Going Rogue by dreamtrove

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

hehe In response to why her book is popular... btw, I really don't think Palin is good, neither is Hillary.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:58 AM

Because of the unflattering representation from both the media and her own party, I don't know how smart or competent Sarah Palin is. Frankly I don't even know who she is as a person, because there's not exactly a lot of coverage.

All I do know, is that even when the Republican party supposedly is NOT controlling her, everything she says or blogs makes my eyes roll. Maybe she understands how things work (though I think in Alaska, where you're paid to live there through funding for bridges to nowhere, a 90% approval is easy to get), but she apparently is unable to express or explain any of her plans or processes in a coherent manner, and she also strikes me as ambitious and petty with this book.

The economic scenario you describe could be possible, but no, I don't think Palin could salvage it, and I'm also more than a little wary when I'm presented two horrible bad looking choices, and then a third choice comes trotting in with trumpets on a white horse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:05 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

There's nothing defensive about it for me, I just see her as a joke. I saw her as someone who was forced on McCain at the time, a last-minute decision because the party wouldn't accept the VP candidate he would have liked (and we all know who that is). I pitied McCain, and assumed he'd sold out because this was his last shot and he had to play by the party rules to get the bucks. I never saw him as a fall guy--if you truly believe the Republican Party would willingly lose an election just to have a fall guy for Bush, well, 'nuff said!

Palin is a liar, to begin with. Citing absolutely nothing except the fact that she's held to her insistence of "death panels" when it's been proven over and over that no such thing exists is sufficient, but there are so many other examples. Her "Bridge to Nowhere", which she accepted before she rejected was an early one.

I can find no excuse for quitting as Governor that makes any sense whatsoever, except that she would then be free to speak, write her book, and get paid damned well for both. What logical reason do you see?

It has been Palins own words and actions which have brought me to the conclusion I hold, and those have been myriad. She has back-tracked to excuse herself over and over again. The book contails all of 13 pages of "policy", and the rest of it apparently is devoted mostly to dissing the McCain campaign workers and anyone else she feels is "against" her.

She has, again and again, gone after anyone she feels is "against" her (and those seem to be myriad); she's shown herself to hold grudges and be vindictive. She's shown FAR less intelligence and to be far less astute than Obama, whatever you feel about his politics.

She's now excusing her inability to cite things she had read as disgust at Couric, that she took it as Katie saying "CAN heathens up in the wilderness read?" That's crap--we all saw the interview, and her constant dodging of the question and flailing around was obvious. Her deflection to get the interviewer to define Bush's policy and, when she failed, being unable to define it herself was telling. I don't care of the media highlighted her failures too much--and I think they did--her words and actions spoke clearly to someone completely devoid of the political acumen necessary to run a country.

I'm not comparing her to Obama because there is no comparison. However he's disappointed me, whether he eventually turns out to be a good President or not, he DOES know his stuff, that much is obvious and you have only to see the debates, see how she tried her deflection techniques and cutsey strategies, and didn't address the ISSUES to see that.

The idea of Palin as a serious candidate horrifies me. There needs to be a believable Republican candidate next time; if she is nominated or comes up with some third party, it will only spell disaster for the Republicans. It's a disaster right now: In a place which hasn't gone Democrat in so long few can remember, she helped hand the Dems a win by backing the Conservative candidate. They've been crowing about the Governor wins, but what they've played down is that the Dems took two seats of the body which writes our laws and RUNS the country.

I believe Palin will continue to act in her own interests, which is what she seems to have been doing since the beginning. I pray she doesn't get enough extremist behind her to actually be a power; being coy about whether she'll run or not keeps her a viable commodity, she gets press, and it'll help her make money. I pray she continues that way.

I choose your first option, with revision: "One in which Sarah Palin is a ditz who was selected out of desperation by a decaying McCain", but would finish it with "who showed herself to be uneducated on the issues, unrealistic, unwilling to do what is necessary to be elected or to take back stage to the actual candidate", and that she lessened McCain's chances hugely.

Just the fact that even among Republicans, while a good proportion of them LIKE her, an equal proportion don't think she's qualified to be or appropriate as President. That says a lot.

You say the Beck crowd has the knuckleheads lined up behind her; SHE has appealed to the "knuckleheads" herself from day one and continues to. You can't blame anyone else for that. I'm not an official "feminist", but I believe in women's rights--I have absolutely NO envy of her, trust me, and I'd love to see a VIABLE female candidate.

"Divisive group-centered figures are seen by the mainstream population as a threat, and so they fail". You said it yourself. Whatever she'll be in 2012, right now Palin is the most divisie, group-centered figure in America.

Yes, I'm pretty fervent about disliking her--tho' "disdaining" would be moe accurate. I want choices, viable choices between qualified candidates, not unqualified cuties who appeal to men and right-wing nutbags who seem unwilling to understand consequences and realistic options. That's my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:18 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

She's a proven quitter, 'nuff said (although there's plenty of other things to disqualify her from future public service).

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:10 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Just one little example: She claims in the book that the McCain people charged her for her "vetting process", while in fact the charge was to cover her own legal expenses up in Alaska. That's pretty hard to "mistake".

The truth will be coming out in bits and pieces...it has to, given what I've heard about what she's written is pretty nasty, and people will want to correct the record.

Why I feel strongly about Palin is partly the same reason I feel strongly about Faux News: I hate blatant liars who get away with it. I don't mean politicians who campaign on one thing then find it difficult to follow through with, or politicians on campaigns in general--all politicians say what the voters want to hear. But Palin's lies and those of Faux News...he presenting herself as an honest "hockey mom" and Fox Noise as a responsible "news station"...and both being taken at face value by their followers...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:49 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

My view on Sarah Palin, from a post elsewhere:

"I've not got much against Sarah Palin, just the fact that she's average. I don't see that she's got anything going for to become a great leader. No noble or laudable character traits or abilities - just a mediocre, small town American woman. She has a pretty face and a big mouth (good at giving attack-dog speeches?) - but hardly any learning or intellect to draw on, and any real conviction? I'm yet to be convinced. Being governor of Alaska is quite a stand out achievement for a mediocre person, but nobody was ever under the illusion that US politics was populated by the best and brightest were they?

She was destined for mediocre obscurity until some crazy political process came and plucked her from it and elevated her, and many times since has looked completely out of her depth.

Myself, I don't think I would ever vote for a small town, evangelical, female republican candidate - but I'm sure I could respect one, and even like one. Sarah Palin I'm just indifferent to, and annoyed that somebody so mediocre was ever put forward as a serious option.

I do sometimes marvel at the enthusiasm and passionate support she has garnered - she's obviously hitting the right notes somewhere... Is it cynical to conclude that a mediocre person with one or two political talents and GOP styling, training, speech-scripting, and platform can gain this kind of popular support? It's certainly depressing, that's for sure."

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:32 PM

FREMDFIRMA

She's a psycho, a "true believer" in her own superiority despite evidence to the contrary, and the end product of the nasty smalltown harper valley PTA petty personal politics which I find revolting on a local level, much less a national one.

I wouldn't hire that lady as a meter maid, much less to a political office, cause the very first thing she would do is try to manipulate it into a bludgeon against those who question or defy her, and to hell with the responsibilities of the job.

Michigan has that kinda problem with that bastard Mike Cox, and the disaster it has been should be a lesson to others about that sorta thing.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:51 PM

Wulf

Conservative followers are no hotter than liberal followers, but it's true that the right promotes more presentable types to office (not on TV, I think Rush Limbaugh is repulsive, and Ann Coulter looks like a dude.) But it's not a gender thing. The men of the right in the senate are often more presentable than the men of the left. The right likes to exaggerate this, there is no monopoly on good looks, but it's part of the whole right wing focus. The elected of the right also tend to have a better manner, with the exception of the Bush admin an related congressional lackeys. Though Condi is definitely a lot hotter than Madeline Albright.

