstrokes...
Spewing knee-jerk hate-filled generalizations...
Yeah, I'm loving the intellectualism on this thread.
Vladigar wrote:I love Sarah Palin for the sole reason that liberals go batsh*t crazy when she's the topic of any converstion. I've never seen them so frightened of any one single person. It's really funny to watch.
This always gives me a pleasant chill, like a hot chick running her fingernails up my thigh.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE RUN HER AGAIN IN 2012.
PS: Not mocking either you or Shuma, but seriously: "secede". "“Secessionist”. If you don't know the word, use your spellcheck. It makes you both look silly.
PS: Not mocking either you or Shuma, but seriously: "secede". "“Secessionist”. If you don't know the word, use your spellcheck. It makes you both look silly.
Oddly enough, I have a spellcheck thats always on. It didn't catch that one.
There isn't a politician worth voting for in this whole damn country. We need an apocalypse (zombie or other) to wipe the slate clean and put an end to this red state/blue state crap. We're either one country, for good or bad, or we're not. Party politics is destroying any ideals this country ever had, along with corporate lobbyists and the general laziness of the American citizen. Frankly, the only one I would ever vote for is this man:
Obama only got elected on white guilt. Wont happen again. I hope some else runs besides her if not she gets my vote. Only argument I here from the masses is she is a dumb bitch. Guess thats the best idiots can come up with these days.
mattyrm wrote:My girlfriend is a liberal Californian. Much more liberal than me i must say, i think i would be a republican if i was American.. well.. if it wasnt for the whole.. crazy God thing. You know.. half of them being evolution deniers or Mormons or whatever.
Anyway, she HATES the red states, she rants about how they should just make their own county because you have nothing in common, and she whines about being constantly embarrassed by the "ignorance" of the bible belt.
I know weve slated Palin to death, but be honest. Republican voters, if Palin is the actual winner of the Primary and is the forerunner in the presidential race, not just the VP. Would you still vote for them? Or go with a independant?
My missus claims that you guys would vote for her regardless. I would like to prove her wrong!
Oh and this video started our conversation. The woman is an absolute fething disgrace.
Your g/f is a scholar and a gentlewoman, but she's dead wrong. I'm from HI, nuff said on the way HI leans.
I'd rather vote an Independant than Palin, even though I think she's pretty hot. Like the stereotypical blonde joke, she may be hot as hell but there's no way in hell I'm letting her drive my car.
ounumen wrote:Obama only got elected on white guilt. Wont happen again. I hope some else runs besides her if not she gets my vote. Only argument I here from the masses is she is a dumb bitch. Guess thats the best idiots can come up with these days.
Well if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck and quits it's job like a duck that isn't fit for a leadership roll..
ounumen wrote:Obama only got elected on white guilt. Wont happen again. I hope some else runs besides her if not she gets my vote. Only argument I here from the masses is she is a dumb bitch. Guess thats the best idiots can come up with these days.
Well if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck and quits it's job like a duck that isn't fit for a leadership roll..
mattyrm wrote:Anyway, she HATES the red states, she rants about how they should just make their own county because you have nothing in common, and she whines about being constantly embarrassed by the "ignorance" of the bible belt.
This has been an unfortunate development, this 'culture war' thing.
Okay, Palin is grossly unqualified and it's a worry that anyone, anywhere would consider voting her into office, but it's hardly a reason to hate a whole state. How is dialogue possible when people are willing to write off whole states because their politics are different? And more importantly, its in this kind of antagonistic politics that idiots like Palin flourish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ounumen wrote:Obama only got elected on white guilt.
No, that's a non-sensical charge. Obama was voted in because he had a record of opposing the Iraq war, because the incumbant was incredibly unpopular, because poor economic conditions favour the party opposed to the incumbent, because McCain ran a mediocre campaign that attempted to appeal to both classic conservatives and movement conservatives and ended up failing to enthuse either, and because Obama ran a really effective campaign, mobilising an incredible number of volunteers.
Your statement was completely absurd and you should feel bad for having made it.
Wont happen again. I hope some else runs besides her if not she gets my vote. Only argument I here from the masses is she is a dumb bitch. Guess thats the best idiots can come up with these days.
Palin has demonstrated little to no understanding of politics at a Federal level. Her campaigning to date has consisted of folksy nothings, a desire to drill for oil and a vaguely belligerent foreign policy. Her experience to date consists of governing one of the smallest states in the nation, and bailing on that after two and a half years.
honestly.. Its nothing to do with sexism or being fashionable to dislike palin, some of the things she has said just... Boggle my mind. Wait till i get home from work as im on my phone, ill link you some of the more wacky ones. :-)
JohnHwangDD wrote:Sure. It's not like she'd be worse than having One Big Ass Mistake, America.
Ooh, someone can spit racially rooted slogans...
Honestly, I don't see how anyone can say that the man is screwing anything up worse than the bush/cheney administration did during the 8 years they were in power. The collapse of the financial sector? All influenced by republicans. This is what happens when you deregulate the banking structure and start letting banks show fake money as real profit (subprime mortgage sales), dig us into not one, but two, different unstable regions of the globe with no final, discernable goal, and no clear exit strategy, push congress to grant the executive seat powers that are far beyond it's constitutiona scope, shovel TRILLIONS of dollars into corporations that are "too big to fail" (and they call themselves capitalist... hah.), support human rights violations, and appoint activist judges to the supreme court.
And that's just the short list of how badly the republicans failed...
Sorry, but anyone who thought these issues were going to be resolved within a year are sorely mistaken. Sorry, but Barak Obama isn't a miracle worker.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Sure. It's not like she'd be worse than having One Big Ass Mistake, America.
When people say things like this it makes me wonder if they actually know anything about either politician they are commenting on. Probably not.
It's an acronym, and they prove political points better than facts ever will. Why, you can even put it on a bumper sticker, which makes it even more true.
ShumaGorath wrote:
When people say things like this it makes me wonder if they actually know anything about either politician they are commenting on. Probably not.
John does actually know his scat. John does actually troll as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dronze wrote:
Honestly, I don't see how anyone can say that the man is screwing anything up worse than the bush/cheney administration did during the 8 years they were in power.
That's not necessarily implicit in a comment which essentially means "Obama is bad". As you've already recognized, the reference is to a slogan, not a literal assessment wherein McCain would have been a better choice (though John may believe that).
Dronze wrote:
The collapse of the financial sector? All influenced by republicans.
And Democrats.
Dronze wrote:
This is what happens when you deregulate the banking structure and start letting banks show fake money as real profit (subprime mortgage sales),
Clinton actually enabled that.
Dronze wrote:
dig us into not one, but two, different unstable regions of the globe with no final, discernable goal, and no clear exit strategy,
The cost of both wars, combined, is minimal. There was also a discernible (though not necessarily feasible) goal. Exit strategy follows from victory conditions as realized. Wars rarely begin with an exit strategy in mind.
Dronze wrote:
push congress to grant the executive seat powers that are far beyond it's constitutional scope
That seems more like a success, than a failure; at least given that they supposedly (per your comment) succeeded in their endeavors.
Dronze wrote:
, shovel TRILLIONS of dollars into corporations that are "too big to fail" (and they call themselves capitalist... hah.),
Neoconservatives are closer to social liberalism than classical liberalism, hence all the talk of 'betrayal' amongst the Republican base. Also, its more like trillion, not trillions.
Dronze wrote:
support human rights violations, and appoint activist judges to the supreme court.
Seriously? You're going to talk about 'activist' judges? You realize that only means "judges who don't agree with me" right?
Dronze wrote:
Sorry, but anyone who thought these issues were going to be resolved within a year are sorely mistaken. Sorry, but Barak Obama isn't a miracle worker.
I don't necessarily agree with your list of issues, but I do agree with your final sentiment. Thankfully, he has three more years to put both his, and the Democrats', big girl panties on.
Dronze wrote:
The collapse of the financial sector? All influenced by republicans.
And Democrats.
Dronze wrote:
This is what happens when you deregulate the banking structure and start letting banks show fake money as real profit (subprime mortgage sales),
Clinton actually enabled that.
Dronze wrote:
The Savings & Loan Crisis happened under Reagan's watch, though to be fair the enabling legislation was passed by a Democrat House and a Republican Senate.
Dronze wrote:
The collapse of the financial sector? All influenced by republicans.
And Democrats.
