Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Do you really think Palin is interested only in money

She is motivated by principle and concern for the health of the nation.

Vladigar wrote:

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.

You seem to have a love affair with strawmen.

dietrich wrote:

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.

You know who else had principles and concern for the health of a nation?

Nurglitch wrote:You know who else had principles and concern for the health of a nation?

Don't do it!

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.

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.

Nurglitch wrote:You know who else had principles and concern for the health of a nation?

Shaka Zulu?

Frazzled wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:You know who else had principles and concern for the health of a nation?

Shaka Zulu?

The Gipper?
Johnny Carson?
Idi Amin?
King Louis?

Florence Nightingale

Joseph Stalin

Louis Pasteur

Montezuma

Napoleon Bonaparte

The Tick, serving criminals heaping spoons of..JUSTICE!!!

Otto von Bismark

Nurglitch wrote:You know who else had principles and concern for the health of a nation?

Nancy Pelosi?

Frazzled wrote:
Otto von Bismark

...and...

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.

Perhaps some form of homunculus.

Blood and iron.

Nurglitch wrote:... Although it would be cool if she had a tiny Otto Von Bismark inside of her head commanding her like she was the Bismark.

Gets one good hit off and then goes round in circles until she's sunk? I don't see the connection.

A powerful torpedo up the rear end sets the scene for the rest of the encounter, you mean?

I have to say I hadn't thought about it in those terms before.

Kilkrazy wrote:A powerful torpedo up the rear end sets the scene for the rest of the encounter, you mean?

I have to say I hadn't thought about it in those terms before.

Rather your torpedo than mine. *shudder*

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

Dronze wrote:

The GOP would actually be better off putting up Condi Rice for the nominee, if they're trying to look progressive.

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.

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.

dogma wrote:

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.