or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Here’s five reasons why, from a Conservative Prospective, Palin is not a good choice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Here’s five reasons why, from a Conservative Prospective, Palin is not a good choice

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
Here’s five reasons why, from a conservative perspective, Sarah Palin isn’t a very good pick as the GOP vice-presidential nominee.


1. Sarah Palin Supported a Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies as Governor
One of Barack Obama’s worst economic policies, from both my perspective and that of most conservatives, is his plan to place a “windfall profit tax” on domestic oil companies, and then use that money to provide a $1,000 “energy rebate” to American families. This plan has, rightly, been mostly derided by economists and by most Republicans on the national stage. However, as governor, Sarah Palin pushed through a plan that looked awfully similar.
Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska’s Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.

Palin’s administration last week gained legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help cope with gas prices, which are among the highest in the country.
This tax has already led to projects proposed by oil companies to be cancelled due to the fact that they are no longer cost-effective–a strange result from a candidate who is enthusiastically in favor of further oil exploration in Alaska.


2. As Mayor, Sarah Palin raised taxes for pet projects.
When Palin was the mayor of Wasilla, she was primarily a tax cutter–something she could afford to be because the town grew by leaps and bounds under her tenure. However, this self-described “hockey mom” did try to raise sales taxes in order to fund one of her pet projects: a new hockey complex for children in the area. Sure, that’s not an uncommon thing for a politician to do, but it is something problematic for a “conservative reformer” to do, isn’t it?

3. Sarah Palin is unfamiliar with American History
This might be construed as a cheap shot, but it’s worth pointing out. During her 2006 gubernatorial race, Sarah Palin completed a questionnaire for Alaska’s Eagle Forum–not exactly a hotbed of liberalism. Of particular interest is her answer to question 11:

11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
[Palin]: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
For those of you keeping score at home, the Pledge of Allegiance was written in the 1890’s, and the words “under God” were not added until the 1950s–well after all of the Founding Father’s were dead and buried. Her answer to the question, then, is either an example of appalling ignorance or a pathetic act of pandering. Either way, that’s not what conservatives want from their politicians, is it?


4. As a professional politician, Sarah Palin has evinced no interest in foreign policy
As far as I can tell on the research I have done, recorded evidence of Sarah Palin’s interest in foreign policy issues is pretty close to non-existent. Even on the Iraq war, the pre-eminent foreign policy issue right now, Palin has shown a rather incredible indifference. Take this interview, for example:

ABM: We’ve lost a lot of Alaska’s military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?

Palin: I’ve been so focused on state government, I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe.
Given the importance of foreign policy, this just doesn’t seem like the right choice for a commander-in-chief in waiting, does it?

5. Sarah Palin flat out lied to the American People in her campaign debut
When Sarah Palin accepted the vice-presidential nomination, she gave an acceptance speech that told America a little bit about herself. That speech included this tidbit:

And I’ve championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that “bridge to nowhere.” If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we’d build it ourselves.
That sounds great, right? But here’s the problem–Sarah Palin was, in fact, all for federal funds to build the build the bridge. Indeed, in 2006, Palin actually campaigned for it.

In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town’s prosperity.
She said she could feel the town’s pain at being derided as a “nowhere” by prominent politicians, noting that her home town, Wasilla, had recently been insulted by the state Senate president, Ben Stevens.

As it turns out, Palin didn’t “pull the plug” on the Bridge until it was clear that the federal funds that were going to be provided wouldn’t be enough to build the bridge without dipping into state coffers, too. It was only at that point that Palin pulled the plug on the bridge project. However, she didn’t pull the plug on the federal funds that came anyway. No, those she used to fund other pork barrel projects. For example, her administration built an access road to the bridge that was not going to be built. Literally, a “road to nowhere,” since the bridge is pretty much dead. Under Palin’s administration, she could have returned the money to the Federal Government. Instead, her administration chose to build a useless road. That’s “reform”? That’s “standing up to Congress”?