Byte,

My sister used to live in Alaska, for many years, and she was an "approver" but normally a strict democrat. She turned into a very strong "disapprover" when Palin became the GOP VP. I thought part of this was the media, and part of it was Palin climbing on board the right wing wedge issues, reversing her earlier more moderate positions.

As for the economy, Alaska produces a tremendous amount of wealth, it's not really a welfare state.

"ambitious and petty" probably defines politician.

The way I view it, a president is an actor, who plays the part of being leader, with little actual power. The point of organizing a national campaign would be to get a slice of influence over what the actual product is.

I'd agree with you that the american economy is not salvageable short of the sort of measures that Ron Paul recommended, like dissolving the federal reserve and denying the existence of debt related to the govts. printing of its own money, and instituting a pan-mineral or similar reality based currency. Most people who supported him were fans of the gold standard. Paul himself said this was a really bad idea, because cornering the world market on gold was possible, far more so than silver or copper, but basing a currency on several resources, you could easily drop one at any time if someone started to corner it.

Niki

A fairly astute analysis. I basically disagree, I think that Palin is an actor, a product, and the GOP has been telling her what to say, just as they have McCain for the last 8 years, and to be fair, probably Bush. The difference is that prior to that, Bush is someone of little merit, Palin was inoffensive, and McCain was someone I actually respected.

Who did McCain want as VP?

I don't think anyone was questioning that Obama is more astute. But currently Obama is implementing policy too similar to the last adminstration. This has already caused two major problems: 1) the people who wanted a 180 reversal are disenchanted, and 2) Bush policy was suicidal for the nation, and if continued, even at a lower pitch, will still cause a collapse.

Of course, again, Obama is just the frontman for an organization that wants these policies. But still, what Obama may want isn't that relevant, the resultant policy is the important thing, and that is determined by the people who backed Obama very early on, and did so with results. Which would be my whole point.

I'm fairly pragmatic, and I'm considering a future in which Sarah Palin becomes our next president due to the catastrophic failure of foreign and fiscal policy alone. Remember, Hoover had only minor foreign policy problems, (at the time minor) and serious fiscal problems, but not nearly as bad as the current ones (we didn't have the national debt, trade imbalance, loss of skilled labor market, etc. that we are having now.) Given that Hoover's situation made him completely unelectable, if the economy is in a worse situation, and the war is raging, divine intervention wouldn't re-elect Obama (voting machines might;) ) Whether any of this situation is his fault or not isn't the point, it's that in bad times, people vote for change. That's what killed Carter's presidency, not really anything Carter did, or what Reagan proposed.

As for quitting, this shows a weakness in Palin. She was cornered by TPTB who wanted to sabotage her, and so they offered her an out through resigning. She should have said "bring it on" and then gotten some more powerful allies to defend her.

Still, I'm pragmatically looking at it as "President Palin is a fairly likely situation" and wondering how we can make the best of that. I realize liberals don't like her, I have nothing against her, but this isn't about that, it's "What if?" Which sci-fi fans should be good at. I'd put President Palin at less than 50% probability now, but still more than other outcomes. President Romney is still a strong possibility, as is President Obama, but only in a three way split. Much less looking to nitpick Sarah Palin as decide the best course of action.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:55 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

I wouldn't hire that lady as a meter maid, much less to a political office, cause the very first thing she would do is try to manipulate it into a bludgeon against those who question or defy her, and to hell with the responsibilities of the job.

Perfect. You nailed it.

Every excerpt I've heard of her "book" is nothing but small-minded, petty and vindictive score-settling. Why should I believe even for a moment that actually putting her in any kind of power would result in anything more?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:06 PM

Quote:
As for the economy, Alaska produces a tremendous amount of wealth, it's not really a welfare state.

Actually, it is. If I remember correctly, Rue posted a study some while back, which laid out what states are "welfare" states when it comes to federal money (they get more federal money than they pay in), and Alaska was, if memory serves, in one of the top spots. They get paid by the fed something like $3.42 for every dollar they pay in taxes, I believe.

The funniest part is, the states who take THE MOST from the federal coffers tend to be the states that are the reddest of the red, who claim to HATE the federal government for taking all their money. The states who pay in the most and take the least tend to be the bluest states.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:17 PM

Withdraw. Buy some beans and corn, convert your roof into some kind of skylight, tear out your floorboards, and irrigate. You'd probably have better luck with this than the rest of us, I tend to accidentally kill most of my houseplants.

Viable presidential candidates? More and more, I've become convinced there just ain't any such thing.

What would happen if Sarah Palin became president? I think Frem makes a good point. Vindictive drama queen, enter stage left.

Her policies will be reactive, tearing down anything she doesn't like. I sincerely doubt her husband will be able to get her to try to pass a measure withdrawing the United States from the UN, but you can bet there will be friction between foreign nations, including traditional allies, and a complete lack of diplomacy, and the US will have even fewer friendly allies.

We might see victims of crime having to pay to gather evidence to prosecute a legal case on a national scale, since all the state governments and their law enforcement would be strapped for cash, and apparently Palin thinks this is a good idea.

We'd see use of the death penalty rise, we'd see pro-big business policy and OBSCENE corporate profits, none of which will go into America's pocket.

And as for Palin's administration, she'd either be forced to take the people she hates who she feels wronged her, and she'd be Clinton/Bush/Obama the fourth... Or the same organization propping her and any other candidate up would find other people who would enact the same policy, who answer to them, that Palin HASN'T met. She'd accept them, see immediately that she'd not ACTUALLY in power, try to grab it back, and be put in her place so fast she'll make Stepford Wives feel a twinge of alarm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Actually, it is. If I remember correctly, Rue posted a study some while back, which laid out what states are "welfare" states when it comes to federal money (they get more federal money than they pay in), and Alaska was, if memory serves, in one of the top spots. They get paid by the fed something like $3.42 for every dollar they pay in taxes, I believe.

The funniest part is, the states who take THE MOST from the federal coffers tend to be the states that are the reddest of the red, who claim to HATE the federal government for taking all their money. The states who pay in the most and take the least tend to be the bluest states.

I think that's actually because red states tend to be poorer than blue states. So people have these big dreams about business and making it big that are just dreams.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:09 PM

Mike,

Yes, but it's deceptive. Alaska isn't Texas, but the situation is similar: The US govt. supports resource development, and the state yields a fortune in resources. It's an investment, and yes, ultimately, the benefits are corporations. Looking at this in terms of the citizens is silly, because there are no citizens. Mat-Su, the borough that Palin comes from is the size of New York State, and has 1/1000th the population. I'm from a village of 200 that occupies probably a few square miles. Relative to my spacious 18th c. town, the rest of New York appears to be "completely uninhabited." Now take that, and divide by 1000. If they were evenly spaced hunter gatherers, they'd die out because they'd never run into one another.

Alaska is industry, and the jobs pay a lot, because there's just tons of money floating around. Average federal taxes per citizen are high because their income is higher. But there aren't any citizens.

The real burdens fall on blue states because they have high average incomes and high populations, like NY and CA. Places like MS and AL have population, but no income, and places like NH and AK have high income, but no population.

What the federal govt. gives out is largely not handouts to the people, but contracts to the corporations, and the corporations are often where the resources are.

AK is incredibly prosperous for an absolute no brainer reason: Alaska is 20% of the US, and has 1/6th of a percent of the population. alaska also holds 25% of America's natural resources, because it has a huge shallow sea, island chain, and an absolutely absurd amount of coastline. For most resource purposes, the aleutians count as a peninsula of another 3000 miles or so, pushing Alaska up from 1/3 of the US coast to more like 1/2. Alaska holds 1/3 of US oil right now, but with known untapped reserves, that would easily hit 1/3.

