Will Sarah Palin be elected President of the US in 2012?

[Vuk]

I sure as heck hope/think so. ~;) That gal is awesome! Time to shatter that glass ceiling!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No. I would support Bobby Jindal. Sarah Palin has already been painted as an incompetent by a media which is obviously hostile to her. Choosing her would not be a smart choice. She will not win. Neither of the no options apply to me though, because I am neither for or against her.

[Vuk]

No. I would support Bobby Jindal. Sarah Palin has already been painted as an incompetent by a media which is obviously hostile to her. Choosing her would not be a smart choice. She will not win. Neither of the no options apply to me though, because I am neither for or against her.

Yeah, the media can scream their heads off all they want, people are not completely stupid. Palin as already off to a great start clearing her name. Conservatives love her, I even know former Democrats who support her just because they hate the way the current regime is taking things. I would say that she has at least a 50/50 chance at winning. Not because the odds are in her favor (they are anything but), but because she is so good at overcoming odds. You can bet your pretty little behind that she will have my vote. :yes:

And BTW, if neither of the choices fit you, then just vote "Vuk is God". ~;)

[HoreTore]

If she does, I'm moving to Mars.

[Vuk]

If she does, I'm moving to Mars.

I'll send you a postcard then. ~;)

(but it will be COD ~;))


EDIT: And what, are you afraid that her and her herd of gun toting, Bible thumping conservatives will invade your little peninsula? ~;) Honestly, if you are afraid of large scale global conflict, it is Obama I would be afraid of. His diplomacy is downright scary. :P

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No. She isn't very popular. She's in the news a lot, but so is tiger woods and he isn't going to be elected president.

[Vuk]

No. She isn't very popular. She's in the news a lot, but so is tiger woods and he isn't going to be elected president.

Did you see how many people went to her book signings? I'd say she is pretty popular. :P
EDIT: and Wisconsin is not a very conservative place, but the conservatives I know around here are really excited about Palin. Also, I know a lot of people on the fence ready to jump either way. I say give her more time to play her cards and you may just find that she is a lot more popular than you think.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Did you see how many people went to her book signings? I'd say she is pretty popular. :P

Tiger can tons of votes just by sending out a text message.

[Vuk]

Tiger can tons of votes just by sending out a text message.
No one even thinks that he will run though and people do not like him for his political appeal. I do not think that it is a fair example. You could have explained away Obama's popularity during the 2008 campaign the same way.

EDIT: Anyway, she has something that America really craves right now, common sense. She is a hardworking, real person who is very much in touch with the common man and woman. She is also highly intelligent and has smart, common sense sollutions. People are tired of the reckless and ridiculous policies that Obama's administration (and to an extent, Bush's) has been pushing. It is time for Change, and she is that Change. ~;)


EDIT 2: She also has an uncanny optimism that is very encouraging and appealing. I would not underestimate that.

[Beskar]

Not only has Sarah Palin already been painted as an incompetent by a media, she is also actually incompetent.

[Subotan]

I sure as heck hope/think so. ~;) That gal is awesome! Time to shatter that glass ceiling!

I take it you were a Hillary supporter then.

[Vuk]

I take it you were a Hillary supporter then.

Nah, I honestly do not give a crap about someone's gender. What I care about is if they are a good person and a good leader. I just like teasing the libs who like to pretend that that is really important to them. ~;)

EDIT: Let me rephrase that, I actually do have an interest in her gender. I think that it is important that everyone, including women know that they are just as free as anyone else to participate in the political process, and are not looked down on because of their gender. I think that if the first ever female President of the United States was an idiot, corrupt, etc it would make people doubt the ability of women to handle such a position. I think that it is important that the first woman be as good as the best man (Reagan), and I think Palin fits that ticket. It does not and never would effect my decision to vote. I will always vote for who I think is most fit for the job, but that is an awesome added bonus that I think will be beneficial for all women in changing the way that they are perceived.

[Ice]

No, and if she was elected, I'd hope someone would kill her for the good of the entire world. The lady has no business running as mayor of a town of 50 people.

[HoreTore]

I'll send you a postcard then. ~;)

(but it will be COD ~;))


EDIT: And what, are you afraid that her and her herd of gun toting, Bible thumping conservatives will invade your little peninsula? ~;) Honestly, if you are afraid of large scale global conflict, it is Obama I would be afraid of. His diplomacy is downright scary. :P

Environmental policies decided in the US affects the rest of the globe, including me.
Financial policies decided in the US affects everyone else, including me.
Idiotic wars started by the US affect everyone else, including me.

And finally, there's the issue of simple influence; the president of the US holds a lot of it, and it seems that the more right-wing the republicans turn, our right-wing parties follow suit and become much more radical. If I have to suffer the retardedness of the Progress Party, I would surely prefer a toned-down version of it. The more liberal the US President is, the more likely they are to behave themselves as grown-ups.

And Obama? He's wrapping up two idiotic and failed wars started by Palin's ilk. Now which one would I prefer....hmmm.....:idea2:

Oh, and I fully support Obama getting the peace prize, so.... No, I consider his diplomacy a true blessing opposed to the non-existant diplomacy we had with Bush and will have with Palin.

EDIT: There's also the fact that Palin is a gibbering moron. And a gibbering moron is quite capable of screwing over an economy. And if there's one thing the world does not need, it's a failed US economy. Even though I just had a blast at eBay, those dollars are like monopoly money now....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If she does, I'm moving to Mars.

You wouldn't believe how hard it is to get a visa.

[Captain Blackadder]

No she will never ever get elected in America. She is a whole lot of nothing in political terms she lies to try and make herself look better. I.E She was actually for the so called bridge to no where when in Alaska but when she made the national stage she was suddenly againest it. She lacks substane he being picked in the primaries would be the greatest thing for the democratic party she would lose in a mondale style rout. What the republicans need is another Teddy Roosevelt not another George Bush which is all Palin is.

[Vuk]

No, and if she was elected, I'd hope someone would kill her for the good of the entire world. The lady has no business running as mayor of a town of 50 people.

First of all let me say that that is just sick and wrong of you Ice. In fact, it is degenerate and evil. I have a very strong dislike for Obama as a President and as a person, but I would never in my life condone any acts of violence against him. (even if just for the respect of his office alone)
I really hope that that was a twisted joke of some kind.