But here’s the real thing about this: Palin lied. She did not tell Congress Alaska didn’t want the money. Indeed, Alaska got the money–it just wasn’t enough to build the bridge. So in her speech, in what amounted to her national debut, she told a lie to make her administration look better than it actually was. Does that represent the values that conservatives want our political leaders to have? I doubt it.
* * *
Although Sarah Palin has a lot of things to recommend herself to conservatives and has done some good things in rooting out corruption, the fact of the matter is that a look at her record shows that her governing history hasn’t exemplified conservative values. She’s raised taxes, spent taxpayer dollars on pet projects, has evinced little interest in foreign affairs, and told a rather large self-aggrandizing lie at her first appearance on the national stage. Despite all the enthusiasm that many conservatives have for her, her record doesn’t show her to be much of one herself.

Source: http://www.hereticalideas.com/2008/0...t-sarah-palin/

So why do all you Conservative Republicans think she is a good choice?
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #2 of 55
I think she is a good choice because having read into every single one of those talking points, I can tell you that they are lies put out by the Obama campaign and his media smear surrogates.

Number 1 for example was not a windfall profits tax. The name on that legislation is a misnomer and was placed on that legislation during the Carter administration. Palin renegotiated it and it is an excise tax, not a profits tax.

Number 2 presumes that Republicans are against infrastructure which they are not. Palin did it the way it should be done. She did not tax the rich to fund a community project. She taxed everyone via sales tax. The project itself is infrastructure and the tax increase was used toward that purpose, not given away as an income transfer to the poor while she then comes around with her hand out again due to crumbling infrastructure.

Number 3, whether related to the pledge or not, the concept of separation of church and state was not what the founders envisioned. They freely sprinkled references to God througout government buildings, speeches, literature, you name it. In that context her answer makes perfect sense.

Number 4, most governors shouldn't show large interest in foreign policy nor should mayors. I want roads buillt and schools running, not them pondering how Bush should use our troops. If they are at the federal level that is different of course.

Number 5, she did kill the bridge. Arguing that the road was a bit twisty doesn't mean the final destination wasn't the same.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #3 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Number 5, she did kill the bridge. Arguing that the road was a bit twisty doesn't mean the final destination wasn't the same.


She flat out lied about the bridge to nowhere and then Alaska kept the money.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCan...080901?sp=true
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #4 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Number 3, whether related to the pledge or not, the concept of separation of church and state was not what the founders envisioned. They freely sprinkled references to God througout government buildings, speeches, literature, you name it. In that context her answer makes perfect sense.

She was asked a very specific question about a controversial clause in the US Pledge of Allegiance, and she gave an answer which belied any understanding of the current debate, and which incontrovertibly showed -- in context -- her assumption the clause was used by the US founding fathers.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #5 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Number 1 for example was not a windfall profits tax. The name on that legislation is a misnomer and was placed on that legislation during the Carter administration. Palin renegotiated it and it is an excise tax, not a profits tax.

Does that really change anything? Aren't conservatives all about reducing taxes on corporations to increase self-investment?

Quote:
Number 2 presumes that Republicans are against infrastructure which they are not. Palin did it the way it should be done. She did not tax the rich to fund a community project. She taxed everyone via sales tax. The project itself is infrastructure and the tax increase was used toward that purpose, not given away as an income transfer to the poor while she then comes around with her hand out again due to crumbling infrastructure.

Infrastructure is defined as the basic facilities needed for a community -- like roads, waste water treatment, prisons etc. Sports complexes don't fall under this large umbrella. They may be good for the community but they aren't and never have been infrastructure.

Quote:
Number 3, whether related to the pledge or not, the concept of separation of church and state was not what the founders envisioned. They freely sprinkled references to God througout government buildings, speeches, literature, you name it. In that context her answer makes perfect sense.

Can you really say that definitively, Nick? Most of the text, speeches (the founding fathers had little to do with buildings around today) of the founding fathers had no references to god at all. In fact, even references to god at the time would have been in the deist fashion (clockwork universe) which amounted to atheism (and still does to a large degree today). Regardless, she clearly didn't know what she was talking about, and your rationalizations are wearing thin.

