Once the initial defensiveness re: Palin dies down... - Page 20

I fail to see your point. Someone can't be a Republican or Democrat and also advocate for statehood for Puerto Rico?


You did read your own link right?


Apparently the number of people who can't read is larger than I thought. Did the title throw you off sweetie? Is it confounding to you to know that someone can belong to more than one political group?


Housing prices never go down, the rules are different this time for the stock market because of that new internet and all the companies it has brought to the table. Bill Clinton and the Democrats control the presidency and both houses so Reaganism, and conservatism is done and Camelot has returned.

The Republicans do have a tarnished brand right now but that is because the Democrats have been demanding utopia and declaring Republicans terrible for not delivering it.

I'll call this "JImmac" reasoning not as an insult but because he is the one I see do it the clearest. $200 billion dollar deficits are terrible, especially for a lie of a war and now we will fix it by stopping the war and deficit spending a trillion+ a year for several years.

See over time, especially with huge media criticism and a profoundly short attention span, more and more people agreed with the first half of that statement. In the midterms of 2006 you had Democrats declaring that Bush was fiscally irresponsible and that the American public could have had a wonderful life for that extra $200 billion a year being spent on them that went to fund a way in Iraq instead. So they declared they would end the war, implement PAYGO, return us to caring about us within our shores and save and eventually spend the return to fiscal sanity on us.

That is an appealing message, even for conservatives.

Yet we will now be able to see that within 2 years of electing a Democratic Congress, we have trillion dollar deficits. We have a Democratic President saying, get used to them because they are going to be a yearly thing for a while.

The reasoning amounts to saying vote for me because I don't yell at my wife (applause and then after the election), no I slap the shit out of her instead.(Collective boos)

I've said it terrible and generational that we are stuck between choices that only deficit spend $200 billion a year and a trillion a year. It is sad that we have such terrible choices but the reality is that it is easy to look more hawkish when all you have to do is promise to get us back to something reasonable deficit-wise. The Republican brand will look better very quickly when utopia doesn't arrive and massive deficits and problems do arrive.

So point right now and gloat. I've been a contrarian investor for quite a while and done very well with it. I've put up with the scorn for a long time. I've been the guy who was buying an apartment building when everyone was telling me that I was nuts for not throwing my money into the stock market and I've been the guy selling a house when everyone is telling me that is nuts because they go up forever I wouldn't ever be able to buy that house or another like it back.

I've been listening to it for a long time. Right now I'm looking at a couple houses to buy. You can bet that all the Addaboxes of the world are looking at the present and telling me I am stupid to buy real estate right now. They are also telling me I am stupid to reinvest and continue to invest in stocks right now. They are saying they are smart for being in cash. (which the government is printing more of by the second) All that cash will come out when it is safe and will look for a place to go get a return. Guess what all those (right)stocks and real estate will be worth then?

Those of us driving the car have to look down the road, not just out the side windows and note where we are at right now.

You can enjoy the scenery though. I'm not buying Democratic stock when it is at a record high. I'm getting ready to short it and buy the Republican stock.


There are plenty of papers suffering circulation declines but that alone doesn't indicate fiscal trouble. Some are getting the transition right and will survive, earn better money later on and others like the Times appear to be falling into the dust bin of history. You can still do well in a more difficult business environment. However when you believe you are above the rules or environment, then you suffer quickly and possibly die out forever. Some folks are fixing and improving their model, others are leasing and selling off their last assets and preparing to die.

Speaking of business models, my poor wife has been putting up with all my OTA television nonsense for several months now. I'm declaring OTA television to currently be the 80's version of AM radio. I'm trying to find the company getting ready to unleash the television version of "talk radio" and pick up the next Clear Channel before they own 3,000 stations. Look in that area and if you see something you like, share. I see all the underpinnings of something pretty awesome five years down the road in this market.


You get so bitter when you discover her jaw isn't broken as you were violently imagining.

I said he should run as a Republican.

About reading...

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

He did within what exists in Puerto Rico.


It's almost like it is a commonwealth trying to become a state or something weird like that.

I'll tell you what. Find for me the video clip where Obama was asked the same thing so they could play the intent game with him.

If you want to compare apples to apples, you should show where Obama was asked and answered the same question.