This is actually really important. The deregulation of financial markets isn't a Republican thing or a Democrat thing, it isn't even a US thing. Deregulation was multi-national trend that started decades ago.
The problems won't be solved by turning it into a point scoring exercise - the problem needs international consensus on regulatory frameworks that would prevent something like this happening again.
Dronze wrote:
The collapse of the financial sector? All influenced by republicans.
And Democrats.
This is actually really important. The deregulation of financial markets isn't a Republican thing or a Democrat thing, it isn't even a US thing. Deregulation was multi-national trend that started decades ago.
The problems won't be solved by turning it into a point scoring exercise - the problem needs international consensus on regulatory frameworks that would prevent something like this happening again.
An international framework for anything just leads to an inefficient system. A nationwide beauracacy is unwieldy enough as is, but that's where we need to look at. Financial regulation, environmental regulation, all of it. If countries would take responsability, we wouldn't have the issues we have now. Everybody looks at these things like it's not their problem, and the blame all just goes adrift. If countries actually took up some of their own regulatory slack, as opposed to everone saying "let's all agree on one set of rules", we might actually see some progress, unlike what we saw at the disaster that was the copenhagen summit, and the jokes that are the UN and the Kyoto accord.
Dronze wrote:
An international framework for anything just leads to an inefficient system.
Way to rehash the hackneyed anti-federalist position.
Dronze wrote:
A nationwide beauracacy is unwieldy enough as is, but that's where we need to look at. Financial regulation, environmental regulation, all of it. If countries would take responsability, we wouldn't have the issues we have now.
Globalization rhetoric following the denunciation of an international system?
Dronze wrote:
Everybody looks at these things like it's not their problem, and the blame all just goes adrift. If countries actually took up some of their own regulatory slack, as opposed to everone saying "let's all agree on one set of rules", we might actually see some progress, unlike what we saw at the disaster that was the copenhagen summit, and the jokes that are the UN and the Kyoto accord.
So...you want to drag an argument of economics into an argument of environmentalism? That's....odd.
Not really. I grew tired of environmentalism in college. Not that I take a stance on global warming; I've simply grown tired of the debate. Well, sort of.
dogma wrote:Not really. I grew tired of environmentalism in college. Not that I take a stance on global warming; I've simply grown tired of the debate. Well, sort of.
It's a parallel track. international regulation between governments just doesn't work, since everyone wants everything THEIR way. I'm not even considering the potential or actual progress towards the goals of the agreements, merely the political mess they created.
Dronze wrote:
It's a parallel track. international regulation between governments just doesn't work, since everyone wants everything THEIR way. I'm not even considering the potential or actual progress towards the goals of the agreements, merely the political mess they created.
International regulation between governments frequently works (ICC, the UN, IAEA, etc.), at least so long as the negotiators understand power (they usually do).
In any case, there is no mess. No one cares about those agreements, or those issues. Its just electoral posturing, and a tiny bit of (option oriented) concern, made manifest across multiple states.
dogma wrote:Not really. I grew tired of environmentalism in college. Not that I take a stance on global warming; I've simply grown tired of the debate. Well, sort of.
It's a parallel track. international regulation between governments just doesn't work, since everyone wants everything THEIR way. I'm not even considering the potential or actual progress towards the goals of the agreements, merely the political mess they created.
Here are some examples of multi-national regulation.
Maritime Law and Air Law
The Postal Service
Telecommunications
Science (SI units, etc.)
Passports and Customs Unions
I don't know how you can compare the efficiency of any of these systems with lack of international regulation. The modern world would not exist without them.
Monster Rain wrote:I really don't see how it's racist. I mean, this is definitely a classic example of the "Obama Criticism Block."
Person A: "I don't think Obama is doing a good job."
Person B: "Racist!"
Left wing thought control and lock step hypocrisy at it's finest. The part about this that amuses me so is these Libs believe they are free thinkers and they are lemmings of the very worst sort in most cases. The more rabid one of these people are the more easily led they are.
If you disagree with them, you're stupid.
If you criticize their guy, you're racist or stupid or both.
If you espouse your views, you're inciting violence.
If they espouse their views they are spreading enlightenment to the masses.
If you criticize their views, you are spreading hate speech and intolerance.
If they criticise your views, they are patriots that are practicing the highest of American ideals.
If you have a peaceful assembly you are rabble rousing.
If they deface property and incite riots they are exercising free speech.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote:Hmmmm, I'm definitely in the yes camp too; but how many showers would you need to to have to wash that much right wing off of you?
I'd vote for Palin....in bed! Yea, sorry that doesn't make much sense...I'll leave those jokes to Steve Carrel.
I'm not a Republican or Democrat but as an American; Palin stands no chance of getting elected especially after resigning early and then pursuing a more lucrative career in the widely disrespected Fox News.
The ad campaigns against her would be staggering and on epic levels of deserved embarrassment.
The only people who would really benefit and enjoy from Palin being elected would be comedians
Left wing thought control and lock step hypocrisy at it's finest. The part about this that amuses me so is these Libs believe they are free thinkers and they are lemmings of the very worst sort in most cases. The more rabid one of these people are the more easily led they are.
If you disagree with them, you're stupid.
If you criticize their guy, you're racist or stupid or both.
If you espouse your views, you're inciting violence.
If they espouse their views they are spreading enlightenment to the masses.
If you criticize their views, you are spreading hate speech and intolerance.
If they criticise your views, they are patriots that are practicing the highest of American ideals.
If you have a peaceful assembly you are rabble rousing.
If they deface property and incite riots they are exercising free speech.
Hah! Proclaiming the evils of the lefts blanket statements and hypocrisy by making hypocritical blanket statements! Clever!
JohnHwangDD wrote:Sure. It's not like she'd be worse than having One Big Ass Mistake, America.
Ooh, someone can spit racially rooted slogans...
I really don't see how it's racist. I mean, this is definitely a classic example of the "Obama Criticism Block."
Person A: "I don't think Obama is doing a good job."
Person B: "Racist!"
Yeah, DD wasn't being racist there. There are plenty of things he was being, most of them I'm not allowed to say on this forum. But racist wasn't one of them.
Monster Rain wrote:"I forgot my homework, Ms. Palin! Surely we can come to some sort of arrangement?"
"I've been a bad boy and need a spanking........"
ShumaGorath wrote:
Left wing thought control and lock step hypocrisy at it's finest. The part about this that amuses me so is these Libs believe they are free thinkers and they are lemmings of the very worst sort in most cases. The more rabid one of these people are the more easily led they are.
If you disagree with them, you're stupid.
If you criticize their guy, you're racist or stupid or both.
If you espouse your views, you're inciting violence.
If they espouse their views they are spreading enlightenment to the masses.
If you criticize their views, you are spreading hate speech and intolerance.
If they criticise your views, they are patriots that are practicing the highest of American ideals.
If you have a peaceful assembly you are rabble rousing.
If they deface property and incite riots they are exercising free speech.
Hah! Proclaiming the evils of the lefts blanket statements and hypocrisy by making hypocritical blanket statements! Clever!
I don't know... I think a lot of the comments made in this very thread kind of back up a few of those. The hatred of the woman is a bit over the top. Yeah, you can find Sarah Palin saying some goofy stuff but you can find clips of anyone saying stupid things if they're a public figure.
No, it's really not. She was embroiled in multiple ethics scandals during her scant 2.5 years in her job (the one she quit after making an utter fool of herself in front of the nation). She is a neoconservative demagogue, who when pressed on every interview occasion has failed to deliver anything beyond simplistic populist talking points. She is a hypocrite of the worst kind, using her family in the media as a shield and proclaiming the values of being a government outsider who hates liberal spending after leaving Alaskan governance in the middle of an economic crisis to go work at a lucratively payed position on fox news and to push her book. Everyone says stupid things, but she is actually stupid. Or brilliant and greedy. She's turned what could well have been a one term governership (her popularity waned significantly in her home state after her failed campaign and a failure to significantly improve the states financial situation) into a million dollar a year enterprise.
No, it's really not. She was embroiled in multiple ethics scandals during her scant 2.5 years in her job (the one she quit after making an utter fool of herself in front of the nation). She is a neoconservative demagogue, who when pressed on every interview occasion has failed to deliver anything beyond simplistic populist talking points. She is a hypocrite of the worst kind, using her family in the media as a shield and proclaiming the values of being a government outsider who hates liberal spending after leaving Alaskan governance in the middle of an economic crisis to go work at a lucratively payed position on fox news and to push her book. Everyone says stupid things, but she is actually stupid. Or brilliant and greedy. She's turned what could well have been a one term governership (her popularity waned significantly in her home state after her failed campaign and a failure to significantly improve the states financial situation) into a million dollar a year enterprise.