Environmental policies decided in the US affects the rest of the globe, including me.
Financial policies decided in the US affects everyone else, including me.
Idiotic wars started by the US affect everyone else, including me.

And finally, there's the issue of simple influence; the president of the US holds a lot of it, and it seems that the more right-wing the republicans turn, our right-wing parties follow suit and become much more radical. If I have to suffer the retardedness of the Progress Party, I would surely prefer a toned-down version of it. The more liberal the US President is, the more likely they are to behave themselves as grown-ups.

And Obama? He's wrapping up two idiotic and failed wars started by Palin's ilk. Now which one would I prefer....hmmm.....:idea2:

Oh, and I fully support Obama getting the peace prize, so.... No, I consider his diplomacy a true blessing opposed to the non-existant diplomacy we had with Bush and will have with Palin.

EDIT: There's also the fact that Palin is a gibbering moron. And a gibbering moron is quite capable of screwing over an economy. And if there's one thing the world does not need, it's a failed US economy. Even though I just had a blast at eBay, those dollars are like monopoly money now....

Yeah, I know what you mean. Like Obama's Cap and Trade and other proposed environmental policies that will ruin the entire US economy and have massive implication for the rest of the world. (and a weak US would know doubt greatly increase the chances of large scale wars)
And yeah, Obama really deserves the peace prize for accomplishing...what now? Yeah, nothing at all. As I said above, I have no love for the man, but if he deserved the prize I would say give it to him. All he has earned now is a lot of laughter and crying.
Palin a moron? LOL, no offense, but she is probably a lot smarter than the both of us.

[HoreTore]

You wouldn't believe how hard it is to get a visa.

For you, yes.... But that's because you're german, and that's a punishment because your people killed Jesus.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

First of all let me say that that is just sick and wrong of you Ice. In fact, it is degenerate and evil. I have a very strong dislike for Obama as a President and as a person, but I would never in my life condone any acts of violence against him. (even if just for the respect of his office alone)
I really hope that that was a twisted joke of some kind.


Yes, you're actually upset about that comment vuk, I can tell.

[Vuk]

No she will never ever get elected in America. She is a whole lot of nothing in political terms she lies to try and make herself look better. I.E She was actually for the so called bridge to no where when in Alaska but when she made the national stage she was suddenly againest it. She lacks substane he being picked in the primaries would be the greatest thing for the democratic party she would lose in a mondale style rout. What the republicans need is another Teddy Roosevelt not another George Bush which is all Palin is.

Actually no, any comparison between Bush and Palin is decidedly to Bush's disadvantage. (which is not to say that Bush was an esp bad President, I think he was more around average) Also, while Teddy Roosevelt had admirable qualities, he was quite frankly a corrupt ***** in many respects.
I think that you like to think that she will amount to nothing. Seriously, everyone says that she will not clear a hurdle, then she does and they are like "Ok, but she will not clear the next one!". We are 54 hurdles down the road and everyone is still saying it. I don't have to argue it with you, she will prove you wrong for me. ~;)

[Vuk]

Yes, you're actually upset about that comment vuk, I can tell.

Why shouldn't I be?

[HoreTore]

And yeah, Obama really deserves the peace prize(wrong, it's the Nobel Peace Prize, not the Peace Prize) for accomplishing...what now? Yeah, nothing at all. As I said above, I have no love for the man, but if he deserved the prize I would say give it to him. All he has earned now is a lot of laughter and crying.

I've stated my views on the Nobel Peace Prize at length in the relevant thread. I don't feel like repeating myself a billion times, but I suggest you read Jaglands reasoning for giving him the prize, and also take a look at Nobel's will to see what it's actually all about. In short however; yes, Obama has fulfilled all three conditions, and I have yet to see someone who has done more on all three conditions this year. Obama is actually a proper winner, it's the human rights activist winners of the last decade who are the questionable ones.


Palin a moron? LOL, no offense, but she is probably a lot smarter than the both of us.

No offense, but I highly doubt that. Evidence? The Katie Curic interview. Also, what was it she studied again? Communication? I have to confess, I have an extreme prejudice against anyone in that business....

[Louis VI the Fat]

I predict the ultra-conservatives will prevent the GOP from being able to run more than a hotdog stand for some time to come. :sweatdrop:



As for Palin, she was propelled to the national stage for reasons of demographic and representative expediency. You were never supposed to take her seriously.
Alas, both herself and her fans strangely do.

Ah well, I guess that other running mate / poster boy, Dan Quayle, still believes he is really fit for the presidency to(e)*.



* I'll let Quayle and his fans puzzle on that 'e'.

[Vuk]

No offense, but I highly doubt that. Evidence? The Katie Curic interview. Also, what was it she studied again? Communication? I have to confess, I have an extreme prejudice against anyone in that business....

The Katie Couric interview was a less than stellar moment for Palin, I freely admit. However, keep in mind that Palin makes a good case in her book that they selectively put clips together to make Palin look as bad as possible. They took her stumbling and put it together in a way to make her look stupid. She misunderstood a question in an interview (and she was completely sleep deprived at that time too), does that make her dumb? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that she is not extremely intelligent? No it also doesn't.

[Watchman]

If the Conservatives actually are "getting excited" about Sarah Failin', they must be very desperate indeed.
Mind you it's not like I exactly weep every time they shoot themselves in the foot.

[Vuk]

I predict the ultra-conservatives will prevent the GOP from being able to run more than a hotdog stand for some time to come. :sweatdrop:



As for Palin, she was propelled to the national stage for reasons of demographic and representative expediency. You were never supposed to take her seriously.
Alas, both herself and her fans strangely do.

Ah well, I guess that other running mate / poster boy, Dan Quayle, still believes he is really fit for the presidency to(e)*.



* I'll let Quayle and his fans puzzle on that 'e'.