Oh, and another moronic position: Anti-oil drilling from the anti-war crowd, regardless of any affiliation. Sure, there are a lot of reasons for the warmongers to go to war, but they only get a war when they have enough allies. Increasing oil production would crash the price and make it less profitable to go to war. (costs money to steal oil, there's the transport, the lawsuits from the families of dead workers, the attacks from pirates...)

Byte

"Vindictive drama queen"

This would make her different from previous president *how* exactly?

This is the misapprehension that the entire nation suffers from: The US is *not* a dictatorship. What the president believes has almost no effect on policy. Who the president appoints has an effect on policy, but those appointments are chosen by the backers.

Sure, if Bush *did* have his way, and actually initiated policy, we would have Harriet Meiers and Alberto Gonzalez on the Supreme Court. But really, overall, aside from Gonzalez these people didn't know Bush, Rummy knew Cheney, but Cheney was a backer, and the other backers had their picks. I was thinking if *we* were her backers, we would pick her cabinet. Logical pragmatism.

Remember the 2008 campaign trail, Obama's dream team cabinet, Nobel laureates, etc. Well, not one of those people actually got appointed. Who got appointed? People the Clintons liked, and had worked with, people from Goldman/Sachs and people from the previous administration, as most of those backers were the same.

So who did Obama choose? Not convinced that anyone in the Obama administration is an Obama pick. And of course "administration" or "executive branch" has wandered into weird grey areas like "czars." Well, a few of Obama's people have a genocidal stance against muslims, africans, and in particular east africans, so I suspect they weren't Obama's choices. Actually, the Obama admin. guy I like the best so far is someone from the Bush admin: Chris Hill. But his military staff is pretty awful, and his economic team is probably the worst I've ever seen. Of course, they aren't *his*. They're who he was *told* to nominate.

President isn't a very powerful position. It's just a conduit for power. The president is not the decider. Bush made zero executive decisions. The president is the Presider. He presides over govt, and channels power for his backers. Or her backers.

Oh, a note from the poor conservative. The poor can be pragmatically conservative. After all, the spending policies of big govt. devalue the dollar, and that hurts most those who have their assets in dollars, and mostly, their salary in dollars. The rich don't have their assets in dollars, they have them in stocks, or overseas, or in overseas stocks, in any event, are unaffected by the value of the dollar.

Dollar devaluation is a heavily regressive tax. So is FICA, and any social program related spending, such as school tax. It's the same tax for me, with no kids, and a low income, as it is for the multi-millionaires next door. Actually, they get a tax break by redrawing the town line so that they don't get counted. Neat tricks you can do when you're wealthy.

Finally, social programs provided little added value because they are run by govt., and involve a tremendous amount of invasion into the lives of individuals. Personally? I think the most beneficial thing for me would be for the govt. to vaporize.

I'm not enough of a fool to think that Sarah Palin is just one of the folks, though she's a lot closer than Bush, cokehead elitist that he was, but I also recognize that she's a gun for hire.

I'm trying to be pragmatic here. And sure, it's also occurred to me that this is just a stunt to get money for her defense fund, and then she'll disappear.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:54 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Going rogue? Is Ms. Palin really a rogue candidate?

Let's see:

Going Rogue: Operating outside normal or desirable controls.

Yep, It seems to fit.

John McCain, a self-described maverick. Someone who is "independent of thought and action".

Yep, he would have you think just that.

How can a person say that they're a "maverick" within the conservative arm of the republican party? Can you say that when you voted conservative 83% of the time? Seriously, am I missing something here.

"independent of thought and action". Really!?

And Ms. Palin, who was more concerned about her agenda than that of the man who plucked her from obscurity and placed her on the national political map, has given new meaning to the term - Going Rogue.

When I looked up 'rogue' I found these definitions:

1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.
2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp.
3. A wandering beggar; a vagrant.
4. A vicious and solitary animal, especially an elephant that has separated itself from its herd.
5. An organism, especially a plant, that shows an undesirable variation from a standard.
(My personal favorite is number 4 - hee, hee!)

OK, maybe that's a bit harsh. But I shudder to think of what might have been. Right now I imagine that the entire middle east would be at war. Palin responded to a follow up question by Barbara Walters during an exclusive interview, regarding President Obama's position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in particular the building of Israeli homes on Palestinian soil.

She stated that she was oppossed to his view and said that Israelis had the right to build where ever they wanted. Barbara repeated the question, as if to say 'Are you sure that's the answer you want to give?' Ms. Palin had that 'lights are on but nobody's home' stare, paused for a moment and just repeated her response. I was not surprised by her statement.

Mind you Barbara Walters was not headhunting. She went out of her way to be a gracious and professional host, lobbing soft-toss questions her way. Nothing at all like that hack Katie Couric, or so Sarah would have you think. But she still managed to have that deer-in-the-headlights moment. Barbara Walters never worked so hard at tossing up easy ones in her life.

Still though, why would the republican party take such a huge risk on a virtual unknown commodity named Sarah Palin? The McCain camp pointed at Obama and screamed bloody murder at his inexperience. Hell, they pratically built their entire campaign around it. Then they go out and dig up the "pitbull with lipstick" only to have it blow up in their face.

They just could not control her. Now that's a maverick!

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 4:17 AM

Couple thoughts:

First, Katie Couric is evil. Everyone here should be already aware of that, regardless of what you think of Sarah Palin. Katie is a member of the CFR, and of the globalist elite. What she did to her own Lara Logan to make sure Obama got in "unquestioned" so that the war would not be an issue for this election... and watch her display her contempt for the peasantry on interviews. She treats people like stewart and colbert, who support her agenda, and her side, as barely worth to talk to her, but not to ask question, it's kinda like the nerd that does the hot girl's homework, she'd never ever really date.

On votes,

90%ish of votes are already decided.
Do you vote to continue funding our national highway system? Yes? You partisan hack!
You're a democrat, and you voted on the pro-choice side of a bill, partisan hack!
It gets worse: iraq had only a handful of dissenters, afghanistan and the patriot act had one each IIRC
But there are lots of small pointless bills, and others designed for someone to help you commit suicide: Ban funding for church-based schools, with a rider to limit sentences for serial killers.

88% is pretty mavericky. On the dem side, there's Russ Feingold. Anyone got his %? Probably similar. Okay John McCain isn't Dr. Paul, but neither is Dennis Kucinnich, who didn't vote even against the war, or its supplements, iirc.

Anyway, back to the whole rogue thing, since we've gone passed mavericky

Not as appealing as this one, but maybe she has the same ability ;)

maybe she's more of a rogue wave

But I was more on the "inevitability of Sarah Palin" page, and trying to angle the best strategic take. I'm expecting an economic collapse, and no one wins re-election in an economic collapse.

Think about this: A president's team helps congress write the next years budget, which won't be in full effect until latter that year, hence my 18 month slack for presidents.

But still, congress actually writes the budget.

That said, why did Bush win re-election? Because he walks in the door on Jan 20, 2001 but his policies aren't in place until 2002. You track the economy from 2002-2004, market up 100%, things looking pretty good all around.

Sure, he was a fuckup, and it was all going to head south, but people react to their own situations, and the nations overall. They vote for change when times are bad, not because they disagree with some policy.

Obama won't be in full swing until 2010, though he did break the scale a little bit:
He pushed for the bush bailout, and then enacted an Obama bailout, and many supplemental, much the way the 2nd term Bush presidency did.

This put Obama in a unique position: He became the first president to ever be able to run his *own* side budget right after coming into office. This just means we'll see the boom or bust sooner, but still not yet I would think. I'm still planning on checking 18 months in, to make my call.

But I can speculate on the things which really have nothing to do with Obama: The long term fail out of Bush's disasterous 2nd term. (We all recall the fallout of Clinton's 2nd term, crash of 2000, 86%, the second largest drop in stock market history.)

Likewise, Hoover inherited fellow GOP Coolidge's disaster, and FDR inherited Hoover's socialism. Not to dispel any 100 days myths (read FDR's own economic team on 100 days, they pretty much say what I just did.)