Quote:
Number 4, most governors shouldn't show large interest in foreign policy nor should mayors. I want roads buillt and schools running, not them pondering how Bush should use our troops. If they are at the federal level that is different of course.

Yes, but Nick, while it may not be in their job description to take interest in foreign policy, the leap from a governorship at the level you suggest is perfectly acceptable to the vice presidency is absurd. Palin showed no interest in foreign relationships and yet certainly there are governors with more experience and time spent thinking about such interactions. It isn't merely enough to dismiss this as not a part of her old job as she is applying for a new one that heavily depends upon it...


Quote:
Number 5, she did kill the bridge. Arguing that the road was a bit twisty doesn't mean the final destination wasn't the same.

She didn't kill or send back the earmark. She even commented that she didn't want the bridge to be spun to non-existence because the earmark was about to be killed in congress. So while she may have killed the state funding for the bridge to nowhere, this decision has nothing at all to do with earmarks and provides absolutely no support to McCain's argument that they, together, are agents of change...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #6 of 55
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=trumptman;1307321]

Number 1 for example was not a windfall profits tax. The name on that legislation is a misnomer and was placed on that legislation during the Carter administration. Palin renegotiated it and it is an excise tax, not a profits tax.

You can call it what you want. It still looks like a windfall tax to me.

http://www.petroldaily.com/index.php...=558&Itemid=71
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #7 of 55
Jesus. Nick is saying that it's okay that Palin raised taxes because she taised taxes on the poor and middle class.

So Nick thinks raising taxes on the poor and middle class is "the proper way to pay for things". Mmmmkay.
post #8 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Number 1 for example was not a windfall profits tax. The name on that legislation is a misnomer and was placed on that legislation during the Carter administration. Palin renegotiated it and it is an excise tax, not a profits tax.

Renegotiated and increased the excise tax rates. In other words Palin raised taxes on the oil companies.

Quote:
Despite it's name, the "Windfall Profit Tax" is not a tax on profit but, in effect, a series of excise taxes on the difference between the selling prices and "base" for the various categories of oil under the Act.

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report No. 81-270, "THE CRUDE OIL WINDFALL PROFIT TAX ACT: CONTEXT AND CONTENT," by Bernard A. Gelb, Analyst in Industry Economics, Economics Division, December 17, 1981, p. 13.

This 1981 CRS report predates the 2006 CRS report by ~24+ years!

This language can also be sourced to newspapers like the NYT and WP circa 1979-80, where it was accurately reported as an excise tax even though the Act's title contained the word "Profit."

In other words, it was already a well known misnomer at the time of the Act's original passage into law.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #9 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo View Post

She flat out lied about the bridge to nowhere and then Alaska kept the money.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCan...080901?sp=true

So the claim is that the bridge project now still exists? She said she cancelled it. Is it not cancelled?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald View Post

She was asked a very specific question about a controversial clause in the US Pledge of Allegiance, and she gave an answer which belied any understanding of the current debate, and which incontrovertibly showed -- in context -- her assumption the clause was used by the US founding fathers.

First it isn't controversial. Second she proved that by stating that "under God" was good enough for the Founding Fathers. It wasn't included in the pledge but the religious phrases are used many times and in many places by them. The claim is that she was addressing when the phrase was added but to most it would appear she is addressing the reasoning that allowed it to be added. It was reasoning that was "good enough for the founders." She wasn't asked about the origins of the phrase but whether the phrase was offensive. Taking an answer that address offense and applying it to origins is a logical leap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Does that really change anything? Aren't conservatives all about reducing taxes on corporations to increase self-investment?