First of all, the GOP is a conservative party. You can trace all its faults to it trying to be something else. If a liberal does not like it, then they can join the Democratic party. There is no such thing as a lukewarm conservative or a quasi conservative. You either are or are not, period. It does not mean that you have to agree on everything, but you need the same core values. There are too many people in the party who do not. (Bush being one of them ~;))

And why do you call her supporters fans? Why not supporters like you call the supporters of every candidate? Even when Barack Obama had people crying, fainting, yelling that they were in love with him, etc they were refered to by the media as supporters, yet the media (and people on this board) dubb Palin supporters as 'fans', as if they are just emotional and going through a fad, and not to be taken seriously. Have the goodness to say supporters please.

[Husar]

Why shouldn't I be?

Question of the day? :dizzy2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's because she's not taken seriously, Vuk.

I'm not completely sold on her being a "moran" and I think Bush actually went senile in Office, take a look at 2001 and 2008, you can see the difference.

At the end of the day Palin is ignorant, and is not clever enough to realise it. That alone means she's not clever enough to lock horns with world-leaders, and her inability to stand up to journalists further demonstrates her unsuitibility.

[KukriKhan]

Do you think she will run (or try to run) as a Republican? Through all the Primaries and Caucuses?

Or will she try to start a new Party? And who would she pick, you think, as her VP running mate (the person to replace her in case Ice has his way).

[Vuk]

It's because she's not taken seriously, Vuk.

I'm not completely sold on her being a "moran" and I think Bush actually went senile in Office, take a look at 2001 and 2008, you can see the difference.

At the end of the day Palin is ignorant, and is not clever enough to realise it. That alone means she's not clever enough to lock horns with world-leaders, and her inability to stand up to journalists further demonstrates her unsuitibility.

Don't forget Philipvs that most of what you know about her is from her time being shackled in the McCain camp. She was very restricted and they tried to control her a lot. She admitted that she did not know nearly as much as she would have liked about foreign policy and has been spending lots of her time educating herself. I don't think it is that she has a big head, but that she is determined. You should read her book. My sis has it and told me a lot from it. Over break I am gonna read it myself.

[Vuk]

Do you think she will run (or try to run) as a Republican? Through all the Primaries and Caucuses?

Or will she try to start a new Party? And who would she pick, you think, as her VP running mate (the person to replace her in case Ice has his way).

I don't know. I think that she would probably have a better chance as a Republican, but she is a much better judge of her political options than I am. If she started a new party based on the values she has espoused I would support it (EDIT: Probably...depending on who the repubs were running. While I think Palin is the best there is out there, if she did not stand a chance I would support the next best that did. I do though, think it very possible that she would have a chance. Only time will tell I guess). The Republican party has become completely useless in the last few decades, so real conservatives feel like they do not have a place to fit in (I for instance am not a republican, but am certainly a conservative).
As far as her running mate, I think that will speak volumes about her ability to lead and her intelligence. I at least judge candidates a lot on who they pick as their running mate. I have no idea who she will pick, and will not even attempt to guess. I think she is smart enough to make a really good choice, but time will tell.

[Watchman]

You know I was always under the impression she was a major millstone around McCain's neck. Certainly a lot of folks here I chatted about the US election with, back in the day, could have reluctantly swallowed McCain, but Palin ? BIG NO. Dunno how well that relates to US voters, but it does tell something.

[Vuk]

You know I was always under the impression she was a major millstone around McCain's neck. Certainly a lot of folks here I chatted about the US election with, back in the day, could have reluctantly swallowed McCain, but Palin ? BIG NO.

It is different in the US though. McCain was sunk, a no one, completely stuck in a rut until Palin came and got her out. If it were not for him and his staffers trying to control her and turn her into someone who she was not, he probably would have won. Honestly, I think McCain was jealous of her popularity.

[Captain Blackadder]

How so taking out Bushs presidency before he became President he had a much better CV then Palin lets compare

Education

Bush Harvard Business School earned an MBA (Only us President to do so)
Palin Universty of Idaho whilst it is a fine Universty not quite up to Havard Levels.

Pre Political Life
Bush Air National Guard, Ran small Oil Company and the Texas Rangers
Palin Beauty Queen Sportscaster in small time networks

First Political Job Attempts
Bush Narrow lose in 19th District Congress would have have 600,000 people he lost by 6% of the vote
Palin City Council of Wasilla one of the smallest towns in the United States she won with 552 votes

Second Political Job
Bush Governer of Texas one of the largest states in terms of size and population also one of the states with the most money
Palin Mayor of Wasilla.

Governerships
Bush is relectecd in 1998 with a record 69% of the vote
Palin becomes Governer of Alaska with 48% of the vote

Now as far as I can tell the comparison is favourable to bush.

Here is how Bush spoke before he was President

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

Now compare to Palin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heAibiOJ5NE

Now looking at it the comparison is favourable to Bush.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You know I was always under the impression she was a major millstone around McCain's neck. Certainly a lot of folks here I chatted about the US election with, back in the day, could have reluctantly swallowed McCain, but Palin ? BIG NO. Dunno how well that relates to US voters, but it does tell something.

Well McCain was ahead in the polls after she was nominated until McCain said "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" (or something similar) about the same day Bear Stearns crashed.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is different in the US though. McCain was sunk, a no one, completely stuck in a rut until Palin came and got her out. If it were not for him and his staffers trying to control her and turn her into someone who she was not, he probably would have won. Honestly, I think McCain was jealous of her popularity.

Whist this may have been true amongst the religious Right, it was not true with the majoriety of Americans. They were horrified by her in many cases, and even more so by her fans, and I use that phrase deliberately.

One quote that's stuck with me, from a middle aged father, "Woo! She's Hot".

[CountArach]

No. There is no way she could win back enough electoral votes. The oly advantage she would have would be in the south and given the surge in the black vote that is likely to re-occur in the 2012 election even this could be negligible.

I sure as heck hope/think so. ~;) That gal is awesome! Time to shatter that glass ceiling!
Notice how conservatives didn't mention the glass ceiling until Sarah Palin was mentioned and suddenly she is the champion of feminism, and women were claimed for the right wing. Neither is true. But whatever, that is slightly off-topic.