Gee whiz, I didn't realize she was the only dishonest politician...
The fact that other politicians don't get a pass for their behavior doesn't strike you as being somewhat hypocritical? Allegations against Obama are discarded out of hand as being the work of racist troglodytes while every crazy charge leveled at Sarah Palin is taken as gospel.
That said, I don't want her to be president, and she has no chance of being nominated. I'm a little annoyed at her for being an albatross around Johnny McCain's neck, and I think that he deserved to lose for trying to pick her and in so doing made me realize what a pandering hack he really is. Still though, it's interesting how much more of a hassle she seems to get than any other politician that I can think of off hand...
JohnHwangDD wrote:Sure. It's not like she'd be worse than having One Big Ass Mistake, America.
Ooh, someone can spit racially rooted slogans...
Sorry, but Barak Obama isn't a miracle worker.
Excuse me? How is that at all racist? If you're going to play the race card, you'd damn well have an answer. Otherwise, you can stop with the blind defense and race carded responses.
Obama isn't a worker at all. As SNL clearly noted, he didn't do anything in the first year, much less pass the big push that he promised as part of his election platform. Not even Healthcare, which was supposed to be the centerpiece of his agenda. If he can't do any of that, what good is he?
Cane wrote:I'm not a Republican or Democrat but as an American; Palin stands no chance of getting elected especially after resigning early and then pursuing a more lucrative career in the widely disrespected Fox News.
The ad campaigns against her would be staggering and on epic levels of deserved embarrassment.
Perhaps.
But then, could the Republicans simply ape the Liberals by knee-jerking out the Woman Card to call anybody who doesn't support her a Sexist, Misogynist, woman-hater?
The Republicans would have to be idiots to nominate Palin. Most of the people who would vote for her will vote Republican no matter what. Most of the people who won't vote Republican no matter what won't vote for Palin.
ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, DD wasn't being racist there.
There are plenty of things he was being, most of them I'm not allowed to say on this forum. But racist wasn't one of them.
Thank you, Shuma.
It's OK, I'll even get you started: Facetious. Snarky. Smart-assed.
That said, in general, if you're taking my "political" postings any further than that, or reading anything further into them, you might want to have your humor meter checked...
Monster Rain wrote:
The fact that other politicians don't get a pass for their behavior doesn't strike you as being somewhat hypocritical? Allegations against Obama are discarded out of hand as being the work of racist troglodytes while every crazy charge leveled at Sarah Palin is taken as gospel.
Except they aren't always discarded as the work of racist troglodytes, often time they're discarded as illegitimate criticism for being untrue, or unlikely to be true.
To invert your point: often times criticism of Palin is discarded as the work of misogynists, and elitists.
Monster Rain wrote:
That said, I don't want her to be president, and she has no chance of being nominated. I'm a little annoyed at her for being an albatross around Johnny McCain's neck, and I think that he deserved to lose for trying to pick her and in so doing made me realize what a pandering hack he really is. Still though, it's interesting how much more of a hassle she seems to get than any other politician that I can think of off hand...
McCain was his own failing. If you can't manage a campaign, how are you going to manage a nation?
To paraphrase South Park, in an election, you have to choose between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche because those are the only people who will suck up enough to get the nomination.
ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, DD wasn't being racist there.
There are plenty of things he was being, most of them I'm not allowed to say on this forum. But racist wasn't one of them.
Thank you, Shuma.
It's OK, I'll even get you started: Facetious. Snarky. Smart-assed.
That said, in general, if you're taking my "political" postings any further than that, or reading anything further into them, you might want to have your humor meter checked...
Didin't say he was, but you can't tell me that that particular slogan, or anything along the same lines, wouldn't have come up if he was white. I was commenting on the slogan, itself, not the poster.
Dronze wrote:
Didin't say he was, but you can't tell me that that particular slogan, or anything along the same lines, wouldn't have come up if he was white. I was commenting on the slogan, itself, not the poster.
Uh, yeah, I can. Its really easy, look: That slogan would have come up if he happened to be white. See? Really easy.
Its an acronym, it doesn't play on his race, it plays on his name. All politicians enjoy similar treatment. Recall McCancer?
Monster Rain wrote:
The fact that other politicians don't get a pass for their behavior doesn't strike you as being somewhat hypocritical? Allegations against Obama are discarded out of hand as being the work of racist troglodytes while every crazy charge leveled at Sarah Palin is taken as gospel.
Except they aren't always discarded as the work of racist troglodytes, often time they're discarded as illegitimate criticism for being untrue, or unlikely to be true.
To invert your point: often times criticism of Palin is discarded as the work of misogynists, and elitists.
Monster Rain wrote:
That said, I don't want her to be president, and she has no chance of being nominated. I'm a little annoyed at her for being an albatross around Johnny McCain's neck, and I think that he deserved to lose for trying to pick her and in so doing made me realize what a pandering hack he really is. Still though, it's interesting how much more of a hassle she seems to get than any other politician that I can think of off hand...
McCain was his own failing. If you can't manage a campaign, how are you going to manage a nation?
About Palin:
To say that she is a terrible presidential candidate is not misogynist. Saying she's a dumb bitch sort of is, wouldn't you say?
Dronze wrote:Didin't say he was, but you can't tell me that that particular slogan, or anything along the same lines, wouldn't have come up if he was white. I was commenting on the slogan, itself, not the poster.
Uh, yeah, I can. Its really easy, look: That slogan would have come up if he happened to be white. See? Really easy.
Its an acronym, it doesn't play on his race, it plays on his name. All politicians enjoy similar treatment. Recall McCancer?
Enforced by local military forces within their own airspace and waters...
The Postal Service
Handled by individual governments within their own borders, any international interaction would be handled by customs in the relative countries.
Telecommunications
Developed by the IEEE and OSI (or ISO, depending on which name you prefer), both non-government groups. These are established technological standards, any legal bearing is, once again, handled by the local national government.
Science (SI units, etc.)
Apolitical and used by scientists, who should not be worried about the countries they are working for, unless developing secret military technology. Standards used only for the aid of multinational academics.
Passports and Customs Unions
Which are federally issued and who's application process and inspection process is handled by the applicable governments, not by an international agency.
Monster Rain wrote:Saying she's a dumb bitch sort of is, wouldn't you say?
Maybe. It depends on how strictly we want to regard the more benign physical (gender, race, ethnicity) slurs.
Yeah, right. Because if someone said something along the lines of "Barack Obama is a dumb (insert any racial slur here)" they wouldn't be labeled a racist.
Yeah, right. Because if someone said something along the lines of "Barack Obama is a dumb (insert any racial slur here)" they wouldn't be labeled a racist.
I'm not talking about labeling, I'm talking about legitimacy. People will be labeled in different ways regardless of what they do, the question that's actually interesting is: are those labels legitimate?
Yeah, right. Because if someone said something along the lines of "Barack Obama is a dumb (insert any racial slur here)" they wouldn't be labeled a racist.
I'm not talking about labeling, I'm talking about legitimacy. People will be labeled in different ways regardless of what they do, the question that's actually interesting is: are those labels legitimate?
I guess that's in the mind of the individual doing the labeling, as well as based on the motives of the person making the statement being considered.
"Sarah Palin is a dumb bitch" is on it's face a misogynist statement, in my opinion, because the term bitch is traditionally in slang used as a slur against women. Then again people use that term constantly in a million different contexts, so maybe it's not intended to be as misogynistic as it seems at first.
Its also worth noting that many people will use slurs in order to deliberately insult, rather than to indicate their own beliefs about a group of people.
For example, I know homosexual gender theory professors who will drop the c-bomb when discussing women they really dislike, or want to offend.
dogma wrote:Its also worth noting that many people will use slurs in order to deliberately insult, rather than to indicate their own beliefs about a group of people.
For example, I know homosexual gender theory professors who will drop the c-bomb when discussing women they really dislike, or want to offend.
Or the generic overuse of the term f*g, and other homoseual slurs amongst kids these days.
