Anything Goes

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

OldMan — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:06:52 GMT

OK, I have changed my mind about her. She obviously is not worthy. Check this out from yesterday's paper. I mean, this is some serious sh*t right here!

Judgment sought against Palin in 'Juneteenth' suit

By RACHEL D'ORO / Associated Press Writer

Published: July 17th, 2009 03:10 PM
Last Modified: July 17th, 2009 12:37 PM

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit against Gov. Sarah Palin asked a judge Friday to declare that she broke state law two years ago when she failed to issue a proclamation for a celebration commemorating the freeing of U.S. slaves.

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

Infidel Rat — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:17:34 GMT

wally:

... when you go far enough to the right where the crazies are you will eventually run into the crazies on the far left.

This is actually an accurate political science concept. Reactionary eventually meets Radical at some point...

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

wally — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:10:46 GMT

Damn, that was so perfect that I have no response except AMEN! I personally watch both Fox & Msnbc. I like to hear what both sides are saying because each one is probably right only 50% of the time. Today all we can do is get as much information as possible & draw our conclusions based on what makes sense to each of us. Remember the earth is round & when you go far enough to the right where the crazies are you will eventually run into the crazies on the far left.

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

OldMan — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:17:38 GMT

Darth_Warrior:

alaska state law won't allow her to make money from her political exploits (such as a memoir, etc) while she's in office....

What the hell, why let a dead horse just lie there. If you're in chanrge you get to make the rules or at least you have a bit of influence over those who do. I took the following from an article in the Anchorage paper today:

Palin didn't have to leave office to get a book deal -- she already has one, and the Alaska Department of Law signed off on her having it even as governor.

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

Pep — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:26:26 GMT

Many of the republicans I know would vote democratic if it weren't for gay marriage and abortion. It should be no surprise to anyone that I'm in that group as well. That means that I sacrifice a lot of things that could benefit me just to stand my ground on these issues. Some may think that's ignorant or short-sighted, but I feel quite the contrary. If I'm willing to sacrifice things that would directly benefit me because I believe in something so strongly, then perhaps my values are more deeply rooted than many others. It sure would be a lot easier to compromise everything and join the crowd, but then again why would I want to be like everyone else?

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

Pep — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:11:19 GMT

TiltedHorizon:

Pep:

It just becomes more and more entertaining reading the posts by "intellectuals" whose IQ is only slightly higher than the number of nuts they have in their sack.

There goes an entire day of productivity as I contemplate the effect a 131+ count sack would have on my life.

I’m fairly sure everyone reading this thread is now pregnant, apologies, I should have typed this response while wearing a condom.

If you in fact have 131+ you should be wearing an inner tube!

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

Washingtonwarrior — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:55:21 GMT

I've been involved in more personal debate in a political sense than I ever wanted to be involved in. Mostly because of my personality and wanting to see what people really think. It may be that I live in Washington state or because I worked for a long, long time for the government, I have found that the most of the of self labeled democrats are really not. These are the people that I have found that are party bound based upon issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Almost all of the self proclaimed democrats that I have quizzed, vote democrat without exception or fail. Yet, when I ask them about issues other than those such as abortion or gay marriage etc , most really aren't democrats at all. Here in Washington state, we have a referendum process where the people can bring almost anything to a vote. In states where this is possible, there are probably all sorts of indications where people vote for the democrat party when electing people but vote for conservative ideas. Here in this state, they vote democrats into office in a rush, the democrats do what they do and create rules and laws (because besides that, what is the point of an elected official). A ballot measure is followed by a rejection of the rule or law. This is followed by a lawsuit filed by the government against the people for any little error there may have been in the wording of the ballot measure and then followed by overruling the vote. Then a new reworded ballot measure, another lawsuit etc etc. Looking at it over the years, I see people voting for democrats because they hate republicans and then try to throw out everything that the very people they elected did. I guess my actual point here (from my experience) is the emotion that causes people to put on blinders and vote a particular party seems more prevalent from the democrat side. It's the "we don't like anything you do but we won't vote in anybody with an R next to their name" syndrome. Anybody can have a conversation with anybody about ideas, it's easy and it's surprising how often people agree on ideas, regardless of political affiliation. Also, because I worked for the government for a long time, it's impossible for me to agree that ANYTHING can be done better by the government. The government in health care isn't novel, they are up the their ears in healthcare already. You'll never convince me that an entire layer of bureaucratic, dogooder, slackers will bring down the cost of anything.