But Hoover inherited an apocalyptic disaster. It doesn't matter what the man believed or tried. He was a socialist, sure, and I disagree with his approach, but I will grant that he really tried, but was sabotaged by some in his own party and blocked by the opposition, and so what he wanted didn't usually become policy.

Obama's in almost the identical situation: He inherited an apocalyptic disaster from Bush, and Clintonistas are blocking what Obama wants to do, Obama is also basically socialist, and the opposition will try to block his every move.

I was just casting this parallel forward. I think Hoover was basically a good man, competent, intelligent, and in way over his head. It was sort of like saying "Hey, we're about to hit an iceberg, so you can be captain now. Oh, and I'll be below decks countermanding your orders. I wish you luck..."

Obama is in the same position, and the result is likely to be the same. If 2012 comes along and he has what Hoover had: A plague, a famine and a depression, then there's just no chance. Add to that what Hoover didn't have, two, or is it now three (pakistan) wars, and... well that puts us with an auto win for any republican. People care about their own lives, and vote for change in bad times, even join revolutions, regardless of whether or not they are merited. Mark Sanford could probably win in the above scenario.

Still gnawing over it myself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 4:50 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Sarah Palin is now at Amazon Sales Rank #1, where she has been since she went on pre-order. Scalpers have been selling copies on ebay or $100 or more from her signing tour, and that might go up.

Insider Trading is SOP for elites faking book sales. Ask Joe Kennedy.

Nobody cares what that loser's ghost writer thinks.

Quitters never win. Winners never quit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:38 AM

Quote:
This is the misapprehension that the entire nation suffers from: The US is *not* a dictatorship. What the president believes has almost no effect on policy. Who the president appoints has an effect on policy, but those appointments are chosen by the backers.

But the president DOES put a face on international foreign relations, even if most often the Secretary of State is doing all the run around. Obviously presidents are vindictive and attempt to crush any rivals or competition or threats, this is the political process. The problem with Sarah Palin is that she does not seem able to hide her vindictive side at all, and demonstrates no skill with diplomacy.

Presidents also have pet projects. Otherwise, I agree, the president doesn't matter, it's the administration, which is why I included a paragraph on Palin's likely administration. There is no way that any elected official NOT going to be dictated policy and appointees from the authoritarians and corporations who appear to be firmly entrenched in the process, provide money and help and ultimately an electoral vote. This is not in our hands and never was.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:53 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
My view on Sarah Palin, from a post elsewhere:

"I've not got much against Sarah Palin, just the fact that she's average. I don't see that she's got anything going for to become a great leader. No noble or laudable character traits or abilities - just a mediocre, small town American woman. She has a pretty face and a big mouth (good at giving attack-dog speeches?) - but hardly any learning or intellect to draw on, and any real conviction? I'm yet to be convinced. Being governor of Alaska is quite a stand out achievement for a mediocre person, but nobody was ever under the illusion that US politics was populated by the best and brightest were they?

She was destined for mediocre obscurity until some crazy political process came and plucked her from it and elevated her, and many times since has looked completely out of her depth.

Myself, I don't think I would ever vote for a small town, evangelical, female republican candidate - but I'm sure I could respect one, and even like one. Sarah Palin I'm just indifferent to, and annoyed that somebody so mediocre was ever put forward as a serious option.

I do sometimes marvel at the enthusiasm and passionate support she has garnered - she's obviously hitting the right notes somewhere... Is it cynical to conclude that a mediocre person with one or two political talents and GOP styling, training, speech-scripting, and platform can gain this kind of popular support? It's certainly depressing, that's for sure."

To a "T."

The Newsweek cover shows her complete repertoire. Even the pose is another knock against her - that she would let them pose her like that. Where does "looks ok in athletic apparel" rank for presidential qualifications? And does she run in hose? WTF? She can't even pull that off.
What continues to surface about her is how completely naive she is. Her Couric interview and her response to it is a great example. She looked at Cutie Couric and thought, "Golly, she's going to be nice to talk to." Couric has been around NYC News long time, she's *experienced* - she completely hoodwinked her, trapped her to reveal her simpleness and could have rip her even further. I think she stopped because it was too easy.

She would be the last president we would ever have...

(there's your SciFi angle Dream)

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:18 AM

Funny thing is, she's blasting the Newsweek cover, saying it's "sexist" (I'm not making this up) and that it was "taken out of context". How do you take a picture that YOU POSED FOR "out of context" or make it "sexist"?

SHE says it's "sexist". What's next? Is Carrie Prejean going to come out and claim that the sex tapes that she made and sent to her boyfriend are "sexist"? Hell, SHE made them, by herself, of herself. So is SHE a sexist?

To me, that Newsweek cover shows her for what she really is. Look closely. Notice that flag, the one she usually drapes herself in? See how she has thrown it aside without a second thought, leaving it crumpled in the chair, all so she can pose and say, "Look at ME! Forget about that stupid flag, and LOOK AT MEEEEEEEE!!!"

That's her entire story, in one simple photograph. You don't need to read her book, all 416 pages and five chapters ("Five LOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNG Chapters") of it. You only need to see the cover of Newsweek to know all you need to know about Sarah.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:20 AM

Quote:

She would be the last president we would ever have...

So you think she'd bring down the U.S., huh? Or maybe she'd be the last sign of the Apocalypse, and she'd be proof that the Mayans were right... Yup, 2012 *COULD* be the end of the world. :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:24 AM

Well...what do we have here? Looks like the usual bunch of retards for sure!

Just FYI, that cover of Palin was shot earlier in the year for the cover of RUNNER'S WORLD magazine. They were doing a campaign for health & fitness, something you lazy-ass-live-at-home liberals wouldn't know anything about. Vile & disgusting Newsweek took the photo from "stock" without Runner's World knowledge or permission ( they didn't need it) & put it on the cover in another attempt to demean and trivialize Palin. Out of the thousands of pics of Palin, they purposely chose that one....perhaps to encourage assholes like you to keep your Palin fear in check. Yes, your Palin FEAR!

Christ...even liberal twits like Whoopie Goldberg & Barbara Walters said yesterday that it was a smarmy and sleazy move, and very sexist. They were appalled. So should every woman be appalled at the lie of that cover.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:29 AM

Byte

After all of the faces of America that we've seen in our history, you're worried about Palin's? Seriously. Yes, I think you're right, the president and the secretary of state both become "the face of america. Just take a brief look at that history

Obama (good) and Hillary (wtf?)
Bush (ack!) and Condi (> hil, but < palin)
Bush (oog.) and Powell (decent)
Clinton (omfg u kidding me?) and Albraeeiegcht (Run for the hills!)
Bush Sr. (watch out, he's just had lunch!) and baker(i hope not)
and so forth.

So Palin plus, someone else, (please let it be christopher hill) but yeah, sure, it's still not going to be as scary as what we've had, or as our current sec. of state.

Remember this combo, for sheer charisma:
Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger (what is this, a summit meeting or a horror film festival?)

Of coure you're correct about the special interests calling the shots from the word go. I'm suggesting maybe we could become a special interest. I'm gnawing this over still, but I think it has possibilities.

Quote:

I do sometimes marvel at the enthusiasm and passionate support she has garnered - she's obviously hitting the right notes somewhere... Is it cynical to conclude that a mediocre person with one or two political talents and GOP styling, training, speech-scripting, and platform can gain this kind of popular support?

I agree, this did hit the nail on the head.

But the point is, for whatever reason she *did* strike a chord, and more importantly, a controversy. If you have someone that one side raves about and the other side is indifferent about, there's no discussion, so no attention, so nothing happens. Obama is a socialist northern elitist muslim (in islam, the only ex-muslim is an apostate, they would still accept him, the saudis didn't kill him so...) anyway, that was the image, whether one agrees with it or not, and the christian right panicked. That created controversy and interest. Barry Goldwater OTOH had a rabid fanbase that loved him, and a rather indifferent opposition, sort of like McGovern. No fight, no win.