I don't know... I think a lot of the comments made in this very thread kind of back up a few of those. The hatred of the woman is a bit over the top. Yeah, you can find Sarah Palin saying some goofy stuff but you can find clips of anyone saying stupid things if they're a public figure.
Surely the question is whether you can find evidence of them saying stuff that makes sense.
dogma wrote:For example, I know homosexual gender theory professors who will drop the c-bomb when discussing women they really dislike, or want to offend.
I'd be interested to know how they felt about someone throwing the term "[see forum posting rules]" around with wild abandon.
I haz bin censoared?
Surely, within the context of the conversation, the use of the term "f*g" is clearly not intended to offend.
ShumaGorath wrote:Hah! Proclaiming the evils of the lefts blanket statements and hypocrisy by making hypocritical blanket statements! Clever!
I know you are trying to say something here, but all that comes through is farting noises.
Maybe it's not my place to comment, but a good start to fixing that problem might begin with pulling your head out of your ass. *edit* Huh, I thought that was one of the words that got auto-filtered. Also, the above was meant purely as a joke based on context.
The Green Git wrote:I know you are trying to say something here, but all that comes through is farting noises.
Maybe it's not my place to comment, but a good start to fixing that problem might begin with pulling your head out of your ass. *edit* Huh, I thought that was one of the words that got auto-filtered. Also, the above was meant purely as a joke based on context.
Heh... though if my head was in my ass then I wouldn't be able to fart now would I?
I'm tempted to say it was more a reference to the need some people feel to follow one around expelling foul smelling gusts that, while making a mighty noise actually contain no intelligent content. But I won't.
The Green Git wrote:
I'm tempted to say it was more a reference to the need some people feel to follow one around expelling foul smelling gusts that, while making a mighty noise actually contain no intelligent content. But I won't.
You consider a hypocritical, generalist indictment of hypocritical generalization to be intelligent content?
The Green Git wrote:
I'm tempted to say it was more a reference to the need some people feel to follow one around expelling foul smelling gusts that, while making a mighty noise actually contain no intelligent content. But I won't.
You consider a hypocritical, generalist indictment of hypocritical generalization to be intelligent content?
Isn't that what the American Electoral System is based on?
That said, I don't want her to be president, and she has no chance of being nominated. I'm a little annoyed at her for being an albatross around Johnny McCain's neck, and I think that he deserved to lose for trying to pick her and in so doing made me realize what a pandering hack he really is. Still though, it's interesting how much more of a hassle she seems to get than any other politician that I can think of off hand...
It helps that she quit her job to sell a book in the middle of a financial crisis yet is still adored by the right wing crazies she caters too. She's incredibly visible, as is her intention, and she's a dumbass who deserves scorn. A spark + fuel + oxygen = a fire. It's the perfect storm of deserved hate and undeserved attention.
I know you are trying to say something here, but all that comes through is farting noises.
You are the classiest man alive.
Obama isn't a worker at all. As SNL clearly noted, he didn't do anything in the first year, much less pass the big push that he promised as part of his election platform. Not even Healthcare, which was supposed to be the centerpiece of his agenda. If he can't do any of that, what good is he?
DD, you truly have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, he didn't get the healthcare legislation passed (yet), but he's done hundreds of things. The dude hasn't spent a month on his ranch once yet, and you know that (I hope).
I always thought you were left........
People constantly assume that because my views line up against conservative (greedy idiots) that they line up correctly with liberals (less greedy but largely still idiots). I take logical stances, reality just has a left wing bias right now.
But then, could the Republicans simply ape the Liberals by knee-jerking out the Woman Card to call anybody who doesn't support her a Sexist, Misogynist, woman-hater?
Hillary would just call her a douche, and it's not like anyone was afraid to make fun of her before.
Thank you, Shuma.
It's OK, I'll even get you started: Facetious. Snarky. Smart-assed.
That said, in general, if you're taking my "political" postings any further than that, or reading anything further into them, you might want to have your humor meter checked...
You don't really have a history logical thought or opinions on this forum. I only know you through here, so I will take that which I see as you at face value with reservations.
To paraphrase South Park, in an election, you have to choose between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche because those are the only people who will suck up enough to get the nomination.
Isn't democracy great?
Didin't say he was, but you can't tell me that that particular slogan, or anything along the same lines, wouldn't have come up if he was white. I was commenting on the slogan, itself, not the poster.
It's just an acronym based on his name. I fail to see how it was racist (though he likely wouldn't get the same level of criticism if he were white).
The Green Git wrote:
I'm tempted to say it was more a reference to the need some people feel to follow one around expelling foul smelling gusts that, while making a mighty noise actually contain no intelligent content. But I won't.
You consider a hypocritical, generalist indictment of hypocritical generalization to be intelligent content?
Isn't that what the American Electoral System is based on?
Dronze wrote:An international framework for anything just leads to an inefficient system.
I'm sorry, but that's just ludicrous. If international frameworks are inefficient, could you please explain why the progress towards international accounting standards has been driven by the market?
Thing is, as long as every nation is free to pick its own financial regs you will get competition to draw major institutions to your country, resulting in a race to the bottom as nations outdo each other to bring business to their country. You also have issues with compatibility, as the requirements of compliance in one legal system might be unachievable or completely inconsistant with compliance in another country. Then there's the cost of complying with the regulations of the multiple countries that a bank might operate in.
People really need to get over the knee-jerk reaction that supra-national is automatically inefficient, and actually look at how the world works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:That said, I don't want her to be president, and she has no chance of being nominated. I'm a little annoyed at her for being an albatross around Johnny McCain's neck, and I think that he deserved to lose for trying to pick her and in so doing made me realize what a pandering hack he really is. Still though, it's interesting how much more of a hassle she seems to get than any other politician that I can think of off hand...
It isn't that hard to understand. There is a feeling among the left wing that the right is just empty rhetoric and pretend folksiness, and Palin 'proves' this for them. The left is far more keen to attach Palin to the tea party movement than anyone else is (except possibly Palin herself) because it allows them to discredit the movement.
Have you noticed how often the right wing mention Al Gore and only Al Gore in the context of global warming? There are thousands of experts with far weightier opinions than Gore, but he's the one that lets them frame the issue as political one.
Monster Rain wrote:That said, I don't want her to be president, and she has no chance of being nominated. I'm a little annoyed at her for being an albatross around Johnny McCain's neck, and I think that he deserved to lose for trying to pick her and in so doing made me realize what a pandering hack he really is. Still though, it's interesting how much more of a hassle she seems to get than any other politician that I can think of off hand...
It isn't that hard to understand. There is a feeling among the left wing that the right is just empty rhetoric and pretend folksiness, and Palin 'proves' this for them. The left is far more keen to attach Palin to the tea party movement than anyone else is (except possibly Palin herself) because it allows them to discredit the movement.
Have you noticed how often the right wing mention Al Gore and only Al Gore in the context of global warming? There are thousands of experts with far weightier opinions than Gore, but he's the one that lets them frame the issue as political one.
That is an excellent example. I stand corrected!
Though I think that both of those two catch a bit more flak than is necessary. But maybe I'm just too nice a guy...
Monster Rain wrote:
That said, I don't want her to be president, and she has no chance of being nominated. I'm a little annoyed at her for being an albatross around Johnny McCain's neck, and I think that he deserved to lose for trying to pick her and in so doing made me realize what a pandering hack he really is. Still though, it's interesting how much more of a hassle she seems to get than any other politician that I can think of off hand...
McCain was his own failing. If you can't manage a campaign, how are you going to manage a nation?
That. I mean, the truth is that McCain got railroaded into picking her because the religious right flipped out over his desire to pick either Liebermann or Tom Ridge. But if he doesn't have the political power or will to tell a segment of his party to sit down and shut up, it sadly doesn't speak well of his ability to lead the entire nation. I thought that whole situation was rather sad, as I respect John McCain quite a bit.
I think Palin's looks/desirability are grossly overrated. She kinda has nice eyes, but she's got that manly jaw, a stumpy build, and she's had how many kids now? She's like the one okay-looking female at the comic/game store that benefits from an extremely shallow pool...
gorgon wrote:That. I mean, the truth is that McCain got railroaded into picking her because the religious right flipped out over his desire to pick either Liebermann or Tom Ridge.
That's just laughable. Honestly, how many of you even knew Sarah Palin existed before McCain picked her to be the VP nominee? McCain picked Palin to shore up the "religious-right" base whom McCain had alienated for years with his maverick ways. Don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that McCain almost switched parties.