Palin as already off to a great start clearing her name. Conservatives love her, I even know former Democrats who support her just because they hate the way the current regime is taking things. I would say that she has at least a 50/50 chance at winning.
You clearly are utterly incapable of reading and understanding polling data. She has a -6 net (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-palin.php) unfavourability rating and very few undecideds (And hence very little wiggle room). This is compared to -2 net (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-romney.php) for Romney and +5 net (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-huckabee.php) for Huckabee (+3 net for Obama (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php)). This means that, even if she somehow wins the party primary (I'm sceptical, though I think it is possible) she has to convince a public that already dislikes her and thinks she is unqualified (as data shows) that she is worth electing President.

Did you see how many people went to her book signings? I'd say she is pretty popular. :P
Yes, but not in the right circles. She has the votes of conservatives... but Independents still don't like her.

EDIT: Anyway, she has something that America really craves right now, common sense. She is a hardworking, real person who is very much in touch with the common man and woman. She is also highly intelligent and has smart, common sense sollutions. People are tired of the reckless and ridiculous policies that Obama's administration (and to an extent, Bush's) has been pushing. It is time for Change, and she is that Change. ~;)
I'm going to admit right out. These are the points at which I laughed... really hard.

EDIT 2: She also has an uncanny optimism that is very encouraging and appealing. I would not underestimate that.
And Obama doesn't? You seem to be assuming she isn't running against anyone.

EDIT: Let me rephrase that, I actually do have an interest in her gender. I think that it is important that everyone, including women know that they are just as free as anyone else to participate in the political process, and are not looked down on because of their gender. I think that if the first ever female President of the United States was an idiot, corrupt, etc it would make people doubt the ability of women to handle such a position. I think that it is important that the first woman be as good as the best man (Reagan), and I think Palin fits that ticket. It does not and never would effect my decision to vote. I will always vote for who I think is most fit for the job, but that is an awesome added bonus that I think will be beneficial for all women in changing the way that they are perceived.
Weren't you one of the ones complaining about people voting for Obama whilst using his race as a justification because you just described why that would be fine. Also the highlighted bit shows why we need a female feminist to come to power somewhere. You seem to take it that the word "everyone" could be construed as "excluding women", and hence the need for a linguistic change is palpable. By a feminist coming to power this change will be accelerated as the discourse of gender power relations is inverted. A female who is not a feminist will not have this same ability as she will still frame discourse in masculinist terms.

I fear I may have wandered from the point again though.

And Obama? He's wrapping up two idiotic and failed wars started by Palin's ilk. Now which one would I prefer....hmmm.....:idea2:
Actually he is still perpetuating one of them and has only finished-up Iraq.

Palin a moron? LOL, no offense, but she is probably a lot smarter than the both of us.
Speak for yourself.

It is different in the US though. McCain was sunk, a no one, completely stuck in a rut until Palin came and got her out. If it were not for him and his staffers trying to control her and turn her into someone who she was not, he probably would have won. Honestly, I think McCain was jealous of her popularity.
Palin was a joke from the outset. Also notice how her unfavourability rating has continued to rise after the election - that is without the influence of the McCain campaign.

I suggest you read this article (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20091130_1266.php) which shows the reasons why Palin might win the Republican nomination, yet would struggle in a general election, which includes this bit that I didn't know:

Not surprisingly, Palin scores somewhere in between on favorable ratings and other summary measures. Most surveys find more Americans with an unfavorable impression of Palin than a favorable one, but the most important finding is one reported two weeks ago by the ABC News/Washington Post poll: A majority of Americans (53 percent) say they would "definitely not vote for her."

Well McCain was ahead in the polls after she was nominated until McCain said "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" (or something similar) about the same day Bear Stearns crashed.

CR
The moment the economy crashed McCain lost the election, but I think that Palin did still play into it. Her unfavourability rating shot up remarkably quickly and McCain's numbers had started to plateau by that time.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well McCain was ahead in the polls after she was nominated until McCain said "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" (or something similar) about the same day Bear Stearns crashed.

CR

Ahahaha, that was some funny :daisy:

[Reverend Joe]

I hate to go back a few posts, but I wanted to comment on this:

Let me rephrase that, I actually do have an interest in her gender. I think that it is important that everyone, including women know that they are just as free as anyone else to participate in the political process, and are not looked down on because of their gender. I think that if the first ever female President of the United States was an idiot, corrupt, etc it would make people doubt the ability of women to handle such a position. I think that it is important that the first woman be as good as the best man (Reagan), and I think Palin fits that ticket.

I respect your whole "women should be equal thing"; and yeah, women deserve the same respect as men; the deciding factor should be proving yourself. But like someone said earlier, I think Hillary Clinton basically proved that women can "break the glass ceiling." If it weren't for Obama, she would have been a shoe-in for president. Nobody even thought to question her eligibility for president until her campaign brought it up when she ran against Obama, and in a race against McCain, who would have doubtless have pulled as many underhanded moves as he did against Obama regarding her eligibility for president (because she was a woman, as opposed to black) it would have been easy to play the charisma card, something the Clintons have always been damn good at. It's almost a shame that she wasn't nominated, because she would have shown how much of an idiot Palin is by comparison (not that I feel too partial to Clinton, or anybody in politics, for that matter) although, to be fair, Palin would have never ended up in the limelight if Clinton had been nominated (or maybe... she would have been a good vote stealer; then again, a black man would be better, considering that Obama lost -- but I digress.)

Anyhow, I have listened to her plenty, and I don't think she's qualified. And that's not based on interviews, or plenty of other news sources I could have based my opinion on, but rather on the VP debate. She really came off as being at the level of Dan Quayle: she think's she's really smart and she's hot ****, but she's not. She should rely on her advisers a LOT more to sell herself, because she makes it painfully clear how inarticulate, if not incompetent, she is when she tries to defend a political position. She also has a bad habit of milking media attention; it makes her look desperate. The only other person who I have seen doing what she has done in the past year is Al Gore, and who the hell wants to listen to him? If a woman wants to be president, fine. But just like every man who runs, she should be qualified, and I don't see that in Palin.

Also, if you were to compare her to a good conservative president, you should bring up someone like Eisenhower, or Nixon (pre-Watergate, that is), people who actually managed to legitimately unite the nation, and lead it well. The only reason President Jellybeans ever won in such a landslide was because he played off of a movement of paranoia and craziness and reactions to the Cold War. People who have followed his model have inevitably met with very mixed results, because he is far too polarizing, not to mention that Obama won on a platform of working together (whether or not he followed up on it is debatable, but he sure as hell won.) That might not be a good sign for someone as polarizing as Palin.