As for what focus group helps make Sarah Palin work, it doesn't matter. She's an image, and part of that is real and part is manufactured, but this is true of every politician. "Yes We Can"? I'm sorry, the man doesn't speak spanish, he doesn't even support immigration, he wasn't the latin choice, but his people knew it was a vote getter, so they invented it. Just like he was on at least half a dozen comedy shows before he was able to even crack a smile. Anyone remember the incessant Mr. Spock references? That wasn't just the ears, it's who Obama is. So, yes, Sarah is a product, but they all are. It's the product I was talking about.

If you ask me if I want her making executive decisions, I refer back to my earlier thread on "Sarah Palin is Harrison Bergeron." But this is what interested me in the first place. She *is* Harrison Bergeron. Maybe that's where some of the appeal is coming from. People are getting sick of being led down the same path by the same elite. I mean Bush could *act* folksy, but face it, he's the same Yale-Harvard silver spoon elist type as Kerry. I mean, really, what's there to choose from.

If I were to give my faith based rural opinion, I think that I could support someone from Mat Su, even if I don't believe what she believes, or at least pretends to believe, but part of the chord is definitely that. She's a lot like me, in reality. I don't believe we need an elite of supermen running our country. I would, if they had a track record that was anything but disasterous, but I think this culture of the super-race of the intellectual is cranking out well programmed draw within the lines characters who have been trained to do exact one thing: Obey their controllers completely. Whether or not Sarah is one of those as well isn't the point. She doesn't have the *image* of being one.

Just stabbing in the dark at "Why Sarah" but also, trying to deal with the fact of "Sarah" and trying to make the best of it.

But Pizmo, I almost completely agree except for one detail:

I think that Palin didn't make the decision to do the Couric interview. I think that the handlers told her to do it. Palin was just too inexperienced to know that Katie was *not* just a pretty face.

As for a motive, I think the GOP wanted to sink McCain, and throw the election, and they had two motives that I can stab at right off the bat:

1) The GOP *hates* McCain, and always has. Parties like reliable people. If 90% of the votes are already decided, then 88% means "completely unreliable for a critical vote" and even "a possible danger to an already established winning vote."

A party's wetdream is Teddy Kennedy. Teddy never ever strayed from the party line. And he couldn't, because if he did, they would let the opposition and the media do exactly what they wanted to do for years: Nail his ass to the wall. Teddy could have gone down so spectacularly that he would leave office, he would leave office in handcuffs. So while he looks loyal, the reality was that he was absolutely and completely trapped.

2) The GOP wanted to lose the election. As I said, and I think we all pretty much agree, cept maybe Hero, Bush was a total disaster and left a ticking time bomb in the white house. The Republican Party did not want to be in the house when it goes off. Whoever inherited from Bush was getting 2 losing wars, 8 trillion in national debt, and a subprime mtg debacle that threatened to turn the USD into the ZWD. If I were them, I would've thrown it too, and prayed for the opposition to fail to prevent a total disaster, and waltz back in like a savior.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Well...what do we have here? Looks like the usual bunch of retards for sure!

Just FYI, that cover of Palin was shot earlier in the year for the cover of RUNNER'S WORLD magazine. They were doing a campaign for health & fitness, something you lazy-ass-live-at-home liberals wouldn't know anything about. Vile & disgusting Newsweek took the photo from "stock" without Runner's World knowledge or permission ( they didn't need it) & put it on the cover in another attempt to demean and trivialize Palin. Out of the thousands of pics of Palin, they purposely chose that one....perhaps to encourage assholes like you to keep your Palin fear in check. Yes, your Palin FEAR!

Christ...even liberal twits like Whoopie Goldberg & Barbara Walters said yesterday that it was a smarmy and sleazy move, and very sexist. They were appalled. So should every woman be appalled at the lie of that cover.

Speaking of "retards"...

You say Newsweek didn't need Runner's World's permission to use the photo - so what's the big deal there? Why do you go on about them being "vile and disgusting" for using it?

As for health and fitness, I'm in Austin, one of the more fit cities in the nation. I walk, hike, bike, play tennis, camp... How 'bout you? As for your "live-at-home liberal" snipe, I'm a liberal, and I *DO* live at home, but it's MY home. I haven't lived in my parents' home since I was 16, which was over 30 years ago. Are you still hanging out in your mom's basement? Is that why your feeble little mind goes to that when you're casting about for insults?

Good to know you spend your days watching "The View". I guess your mom doesn't make you get a job, huh?

And what exactly IS "the lie of that cover"? Is that not Sarah Palin? Did she NOT pose for that picture? Did she not sign a release? If she wanted it used only by one magazine, maybe she should've put that in the terms of the contract. Maybe she should be bright enough to actually READ a fucking contract. Sheesh - you're saying she's THAT fucking stupid, yet you STILL support her for the presidency. Says an awful lot about you...

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You say Newsweek didn't need Runner's World's permission to use the photo - so what's the big deal there? Why do you go on about them being "vile and disgusting" for using it?

As for health and fitness, I'm in Austin, one of the more fit cities in the nation. I walk, hike, bike, play tennis, camp... How 'bout you? As for your "live-at-home liberal" snipe, I'm a liberal, and I *DO* live at home, but it's MY home. I haven't lived in my parents' home since I was 16, which was over 30 years ago. Are you still hanging out in your mom's basement? Is that why your feeble little mind goes to that when you're casting about for insults?

Good to know you spend your days watching "The View". I guess your mom doesn't make you get a job, huh?

And what exactly IS "the lie of that cover"? Is that not Sarah Palin? Did she NOT pose for that picture? Did she not sign a release? If she wanted it used only by one magazine, maybe she should've put that in the terms of the contract. Maybe she should be bright enough to actually READ a fucking contract. Sheesh - you're saying she's THAT fucking stupid, yet you STILL support her for the presidency. Says an awful lot about you...

Hey, at least your new Palin Derangement Syndrome is not as harmful as your prior Bush Derangement Syndrome. Good to see you making some progress. And BTW, your desperate and childish response to my post only confirms how frightening Palin is to you. She will use her power & popularity next year to gather enormous crowds, and piles of money for Republican candidates. She will campaign tirelessly to defeat Dems all over the country. She will help in the takeback of Congress from the clutches of Pelosi-Reid. Obama has fucked up so much, Palin will sound like a rocket scientist when she starts shredding him into little pieces. Sorry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:52 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Well...what do we have here? Looks like the usual bunch of retards for sure!

Just FYI, that cover of Palin was shot earlier in the year for the cover of RUNNER'S WORLD magazine. They were doing a campaign for health & fitness, something you lazy-ass-live-at-home liberals wouldn't know anything about. Vile & disgusting Newsweek took the photo from "stock" without Runner's World knowledge or permission ( they didn't need it) & put it on the cover in another attempt to demean and trivialize Palin. Out of the thousands of pics of Palin, they purposely chose that one....perhaps to encourage assholes like you to keep your Palin fear in check. Yes, your Palin FEAR!

Christ...even liberal twits like Whoopie Goldberg & Barbara Walters said yesterday that it was a smarmy and sleazy move, and very sexist. They were appalled. So should every woman be appalled at the lie of that cover.

F*cking Runner's World!

Seriously, I did not know the pedigree of the photo and did indeed assume it was done for her book tour, much like I'm sure Newsweek knew people would - they got me, and I agree it's a low down move on their part. Their half hearted explanation is as thin as Julie Christie's mustache:

"Our choice of a cover image this week has also stirred the debate. Yesterday, NEWSWEEK Editor Jon Meacham responded to critics of the photo, explaining the magazine’s policy, which is, and has always been, to choose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover.

