Sarah Palin and the Coming American Election.

[ckg927]

nerd: National polls are USELESS to determine elections,since it's done state by state. And if you look at the state data,Obama leads in quite a lot of them(margins vary from one to the next),and even in the ones he isn't leading in,he's well within striking distance. (May I suggest FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right as an excellent site,even if you're not-like me-a math nerd.)

As far as the whole tax thing: Palin,while mayor,spend $15 million on a sports center in the valley-and it left the town in debt to the tune of $22 million. (That's $22 million of debt they DIDN'T have when she took office.)(That tidbit from the website Portugal.The Man -it's an indie rock group from Palin's hometown. There is an active comment section.)

"Left-leaning" Washington Post. In the words of White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen,"Psshh! Please." Considering that the Washington Times-which only exists because of the largesse of the Moonies-is to the right of Genghis Khan,ANYTHING even milder would seem "left-leaning". The editorial page,I can assure you,isn't. About the book burning/censoring: Why,if it's not true,was such a stink raised in the town when she tried to fire the librarian who wouldn't remove the books? 'Cause everyone's a bunch of card-carrying comsymps?

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

In general, people who have an "aversion" to religion don't want any such thing being taught to their kids in PUBLIC schools. We're all for "reading, 'riting, & 'rithmatic" - science is good & fine - as far as SCIENCE goes, but leave "theories" and esp. religious crap out of it all together.

And here's another nice "Palinism"

Pray Away the Gays

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD... :drunk:

But since when is learning about what so many other people believe "crap"? In the context of "this is what the Bible says" of course. I don't understand why they should be encouraged to learn about foreign languages, cultures and religions, but not about the most prevailant (correct me if I'm wrong about that) religion in the country they live in. Why is it political suicide to say that you think children should be afforded the respect to make their own choices on what to believe, and that they shouldn't be completely blinkered when it comes to religion and culture?

 

[randiann]

State and religion are supposed to be completely seperate over here. In public schools, they are not supposed to "teach" any type of religious belief or even really talk about religion whatsoever. That's why Creationism is a big deal over here, because some see it as the government forcing religion on kids.

As far as theories though, Buff, pretty much all of science is based on theory. Really evolution is the major controversial theory, because some Christians feel that this is the goverment forcing beliefs on kids again. Even though evolution really doesn't try to disprove creationism, it simply states that species change over time. Different story though.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

State and religion are supposed to be completely seperate over here. In public schools, they are not supposed to "teach" any type of religious belief or even really talk about religion whatsoever. That's why Creationism is a big deal over here, because some see it as the government forcing religion on kids.

As far as theories though, Buff, pretty much all of science is based on theory. Really evolution is the major controversial theory, because some Christians feel that this is the goverment forcing beliefs on kids again. Even though evolution really doesn't try to disprove creationism, it simply states that species change over time. Different story though.

So, what, kids aren't even taught about world religions? That's appalling! I'm glad I live in the UK now... And I'm glad you said that last paragraph too. I was going to, but I didn't really want to come across as being too agressive about this. I'm just shocked that it's considered a bad thing to teach kids about the world.

 

[UnKle]

I'm just shocked that it's considered a bad thing to teach kids about the world.

Uh... you're getting that from two tiny paragraphs of text?

When I go to vote, I'll be voting, with gritted teeth, against someone rather than for someone. Because this country hasn't had a really worthwhile candidate for the presidency for a while, IMO, and we're not starting now. I don't play politics and I don't enjoy watching political shows and I don't enjoy reading long threads about politics that slowly turn into slug matches. I belong to another forum where anything is fair game - but politics and religion will get you banned. So far, that's worked out nicely in that forum. It would probably work out nicely, here, too, but obviously those topics aren't off-limits yet.

As for the poll that tops this thread, how silly. My opinion is that this thread wasn't created for debate so much as political wank. But then that's just my opinion. I'm not 'left' or 'right' in politics - I fall somewhere in the middle. Both camps have something I like. Neither have everything I believe in. Both camps are pretty pathetic in my eyes. Neither have enough good qualities that could ever redeem them to me. The politics in this nation have devolved to the point where it is only a game and it is all about personal agenda and power plays and mud slinging, a scuffle in the dirt between vicious animals, and the winner gets a prize. There are no 'great leaders' here anymore. When I go vote, I'll vote for the person I think won't put this country even further in the crapper than it already is, but that doesn't mean I wholly support that person or their platform or even want anything to do with their party politics. Maybe someday things will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

Uh... you're getting that from two tiny paragraphs of text?