This is an interesting commentary on the liberal frenzy about the possibility of Palin running for President...
gorgon wrote:I think Palin's looks/desirability are grossly overrated. She kinda has nice eyes, but she's got that manly jaw, a stumpy build, and she's had how many kids now? She's like the one okay-looking female at the comic/game store that benefits from an extremely shallow pool...
People in Australia got all excited over this woman when she ran for office;
Politics and power has a weird effect on people. Like you said about the one girl in the comic store, context matters.
gorgon wrote:I think Palin's looks/desirability are grossly overrated. She kinda has nice eyes, but she's got that manly jaw, a stumpy build, and she's had how many kids now? She's like the one okay-looking female at the comic/game store that benefits from an extremely shallow pool...
I have to agree with this statement. He's nice looking, but an utter troll next to Jennifer Love Hugechest. Personally, I think that the media decided she's attractive, so that sets some peer pressure that we should find her attractive. I also doubt that it hurt the perception that she's a MILF when Larry Flynt made several pornographic movies with an 'actress' that kinda looks like her (except for the 'actress' has a rack that would make Hugechest envious). "Hey, if she's hot enough to make porn about, that means she's really hot, right?"
In summary, I wouldn't vote for her. As a former Keystoner, I'd really like to see the GOP put Tom Ridge as the nominee. I also doubt it will happen. Ridge is a moderate in the GOP with a military background (Vietnam, Homeland Security), and he just seems to get 'it'. I think he's a lot less of a shyster than most politicians.
Also, in summary, I have no desire to tap Palin. She's not awful looking, but she's not nearly hot enough that it'd be worth getting thrown out of my house and hit with a divorce.
gorgon wrote:That. I mean, the truth is that McCain got railroaded into picking her because the religious right flipped out over his desire to pick either Liebermann or Tom Ridge.
That's just laughable. Honestly, how many of you even knew Sarah Palin existed before McCain picked her to be the VP nominee? McCain picked Palin to shore up the "religious-right" base whom McCain had alienated for years with his maverick ways. Don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that McCain almost switched parties.
This is an interesting commentary on the liberal frenzy about the possibility of Palin running for President...
I repeat: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE run her again. Please. I'm practically salivating.
Very few people "hate" the woman, at least not the way Limbaugh and friends have convinced significant segments of their listerners to hate Hillary Clinton. The reason she comes in for such heat is that she's an easy target, and people are lazy.
She is such a pathetically good target, and such a terrible choice to represent any party, that people can't resist taking shots at her. Any party so foolish to associate themselves with her is putting a "kick me" sign on their own back.
Vladigar wrote:
That's just laughable. Honestly, how many of you even knew Sarah Palin existed before McCain picked her to be the VP nominee? McCain picked Palin to shore up the "religious-right" base whom McCain had alienated for years with his maverick ways.
So you say a comment is laughable, and then agree with it? Well played, my cognitively dissonant friend. Well played...
Vladigar wrote:
Don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that McCain almost switched parties.
Implying centrism.
Vladigar wrote:
This is an interesting commentary on the liberal frenzy about the possibility of Palin running for President...
Vladigar wrote:
That's just laughable. Honestly, how many of you even knew Sarah Palin existed before McCain picked her to be the VP nominee? McCain picked Palin to shore up the "religious-right" base whom McCain had alienated for years with his maverick ways.
So you say a comment is laughable, and then agree with it? Well played, my cognitively dissonant friend. Well played...
Reading comprehension is your friend. Your assertion was that traditional conservatives had problems with his other possible VP choices. Mine is that their problem was with him.
dogma wrote:
Vladigar wrote:
Don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that McCain almost switched parties.
Implying centrism..
Implying that he needed someone that the traditional conservative base could rally behind. McCain may have won the nomination, partly due to blunders by his opponents in the primaries and partly due to the "we gotta have moderates" fad. But noone was pleased or excited about his candidacy until his picked Palin.
But like I said, I highly doubt she'd run for office again. She'd have to take a pay-cut. So rest easy, Palin-haters.
Vladigar wrote:
Don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that McCain almost switched parties.
Implying centrism..
Implying that he needed someone that the traditional conservative base could rally behind. McCain may have won the nomination, partly due to blunders by his opponents in the primaries and partly due to the "we gotta have moderates" fad. But noone was pleased or excited about his candidacy until his picked Palin.
But like I said, I highly doubt she'd run for office again. She'd have to take a pay-cut. So rest easy, Palin-haters.
I dunno, if she took the pay-cut for 4 years, it would certainly up her marketability... she could actually get MORE money as a former VP than as a former failure at governing alaska and dealing with the media...
gorgon wrote:That. I mean, the truth is that McCain got railroaded into picking her because the religious right flipped out over his desire to pick either Liebermann or Tom Ridge.
That's just laughable. Honestly, how many of you even knew Sarah Palin existed before McCain picked her to be the VP nominee? McCain picked Palin to shore up the "religious-right" base whom McCain had alienated for years with his maverick ways. Don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that McCain almost switched parties.
BUZZ! Sorry, thanks for playing.
IIRC, the religious right threatened to walk out of the convention if he picked a pro-choice VP. Liebermann and Ridge were his first choices. He ended up having to pick Palin, which just let a backstabbing viper into his camp. Palin was NOT his first choice all along.
Here's a tidbit about our wonderful girl. Apparently in the late days of the campaign, Todd called the Alaska donors and told them to save their money for 2012. Nice, huh?
The Palins have all the ambition of the Clintons without the fancy educations.
Actually The accounting standards are not set by agovernment. In America the are set by the Financial Accountign Standards Board, a private non-profit org. The Federal government just uses their standards as the standard that public companies are required to go by. FASB, and other orginizations like them in other contries are the ones tring to get a universal accounting standard.
Vladigar wrote:
Reading comprehension is your friend. Your assertion was that traditional conservatives had problems with his other possible VP choices. Mine is that their problem was with him.
It wasn't my assertion, take your own advice.
That said, the statements, as presented, are not mutually exclusive. If the religious right had a problem with McCain, they also would have had a problem with the presented VP selections; leaving little option beyond Palin. One of the few, easily controlled, elected officials with that particular political lean.
Vladigar wrote:
Implying that he needed someone that the traditional conservative base could rally behind. McCain may have won the nomination, partly due to blunders by his opponents in the primaries and partly due to the "we gotta have moderates" fad. But noone was pleased or excited about his candidacy until his picked Palin.
McCain was the best candidate. The fact that no one was excited about his nomination speaks to the American obsession with hyperbole.
Vladigar wrote:
But like I said, I highly doubt she'd run for office again. She'd have to take a pay-cut. So rest easy, Palin-haters.
gorgon wrote:I think Palin's looks/desirability are grossly overrated. She kinda has nice eyes, but she's got that manly jaw, a stumpy build, and she's had how many kids now? She's like the one okay-looking female at the comic/game store that benefits from an extremely shallow pool...
I have to agree with this statement. He's nice looking, but an utter troll next to Jennifer Love Hugechest. Personally, I think that the media decided she's attractive, so that sets some peer pressure that we should find her attractive. I also doubt that it hurt the perception that she's a MILF when Larry Flynt made several pornographic movies with an 'actress' that kinda looks like her (except for the 'actress' has a rack that would make Hugechest envious). "Hey, if she's hot enough to make porn about, that means she's really hot, right?"
I think current MILF/cougar obsessions in our culture probably play into it too, yeah.
In summary, I wouldn't vote for her. As a former Keystoner, I'd really like to see the GOP put Tom Ridge as the nominee. I also doubt it will happen. Ridge is a moderate in the GOP with a military background (Vietnam, Homeland Security), and he just seems to get 'it'. I think he's a lot less of a shyster than most politicians.
Ridge is pro-choice. That makes him pretty much DOA in the current GOP. But yes...I think he could be electable to the greater country.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again for emphasis -- demographics do NOT favor the GOP in coming years. They simply won't be able to remain a WASPy socially conservative party and continue winning office. So they WILL adjust, because the entire point of running for office is winning. Not sure the party is there yet, and therefore I fear Ridge will never get any serious consideration. I expect Santorum will get more of a shot, and he's only a little more electable than Palin.
Also, in summary, I have no desire to tap Palin. She's not awful looking, but she's not nearly hot enough that it'd be worth getting thrown out of my house and hit with a divorce.