All this talk of statehood... what party was Sara's husband (and possibly herself) a member of? Sure, she's a politician so she knows to keep her tracks as clear as possible, but she has been places and doen things and siad stuf that were pretty interestin'. She even scene Wussia. Is that a country? You betcha.

Grammar and spelling courtesy of Our Savior, Sara.

No-one thought to ask Obama this perfectly innocuous, reasonable question because he was once the President of the Harvard Law Review, has published two books and before the election had contributed papers and columns to several newspapers and journals.

On the other hand, no-one knew the first thing about how Sarah Palin came to form her opinions and world view, other than that she was in a church that tried to cure gay people and that her husband was once a secessionist.

She also appeared to be inarticulate and a bit short on political history.

Now that is an understatement.

Add to it the infamous use of proximity to another country as a source of experience in foreign affairs, and how EVERYBODY, including Mc himself and his wife jumped on the bandwagon. Dang, if that is the way things is done, after all the countries I've lived in and next to and near, I could be the next Secretary General of the UN!

I'll be laughing all night long, now... again.

Have you seen this?

http://flapsblog.com/2009/01/07/sara...last-from-her/

It is hilarious. It's a new interview with Sarah Palin. "Sarah Palin strikes back!" is how they're pitching it. "You haven't heard the last of Sarah Palin!"

They really don't get it. What an incomprehensibly underqualified, inarticulate embarrassment to American politics this woman is.

I hope she keeps right at it.

When I first read that, I missed "n politics" and couldn't have agreed more.

Anonymous bloggers?

New poll shows Palin would trail Murkowski big in a Senate race


I'd give her eight years. Eight more years of seasoning might make for a viable presidential candidate. Oh, wait..we’re talking about Palin?

In that case I have no comment.

Yes, Palin lost the election because the liberal media kept citing anonymous bloggers as sources for hard news stories about how she didn't actually give birth to Trig.

Can she go for more than three sentences without just making shit up?

Sorry, Nick, that is an outright obfuscation...

But fine, let's play your little game: He also ran as what amounts to a Democrat in Puerto Rico.

Ad hom.



ad hom. condescending.


ad hom. condescending.


ad hom. not a proper grammatical construction.

Just helping you out there Nick, since you were following the rules so well for so long...

Not even trying hard enough to be obfuscation. Just "Is so" and leaving it at that.

See I remember the Obama as the guy who we couldn't find his thesis, couldn't find anything he had published while teaching, and couldn't find any of his work at the Annenberg Foundation. Considering he also didn't author any major bills, nothing could be found beyond his two books to attribute to him.

Palin didn't write two books but her positions were not obscured by hiding everything she had ever written and voting present either. Eitherway you yet again demand from one and excuse from the other. The double standard is clear for all to see.


Look at the progress we have made. I know just two months ago you wouldn't have even claimed Palin could make up a complete sentence. You're progressing so well!


Can you explain how you arrive at that conclusion from the follow which is from the Wikipedia entry for the party...

In its beginning, the majority of the NPP leaders were also members of the Republican Party, yet the last two elected NPP governors, Carlos Romero Barceló, and Dr. Pedro Rosselló González, are registered Democrats. On the other hand, the party's current President, Governor-elect Luis G. Fortuño caucuses with the Republicans and serves as Puerto Rico's Republican National Committeeman.


I still follow them better than most.


Look at the pretty balloons!

Well you know what Oscar Wilde had to say about rules :

He was elected as a member of a party essentially represents the interests of both Democrats and Republicans. Suggesting that he is somehow representative of only Republicans is ignoring the fact that he wasn't elected as a Republican, his party isn't composed simply of Republicans, and he certainly wasn't elected on the strength of Republican voter turnout in PR...



Close is not good enough, especially when you readily and knowingly invite infractions from other posters.

The party structure in Puerto Rico is not organized as it is in the U.S. No one is ignoring it. He is working within the existing structure. His party isn't composed exclusively of Republicans because the historical party structures are related to resolving the status of Puerto Rico with regard to commonwealth, country or state.

Piss and moan however you want about it. Since no party is the majority in the U.S. it is just as easy to argue taht even Obama wasn't elected on the strength of Democratic voter turnout alone. The benchmarks you mention are imaginary.


Are you the moderator? Are you commenting on the moderation? WTF is your point?

I think you already know.