Sorry, I'm not meaning to offend or anything, and all I've got to go on is what I've been told in this thread. Is the situation different?

 

[nerd4hire]

On the aerial wolf kill - Palin is not flying around in planes looking for wolves to kill which is I'm sure the image the smearers are hoping to put into peoples' heads.

She did not not introduce the concept of predator control to Alaska.

Since 2003, Alaska has issued aerial wolf-hunting permits in select areas where moose and caribou populations are particularly endangered. The idea is that by killing the predators, the airborne gunmen can ramp up the number of moose and caribou that human hunters can take home for supper.

What's aerial wolf gunning, and why does vice presidential Sarah Palin support the practice? - By Samantha Henig - Slate Magazine

She does however support the practice, and does hope to bring in legislation to facilitate it.

“The bill I am introducing will give the Board of Game and state wildlife managers the tools they need to actively manage important game herds and help thousands of Alaskan families put food on their tables.”

Now myself I'm against it. For me it boils down to the argument an ex-girlfriend of mine made one time that went, and I quote "I don't care. They shouldn't kill the puppies".

Nevertheless, I don't hate Palin for having a different view than my own.

On Polar Bears being taken off the endangered species list - She's right though. Polar Bears aren't endangered, or even threatened (which is I believe what the status is now).

The evidence used to support the enviromentalists' position on the polar bear quesrtion was based on Faulty Computer Models.

It was all political. Palin has a point there.

On Global Warming - Before we start representing Palin as a wild-eyed radical here, here's her actual position.

While acknowledging the climate is changing, Palin expresses doubt as to whether emissions from human activities are causing it.

The Associated Press: Environmentalists cant corral Palin

In this she agrees with the 32,000 scientists who signed the Oregon petition which said pretty much the same thing.

National Post Story

Does it even matter? McCain doesn't agree with her, and he's the guy in charge.

McCain, on the other hand, supports legislation to reduce heat-trapping pollutants, primarily from the burning of oil and coal.

On Creationism - Palin did not legislate creationism be taught in schools. She merely expressed an opinion one time she thought both Evolutionary theory and Creationist theory should be taught. That's not radical. What is radical is suggesting she doesn't have the right to have an opinion.

On Palin being portrayed in the media as a radical - We are told Palin opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. This we are told is a radical view.

Is it more radical than Obama's view on this subject though, I wonder. Obama is for live birth abortion. That's when the baby survives the abortion. It's breathing. Obama wants to leave them to die.

I'm not a Christian myself, but I don't have any problem with what the Christian in the video below is saying.

YouTube - Obama 'Live Birth Abortion'

On high taxes in Wasilla - Let me see if I've got this straight, we're basing this idea we understand the complexity of the taxation process in Wasilla based on a blog entry from a local rock band member. You're joking right?

Ultimately Palin was voted in for a second term as mayor as Wasilla. Somebody there thought she was doing a good job.

 

[Schillaci]

Gosh, this topic got all deep, all of a sudden. Now theres like quotes and references, political debate and intrigue!

Whoah, there seems to be a lot of hate pouring in here from people openly admitting they know nothing about the issues.

And you know what? From a strategy viewpoint this is a good thing. It confirms McCain knew what he was doing when he chose Palin.

Yeah.. As strategy goes, people hating that Palin was chosen is just genius..

But on that subject of strategy, tell me this. Why is political strategy supposed to be such a bad thing? The choice of Palin for VP was a great, political strategy. This is supposed to be wrong. It's countered by the word "just". The argument is McCain chose Palin "just" to do this, or "just" to do that. However those saying it are missing a key point. This campaign is just beginning. There are a couple of months left to go. As it continues we're seeing there's a lot more to Palin than the word "just" justifies. As Palin's strength, and ability becomes steadily more evident the opposing argument and the lame lack of strategy opposing it is revealed. The Democrat's political strategy begins to look like one based on muck rucking, and posturing, and a stupidly misplaced, smug, belief they already have the election in the bag, so they don't have to pay attention.