This morning, on the Today show, NEWSWEEK Managing Editor Daniel Klaidman further explained the editorial choice. “Since [Sarah Palin] has been on the national stage, there have been these questions about her gravitas and her seriousness. Sarah Palin has cultivated this image of a down-home, folksy, outdoorsy woman. And I'm not suggesting it's not authentic, but there is a sense in which she understands that it resonates politically,” Klaidman told Today host Matt Lauer. “There are a lot of people who would see that image and say 'that’s Sarah Palin, that’s why she connects with people, there’s that authenticity.' I don’t think this is an image that is taken out of context, especially when you consider what the point of the story was: to raise these questions about her seriousness."

Thanks Jongs for setting the record straight. For anyone keeping score:

I'm not:

A. Retarded
B. An asshole
C. Afraid of Palin
D. Liberal

I do:

1. Run
2. Live at home

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:59 AM

But the title of the article is kind of putting me into a musical mood!

How do you solve a problem like Sarah?
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
F*cking Runner's World!

Seriously, I did not know the pedigree of the photo and did indeed assume it was done for her book tour, much like I'm sure Newsweek knew people would - they got me, and I agree it's a low down move on their part. Their half hearted explanation is as thin as Julie Christie's mustache:

"Our choice of a cover image this week has also stirred the debate. Yesterday, NEWSWEEK Editor Jon Meacham responded to critics of the photo, explaining the magazine’s policy, which is, and has always been, to choose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover.

This morning, on the Today show, NEWSWEEK Managing Editor Daniel Klaidman further explained the editorial choice. “Since [Sarah Palin] has been on the national stage, there have been these questions about her gravitas and her seriousness. Sarah Palin has cultivated this image of a down-home, folksy, outdoorsy woman. And I'm not suggesting it's not authentic, but there is a sense in which she understands that it resonates politically,” Klaidman told Today host Matt Lauer. “There are a lot of people who would see that image and say 'that’s Sarah Palin, that’s why she connects with people, there’s that authenticity.' I don’t think this is an image that is taken out of context, especially when you consider what the point of the story was: to raise these questions about her seriousness."

Thanks Jongs for setting the record straight. For anyone keeping score:

I'm not:

A. Retarded
B. An asshole
C. Afraid of Palin
D. Liberal

I do:

1. Run
2. Live at home

Pizmo,
I saw your post but decided not to respond to it out of respect to you because you have very occasionally said a nice word or two to me in the past. I do get a bit carried away though when the Kwicko-types just jump in without knowing the facts because they just hate and fear her. Did you see his response? Like I sit home and watch the View?? I guess Kwikko never heard of "clips". They were shown all over cable last night. In honesty, she is not Presidential timber now, but I think she could be in 2 years depending on how this book tour goes, and depending on how successful she is next year getting Repubs elected in the House & Senate. Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:11 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Great.

Palin

or

Hillary

for Prez?

And IM not?

*sigh

P.S. You want to really SEE what going Rogue means? lol

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Great.

Palin

or

Hillary

for Prez?

And IM not?

*sigh

P.S. You want to really SEE what going Rogue means? lol

Tell me you wouldn't take Hillary in a heartbeat over Obama in 2012? I think Obama is through. Independents have abandoned him, and even moderate Dems are sick of him. President Speechmaker, President Jobs Summit, President Fly All Over The World And Accomplish Fucking Nothing is a pathetic joke. Shit, he's even making Biden look smart.

Palin against Hillary in 2012 would be great! If she can get Republicans elected due to her star power in 2010, she will OWN the Republican Party. Then she can go after the Dems on her terms, not some moronic McCain campaign jerkoffs like the ones who botched her media appearances by failing to control the conditions. She had over one hour and 5 segments with Couric, and Couric chose 9 minutes to air. You NEVER allow that during a campaign, never! The McCain cocksuckers set her up. Should have been only done "live" and for 15 minutes. You can not trust the scumbags of the liberal press. The McCain aides knew she would make the perfect scapegoat when lousy-candidate McCain lost big...and they still need to work in politics! Must be a hellava resume for them though...their McCain campaign was the worst run and most embarrassing in 50 years Good luck to them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:27 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Every excerpt I've heard of her "book" is nothing but small-minded, petty and vindictive score-settling. Why should I believe even for a moment that actually putting her in any kind of power would result in anything more?

Damn...and I was getting you her book for Christmas.

Don't tell us what you've "heard" about her book, go read the book and tell us what you read in her book. I'm not here telling you its a great book because I've not read it yet. I'll let you know in a week or so.

I think the problem is not what's in Sarah's book, its that you can't read.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:29 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
She will use her power & popularity next year to gather enormous crowds, and piles of money for Republican candidates. She will campaign tirelessly to defeat Dems all over the country. She will help in the takeback of Congress from the clutches of Pelosi-Reid. Obama has fucked up so much, Palin will sound like a rocket scientist when she starts shredding him into little pieces.

So, Palin as hero, eh?

The derangement is not ours, Jong.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:36 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Tell me you wouldn't take Hillary in a heartbeat over Obama in 2012?"

Christ, NO.

You would get rid of a puppet, in favor of the devil?

Hell no.

Hillary, Palin, McCain, Obama... uggh... the difference between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

You know who Im looking for?

THAT GUY.

You know, your next door neighbor. Someone who just wants to make things better. The simple guy, who doesnt really want the job, but will do it so that things will better.

The one who doesnt want power or fame. Doesnt care about a 2nd term. But, if given the chance will work for the free people.

And to free the people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
She will use her power & popularity next year to gather enormous crowds, and piles of money for Republican candidates. She will campaign tirelessly to defeat Dems all over the country. She will help in the takeback of Congress from the clutches of Pelosi-Reid. Obama has fucked up so much, Palin will sound like a rocket scientist when she starts shredding him into little pieces.

So, Palin as hero, eh?
The derangement is not ours, Jong.

The laughing Chrisisall

Au contraire dude. The liberal media is obssessed with destroying her...and they simply cannot. Here we have a world with serious issues....things like Iraq, Afganistan, Iran, N Korea, Healthcare , Cap & Tax, Gay rights, etc etc etc...AND ALL MSNBC, CNN, NBC CBS, NY TIMES. etc... ALL they can do is cover her every move! Its fucking hysterical to watch as the liberal icons totally melt down. Olbermman gave HALF his show on her last nite. So did Madow and the dumb one on CNN. That's ALL they can think of! She scares the living fuck out of 'em! She represents EVERYTHING the Liberals despise, and they know she is holding the wooden stake in her hand.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:42 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frightened? Desperate?

I don't know where people get that..."the feminists are frightened by Palin", "the Dems are frightened by her"...what's so frightening? Yes, I abhor the idea of her as Prez, and that IS scary...exactly because of what Byte itemized. Beyond that, I agree with KPO. The only thing that scares me about her are her policies and how she would implement them if she had the power, because of how disasterous they'd be. Anyone with any common sense who looked at her history and listened to her would be scared of the idea of her in power!

Other than that, I can see no reason anyone would either be frightened of her or envy her. As to the photo, if she felt fine primping for the cover of Runner's World, she should have no argument with it being used elsewhere. It truly DOES show her for what she is.

Just for everyone's amusement, I heard a dissection of some of the lies she's told over time, and thought I'd post a few:

With regard to the McCain campaign pulling out of Michigan: She told the reporter asking about it that it wsn't a surprise, they hadn't been doing that well there, and "I read about it this morning..." On Oprah, she claimed she had only HEARD about the pullout when the reporter asked her about it.

As to Bristol's pregnancy and the campaign knowing about it, she claimed on Oprah that she was surprised they knew about it, but some time ago CBS reported she had said that she TOLD the campaign about it herself.

Asked whether she had put running as VP to a vote with her family on Hannity and Coombs (Faux News mind you), she said smilingly that she had thought it was something she should "gather the girls together" and have them take a vote on, and that they had voted unanimously for her to go ahead. In the Oprah interview, asked the same question, she responded "this time we didn't."