Don't think I'd tap it even if I was single. Maybe single and drunk.
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you really think Palin is interested only in money
She is motivated by principle and concern for the health of the nation.
Which is why she quit her job as governer of alaska under the weight of the media pressure?
Sorry, but I don't buy it. If she was so driven by principle, then why did she buckle from the stress at the state level? If she can't deal with the pressure at that level, what makes you think that she's not going to quit when the media pressure's on her 24/7? MSNBC, and to a lesser degree, CNN are going to rip her to shreds at that position, if the current bias are of any indication. Yea, she'll have supporters over at fox, but I think even that's kinda starting to fall by the wayside...
The GOP would actually be better off putting up Condi Rice for the nominee, if they're trying to look progressive. At least that woman can almost articulate what she's trying to say, and actually say something of substance in the process.
Anyway, she HATES the red states, she rants about how they should just make their own county because you have nothing in common, and she whines about being constantly embarrassed by the "ignorance" of the bible belt.
Your girlfriend is a perfect example of why politics in the U.S. is so Fethed up. The whole political system is divisive, hypocritical, and is no more than a means for power hungry individuals to further their own agendas.
In response to the title question: No. She's doesn't exactly qualify as intelligent life in my book. Just a personal opinion. Bit of a Bible thumper too.
I've heard of Otto Von Bismark, and Sarah Palin is no Otto Von Bismark. Although it would be cool if she had a tiny Otto Von Bismark inside of her head commanding her like she was the Bismark.
Nurglitch wrote:You know who else had principles and concern for the health of a nation?
"Tailgunner" Joe McCarthy. I get the feeling that he and Palin would have a lot of conmnon ground. A lot of her comments make me think she would highly approve of a HUAC mark-2.
That said, in general, if you're taking my "political" postings any further than that, or reading anything further into them, you might want to have your humor meter checked...
You don't really have a history logical thought or opinions on this forum.
I only know you through here, so I will take that which I see as you at face value with reservations.
Off topic forum, no, I'm not making any effort here. I see the OT forum as a big joke, politics in particular.
That's OK - and I assume you understand that others perceive you in the same way via similar lenses.
I would vote for Condi Rice especially for her stance on Islamic terrorism:
"We have to remember that in this war on terrorism, we're not talking about criminal activity where you can allow somebody to commit the crime and then you go back and you arrest them and you question them. If they succeed in committing their crime, then hundreds or indeed thousands of people die. That's why you have to prevent, and intelligence is the long pole in the tent in preventing attacks."
You don’t “allow” people to commit crimes. Do we "allow" people to commit murder? Or child abuse? You try to prevent them with reasonable precautions, and you investigate, capture and prosecute when they happen. Terrorism is just a form of murderous, politically-motivated crime. And questioning the people you capture is a cornerstone of that intelligence she's talking about.
I think that the point she was making is to be even more proactive in the case of terrorism than in more conventional criminal activity.
The "allowance" for criminal activity she is describing is saying that the Criminal Justice system is more reactive, which doesn't work when you have terrorists who would kill thousands of people at a whack.
The Green Git wrote:I would vote for Condi Rice especially for her stance on Islamic terrorism:
"We have to remember that in this war on terrorism, we're not talking about criminal activity where you can allow somebody to commit the crime and then you go back and you arrest them and you question them. If they succeed in committing their crime, then hundreds or indeed thousands of people die. That's why you have to prevent, and intelligence is the long pole in the tent in preventing attacks."
The small government Conservative would vote for the Neoconservative (read: social liberal with teeth) apparatchik? Nice. This explains a great deal about you.
Anyway, Condi's position on terrorism prevention is mirrored by every single politician in Washington. The only dispute therein relates to the proper treatment of individuals after apprehension; really little more than a technical point.
The Green Git wrote:I would vote for Condi Rice especially for her stance on Islamic terrorism:
"We have to remember that in this war on terrorism, we're not talking about criminal activity where you can allow somebody to commit the crime and then you go back and you arrest them and you question them. If they succeed in committing their crime, then hundreds or indeed thousands of people die. That's why you have to prevent, and intelligence is the long pole in the tent in preventing attacks."
The small government Conservative would vote for the Neoconservative (read: social liberal with teeth) apparatchik? Nice. This explains a great deal about you.
Anyway, Condi's position on terrorism prevention is mirrored by every single politician in Washington. The only dispute therein relates to the proper treatment of individuals after apprehension; really little more than a technical point.
All that being said, I think Condi & (insert moderate republican here) might have swept Obama, had the GOP put her up as opposed to McCain/Palin, though the 8 years prior may have been a bit of a damper on her chances. Then the moderate would have been in the passenger seat, appealing to the more reasonable republicans, as well as the conservative democrats, as well as the truly neutral moderates. With all this in play, the far right would have immediately recognized her work under the Bush administration, with little in the way of needed specifics of what she actually managed to accomplish during her time within the power structure.
That being said, there is one thing to note about us Americans... as a society, we have a notoriously short attention span. 2012 may actually be the more realistic shot, as it seemed like a lot of people, disgusted by the bush-era republicans, ran as far as they could to distance themselves from the party affiliation, and are now starting to move back, as the republicans are, even now, working their magic to snap the spines of the congressional democrats.
Barring a strong showing by Obama in the next 18 months, methinks the GOP will regain the house, senate, and the white house by a strong majority come 2014, as democratic party starts collapsing on itself due to it's gross indecision and unwillingness to actually assert itself.
Dronze wrote:
All that being said, I think Condi & (insert moderate republican here) might have swept Obama, had the GOP put her up as opposed to McCain/Palin, though the 8 years prior may have been a bit of a damper on her chances.
Really? Because McCain is THE moderate Republican. I don't see Condi being distinct from him.
Dronze wrote:
as democratic party starts collapsing on itself due to it's gross indecision and unwillingness to actually assert itself.
Dronze wrote:
All that being said, I think Condi & (insert moderate republican here) might have swept Obama, had the GOP put her up as opposed to McCain/Palin, though the 8 years prior may have been a bit of a damper on her chances.
Really? Because McCain is THE moderate Republican. I don't see Condi being distinct from him.
There are 2 big factors here: Race and gender. The republicans were trying as hard as they could to make Sarah Palin look like a progressive move. Problem is, her soundbites make her sound like, well, let's face it, that special kid in school that the teachers forced everyone to be friends with. Condi is relatively well-spoken, and as much as race was a deciding factor, the GOP would have trumped Obama and Biden by a wide margin, given that the front-runner was both African-American, and female. the ideologies are completely indistict, but the marketability makes for such a wide gap that it's not even funny.
Even if, fundamentally and politically Condi wasn't a change from business as usual, it would be overshadowed by the fact that she's an african-american woman who speaks eloquently and was instrumental in keeping america together, post-9/11 from a marketing standpoint. The use of such vague points, if you hadn't noticed, is somewhat commonplace in politics today, and would have made for a GOP powerplay unlike any seen before. They could have kept from mud-slinging and actually gotten the american public to believe that there had been a paradigm shift within the party itself, no matter what the full truth of the matter was.
Obama got the black vote by a long shot, even amongst the conservatives... to say that race, in this country is no longer an issue is blinding oneself to the blaringly obvious social strife happening to this day. "White flight" still manages to blight urban and inner ring suburban communities across the country. It's not as severe as it was even 20 years ago, but it's still a social issue that most see as best left as the elephant in the room that everyone chooses to ignore. Remember, we're a country with a short attention span and an affinity for shiny objects, and the first black female president would have held a lot more sway than just the first black president.
Dronze wrote:
There are 2 big factors here: Race and gender.
Yes, Liberals believe that.
Dronze wrote:
..but the marketability makes for such a wide gap that it's not even funny.
Didn't work for Hillary, or Palin.
Dronze wrote:
The use of such vague points, if you hadn't noticed, is somewhat commonplace in politics today, and would have made for a GOP powerplay unlike any seen before.
That's quite the funny joke coming from the guy that broached the race subject at "One Big Ass Mistake America".
Dronze wrote:
Obama got the black vote by a long shot, even amongst the conservatives... to say that race, in this country is no longer an issue is blinding oneself to the blaringly obvious social strife happening to this day.