It depends upon the tax. The taxes that conservatives resent the most strongly are double and triple taxation. With the excise tax, the gas corporations are paying money to us for being allowed to extract a natural resource. Then then pay a second tax on the profits from selling this oil that they already paid a tax on. The windfall profits tax would be yet an additional tax on top of the tax on profits because they made too much money. It would also be after the corporations had rendered all their decisions and choices and would just be a big "gotcha." Bunge used to put this best and was very honest about it. He said he wanted a tax every time money changed hands. Most conservatives are of the view that if the money has changed hands in certain times or manners and has already been taxed, it ought not be taxed again for second or third time.

Quote:
Infrastructure is defined as the basic facilities needed for a community -- like roads, waste water treatment, prisons etc. Sports complexes don't fall under this large umbrella. They may be good for the community but they aren't and never have been infrastructure.

Parks and recreation facilities have been party of the the infrastructure of every community I have ever lived in.

Quote:
Can you really say that definitively, Nick? Most of the text, speeches (the founding fathers had little to do with buildings around today) of the founding fathers had no references to god at all. In fact, even references to god at the time would have been in the deist fashion (clockwork universe) which amounted to atheism (and still does to a large degree today). Regardless, she clearly didn't know what she was talking about, and your rationalizations are wearing thin.

Characterizing my rationalizations doesn't change the fact that the founders did advocate against a state religion, but not against the absence of religion. Palin addresses that. There is nothing in her statement that suggests she is origins instead of offense which is what the question is addressing.

Quote:
Yes, but Nick, while it may not be in their job description to take interest in foreign policy, the leap from a governorship at the level you suggest is perfectly acceptable to the vice presidency is absurd. Palin showed no interest in foreign relationships and yet certainly there are governors with more experience and time spent thinking about such interactions. It isn't merely enough to dismiss this as not a part of her old job as she is applying for a new one that heavily depends upon it...

Exactly how would she have shown interest in it since you declare that she has not shown interest in it? She has taken trips abroad in her two years as governor. She didn't when she was mayor but really, what sense would that make? Is she supposed to be giving speeches about Iraq at a national convention she hasn't been invited to yet? Obama claimed he was against the war but couldn't vote on it yet. Do you think Palin is obscuring her position on the war? What exactly do you think she should have done to show interest as a governor or mayor?

Quote:
She didn't kill or send back the earmark. She even commented that she didn't want the bridge to be spun to non-existence because the earmark was about to be killed in congress. So while she may have killed the state funding for the bridge to nowhere, this decision has nothing at all to do with earmarks and provides absolutely no support to McCain's argument that they, together, are agents of change...

Using money for a better purpose is still a reform. It isn't binary. There is no bridge there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Jesus. Nick is saying that it's okay that Palin raised taxes because she taised taxes on the poor and middle class.

So Nick thinks raising taxes on the poor and middle class is "the proper way to pay for things". Mmmmkay.

I like sales tax. It is raised on everyone and cannot be escaped. I like taxes that do not take people off the tax rolls. I also like consumption taxes. I've complained that a very large disagreement I have with most conservatives and specifically with Bush is that you do not take people off the tax rolls. Once that happens, they realize they can vote for goodies that are paid for by other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Renegotiated and increased the excise tax rates. In other words Palin raised taxes on the oil companies.

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report No. 81-270, "THE CRUDE OIL WINDFALL PROFIT TAX ACT: CONTEXT AND CONTENT," by Bernard A. Gelb, Analyst in Industry Economics, Economics Division, December 17, 1981, p. 13.

This 1981 CRS report predates the 2006 CRS report by ~24+ years!

This language can also be sourced to newspapers like the NYT and WP circa 1979-80, where it was accurately reported as an excise tax even though the Act's title contained the word "Profit."

In other words, it was already a well known misnomer at the time of the Act's original passage into law.

Thank you for sourcing that for me. I appreciate your efforts.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #10 of 55
More people would read and respond to the first post if it was formatted properly.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #11 of 55
Nick, the reason some people don't like sales tax, and consider it a regressive tax, is because poor people spend a far higher percentage of their income on purchases that are subject to such taxes, and thus a far higher percentage of their income is taxed.

How do you suggest evening that out?