She now claims she never linked foreign policy to Alaska. Well, we all remember when she was asked how her living in Alaska related to her knowledge of and opinion of Russia's invasion of Georgia, she said, we'll "they're our neighbors, you can actually see Russia from parts of Alaska" and went on to say that, when the Russians came to America, what was the first place they flew over? Well, Alaska of course.

By the way, it's amusing that she says that Tina Fay's satire of her saying she could see Alaska from her house was a case of them having "blurred the lines" of reality. Can anyone actually take seriously a person who has no concept of comedic satire, that her remark about being able to see Russia from Alaska left her wide open to parody? She was afronted by it--she's so easily offended and expends so much energy going after anyone she feels has been negative about her that it's patently obvious she has no concept of diplomacy or perspective!

It's been in the news (and is in her book) that she's pissed that the McCain campaign is trying to charge her the $5,000 for her vetting process. That was so blatant that even McCain himself had to clear it up, saying that money was for her LEGAL BILLS with regard to Troopergate, which happened before she was even chosen as VP running mate.

McCain has asked his staffers to be quiet about the things she claimed with regard to them in her book. But Nicole Wallace has spoken up a bit, as have others. On Oprah, Palin claimed she was pushed to do the Couric interview by Wallace, who told her Couric really needed a career boost, wasn't doing well and had poor self-esteem. So Palin did it out of pity.

She also claimed it was supposed to be a "light-hearted, fun talk between working moms about teenagers", etc.

Wallace says the whole notion is pure fantasy, that she herself isn't someone who throws around words like "low self-esteem". She also was delibrately set up in front of the UN as a way of attempting to highlight Palin's foreign credentials and savvy.

Palin claims her reactions to Couric asking her what she read was because she was pissed off and felt like Couric was asking if the rubes up in Alaska read ANYTHING...well, we all saw that interview. Her dodging and deflecting Couric's questions about what she read was obvious and showed someone who was unable to answer, and in the end brushed it off with "well, all of them" in response to asking what magazines or newspapers she read.

She smilingly deflected the question about Bush's policy by asking what the interviewer thought, then answering with something totally unrelated when she couldn't get HIM to clue her in as to what it was.

THIS is someone you want as Prez?? She's pathetic, pure and simple, and nothing else. She's cute, which got the males, and spouts the tea-baggers line, which hauled in the extreme right wing, so they adore her. But they're a small minority, and I think she has much more invested in attention, celebrity status adn money than she ever had in public office. Quitting as governor showed that clearly, especially given since then she has written a book with a lucrative advance and given paid speeches, putting most of her comments on politics to her Facebook bull-blather.

I don't see a chance in hell of her being nominated. Whatever else they may be, I see the Republican party bosses as savvy enough to recognize that she'd never be elected; they may fawn all over the base when it suits them, but I believe they recognize that this "purging" will leave the party able to be ideologically pure, but unable to win elections. When the time comes, they'll never let her be nominated.

I, too, am unable to conceive how she's come to be made some kind of spokesman for the party at this time and is regarded as some kind of authority figure. Given her history (if anyone cares to look into it) and the crazy things that come out of her mouth, it's a mystery. She's obviously out for herself and doesn't care about the country or the party or anyone else. Otherwise she'd be smart enough to realize that splitting the party and purging the non-ideologically-pure, putting up tea-party candidates, will only serve to make the Dems stronger.

Why she gets so much coverage and is discussed at such length amazes me...sure, she makes enough of a splash that they have to cover her, but to hear them debating her "policies" and what she says to the degree they do...leaves me at a loss. I guess because there's nobody else out there who's so obvious and the party eating it's own is interesting. Beyond that, it's a mystery.

I do realize the news media long since devolved into "newstainment", and they find her entertaining. I'm offen bothered by the fact that they don't cover so many of the important issues that are going on, all over the world; but that's how it is. She's a celebrity and does things that are entertaining, so she gets coverage.

The only stake she holds in her hand, bud, is the one she's going to put through the Republican Party's heart!

By the way, did anyone hear the remarks about how Prejean might "make a good candidate" for the House? Seems you weren't that far off.

P.S. I live in California; I've hiked for decades, biked, camped, and get out daily to walk with the dogs, despite being in a huge boot because of achilles tendonitis. I did the same after wrist surgery and knee surgery, just as soon as they would let me do so. Our home is paid for, so yes, I do "live at home", but also haven't lived in my PARENTS' home since I was 17. Where do you GET these things??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:44 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Why is it the Libs are so up in arms about Palin?

Seriously?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:03 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

For me, because she's sickening--she represents everything bad about politics, that a pretty face and vacant mind can garner so much attention and be taken so seriously. I'm as pissed off by the idiot who held up a baby in the House the other day and spoke for it, as Michelle Malkin every time she opens her mouth, ditto O'Reilly, Limbaugh ("I don't CARE about the Constitution!") and all the others who make fools of themselves yet are pandered to by their followers.

These people make more of a mockery of our government than it makes of itself and they embarrass me and offend me. I want REAL people (and Wulf, I agree, but you can hold your breath waiting for one!), or at least people who can speak somewhat sensibly. It pisses me off to see people like Palin and Prejean taken seriously and put up as authority figures--it's just so stupid.

The followers of people like this don't bother to find out facts, they just eat up what Faux News feeds them, what Palin and her ilk feed them, and vote accordingly--I know they'll investigate no other sources, and I'm pissed off that they'll never know any better yet have a hand in determining the direction of our country.

Does that answer your question? I don't fear people like that; they disgust me, and the things they say and do are so far outside reality that they're amusing to talk about when I'm not involved in more reasonable discussions of actual issues.

Besides; she asked. Does that answer your question?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:03 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Stupid PC...glitched on me and double posted. HOW I wish there were a "delete" function here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:08 AM

I think they've explained that she's unqualified for the job, both experience-wise and personality-wise.

Honestly, all this talk about Sarah Palin being a breath of fresh air for the Republican Party is exactly what I was hearing about Obama before his election... AND the Bush administration. Look how that turned out. Either they're SO inexperienced that they're a puppet president and someone else is running the show, or it's all an act and they're vicious sharks like the rest of them.

With Sarah, I'm not entirely sure. The simple act is hard to see past, if it's an act she does it well. But the death panels thing was PURE DEVIOUS, I have to hand her that one, she hit exactly the talking point to rile up the constituency against health care reform. At this point, health care reform is looking like it's going to make everything WORSE, so I'm having to swallow my own bile and say that maybe that crass untrue manipulation was... Well, not GOOD, but... I don't have a word for it. It was underhanded, but as a stall tactic, maybe necessary.

I'm also not sure if someone fed Sarah Palin that line. Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck seem to be using her, though last night I heard O'Reilly express incredulity that Palin would set herself up again with that photo. I think they may be distancing themselves, her party may be about to cut her loose.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:57 AM

Quote:
Hey, at least your new Palin Derangement Syndrome is not as harmful as your prior Bush Derangement Syndrome. Good to see you making some progress. And BTW, your desperate and childish response to my post only confirms how frightening Palin is to you. She will use her power & popularity next year to gather enormous crowds, and piles of money for Republican candidates. She will campaign tirelessly to defeat Dems all over the country. She will help in the takeback of Congress from the clutches of Pelosi-Reid. Obama has fucked up so much, Palin will sound like a rocket scientist when she starts shredding him into little pieces. Sorry.

Actually, I'd say my Whatever-derangement-syndrome pales in comparison to your Obama Derangement Syndrome. Seems all it takes is the mere mention of his name to send you into spasms and leave you a quivering mound of jelly on the floor.

Palin sounding like a rocket scientist? I can hardly wait. Does she even know which end of a rocket to light?