It's one thing to admit that they have a different party structure due to a central issue of their state's existence. It's another thing to claim that one member of this party is a Republican when the party's critical political role runs orthogonal to either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Let's put it this way, do you honestly believe that he would have won if he were a member of the separatist party? (hint: look at the distribution of OTHER elected positions).

He wasn't elected as a Republican, he ISN'T a Republican in PR. He is only a Republican to mainlanders and that is irrelevant to his electoral history.

Your Obama rational is decidedly lacking -- Obama wasn't elected on the we like ice cream ticket, at which point it would be improper to call him a Democrat.



No. I am not commenting on moderation. I am commenting on the fact that you ought to be a better forum denizen than you have been. Your anger is palpable.

I don't think he would have won on a separatist party which is why it is insane to suggest that he doesn't represent the views he does because he works within an existing structure. It is like suggesting that when a libertarian runs as a Republican with a libertarian streak, it doesn't count with regard to advancing libertarianism and instead is somehow advancing the Democratic party.

That doesn't make sense. He is a Republican, has Republican views and is the chairman of the Republican Party in Puerto Rico. The fact that the parties there are arranged differently doesn't change that.


People and their positions can agree with or disagree with a party. They are still elected for what they can do. The parties in Puerto Rico are not the same as here. Complaining that he wasn't elected using the same variables as we would judge with here in the mainland is as ridiculous as saying he spoke Spanish when campaigning instead of English. It is a different country. You adapt to your surroundings but the core remains.


Well thank you for refuting that using your impressive opinion as a rationale. Democrats are a coalition of all sorts of groups. The fact that no one fits all pegs in the prescribed holes make not make them this or that in your mind, but last I checked Joe Lieberman and Russell Feingold were in the same party.


Oh well take it to PM's. If you sense anger then you read the tone of my messages wrong. Clarify it in PM's. In the meantime since I don't see you as a model to follow, I could give a crap about your opinion on my posting style.

OK, so you offered up the new governor of Puerto Rico as an example of "young blood" in the Republican Party, in the context of "young blood... helping run the show in Washington."

It is then pointed out to you that he is not at all representative of the U.S Republican Party, and thus it seems that using him as an example of "young blood" leadership in the U.S Republican Party doesn't make much sense.

In the course of defending your use of him as an example, you state:


and


And yet, you claim that you don't understand why everyone else thinks this is a bad example of "young blood" leadership in the NATIONAL, MAINLAND, UNITED STATES Republican Party?

Well, sort of.... JL may be back in the Democratic caucus but he was most recently elected as an Independent.

But, the last time I checked, they were also in the same country.

Which country are we discussing here? Is that Real Amerika or the other one, the United States of America?

I'm not sure... I think it depends on whether we're discussing San Juan, San Francisco, or San Angelo.

Perhaps with your logic, it is. The legitimate comparison would be like say a Democrat who gets ELECTED as a member of the We like Ice Cream Party, when the other parties running included Yuck, Ice Cream! and Brownies for Bears. To suggest that the Democrat represents some sort of new young face of the Democratic party BECAUSE he was elected is shear idiocy. Perhaps you weren't suggesting that, but it certainly comes across that way in your countless posts of this topic.


Actually, it changes it because in a modern representative democracy it is the party whose platform on which you run that matters when evaluating the success of ideas... Liberal Republicans, left of a lot of Democrats, lost last year because they were branded with Repug. Just because Obama is a member of the I Like Pie Party (the scoundrel) doesn't mean his victory is relevant to the electoral success of I Like Pie Party's platform when he ran as a Democrat.





Exactly why it is strange for you to harp on the fact that you feel this man is an electable Republican when he wasn't elected AS a Republican.


And he won because he ran on the most popular ticket as opposed to as a Republican. Tony Blair may be a Republican, but if he wins on the labour ticket it isn't a victory for Republican ideology.



What?




Are you the moderator? Hmm? I think I can freely deal with your posts when the target of them is me; if you somehow avoided bringing up me, than I would have no reason to discuss your opinion of me, but you didn't.

Thanks for giving a crap!

It isn't idiocy. It is cosmopolitan understanding versus a limited understanding that confines your reasoning to "what we do here in America."

Parties in Puerto Rico are not organized in the same manner as the United States. They are organized first by the principle question it has been wrestling with for quite some time. I'm sure once that question is finally resolved they will evolve to another structure, but for now they haven't. The people there are sophisticated enough that they can see how the person stands on that defining issue and then look at the issues beyond that, including whether they are a Republican or Democrat and whether they want to support that or not.