It does seem like you prefer the poor to be taxed not the same as the rich -- but more than the rich.
post #12 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Nick, the reason intelligent people don't like sales tax, and consider it a regressive tax, is because poor people spend a far higher percentage of their income on purchases that are subject to such taxes, and thus a far higher percentage of their income is taxed.

How do you suggest evening that out?

It does seem like you prefer the poor to be taxed not the same as the rich -- but more than the rich.

Sales tax has been voted down here in Oregon since I was a boy for that very reason. That and the fact that it's being sold ( everytime ) as something that will give us relief from our high property tax. However everyone knows that in the end the property tax would remain high and we'd have the sales tax on top of it. In other words just another tax.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #13 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Nick, the reason intelligent people don't like sales tax, and consider it a regressive tax, is because poor people spend a far higher percentage of their income on purchases that are subject to such taxes, and thus a far higher percentage of their income is taxed.

How do you suggest evening that out?

It does seem like you prefer the poor to be taxed not the same as the rich -- but more than the rich.

I know what a sales tax is and I know what each side of the political spectrum is likely to think about it. I addressed it within the confines of the thread topic and do not wish to drag the topic in a different direction. The question was about a conservative perspective and taxes that are more flat, uniform, and consumption based are often favored most by conservatives. I know you have disagreements with such a tax. (You shouldn't label that disagreement as intelligence though as that is an attack.) The thread wasn't about why you would have a disagreement with the tax. It is why I would have a disagreement, and I don't have that disagreement. I don't think most conservatives would either unless tax increases are simply bad no matter the cause.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I know what a sales tax is and I know what each side of the political spectrum is likely to think about it. I addressed it within the confines of the thread topic and do not wish to drag the topic in a different direction. The question was about a conservative perspective and taxes that are more flat, uniform, and consumption based are often favored most by conservatives. I know you have disagreements with such a tax. (You shouldn't label that disagreement as intelligence though as that is an attack.) The thread wasn't about why you would have a disagreement with the tax. It is why I would have a disagreement, and I don't have that disagreement. I don't think most conservatives would either unless tax increases are simply bad no matter the cause.

Nick, it is a fact that a sales tax is a heavier burden on the poor and middle class than it is on the rich. It is not a difference of opinion.

It's not "more flat". Neither one is flat.

Please answer this question...

Do "conservatives" think that a tax that burdens the poor more than the rich (in terms of percentage of income) is "more fair" than a tax that burdens the rich more than the poor?

I'd love a truthful response, not changing the subject, and if your answer is "yes" then an explanation of how it is "more fair".

Thank you.
post #15 of 55
Sounds like a good thread. Start it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #16 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Sounds like a good thread. Start it.

Sounds like you don't want to answer the question. You start it.
post #17 of 55
So much for "Family Values".

It's becoming more and more clear that Wasilla is a drugged out Mayberry.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thed...l-palin-f.html

Thank God this woman, who obviously cannot raise her own children, is no longer on the national stage. Once her governorship is over, hello Obscurity, Alaska. Do you think Palin will build a "bridge to obscurity"?
post #18 of 55
"Well I thought your moms waz gunna be president or something. Forget this now.... I prolly ain't even your baby daddy."

"But Levi! We was gonna name him after some Bible person like Habakuk or Ezequiel or like Jesus brother Moses!"
post #19 of 55
This family will continue to entertain us for years to come.

When the dad-to-be was paraded as he was, he just didn't look right; I think the break-up was actually some time ago but they kept the image going for a while so it would blow over.

Wonder what O'Reilly will have to say...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #20 of 55
This past election really opened my eyes to just how much further away from our Constitutional roots both parties are taking us. I support a return to Constitutional Government, and Palin's policies indicate no such intentions on her part. That's why I didn't vote for either major party ticket.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #21 of 55
I'm just curious: Are you steve666?
post #22 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I think she is a good choice because having read into every single one of those talking points, I can tell you that they are lies put out by the Obama campaign and his media smear surrogates.