I actually don't care much about this, and I really don't have anything much sensible to say on the matter, ( analysing my position in this topic I think that maybe I'm looking for a cheap laugh.. Or I might be giving my fingers a workout).

However, I think its you that missed the point people were making. Deliberatley, probably, because when you've got a bone you don't like to let go. Palin wasn't chosen because of her strength, her ability, or what she can contribute to the next few months of the campaign. She was picked because McCains group thought she would help him pick up the disenchanted clinton lover chick vote.

That's not good political strategy, thats called manipulating people.

Good political strategy is where during your campaign you tell the public if you're voted into office you will improve this, this and this, and you will fix this, this and that. Perhaps revealing a little research you've done, backing up that you can do what you claim(not too much info as you dont want the opposition nicking your ideas). And then, having been voted into office, you improve this, this and this, and you fix this, this and that.

Now, that's good political strategy.

You see, crazy little being that I am, I fully believe that politicians are there to improve life for their constituents. To improve the society that they're working for. I know, its an insane belief.

Now I know we believe in modern society that politicians exist to make a lot of money and to bugger everybody that voted for them, but.. as splendid as that current practice is, I think we should go in a new direction.

I think the public should decide how much money their elected official should make, based on how good a job they do. See, if we incorporated that idea then politicians would stop screwing around, and we'd start getting somewhere. And we would get rid of the really useless ones as they'd make so little money they'd have to resign to find a job that pays.

Is that not genius? And you see with this new direction we would be taking, it wouldnt stop there. The public would be more involved in decisions that are made, and people would actually start caring becuase they would have an influence in this little thing called democracy. People could actually have a say in their own life, instead of what we have now, the occasional naive donk that votes and thinks they're actually 'changing something'. (the only thing you're changing is who is going to be lying to you this term)

Anyway , I think that was, like, 100, 200, words. My fingers are, pah!, all worked out. Pumped iron, they're looking for their next target to work on.

By the way, ckg92, on the matter of having no right to complain about policies because I don't vote. I also don't rape women or take drugs, does that mean I can't argue that rape is wrong and drugs are bad?

 

[ckg927]

n4h: Sorry,but I'm going to be dogging you on what you're posting.

If you're going to critique what I post,don't be bent if I do the same(i.e. the "live birth abortion" matter re Obama....I'll see that charge and raise you this...do a search at Media Matters for the words Obama AND abortion,and look for the August 22nd story "Myths and falsehoods on Obama's votes on 'born alive' bills" . But,in a way,you're right on one matter....us trading links,charges and countercharges isn't going to advance the debate anywhere. In the words of Nick Bakay: "Advantage push."

Schi: I'll still stand by what I said in re politics. Note,though,I didn't say word one about what you brought up. And you're correct in your reasoning why Palin was picked to be McCain's #2. Problem is...it's not really working. (Only in the sense of drawing more supporters,money,etc. to the campaign. And don't even get me going on the national polls;the state ones are the key.)

 

[Buffanator]

She was picked because McCains group thought she would help him pick up the disenchanted clinton lover chick vote.

I'm not so sure about that. He could have chosen ANYONE ELSE, a woman I mean, for that. Those "chicks" that wanted Hitlary so bad? They would NEVER vote for McCain because of Palin. She is the demon spawn of women to them. :lmao:

 

[UnKle]

ckg927 agrees: Good post. Keep in mind,though,voting is the not the end of your duties. You have to communicate with your representatives on issues that concern you,as well.

Never said I don't want to take a responsible role as a citizen. Just that I don't want to feed on the dirty swine fest that is politics. I email, write, and call my reps once or twice a year on average, when something comes up.

 

[nerd4hire]

n4h: Sorry,but I'm going to be dogging you on what you're posting.

Feel free to dog till the cows come home, but first let me clarify what I'm saying. I have no objection to "trading links". In fact I wish you'd start posting some. What I object to is presenting smears as facts without presenting sources which can be checked.

So many of these smears - when you do run them down - source back to people like Anne Kilkenny who may, or may not be a resident of Wasilla, or Lucille the Waitress, whoever she is, or some guitar picker in an Alaskan chili joint.

When unreferenced smears are presented, a rebuttal tact is to return smears in kind, until the other guy gets it. It sounds like you're starting to get it, so I'm only too happy now to offer actual links to actual information.