Darth_Warrior:
we don't need a new option party-wise, we don't need some new structure to blame for the mess, we're to blame because we've allowed ourselves to be sucked into this divisive squabble over who's on what team, andare distracted from the important basic issues byinconsequential issues like abortion and gay marriage (no offense to those of you with deep-seated beliefs on these issues, but there's no reason the government need intervene, and many workaday republicans share my live-and-let-live approach here). these are but shin, wedge-issue baubles offered not for their merit, but for their ability to divide us, and we've collectively taken the bait.

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

OldMan — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:31:06 GMT

Darth_Warrior:

... partisanship has become more important than sound policymaking, and that's a recipe for disaster.

AMEN!!

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

Darth_Warrior — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:05:05 GMT

it's interesting that it's so important to us these days "what" people are politically. it very quickly devolves the dialogue into an "us vs. them" affair that pretty much precludes anything approaching real political discourse.

quite frankly, most republicans are more moderate than the noisy ones we hear from would like to admit, and most democrats are likewise more moderate than most of the far left would like to acknowledge. democrats as a group tend to be a little more tolerant of a broader spectrum of beliefs under theit banner, out of necessity more than anything else, as they tend to be less dogmatic than their counterparts on the far right.

sarah palin has become something of a sacred cow amongst those who identify themselves as Conservatives, and these folks expect the democrats to reject her, but tend to view republicans who don't like her as traitors. palin was very polarizing within the republican ranks, with many of the "chamber of commerce" type of republicans viewing her as a lousy pick for VP, and the more hardline Conservative types embracing her completely. she played well t the hardline crowd, but the hardline crowd is more concerned with social conservatism than the bulk of registered republicans, many of whom identify themselves as "fiscal conservatives" who really don't care too much about the artifical wedge issues that drive the hardliners to the polls (and republicans as a party haven't been anything close to fiscal conservatives since goldwater).

used properly, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have very little meaning without a current context, i.e., a liberal policy 20 or 50 years ago is not necessarily viewed as such today. we tend to use "liberal" and "conservative" as labels to identify which "team" currently supports a particular policy, as opposed to describing any particular characteristic of the policy itself, which results in very little room for objective discussions on the actual viability or wisdom of the policy. partisanship has become more important than sound policymaking, and that's a recipe for disaster.

a case in point is the current administration's healthcare proposal (i am not arguing FOR this policy, i am simply pointing out how it is CALLED liberal but actually is anything but). the wacky left wants to characterize it as a victory over the big evil health corporations, and the wacky right wants to characterize it as the socialization of healthcare, when it is neither. looked at objectively, the plan is pretty conservative (using Webster's definition, not Limbaugh's) in that properly implemented, it will reduce the cost of healthcare that we pay out of pocket (meaning in insurance premiums, because that is how the current cost of caring for the uninsured is passed on to us), AND provide greater access to healthcare earlier to more people. why is it conservative? because in the long-term view, it will reduce the burden on those of us who pay insurance premiums now, and significantly reduce the burden that the uninsured place on the system currently (seeking primary care at the ER, seeking treatment for advanced-stage conditions that would have been inexpensively prevented or managed had treatment been accessible earlier). the verdict is still out as to whether the administration and congress can free up enough money in the exisitng budget to cover this, but that doesn't make the policy itself "liberal."

we don't need a new option party-wise, we don't need some new structure to blame for the mess, we're to blame because we've allowed ourselves to be sucked into this divisive squabble over who's on what team, andare distracted from the important basic issues byinconsequential issues like abortion and gay marriage (no offense to those of you with deep-seated beliefs on these issues, but there's no reason the government need intervene, and many workaday republicans share my live-and-let-live approach here). these are but shin, wedge-issue baubles offered not for their merit, but for their ability to divide us, and we've collectively taken the bait.

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

speedkills — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:37:58 GMT

Washingtonwarrior:
You're not sounding much like a moderate republican to me (not that I know what a moderate conservative is). There was a pretty powerful republican machine in place in Alaska that Palin stomped on and is a huge reason for her rise in Alaskan politics. She took on the republicans and they didn't like it and still don't. That will explain the statement below. Actually, the more I read just that statement, the more I don't believe you are any kind of republican. Not that it matters what party you are claiming to be in but I think you may be lying to yourself on what you actually are herre.
wally:
Also, most of the ethics violation charges that she is complaining about are being filed by REPUBLICANS! So much for the evil liberals attacking her

would also like to know which policies based on liberal principles were so great...