As this stands, you think she is a good choice 'cause folks lie about her. Not a ringing endorsement, in my opinion.

I know what her people let me know and what her challengers claim, but the bottom line for me is, she's kinda weird and gives off a creepy kinda impression...like her beliefs form her position on the issues and not facts she's gathered. Perhaps if she had been more active in the media before being thrown in the spotlight I'd not have the reservations I do.

As far as her inexperience, well, that's something she shares with our president and I'm not comfortable with that either. I prefer a known quantity in positions of leadership.
post #23 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

I'm just curious: Are you steve666?

No, I am jazzguru. I am new to the AI forums.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #24 of 55
Hey let's all talk about Palin and ignore the long range missile test from North Korea.

How's that on the job training working out? Let's hope well.
post #25 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Hey let's all talk about Palin and ignore the long range missile test from North Korea.l.

If the world's preeminent superpower brands a nation as a member of a 3 member "Axis Of Evil", and one of those members of that "Axis of Evil" gets bombed into the stone age by that preeminent superpower helped by a coalition of the coerced, "justified" on a basis of outright lies and fabrications which nobody bothered checking out beforehand because it was politically incorrect (or some other lame excuse), then its hardly surprising that the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil get some rather more radical means of self defense organized before they too get bombed to hell and back. Follow the money: Hostility is more profitable than communication for corporate welfare queens re. public expenditure in the military/intelligence and security sectors.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #26 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

If the world's preeminent superpower brands a nation as a member of a 3 member "Axis Of Evil", and one of those members of that "Axis of Evil" gets bombed into the stone age by that preeminent superpower helped by a coalition of the coerced, "justified" on a basis of outright lies and fabrications which nobody bothered checking out beforehand because it was politically incorrect (or some other lame excuse), then its hardly surprising that the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil get some rather more radical means of self defense organized before they too get bombed to hell and back. Follow the money: Hostility is more profitable than communication for corporate welfare queens re. public expenditure in the military/intelligence and security sectors.

Um yea! How do you feel about the communist utopia and prison country known as North Korea? They were a big fluffy kitten before Teh Bush Regime radicalized them! Fucking Bush Palin Rush!


Everyone but Obama!
post #27 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Hey let's all talk about Palin and ignore the long range missile test from North Korea.

How's that on the job training working out? Let's hope well.

You've done this several times now.

If you want to discuss whatever it is you think we all should be discussing, then start a new thread topic to further that discussion.

But don't expect too much in the form of replies, as the maggots have pretty much finished off the PO carcass.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #28 of 55
I like that reasoning. I think Obama will probably run on that in 2012.

Obama: Helping the maggots finish of the American carcass.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #29 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I like that reasoning. I think Obama will probably run on that in 2012.

Obama: Helping the maggots finish of the American carcass.

He certainly won't be able to use "change".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #30 of 55
He will but it will just have a different form by then.

Obama: He will give you hope and some spare change!

See how that works?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #31 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You've done this several times now.

If you want to discuss whatever it is you think we all should be discussing, then start a new thread topic to further that discussion.

But don't expect too much in the form of replies, as the maggots have pretty much finished off the PO carcass.

Please. Floorjack's style is to do drive-by postings and make quick political pot shots. And that's about the extent of his political acuity. To expect more is an exercise in disappointment. Kinda like the mainstream conservative media.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I like that reasoning. I think Obama will probably run on that in 2012.

Obama: Helping the maggots finish of the American carcass.

That's all conservatives have these days. Unbridled rage at phantom ghosts.

Sad really.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #33 of 55
One thing we know for sure about Pallin and her family. They certainly cannot seem to keep their family issues to themselves. To issue a press release about Levi's appearance on that stupid television show and word it they way they did shows how non-savvy these people are.

Her political stock drops daily every time the Pallin family "values" get exposed for what they are regardless of how religiously haute they get.

I hope she chokes on that stimulus money she said no thanks to and took anyway. Kinda like that bridge to nowhere.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

One thing we know for sure about Pallin and her family. They certainly cannot seem to keep their family issues to themselves. To issue a press release about Levi's appearance on that stupid television show and word it they way they did shows how non-savvy these people are.