You're getting all twisted out of shape because I refuse to take her seriously when, in all seriousness, there's no way ANYBODY could take her seriously. The only people who think she has anything to offer are people who have time and time again PROVEN to be the biggest fucking twits on Earth. You should know them well, since you're one of them. They're the ones who are at this very moment in time trying to run as far and as fast as they can from the "legacy" of their most recent "hero" of the American schmuck, George Dubya Bush. You were one of his most ardent supporters around here, weren't you? You and Rappy, who may well be one and the same.

The sad thing is, while they're trying to claim they "never" believed in Bush, they're full-throated believers in the Cult of Sarah. And they'll remain so, until the day after she gets her ass handed to her if she tries to run for office. Here's a campaign tip for her, free of charge: If you're planning on running, it's a wise move to NOT write a tell-all book trashing the Best Brains in the GOP, all those behind-the-scenes staffers at the McCain campaign who are the real movers and shakers within the party. Piss them off, and then see how far you get come next election cycle.

Sadly, that advice may be just a little too late to help Our Mrs. Palin.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:58 AM

Oh, and by the way, Jongsie - Thanks for not addressing a single one of the issues I brought up in my post. I must say, how very EXPECTED of you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:59 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But the death panels thing was PURE DEVIOUS, I have to hand her that one, she hit exactly the talking point to rile up the constituency against health care reform...I'm also not sure if someone fed Sarah Palin that line.

I note for the record that none of the bills include "Death Panels". They do include govt officials charged making decisions about who gets what kind of care that may result in an elderly person being denied expensive life saving treatment against their wishes or the wishes of their family that could in the absense of independent finacial resources result in the person's not dying of their underlying illness. But they don't call them "Death Panels".

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:01 PM

Quote:

I think the problem is not what's in Sarah's book, its that you can't read.

That would probably be a much more cutting remark if you punctuated it correctly. YOU, who can't spell the word "intelligence", are going to lecture others about being able to read? Really?

I don't plan on reading Miss Mooselini's book simply because I have no intention of putting money in her pocket.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But the death panels thing was PURE DEVIOUS, I have to hand her that one, she hit exactly the talking point to rile up the constituency against health care reform...I'm also not sure if someone fed Sarah Palin that line.

I note for the record that none of the bills include "Death Panels". They do include govt officials charged making decisions about who gets what kind of care that may result in an elderly person being denied expensive life saving treatment against their wishes or the wishes of their family that could in the absense of independent finacial resources result in the person's not dying of their underlying illness. But they don't call them "Death Panels".

What do they call those panels in the GOP's healthcare provider? You know, the one that has a full page of its website devoted to helping members make better end-of-life plans. Do they call them "Death Panels" there?

Also, what does the GOP call the abortion coverage that's provided by its insurer of choice? You did know that those covered by insurance paid for by the GOP have their abortions 100% covered by the health plan the GOP pays for, right?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:11 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte: Re your question as to who McCain wanted (and this isn't the only reference I could link to, just the most cogent one):

Quote:
McCain Wanted Lieberman, but Chose a Question Mark

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. arrives in Minneapolis for the 2008 Republican National Convention.

As little as two days before he made his VP announcement, John McCain wanted to pick friend and Democratic turncoat Joe Lieberman, according to a report in The New York Times. But as in so many other decisions in his campaign, the alleged maverick caved to the far right of his party, which threatened to sink a McCain-Lieberman ticket at the convention. In the end he chose a woman he barely knew.

Although Team McCain insists it did a thorough job of vetting the Alaska governor, the planeloads of Republicans on their way to Wasilla tell a different story, as do the headlines, many more of which are sure to come.

Quote:
New York Times:

At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain’s running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described.

Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.

But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080902_mccain_wanted_lie
berman_but_chose_a_question_mark/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:11 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Why is it the Libs are so up in arms about Palin?

Seriously?

Because she was a candidate for Vice President of the United States!!

Ordinarily dumb mediocre people don't get me so angry.

On another note, I'd like to salute the excellent thread title change.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:12 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
You know who Im looking for?

THAT GUY.

You know, your next door neighbor. Someone who just wants to make things better. The simple guy, who doesnt really want the job, but will do it so that things will better.

The one who doesnt want power or fame. Doesnt care about a 2nd term. But, if given the chance will work for the free people.

And to free the people.

No ya don't... lol.

That's not a snark on you, personally - but a snark upon us all.

Know why ?
I *been* that guy, and they ran my ass out of town on a rail, and DAMNED quickly, too.

Do you know, honestly, what one of the lowest, meanest, cruelest things in all the world to do to someone is ?
Find out what their innermost hearts desire is...

And then GIVE IT TO THEM!, give it to em good and hard!

They will hate you for it, I damn well guarantee it.

I mean, I might go for it, but then everyone thinks imma lunatic - seriously though, just think of what the price of cutting the chains is gonna be, even if done non-violently, you still have other political orgs, which may or may not resort to it, finanical elites, corporations - any and all of which are quite capable of putting together a coup (See Also: Business Plot), a conspiracy, or an outright hit on you, and anyone else in their way.

In order to prevent the outbreak of violent hostilities when the chains are cut you must FIRST cripple those who would initiate them, why the hell do you think I am so hardcased about cutting funding to the first bastards who'd do so, our own so-called "protectors" ?

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

-Frem
There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:20 PM

Quote:
The liberal media is obssessed with destroying her...and they simply cannot. Here we have a world with serious issues....things like Iraq, Afganistan, Iran, N Korea, Healthcare , Cap & Tax, Gay rights, etc etc etc...AND ALL MSNBC, CNN, NBC CBS, NY TIMES. etc... ALL they can do is cover her every move! Its fucking hysterical to watch as the liberal icons totally melt down. Olbermman gave HALF his show on her last nite. So did Madow and the dumb one on CNN. That's ALL they can think of! She scares the living fuck out of 'em! She represents EVERYTHING the Liberals despise, and they know she is holding the wooden stake in her hand.

Ah, so you're saying that the conservative media is hell-bent on destroying Obama, but they cannot. In a world with serious issues, they spend hours and hours on whether some school kids sang a song about Obama - SIX MONTHS AGO! And then they sponsor protests at the school for singing that song - LAST SCHOOL YEAR!

Rush Limbaugh devoted over half his show recently to an "expose" of Obama's thesis - AND THAT THESIS WAS A HOAX!

So what you're saying is that Obama is ALL the conservatives can think of. They have NOTHING to offer anyone except fear and hate. Obama is EVERYTHING the conservatives despise, plus he's black, which is an added bonus and fuck-you to righty-whiteys, who know that he is holding the wooden stake in his hand while they tremble with fear.

Is that what you're saying?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:33 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Right on Mike. When you consider that the media in general (and even the liberal media on cable) covers many things, and Faux News seems to cover little but Obama and the Dems and rail on about them endlessly, gee, I guess that DOES speak to the equivalent being true.

Uh, and just a question: What do you watch? What I see on numerous stations is coverage of many, many things...like Ft. Hood, Afghanistan,a LOT on health care, the recent murders and childhood abuse scandals, and on and on, y'know?...and far from endless coverage of Palin. In fact I think they'd leave her alone completely if she didn't stick herself in the public eye virtually every day. She kinda does that, y'know?

The coverage she's gotten recently is because of her "book" (I use the term loosely) coming out, and given the absurdities and lies in the book, it's bound to get attention. When you get Limbaugh (or O'Reilly, I confuse the two) saying it's the best policy book he's ever read, and there's only 13 pages of policy in the whole book, that kinda tells 'ya where it's at...

The lady loves the attention, otherwise she wouldn't give interview after interview...more I think than just about anybody else except maybe Cheney. Then, of course, she gets pissed when the media point out the stupidities and lies she utters. Gets her even more attention.

Works for her!

Poor downtrodden woman just can't win, can she? Don't worry, the media doesn't have to destroy her, she'll do that right nicely on her own in time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:51 PM