First let's start answering these Sarah smears.

Opinion Piece on Smears

Assortment of Sarah Smears rebutted

Adultery smear laughed off when media frenzy at courtroom turns up nothing

Sarah has never belonged to the Alaska Independence Party as claimed, and here's video evidence of her actual relationship with them.

Rebuttal of Troopergate with links to actual evidence

Another assortment of Sarah smears addressed

Hilary Clinton supporters won't support Palin - or will they?

100 books Sarah Palin wants banned. No she doesn't

The back story behind the book burning smear

Lucille the Waitress's Sambo smear

Accusation Sarah's daughters, Willow and Piper are named after Witches addressed

And yet another collection of Sarah smears destroyed including the one Palin was not properly vetted.

In fact here's one to answer the allegation Sarah brings nothing to the table other than something cute, female, and younger for McCain to hang on his arm during the election. McCain says he wants to take on the power structure in Washington if elected. Sarah's proven she can do it.

And I'm going to post poll results now. It's a national poll. I saw no objection to national polls until they started to tell a different story than Obama is the new Messiah.

This one however shows the Sarah smears didn't work. If anything those smears appear to have had a rebound effect. And here that poll is...


McCain/Palin Rides Post Convention Bounce To A Commanding 54%-44% lead Over Obama/Biden!!!!!

 

[Buffanator]

I'm only too happy now to offer actual links to actual information.

Except... the actual "information" in your links offer no more truth/facts than anything anyone else wrote/said/quoted. It's as independable as the next article... it's really all in what the public believes. That's what politics are all about. Which is why "smearing" exists in the first place. All candidates do it. Personally, I find it utterly disgusting. I would like to see a candidate state his/her platform & their intentions & plans WITHOUT as much as MENTIONING what "the other guy" is doing/has done. What a refreshing change of pace that would be, eh?

Oh not to worry! I'm not idiot enough to even dream it possible.

 

[Blondie Bear]

^ Seriously. That's what Obama claimed he was going to do. Now look what's going on. So much for a "clean campaign." *snort*

 

[Buffanator]

^ Seriously. That's what Obama claimed he was going to do. Now look what's going on. So much for a "clean campaign." *snort*

Like I said... never gonna happen.

 

[Schillaci]

Ok, ckg927, when you say you're standing by what you said, you mean that if a person doesn't vote then they have no right to complain? Yes?

I'll never vote in an American election, because I'm actually British. Therefore I have no say in who is elected, or what party is in government in the good old US of A. But I can easily be affected by US policy. People in the Middle East are all the time. Go ask some Iraqis what they think of american foreign policy. Considering what's been happening for the last six years, I think these people should have more influence on US policy than Americans.

Anyway since I am British, what do you think of the royal family voting? They don't actually. Do they have a right to voice their opinion on British policy?

Say I was the queen(har har, lets keep the queer jokes out of politics - Way too much funny to follow this up with, it would be an injustice to narrow down to one statement), I'm the queen and I don't vote, surely I gotta be allowed to voice my opinion.

By the way, just because I don't vote doesnt mean I don't follow politics. It doesn't mean that I don't research policies that are in place, or are being considered to be put into practice. It doesn't mean that I don't take an interest, doesnt mean I don't chuck eggs at my local mp, or send her letters threatening her life(the witch). Not voting means simply that, I don't vote.

If you think that I have no right to complain, when a group of tossers do something that affects my life from day to day, because I didn't tick a box advocating that I agree that these tossers have a right to screw around with my life, then I dont see that it would be fair for you to then complain if someone was to walk up to you in the street, beat the utter crap out of you, knocking you senseless before dragging you down an alley to repeatedly rape you up the crapper.

But hey, that's just my humble opinion.. tehehehe

Except... the actual "information" in your links offer no more truth/facts than anything anyone else wrote/said/quoted. It's as independable as the next article... it's really all in what the public believes. That's what politics are all about. Which is why "smearing" exists in the first place. All candidates do it. Personally, I find it utterly disgusting. I would like to see a candidate state his/her platform & their intentions & plans WITHOUT as much as MENTIONING what "the other guy" is doing/has done. What a refreshing change of pace that would be, eh?

Oh not to worry! I'm not idiot enough to even dream it possible.