I said to the missus they should have picked Condi ages ago! If they picked her to be JMs VP Its entirely conceiveable that they would have won. My missus is a democrat, but she liked Clinton not Obama. When he got the nod over Hilary she voted for an independant, but im pretty sure she would have leaned towards the GOP. And lets not even get onto the whole race or sex thing. Condi is a very bright and intelligent charismatic woman, and JM is a very likeable man. I think they would have made a great choice, but alas, they chose a creationist slow instead. Id like to know who thought that was a good idea!
Dronze wrote:
There are 2 big factors here: Race and gender.
Yes, Liberals believe that.
I'm merely speaking from a marketing standpoint. Condi Rice would have been a much easier sell than McCain or Palin ever were, "Straight Talk Express" or not.
dogma wrote:
Dronze wrote:
..but the marketability makes for such a wide gap that it's not even funny.
Didn't work for Hillary, or Palin.
Hillary will be living in Bill's shadow for the rest of her political career, no matter what she does. The personality and popularity of her husband (politics withstanding) are just too much for her to overcome. Even beyond that point, all those years she was in the Senate were just her drawing a paycheck from the taxpayers while she prepped to run for president, herself, she really didn't accomplish much of note in those interim years.
dogma wrote:
Dronze wrote:
The use of such vague points, if you hadn't noticed, is somewhat commonplace in politics today, and would have made for a GOP powerplay unlike any seen before.
That's quite the funny joke coming from the guy that broached the race subject at "One Big Ass Mistake America".
Again, look at the circumstances... "One Big Ass Mistake, America" was coming from the same people concerned about Barak Obama turning us into an islamocentric state, and that he was actually born in Kenya. Perhaps I'm drawing biased conclusions, but that's merely my opinion on it.
Dronze wrote:
Obama got the black vote by a long shot, even amongst the conservatives... to say that race, in this country is no longer an issue is blinding oneself to the blaringly obvious social strife happening to this day.
You did it not two lines above,
I don't believe I've ever said it WASN'T an issue, though I certainly do hold that it SHOULDN'T be one.
Just because I can comment on the fact that it would be more marketable doesn't mean that I don't think it's sick that it actually is...
Dronze wrote:
I'm merely speaking from a marketing standpoint. Condi Rice would have been a much easier sell than McCain or Palin ever were, "Straight Talk Express" or not.
To you, perhaps. But if the nation is both racist, and sexist, as you presume, it wouldn't have been a cake walk
Dronze wrote:
Again, look at the circumstances... "One Big Ass Mistake, America" was coming from the same people concerned about Barak Obama turning us into an islamocentric state, and that he was actually born in Kenya. Perhaps I'm drawing biased conclusions, but that's merely my opinion on it.
People? Nice plural. Until you can develop a critique which elucidates a single person, you should stop this line. It makes you look like an idiot.
Dronze wrote:
I don't believe I've ever said it WASN'T an issue, though I certainly do hold that it SHOULDN'T be one.
Thank you, playbook liberal.
Dronze wrote:
Just because I can comment on the fact that it would be more marketable doesn't mean that I don't think it's sick that it actually is...
Dronze wrote:
I'm merely speaking from a marketing standpoint. Condi Rice would have been a much easier sell than McCain or Palin ever were, "Straight Talk Express" or not.
To you, perhaps. But if the nation is both racist, and sexist, as you presume, it wouldn't have been a cake walk
You don't think so? This last election was an opportunity for BOTH parties to turn the politics as usual on their head. The GOP nominated Sarah Palin to the Vice Presidency, trying to look like they were actually veering away from the Republican party's usual image of bloated, old, rich white guys to counteract the democrats push for the first black president. First female VP? I'd call that the closest thing to a radical social achievement coming out of the right wing in a long time... Tax cuts for the rich and some old-money "G*d and country" type would have just been more of the same. I'm not going to say that nobody would have touched that, but most middle-class americans weren't exactly willing to trust the far right after everything that the Bush administration pulled. The GOP needed a moderate republican, but more to the point, needed someone who would have been noticed as a radical change. Nobody talks about McCain anymore, but Palin is still shoving herself into the public eye rather regularly, be it in debates such as this one, or by joining up with the media voice of the right wing, Fox News.
Besides, CNN (admittedly, a liberal media bastion) wouldn't have overtly touched the race, ethnic, or gender issues, percieved or not. They're entirely too PC for that. They would have, if anything, lauded the progressive steps taken by the republicans and seen it as a deep breath of fresh air. It seems like Palin painted a massive target on her back every time she opened her mouth, because the only thing that came pouring out was ignorance, fluff, and more sucking up than a shopvac. She couldn't even fake it well enough to stay afloat.
jbunny wrote:Actually The accounting standards are not set by agovernment. In America the are set by the Financial Accountign Standards Board, a private non-profit org. The Federal government just uses their standards as the standard that public companies are required to go by. FASB, and other orginizations like them in other contries are the ones tring to get a universal accounting standard.
Dude, I see you can look things up on wiki but I'm an accountant. I do IAS for a living so don't tell me who's involved in their construction. The US Federal Govt, along with every other major national government are stakeholders and have significant input into IASB. Did you really think they'd write statutes requiring IAS adherence without worrying about what IAS required, especially when many government bodies are required to follow IAS?
More importantly you've lost track of your argument. Unless your claim above was a complete non-sequitur, you obviously think the stakeholder driven set-up of international accounting is sufficiently unlike international regulation that it'd be efficient. At which point, given that a body like IASB would meet my comment about an international regulatory framework, you have to concede such a framework is possible without being inefficient.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vladigar wrote:And I soooo wish that Condi Rice would run. She runs circles around 99.9% of anyone that's been in Washington over the last decade.
Someone needs to write a book explaining how Rice managed to escape the Bush administration without . A lot of established civil servants with proud records came out with their reputations destroyed, many of them on the record as disputing Bush policy. Yet Rice, footsoldier #1, has come through unscathed despite being a fairly obscure academic and politician before the Bush admin, and agreeing entirely with Bush' most disastrous policies.
It would probably have to be a big book.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:The small government Conservative would vote for the Neoconservative (read: social liberal with teeth) apparatchik? Nice. This explains a great deal about you.
While the small government conservative is an altogether different beast, the small government but big military conservative isn't motivated by any real belief in government. The main ideology of the SGBM conservative is manly manliness, government should be small because then manly men will triumph, but the army should be big and aggressive because the army is full of manly men and attacking other nations is a manly man thing to do.
It sounds very silly, but once you spot it it's remarkable how easy it is to predict the beliefs of your SGBM conservative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dronze wrote:All that being said, I think Condi & (insert moderate republican here) might have swept Obama, had the GOP put her up as opposed to McCain/Palin, though the 8 years prior may have been a bit of a damper on her chances. Then the moderate would have been in the passenger seat, appealing to the more reasonable republicans, as well as the conservative democrats, as well as the truly neutral moderates. With all this in play, the far right would have immediately recognized her work under the Bush administration, with little in the way of needed specifics of what she actually managed to accomplish during her time within the power structure.
No, the biggest point in McCain's favour was that his reputation came primarily from outside the GOP. His opponents in the primaries were all harmed by being more closely attached to the GOP, and none of them were part of the Bush admin. In house election somewhere a GOP candidate found that taking 'Republican' off his campaign material markedly improved his responses, and the Democrats actually took him to court to require him to put it on there - that's just how toxic GOP affiliation was in 2008.
No-one actually from Bush' administration would have stood a chance.
Vladigar wrote:And I soooo wish that Condi Rice would run. She runs circles around 99.9% of anyone that's been in Washington over the last decade.
Someone needs to write a book explaining how Rice managed to escape the Bush administration without . A lot of established civil servants with proud records came out with their reputations destroyed, many of them on the record as disputing Bush policy. Yet Rice, footsoldier #1, has come through unscathed despite being a fairly obscure academic and politician before the Bush admin, and agreeing entirely with Bush' most disastrous policies.
It would probably have to be a big book.
This one comes down to the whole short attention span and "OOH, LOOK, SHINY OBJECT!" complex that our society and media have. She was smart enough to give herself just as much exposure as needed to say something for Homeland Seurity, and only when it was absolutely needed to come from her own lips. Footsoldier #1 spent a lot of time in heavy cover and gone to ground...
sebster wrote:
Dronze wrote:All that being said, I think Condi & (insert moderate republican here) might have swept Obama, had the GOP put her up as opposed to McCain/Palin, though the 8 years prior may have been a bit of a damper on her chances. Then the moderate would have been in the passenger seat, appealing to the more reasonable republicans, as well as the conservative democrats, as well as the truly neutral moderates. With all this in play, the far right would have immediately recognized her work under the Bush administration, with little in the way of needed specifics of what she actually managed to accomplish during her time within the power structure.