[Vuk]

And Obama doesn't? You seem to be assuming she isn't running against anyone.

But after a term of failures, Obama's optimism will hardly be appealing. Palin offers common sense solutions that have worked in the past, and that will give people a real reason to be optimistic.

Weren't you one of the ones complaining about people voting for Obama whilst using his race as a justification because you just described why that would be fine. Also the highlighted bit shows why we need a female feminist to come to power somewhere. You seem to take it that the word "everyone" could be construed as "excluding women", and hence the need for a linguistic change is palpable. By a feminist coming to power this change will be accelerated as the discourse of gender power relations is inverted. A female who is not a feminist will not have this same ability as she will still frame discourse in masculinist terms.

I did not justify people voting on the basis of race. I said outright that race/sex/etc should not affect your decision. I simply said that her being voted in (as opposed to someone like Hillary) will be good for women as it will affect people's perception of their gender. And no I did not say that everyone excludes women, but simply drew attention to women as it is what was significant about what I was saying. Stop acting like the media please. And no, a feminist would be the worst thing for both men and women. What we need is either a man or a woman who do not see themselves in terms of men or women, but of humans. Feminists define themselves first and foremost as women, and only create divides and problems.

I fear I may have wandered from the point again though.

No surprise. ;)





Vuk

[Vuk]

I hate to go back a few posts, but I wanted to comment on this:


I respect your whole "women should be equal thing"; and yeah, women deserve the same respect as men; the deciding factor should be proving yourself. But like someone said earlier, I think Hillary Clinton basically proved that women can "break the glass ceiling." If it weren't for Obama, she would have been a shoe-in for president. Nobody even thought to question her eligibility for president until her campaign brought it up when she ran against Obama, and in a race against McCain, who would have doubtless have pulled as many underhanded moves as he did against Obama regarding her eligibility for president (because she was a woman, as opposed to black) it would have been easy to play the charisma card, something the Clintons have always been damn good at. It's almost a shame that she wasn't nominated, because she would have shown how much of an idiot Palin is by comparison (not that I feel too partial to Clinton, or anybody in politics, for that matter) although, to be fair, Palin would have never ended up in the limelight if Clinton had been nominated (or maybe... she would have been a good vote stealer; then again, a black man would be better, considering that Obama lost -- but I digress.)

Anyhow, I have listened to her plenty, and I don't think she's qualified. And that's not based on interviews, or plenty of other news sources I could have based my opinion on, but rather on the VP debate. She really came off as being at the level of Dan Quayle: she think's she's really smart and she's hot ****, but she's not. She should rely on her advisers a LOT more to sell herself, because she makes it painfully clear how inarticulate, if not incompetent, she is when she tries to defend a political position. She also has a bad habit of milking media attention; it makes her look desperate. The only other person who I have seen doing what she has done in the past year is Al Gore, and who the hell wants to listen to him? If a woman wants to be president, fine. But just like every man who runs, she should be qualified, and I don't see that in Palin.

Also, if you were to compare her to a good conservative president, you should bring up someone like Eisenhower, or Nixon (pre-Watergate, that is), people who actually managed to legitimately unite the nation, and lead it well. The only reason President Jellybeans ever won in such a landslide was because he played off of a movement of paranoia and craziness and reactions to the Cold War. People who have followed his model have inevitably met with very mixed results, because he is far too polarizing, not to mention that Obama won on a platform of working together (whether or not he followed up on it is debatable, but he sure as hell won.) That might not be a good sign for someone as polarizing as Palin.

The fact is though, that the media and her opponents did attack her because of her sex.
As far as the VP debate, the McCain aids instructed her to be non-committal whenever possible, to avoid answering real questions, and basically did not let her be herself. Considering the restrictions placed upon her, I would say that she did pretty darned well.

As far as good conservative presidents, Eisenhower is anything but. I think I would rather slit my wrists than see another Eisenhower. Nixon had some really good points, but was a complete *** on others. Reagan was not a flipflopper, that is the truth. I would not hold that against him though. Not only did he win by a landslide, but he was one of the best Presidents that we have ever had.

[spmetla]

If she does, I'm moving to Mars.

If it comes to that please reserve a seat on that rocket ship for me.

[CountArach]

But after a term of failures, Obama's optimism will hardly be appealing. Palin offers common sense solutions that have worked in the past, and that will give people a real reason to be optimistic.
You talk of these but are very short on detail. Elaborate please?

Feminists define themselves first and foremost as women, and only create divides and problems.
You have clearly never had an intellectual discussion with a feminist. I have had many and you could not be more wrong.

[Vuk]

You talk of these but are very short on detail. Elaborate please?

You have clearly never had an intellectual discussion with a feminist. I have had many and you could not be more wrong.

In fact, I have had many intellectual discussions with feminists. Two of my professors who I have had many classes with are women's studies/history professors and most of the classes I have taken with them have been on women's issues. As such I have unfortunately been subjected to reading a lot of feminist literature and associating with a lot of feminists. What I said about feminists defining themselves primarily as women actually comes from a prominent feminist WWII historian.
And no, if you are wondering, I do not have a high opinion of feminism. (nor any other form of sexism or any forms of racism)
Every feminist I know talks about gender as if they are crusaders fighting a holy war, and they define their enemies and talk about battle grounds. An article I had to read for a class this semester for instance (by another prominent feminist WWII historian coincidently) defined the enemies of free women as men and women who put the safety and health of children before the free opportunity of women in the workforce. I almost cried when I read that. Feminism makes me sick to my stomach.

EDIT: A feminist is not someone concerned with equality, but with women's issues. When women were discriminated against by the government, equality was a woman's issue. If it was just about equality they would not be called feminists, they would be called something gender neutral.

[Watchman]

Good thing WW2 -era thinking isn't majorly outdated in general or anything. Also I can't help but notice you failed to answer to CA's query concerning your prophecy of Obama's tenure.