Your first sentence pretty much sums up politics. The left, and the right, are given the exact same text to analyse. They will both take from it different things, and explain the text in a different way, a way in which it will suit their own agendas. I'm not sure how it started out, but politics today is about who can tell the most convincing bullshit.

This is pure speculation that I've pulled from my ass giving it two seconds of thought, but I'll betya politics is just like religion.

IE - You vote for which God your parents voted for. I guarantee that if I was to care enough to look hard enough I'd find a poll of a large group of people where the majority of them vote for the same party their parents vote/d for.

Also, I dont watch a lot of news, or often read newspapers, and I'm not in the US, in fact I'm pretty much going on this topic.. But I'll also bet the big debate (big debate as in some pseudo-intellectuals are debating on whether they would bang her or not) in the US is Sarah Palin...

...

McCain is the one running for president. Who he is, and what he is saying is where people should be focusing their energies.


Oh aye, I'd also like to add that I am, from tip to toe, and every nerve-end in between, a fascist. I'm not really, but if anybody ever asks which way I lean, politically, I reply all the vay to ze right.

Which way do Mr and Mrs Nerd4hire(as in your parents, N4H) lean, politically?

Or, here's a better question. If Sarah Palin was chosen as Obama's Vice president, would you 'defend her' so.. vehemently, valiantly ( toss in whatever adjective you most prefer)?

 

[nerd4hire]

Except... the actual "information" in your links offer no more truth/facts than anything anyone else wrote/said/quoted.

Not true, and easily disproven. They are actual links. They should go to an actual source. You can then decide whether, or not you want to respect that source.

What I was objecting to was what happened in the days following the selection of Palin for VP where this mass of unsourced smears suddenly appeared. All at once everyone was a Sarah Palin expert 2 days after they discovered who she was. No sources were given. None were expected, but every Lefty on the internet knew the whole truth about Sarah Palin, and had the smears to prove it, based on nobody knew exactly what.

I'll give you an example. A story which spread like a brush fire was the one that went Sarah was not the mother of her Downs syndrome baby, Trig. It was proclaimed Sarah's other daughter Bristol was the actual mother. No source was ever given for that, but if you do a little sleuthing you can track it down to this emailer calling him or herself Anne Kilkenny, and claiming to be a resident of Wasilla. She/he is also the first source I can find for the rampant taxation in Wasilla story, and the Sarah's a book burner smear. (I source myself for that suggestion. Kilkenny is the earliest source I can find). OK so how credible is she/he. Well, if you do the math you'll see it's not possible for Bristol to be the mother, because she was pregnant during what would have been the time of conception.

The left wing smear artists who could have been outed immediately would have been if people could have vetted the source when the story appeared. You have links to sources now. Either they're information is credible, or it's not. You know who they are though, at least, and you have at least a vague idea as to where their information comes from. Feel free to vet.

 

[ckg927]

Personally,I never gave cred to that story.

There's other things you can critique Palin on. This isn't one of them.

 

[nerd4hire]

Lots of stuff to critique Obama on too, but do you want the stuff that comes with a source, or the stuff that doesn't?

Can you fill me in on his policy on NAFTA. We can't figure it out up here, because he seems to say one thing to you guys, and another thing to us.

For the Canadians, a key point of concern was Obama's sharp criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement. DeMora wrote Wilson that in the Chicago meeting, Goolsbee "candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign" but reassured Rioux that Obama's NAFTA-bashing "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." Three weeks later, Canada's CTV News reported that a "senior member" of Obama's campaign had phoned Wilson personally to advise him to "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA." The Obama campaign denied that story, which (if you believe DeMora's account) was only slightly off the mark, and declined to elaborate. On March 3 the Associated Press released the DeMora memo, which by then had circulated widely within the Canadian government. Asked once again to comment, Obama said his campaign provided Canada no such reassurance while Goolsbee maintained that DeMora "misinterpreted" his comments. For its part, the Chicago consulate smoothed things over with a statement saying, "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private." It looks like President Obama may owe one to our friendly neighbors to the north.

That Canadian memo about what Obama really thinks about NAFTA. - By Bonnie Goldstein - Slate Magazine

 

[Airam]

All at once everyone was a Sarah Palin expert 2 days after they discovered who she was.

Sounds a little like how McCain chose her as his VP after just 2 meetings....