You say the comparison isn't legitimate because the label of Republican or Democrat is secondary to the state issue. Yet ignore the fact that even within that party, there hasn't been a Republican elected in, if I recall correctly it was 60 years.

People there get it. I get it, you screaming it isn't legitimate because it isn't organized like in the U.S. just look a bit foolish.


That may be true IN THE U.S. but if one has the ability to consider the ideas and gain the understandings of other countries and cultures, you know that just the party brand might be important in certain contexts, but not in others.

From Wikipedia

Fortuño was the first Republican to be elected Governor of Puerto Rico since 1969, and the second Republican governor since 1949.[2]

The people there know who they are electing and why they are electing him.


My children are being raised as bilingual and bicultural. It isn't hard to understand such things when you deal with more than just U.S. thinking. Live near a border, like states but countries are better and you get used to noting the differences and not just reviewing them through one perspective.


He won as a Republican within the NPP. He had to win in the primary against a former governor and also Democrat who is a member of the NPP as well. People there understand what they are voting for even if you don't.

You cite the example above and indeed it would be a victory for Labor Republicans versus Labor Democrats who would be in the same party. We do this all the time in the U.S. Was this candidate a win for DLC Democrats, Netroot Democrats or Progressive Democrats. You can understand how all those are in the same party yet the DLC candidate win would be seen very differently than a Progressive Democrat win. You could note that even though you have a Democratic majority, since so many of them were "Blue-Dog" Democrats, it might not be possible to do what you want to do.

You have this understanding for the U.S. If you had it for Puerto Rico you would get the point here.


See above.


The target isn't you. You believe that because you read some "anger" into my "tone" and thus personalize it. Get over it man and if you can't then take it to PM's.

In your reply to Hardee

There's this :


And this :


Sounds pretty personal to me.

Ok... so his win is relevant to Republicans because he won a PRIMARY...

Look, people weren't going to vote for a separatist or a socialist. Hence the "republican" won, and he won BECAUSE he was neither a separatist nor a socialist. You yourself admitted that he wouldn't have won if he were running as a separatist, and that proves that you feel his electoral victory had more to do with the banner he was running under than his personal politics.

You should re-read your post and see just how hypocritical your stance is. You are the one trying to peg this elected official into something he is decidedly not -- an electoral success for the Republican party in the US.

(oh, and the ad homs have to stop).

Did Trumpy use the word "cosmopolitan"? I don't usually read all of his posts, but this caught my eye...

I recall a series of speeches, namely one by Giuliani, who said:

"I'm sorry that Barack Obama feels that her hometown isn't cosmopolitan enough."

Didn't the conservatives try to paint being cosmopolitan (along with many other things) as bad? Now it's good?

How can you join, contribute to a discussion when you have to rely on others that aren't so sensitive to quote those you ignore.

Wouldn't it be better for your sensibilities to find and join a forum where everyone is on the same page, boring as it may be.

Really, I don't get it.

I'll probably be on your ignore list now, if not already, geez.

My post has been edited to suggest what is more like reality. I try not to read- but do from time to time- many of those posts one, for their length, two for their often personal nature which detracts from any true discussion, whether he has a valid point or not. Lately lots of attacks have been included, which detracts from it all even more. I do not "rely" on others; there is a View Post button that I use from time to time.

I wonder if you remember this post, and the ones surrounding it?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=693

No, you're not on my list.

Exactly. Or as I might called it the "la la la I'm a five year old" list.

There are plenty of ways to add to a discussion, but personal attacks are not one of them.

Anyway, this is a thread about Sara, and the news has been slow the past few days. I'm waiting for any new bits; doubt they are too far off.

Yeah, your edited post is understandable to me now.
I have trouble getting through some of his soliloquies as well.

I remember my post and the ridiculous response it got.
He wasn't messing with us, just showed us his state of mind.

From a conservative source with a wishful-thinking name, The New Majority:

Palin's amazing wardrobe collection is in trashbags, courtesy of the GOP, to whom Palin did eventually return the clothes.

http://newmajority.com/ShowScroll.as...3-87b288789ed1

Everything she touches, turns to trash.

If Palin is the best the GOP has to offer in four years....