[CountArach]

Modern Structuralist/Postmodern-based feminism is not the same as WWII-era Feminism at all. The former came out of the philosophical thoughts of the 60s-80s and is still in development. The latter came out of inerpretations of Marxist literature and to an extent Phenomenology

[seireikhaan]

No, I don't think she'll win.

There's a few reasons, some highlighted in the thread. But for me, I think there's one big reason she won't win.

She's a quitter. Quitter, quitter, quitter. She can have all the snarkey, "tough" talk she can roll off her tongue, but when it comes down to it, she quit her first hugely politically significant job. And I've yet to hear a reason that doesn't involve her succumbing the pressures of others. If she was doing such a good job of governing her state, and she truly had the constitution she claims to have, then she wouldn't quit.

[Vuk]

Good thing WW2 -era thinking isn't majorly outdated in general or anything. Also I can't help but notice you failed to answer to CA's query concerning your prophecy of Obama's tenure.

I did not mean writers from WWII Watchman, but people who study and write about WWII. :P
As far as his failures, he has failed to put the economy back on track and will continue to fail at it, as the only things he is doing are counter-productive. It does not matter if his health care bill passes or does not, because one way nothing gets done and there is still a problem, and the other way something really bad is done. Either way it is hardly a victory. His foreign policy is naive and inept, and considering what liberal presidents like him do, and how volatile the current situation is in the world, there is a good chance that he will get us involved in wars as well (though he will probably wait till his second term for that.) When people see that the government is more corrupt than ever before, and that we are just getting more of the same, but to the 50th degree, they will hardly view his term as a success. No doubt though he will do what liberals usually do and let up on his BS socialist programs for a little while so that the economy starts to make some kind of small recovery right before the election so that he can claim a success, but it will not last after the election.

[CountArach]

Feel good to get that off your chest?

[Vuk]

No, I don't think she'll win.

There's a few reasons, some highlighted in the thread. But for me, I think there's one big reason she won't win.

She's a quitter. Quitter, quitter, quitter. She can have all the snarkey, "tough" talk she can roll off her tongue, but when it comes down to it, she quit her first hugely politically significant job. And I've yet to hear a reason that doesn't involve her succumbing the pressures of others. If she was doing such a good job of governing her state, and she truly had the constitution she claims to have, then she wouldn't quit.

She gave up an otherwise good paying, powerful job because she thought it was best for her state. That takes guts. She is no quitter, she just knows how to pick her territory.

[Watchman]

I did not mean writers from WWII Watchman, but people who study and write about WWII. :POkay bear with me here and explain - how's that in any manner relevant to present-day feminism ?

As far as his failures, he has failed to put the economy back on track and will continue to fail at it, as the only things he is doing are counter-productive. It does not matter if his health care bill passes or does not, because one way nothing gets done and there is still a problem, and the other way something really bad is done. Either way it is hardly a victory. His foreign policy is naive and inept, and considering what liberal presidents like him do, and how volatile the current situation is in the world, there is a good chance that he will get us involved in wars as well (though he will probably wait till his second term for that.) When people see that the government is more corrupt than ever before, and that we are just getting more of the same, but to the 50th degree, they will hardly view his term as a success. No doubt though he will do what liberals usually do and let up on his BS socialist programs for a little while so that the economy starts to make some kind of small recovery right before the election so that he can claim a success, but it will not last after the election.May I ask you the manufacturer of your crystal ball ?

[Vuk]

Okay bear with me here and explain - how's that in any manner relevant to present-day feminism ?
May I ask you the manufacturer of your crystal ball ?

They are modern feminists applying a modern feminist view point to history. I don't mean to turn this into a debate about feminism (the thread is derailed enough), but suffice it to say that what I have witness about feminism turns me off to it. It is illogical, grounded in bad reasoning, selfishness, and only divides. It provides no benefit to men or women, only harm.

EDIT: Who manufactured my crystal ball? A company called History Doesn't Lie Inc.

EDIT 2: I am going to bed now, so I will not reply till tomorrow.

[Watchman]

She gave up an otherwise good paying, powerful job because she thought it was best for her state.Indeed. At least she's not *entirely* oblivious to facts then. :martass:

You know that wording was just asking for it.

[seireikhaan]

She gave up an otherwise good paying, powerful job because she thought it was best for her state. That takes guts. She is no quitter, she just knows how to pick her territory.
So her being in charge of the state government of Alaska was not in the best interests of the state of Alaska. That's basically what you're saying?

[Ice]

First of all let me say that that is just sick and wrong of you Ice. In fact, it is degenerate and evil. I have a very strong dislike for Obama as a President and as a person, but I would never in my life condone any acts of violence against him. (even if just for the respect of his office alone)
I really hope that that was a twisted joke of some kind.


It's not evil to seek death upon someone who would ruin the lives of millions, or even billions of people so bite me, Vik. Comparing that lunatic to our current president must be the sick joke here.

[Samurai Waki]

If Palin were to ever win, I would do as she thinks of herself "goin' rogue" I hate that woman, I hate her politics, I even hate the way she talks. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about her.

China sounds like an awfully tempting place to go if that were to ever happen (and it won't).

[Beskar]

The fact is though, that the media and her opponents did attack her because of her sex.

Like how they kept attacking and keep attacking Obama for being Black? Then they come up with these wild conspiracy theories saying he isn't American just because he is black. Though Mc Cain wasn't even born in America. (he was born in an US foriegn army base)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why Sarah Palin? Why can't it be a woman like Linda Lingle? Sensible, calm, rational, even-handed, experienced, and with a good politician's voice to top it off? I'd support her for President.

[Watchman]

Because it's the GOP, and they're idiots ?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Because it's the GOP, and they're idiots ?

No, they are not. No more than the Democrats, or many other parties, at any rate.

[Watchman]

No, they are not. No more than the Democrats, or many other parties, at any rate.Then they must've just had an unusually bad day. For the past eight or so years.
Also, Palin.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Because it's the GOP, and they're idiots ?

John. "Three purple hearts". Kerry.