Her political stock drops daily every time the Pallin family "values" get exposed for what they are regardless of how religiously haute they get.

I hope she chokes on that stimulus money she said no thanks to and took anyway. Kinda like that bridge to nowhere.

I believe our leaders must be held to high standards, both in public and private life. How they run their family and private lives is a pretty good indication of how they will run their public office.

To me, Palin was nothing more than a pitiful attempt to pander to those who like to put people into categories of race, gender, religion, etc. in hopes of winning their vote.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #35 of 55
You know I find it kind of sad that no one has stepped up and called the media out on their clear personal attacks that push right into misogyny. During the campaign the media dove right into personal crap that would clearly be off limits for any other candidate. (There plenty of talk of them hiding video of Biden's daughter doing coke on rumor blogs right now) Obama himself said families were off-limits.

The justification, especially by many on here was that there was a campaign in progress and since the fate of the possible free world hung in the balance, the rules go out the window. (In a double bit of irony, these are the same folks who are most strident in claiming pretty much anything is torture and pressing for time sensitive information is never an excuse.)

Well here we are in April and the only thing people can still seem to keep talking about with regard to Palin is whomever they can find in Alaska to trash her and her family personally.

I'm still waiting to see the ex-boy/girlfriend of Biden's adult children on air not airing any professional or even policy objections or disagreements, but just talking about how the Biden's are, you know... stuck-up assholes or something like that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #36 of 55
If I recall correctly, it was Sara Palin herself who pushed her daughter onto the world stage to defend herself (Sara) against various question about her children. She certainly didn't treat her own family as off-limits. Once again, hypocrisy at its best. Anything for personal gain.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #37 of 55
That reasoning is about as rational as declaring someone violent for kneeing their rapist in the balls.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #38 of 55
It is quite ridiculous, isn't it? There is such a blatantly obvious double standard in play, here. During the whole Clinton/Lewinski thing, we were supposed to believe that what goes on in the private lives of politicians doesn't matter--that he's human and fallible and we're just supposed to forget about it and let him do his job.

Does anyone honestly believe these same people siding with Clinton would have used that same rationalization if "W" had been found to be cheating with an intern, and then lied under oath to Congress about it?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

stuck-up assholes or something like that.

Speak for yourself.

Though Biden has faults as any other person/family/profession, his doesn't compare to the vagina/clowncar/train wreck that the Palins have.

And yet her mouth still utters useless garbage.

Quote:
I know the agony the senator has felt, and nothing can change what he has gone through or the loss of his Senate seat, which meant the world to him and virtually as much to Alaska. There's no way he can just put this behind him as some have suggested he should. Senator Stevens is a resilient man and I hope that he will continue to make a contribution to Alaska and the nation.

Agree to disagree. Or get one of your PO boy toys to reiterate.

post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

It is quite ridiculous, isn't it? There is such a blatantly obvious double standard in play, here. During the whole Clinton/Lewinski thing, we were supposed to believe that what goes on in the private lives of politicians doesn't matter--that he's human and fallible and we're just supposed to forget about it and let him do his job.

Does anyone honestly believe these same people siding with Clinton would have used that same rationalization if "W" had been found to be cheating with an intern, and then lied under oath to Congress about it?

It goes beyond ridiculous. It is outright crap. It just shows why I still am conservative even though the Republican Party hasn't acted that way to the degree it should.

I mean there are areas where I am either in agreement with many progressives but their tools of the trade have become so damaging. It is all mocking, ad-homs, veiled threats and a whole lot of -isms tossed in for good measure.

So for example I support gay marriage, but I don't support calling anyone who disagrees a homophobe, a religious nut, nor would I support using public disclosure databases to threaten or harass them at their place of work or their home. I could share some beliefs with them if they didn't keep changing for political expediency.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Here’s five reasons why, from a Conservative Prospective, Palin is not a good choice