No, the biggest point in McCain's favour was that his reputation came primarily from outside the GOP. His opponents in the primaries were all harmed by being more closely attached to the GOP, and none of them were part of the Bush admin. In house election somewhere a GOP candidate found that taking 'Republican' off his campaign material markedly improved his responses, and the Democrats actually took him to court to require him to put it on there - that's just how toxic GOP affiliation was in 2008.
No-one actually from Bush' administration would have stood a chance.
It would have taken a shrewed campaign, but I don't think it would have been nearly as handicapped as you thought. Bush didn't throw her to the wolves, and by 2003, everyone forgot that she was his lacky to begin with. There was already a moderate amount of distance between her and the administration, at least within the realm of public perception, and that's what would have made the difference. First words associated with the name aren't "Republican", or even "Bush-Era". The far-left liberal whacknuts completely ignored her when they came around to condemn Bush, Cheney, and whomever else THAT particular lynch-mob came into town for, and would have continued to marginalize her political ties to the Bush-era GOP, since they would be too worried about being politically correct to try and hold that to her. Besides, she's the shiny object that would grab the feminists, those seeking a symbol for racial and gender equality, and any other racial or gender-biased vote that was out there.
On top of the marketing factor, she's still smart enough to not run a campaign into the ground, and deft enough to avoid the potential pitfalls along the way.
Dronze wrote:
You don't think so? This last election was an opportunity for BOTH parties to turn the politics as usual on their head. The GOP nominated Sarah Palin to the Vice Presidency, trying to look like they were actually veering away from the Republican party's usual image of bloated, old, rich white guys to counteract the democrats push for the first black president. First female VP? I'd call that the closest thing to a radical social achievement coming out of the right wing in a long time...
The GOP nominated Palin because they were grasping at straws. They didn't know how to react to Obama, so they attempted to emulate him. Their entire playbook was thrown to the wolves, from their perspective, via the massive disapproval of Bush.
Dronze wrote:
Tax cuts for the rich and some old-money "G*d and country" type would have just been more of the same. I'm not going to say that nobody would have touched that, but most middle-class americans weren't exactly willing to trust the far right after everything that the Bush administration pulled. The GOP needed a moderate republican, but more to the point, needed someone who would have been noticed as a radical change.
Given the reaction to McCain it seems they needed a hardline right winger. No one was upset because the Bush administration was too conservative, they were upset because it was too liberal. Neoconservativism only sounds like its right wing, its actually heavily infused with socialism.
Dronze wrote:
Nobody talks about McCain anymore, but Palin is still shoving herself into the public eye rather regularly, be it in debates such as this one, or by joining up with the media voice of the right wing, Fox News.
Further evidence that a moderate had no chance in the GOP.
Someone needs to write a book explaining how Rice managed to escape the Bush administration without . A lot of established civil servants with proud records came out with their reputations destroyed, many of them on the record as disputing Bush policy. Yet Rice, footsoldier #1, has come through unscathed despite being a fairly obscure academic and politician before the Bush admin, and agreeing entirely with Bush' most disastrous policies.
It would probably have to be a big book.
Rice got out smelling of roses because she is a good politician.
sebster wrote:
Someone needs to write a book explaining how Rice managed to escape the Bush administration without . A lot of established civil servants with proud records came out with their reputations destroyed, many of them on the record as disputing Bush policy. Yet Rice, footsoldier #1, has come through unscathed despite being a fairly obscure academic and politician before the Bush admin, and agreeing entirely with Bush' most disastrous policies.
It would probably have to be a big book.
It would be a pretty short book. Rice has never been a vocal defender of the Iraq War, and has generally advocated a very useful counter-terrorism strategy; ie. prevention. She is, based on the few times that I've met her (my friend's father was the medical chair at Stanford), conservative not only in her politics, but also here demeanor. She knows how to let other people take risks, while preparing herself to capitalize on them by intellectually setting her agenda. Smart woman, though lacking in imagination.
sebster wrote:
While the small government conservative is an altogether different beast, the small government but big military conservative isn't motivated by any real belief in government. The main ideology of the SGBM conservative is manly manliness, government should be small because then manly men will triumph, but the army should be big and aggressive because the army is full of manly men and attacking other nations is a manly man thing to do.
It sounds very silly, but once you spot it it's remarkable how easy it is to predict the beliefs of your SGBM conservative.
Dronze wrote:This one comes down to the whole short attention span and "OOH, LOOK, SHINY OBJECT!" complex that our society and media have. She was smart enough to give herself just as much exposure as needed to say something for Homeland Seurity, and only when it was absolutely needed to come from her own lips. Footsoldier #1 spent a lot of time in heavy cover and gone to ground...
Something she wouldn't have been able to do if she'd run for the Presidency.
It would have taken a shrewed campaign, but I don't think it would have been nearly as handicapped as you thought.
I don't think it would have taken a shrewd campaign, but a miracle. But I'll note you're assuming a skilled campaign from a women who's never run for any office.
Besides, she's the shiny object that would grab the feminists, those seeking a symbol for racial and gender equality, and any other racial or gender-biased vote that was out there.
People assume that a women will collect a lot of votes for simply being a women, but elections around the world demonstrate otherwise. Perhaps the most surprising part is that the group who's vote is most negatively affected by the politician being female is other women - women don't vote for women. It's weird, but there it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Rice got out smelling of roses because she is a good politician.
I think that's likely part of it, but I suspect circumstance played a large part too. She certainly wasn't target #1, and once people had a go at Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and about a half dozen others there probably wasn't much interest in going after her.
I honestly think a book into Rice keeping her level of political viability would be really interesting, and probably produce a lot of insight into politics in general.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:It would be a pretty short book. Rice has never been a vocal defender of the Iraq War, and has generally advocated a very useful counter-terrorism strategy; ie. prevention. She is, based on the few times that I've met her (my friend's father was the medical chair at Stanford), conservative not only in her politics, but also here demeanor. She knows how to let other people take risks, while preparing herself to capitalize on them by intellectually setting her agenda. Smart woman, though lacking in imagination.
The key quote on Iraq that summed up the need for war came from Rice;
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
JohnHwangDD wrote:Oh? It's not like he delivered the last Presidency...
What? Does he have to be entirely responsible for something in order to be good at his job?
The point is that throughout the Bush presidency political arguments were very well framed by the Republicans, and Bush's two campaigns were run extremely well. Credit to Rove for both.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Oh? It's not like he delivered the last Presidency...
What? Does he have to be entirely responsible for something in order to be good at his job?
The point is that throughout the Bush presidency political arguments were very well framed by the Republicans, and Bush's two campaigns were run extremely well. Credit to Rove for both.
That being said, it's not like they needed to be spectacular... look at who he was running against: Al Gore was relegated to the lunatic fringe long ago, and it's only occasionally that his shouts get loud enough that someone notices, and John Kerry was a twit that couldn't actually deliver a strong enough point to be remembered.
Saying he was good at his job is like saying Sammy, the half blind, overweight amputee with Downs' is good at his job as a Walmart Greeter. It didn't take much...
Dronze wrote:That being said, it's not like they needed to be spectacular... look at who he was running against: Al Gore was relegated to the lunatic fringe long ago, and it's only occasionally that his shouts get loud enough that someone notices, and John Kerry was a twit that couldn't actually deliver a strong enough point to be remembered.
That might be a view some people might put on Gore today, but it's nothing like the perception held in 2000. Gore was very much a centrist politician, with a strong economy and popular incumbant behind him. It was only after his defeat that he returned to his original cause of global warming.
Kerry was a poor choice, plain and simple. He was a solid member of the well-intentioned but careful not to actually do anything centre-left, and a terrible speaker to boot. Say what you want about Bush's public speaking, at least people paid attention...
Saying he was good at his job is like saying Sammy, the half blind, overweight amputee with Downs' is good at his job as a Walmart Greeter. It didn't take much...
Yeah can't just generalise politicians by whatever criteria is convenient, you have to look at the detail of the political debate over those years. Just have to look at Swift Boats for Truth, all morality aside that was an incredibly well executed hatchet job.