[Reverend Joe]

The fact is though, that the media and her opponents did attack her because of her sex.
https://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8005/lebowskiopinionf.jpg (https://img9.imageshack.us/i/lebowskiopinionf.jpg/)
Because, personally, I saw nothing of it. In fact, I am very inclined to disagree just based on common sense, because the "Media" avoids sexism and racism like the plague. If they don;t like somebody, it's based entirely on their political views, because accusations of insulting a "class" will sink you like a stone in the political media.

As far as the VP debate, the McCain aids instructed her to be non-committal whenever possible, to avoid answering real questions, and basically did not let her be herself. Considering the restrictions placed upon her, I would say that she did pretty darned well.
Sorry, but you got your VP's mixed up. It was Joe Biden who was instructed to shut the hell up and take her inane rambling, becuase otherwise he would be seen as beating up a woman. As for Palin, I wouldn't be surprised if they told her to shut the hell up, but from what I saw, she didn't really listen to that advice.


As far as good conservative presidents, Eisenhower is anything but. I think I would rather slit my wrists than see another Eisenhower. Nixon had some really good points, but was a complete *** on others. Reagan was not a flipflopper, that is the truth. I would not hold that against him though. Not only did he win by a landslide, but he was one of the best Presidents that we have ever had.

I got nothing. I think you're just disagreeing with me for the hell of it here.

[Watchman]

John. "Three purple hearts". Kerry.Didn't say the Dems were much better. But they didn't get the country stuck in two bloody quagmires out of what by all accounts amounted largely to replacing proper planning with hubris and reality-free fantasy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As far as good conservative presidents, Eisenhower is anything but. I think I would rather slit my wrists than see another Eisenhower.

Why?

[woad&fangs]

Judging by the fact that he is infatuated with that crackpot from Alaska, I'm going to guess he doesn't like Eisenhower because Eisenhower was a RINO. Eisenhower was actually courted by the democratic party for a potential presidential run before the Republicans went after him.

Edit: and I find it very ironic that Vuk considers stimulus loving Reagan to be one of our best presidents, while he simultaneously derides Obama's stimulus as evil socialism.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I wouldn't call Eisenhower a RINO. He was a pragmatic conservative, in my opinion.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I just want to say first of all that Reverend Joe is now my favorite person here for the Big Lebowski reference.

Eisenhower was the best Republican president that the United States has had in the past 50 years in my opinion. Eisenhower knew from first hand experience the danger of military contractors toward our national budget and was the one to coin the term "military industrial complex" which he warned against. That makes him more fiscally conservative then Reagan and both Bush's who have no problem cutting taxes and social programs for smaller government but like to run up the biggest deficits in American history through military spending. Oh and he also signed and supported the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 which is what created the highways that we all rely upon everyday to travel long distances (pretty much anything outside then the city we live in) while creating a federal budget surplus for two years, his overall impact on the national debt was only about 27 billion compared to Vuk's hero Reagan, the pride and joy of conservatism who's fiscal conservative tactics of tax cuts and reducing social programs for poor and elderly saved the country...by adding 1.95 trillion to the national debt and reversing the expansion of the middle class that was seen in the 1960s and 1970s.


Nixon despite his scandal, was a very intelligent man when it came to foreign politics and should be praised for detente. He is as underrated as Reagan is overrated for his "ending" of the Cold War, which was just him making a threatening speech ("tear down this wall") before the economic system of the Soviet Union crumbled causing reformists to gain power (Gorbachev) and truly dismantle the "Evil Empire".

[Crazed Rabbit]

Didn't say the Dems were much better. But they didn't get the country stuck in two bloody quagmires out of what by all accounts amounted largely to replacing proper planning with hubris and reality-free fantasy.

Korea? Vietnam?

Both those resulted in the deaths of many, many more American soldiers than Iraq 2 and Afghanistan combined.

I think Palin was treated unfairly by the press. But I also don't want her as the President.

And Ice - there's no excuse for wanting someone dead. I think Obama is going to make millions of lives worse with reckless spending and degrade health insurance by piling more government bureaucracy on top. But killing never should be an answer in a democracy. Because if someone who you think will do grievous harm is elected, that means millions upon millions more people disagreed with you.

And you don't get to play God by thinking your individual judgment is more important than all of that.

CR

[Watchman]

Korea? Vietnam?

Both those resulted in the deaths of many, many more American soldiers than Iraq 2 and Afghanistan combined.I take it I should have added the qualifier "within the last few decades" ? :no: Sheesh, so touchy.

[Lemur]

It's not evil to seek death upon someone who would ruin the lives of millions, or even billions of people [...]
Actually, I think calling for someone's death is incredibly poor taste. I disagree with Mr. Palin's politics, and I think she'd a fifty-car flaming highway wreck of a President, but in no way do I wish any personal harm on her. That's just ... inappropriate.

I'd give Ms. Palin a 5% chance of getting the Repub nomination should she pursue it. But I don't think she will. Life as a celebrity is much less taxing, and much more lucrative.

As for her recent memoir, I would read some of the fact-checks (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5685965.shtml) available online (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BUU1580&show_article=1) before taking it as gospel truth. Many people with firsthand knowledge (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/15/mccain-a-bit-disappointed-by-palin-book-aide-calls-it-total/) of the events she narrates describe it as a work of magical fiction.

[Ice]

Actually, I think calling for someone's death is incredibly poor taste. I disagree with Mr. Palin's politics, and I think she'd a fifty-car flaming highway wreck of a President, but in no way do I wish any personal harm on her. That's just ... inappropriate.


Then I'm inappropriate and have bad test, but I'd rather see one nutjob dead then a country in ruins. My statement pretty much applies to anyone who holds great power, and is in an ridiculous lunatic. America already has enough problems and the last thing it needs is Sarah Palin. It's really nothing personal.

[Lemur]

Ice, we've got this wacky thing called "voting" going on. It allows us to periodically change leadership without killing anyone. You gotta look into it.

[Ice]

Ice, we've got this wacky thing called "voting" going on. It allows us to periodically change leadership without killing anyone. You gotta look into it.

Really, Lemur? I didn't know about voting. I guess I've been living under a rock under all these years.

I'm sure no trouble could possibly be caused within four years though, right?

[Lemur]

Ice, all I'm saying is that killing your opponents, or even publicly calling for their demise, is some serious Hutu Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutu_Power). It's not the American way.