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

Washingtonwarrior — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:21:56 GMT

You're not sounding much like a moderate republican to me (not that I know what a moderate conservative is). There was a pretty powerful republican machine in place in Alaska that Palin stomped on and is a huge reason for her rise in Alaskan politics. She took on the republicans and they didn't like it and still don't. That will explain the statement below. Actually, the more I read just that statement, the more I don't believe you are any kind of republican. Not that it matters what party you are claiming to be in but I think you may be lying to yourself on what you actually are herre.

wally:
Also, most of the ethics violation charges that she is complaining about are being filed by REPUBLICANS! So much for the evil liberals attacking her

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

wally — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:28:18 GMT

I agree that she would be crushed! She is very popular with the republican base, but that base is shrinking. I am a moderate republican & I think she is dumb as a box of rocks (even more so than Bush). She went to 5 different colleges before finally graduating. At least Bush went to Harvard & had a C average. Besides, for a republican to win the white house again he or she would have to win over many independant voters & all of her poll numbers with independants, even Fox news polls, are in the tiolet. When you are eratic, rational people can not see you as a leader. Now she is actually making the argument that quiting is winning. WTF? Besides I've been reading that they are being investigated for using taxpayer $ to build their home. The same crew that built the Wasilla comunity center allegedly built her house around the same time & when she was still mayor few months earlier she changed the law that required building permits in Wasilla. Hmmmmmmm, no permit or paper trail of her home being built. Coinsidence? Also, most of the ethics violation charges that she is complaining about are being filed by REPUBLICANS! So much for the evil liberals attacking her. Besides not all liberals are bad. Some of the best policies our country has seen were based on liberal principals. That's my 2 cents. Sorry for ranting!

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

Pep — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:03:00 GMT

JamesD:
HD-Slopoke:

JamesD:

HD-Slopoke:

i agree that she couldnt get along with her advisers....and if you do some quick googling, you will see and even be able to read the email exchanges, where if it wasnt for the advisers, she would have stuck both feet in her mouth at the same time, it was the advisers who really minimized the damage that she was trying to inflict.. Basically ever since Palin has been in the news, its been Damage control. For palins people and the GOP...

Ya if there is one thing the American public doesn't want it's honesty.

All you have to do is come up with unachievable plans and talk with large hand motions.

When things don't go right just blame the guy that had it before you.

How's that whole economy and unemployment thing going BTW???

Gitmo?

Healthcare?

War in Iraq?

No forward progress you say??

CHANGE..... America fell for it.

what...this post?....i pretty much agree with you, other than the fact that you think Palin was honest-go read the email exchanges between her and her advisers...honesty wasnt in her vocabulary......and you seam to think the prob with the economy is solely Obama and the dems fault?....

They have been completely in charge of all the decisions for the last three years. Who else would I blame?

I am not completely familiar with the roll of the president but reasonably sure he doesn't sit up there and rule like a king. The senate and house "pretty much" make the decisions minus a veto or two.

I would say that there is blame to go around but since the Liberals aren't able to admit that fact then why should the GOP.

It is a shame really. Being a democrat used to mean something completely different than it means now. The democrats used to be for the working class responsible among us. That isn't the case any more unless you happen to belong to a union. They learned early on that the unions protect themselves at the polls.

I don't think she was honest. I do think she wanted to speak her mind. To me when someone says what is on their mind I "feel" more comfortable with them. It doesn't take long to figure out where someone is coming from when they speak their mind.

You're right on target on all accounts. The one thing that I mentioned earlier you pretty much confirmed. I was extremely impressed with Palin when she initially came out like a "bulldog" and became pretty disheatened when McCain's cronies orchestrated her every move from that point on. I'm not saying that McCain would have won the election if they hadn't muzzled Palin. McCain was his own worst enemy and would rarely attack, so he pretty much single-handedly destroyed any chance for victory. When she initially came out questioning Obama, attacking his platform and questioning his qualifications I thought, "here's someone I can identify with'. thatr was short lived but I still believe she's still that person and would be a refreshing change to the crap we're dealing with.

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

Pep — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:49:14 GMT

OldMan:
JamesD:
If I have offended anyone "Exception Damon " I apologize.

Like the man said, I don't care who you are, that right there was funny!

That's not only funny, but I have to agree with him.

Re: Palin Steps Down...Won't Seek Re-Election (WSJ)

Pep — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:42:38 GMT

TiltedHorizon:
Pep:

It just becomes more and more entertaining reading the posts by "intellectuals" whose IQ is only slightly higher than the number of nuts they have in their sack.
There goes an entire day of productivity as I contemplate the effect a 131+ count sack would have on my life.
I’m fairly sure everyone reading this thread is now pregnant, apologies, I should have typed this response while wearing a condom.

Now that's funny!