[Beskar]

Ice, all I'm saying is that killing your opponents, or even publicly calling for their demise, is some serious Hutu Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutu_Power). It's not the American way.

I think he has been watching and reading too much Death Note (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Note).

"I will kill all the criminals in the world! Then the world could be a good place where people who are kind and loving will be the only ones there!"

[Ice]

I'm not advocating mass genocide based on tribal affiliation or some other stupid superficial quality . I'm not sure where that idea came from.

[Watchman]

Jeffrey Dahmer started out small too, you know. :/

[Xiahou]

I think any Palin run would be a long shot at this point.
She was treated unfairly by the press, but she compounded that with self-inflicted wounds. She is still too unpolished, still speaks without thinking and her resigning the governorship will continue to haunt her.

In general, I like Palin and like her politics- but I don't know that she'll ever be ready for the presidency.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We call for people's death all the time here...

I wouldn't call it on palin though. She'd just be ineffectual and end up boosting the democrats.

[Major Robert Dump]

Sarah Palin is a fake. A bad fake.

I made a great big long post, but then deleted it all because, in a nut shell, all I was saying is she is a bad fake.

The documentary that was supposed to show how mistreated she was in the election actually proved nothing we didn't already know: you act like a tard, the media pounce. Media are sharks and pigs, you bleed, they come for you. Blame it on SNL all you want.

The "I'm teh victimz" schtick is starting to wear thin even with the GOP. Even with GOP females. The Time Magazine cover of her in her jogging outfit was sexist? Really?

So she has a book. She also quit as governor. She also leaves fans in the rain 3 feet from her bus with unsigned books then drives away and says she didn't know they were there. She also blames the election results on everyone but herself.

Oh, and she flies on the bus tour. She flies to an airport, then gets on the bus, then goes back to the airport, all while carefully stating her "updates from the road" so no one can ever really say she lied but her retard fans honestly think she is toughing it down route 66 on a tour bus. Wow.

So please, Sarah, please tell us some more about how Al Gore is profiting from the alternative energy movement as if you and your cronies don't profit from the status quo energy movement.

Please say small government, cut taxes, patriot, rogue, maverick some more, please.

And if you run, please get a good VP candidate, because he will be running the country not you. And he will be the one locking you in the back of the press plane so you can't talk to reporters. Just like McCain did.

Sarah Palin running in 2008 would be the best thing to happen to Obama since he got elected.

[Lemur]

The "I'm teh victimz" schtick is starting to wear thin even with the GOP. Even with GOP females.
Actually, she polls comparatively badly with GOP females. It's the GOP males who are her base, such as it is.

We call for people's death all the time here...
No, we do not. Wishing death on a public political figure is a blessedly rare event at the Org.

[Meneldil]

Dubya has repeatedly shamed his country in front of the whole world, started two wars that quickly turned into huge political failures, ruined the economy and made the american people look like a bunch of moron to the civilized world and yet the republicans are asking for more?

Go ahead if that's what you wish. The world somehow survived Bush, I'm pretty sure we'll survive a dumbed down and stupider version of him. But I'm not sure the US will.

[Major Robert Dump]

IF PALIN WIN PRESIDENT 2012 IT MEAN AZTECS CORRECT NOOOOOOOOOO

[Subotan]

Earthquakes = Nuclear War

?

[aimlesswanderer]

My gawd, if she did somehow get elected I have doubts that any countries of the world would take the US seriously for decades to come. Her loony base might not be concerned about that, but US prestige would fall into a hole so deep it might never recover. Not to mention that the US would start doing all sorts of quack things.

[Ronin]

God..I hope not...

but I seriously wouldn´t put it past the average american voter, god knows they made some weird/crazy choices in the past.

it is surprising nonetheless that she can be considered seriously by anyone, her performance in the last campaign showed quite clearly that she is just pretty polished political show pony that memorized a few things that make her base cheer, but once you start asking questions and attempting to peel that onion further you find out...there´s no onion!

who knew that "so what do you read?" was a trick question? Man that Katie Couric is a Jedi Master Reporter! :laugh4:

[edyzmedieval]

And all this week, the McCain campaign is trying to prevent Sarah Palin from talking to reporters covering the news, you know? They said, 'you can take her picture, but you can't ask her any questions.' What is she running for, vice president or 'America's Next Top Model'? (Jay Leno)


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I just stumbled upon it today.

[rvg]

If Sara Palin gets the Republican nomination, I'll suppress the gag reflex and vote for the Obamination.

[Cute Wolf]

Actually it's pretty interesting to see the US have a female president... as most countries allready done... :gorgeous:

[Watchman]

IF PALIN WIN PRESIDENT 2012 IT MEAN AZTECS CORRECT NOOOOOOOOOO Mayas.:stare: [/nitpick]

[Scienter]

And no, a feminist would be the worst thing for both men and women. What we need is either a man or a woman who do not see themselves in terms of men or women, but of humans.

And that person could be a feminist. The most basic definition of feminism is a belief in social, economic, and legal equality of the sexes. Feminism does not mean a bunch of rabid man-haters who want to subjugate men.


Feminists define themselves first and foremost as women, and only create divides and problems.

This statement is incorrect. There are several different schools of thought within feminism, as there are in all ideologies. Some are more radical than others. Most feminists simply argue that people of both genders (including transgendered people) should be treated equally socially, economically, and legally. If this causes problems, it's because of bigotry, not feminism.

The patriarchy hurts us all.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Most of Palin's appeal to U.S. conservatives stems from two factors:

1. She's not a Bush.

2. She talks like a Reagan.


RE 1)

Bush was NOT the "person we wanted" for the Conservatives even in 2000. He was the person who played up the social conservative/religious right component most effectively in the primaries and easily the best-funded candidate for nomination. McCain had a number of supporters, but did NOT appeal to the conservative wing of the party on anything aside from security issues. Moreover, since it was 2000 and not 2002, security issues took a back seat to economics and -- courtesy of Clinton's lack of restraint with his dalliances -- "moral" issues.

In office, Bush quickly alienated most of the Conservative wing of the GOP with his "compassionate conservatism." They liked him on tax reductions, but found most of his efforts on education etc. to be annoying. Without 09-11-2001, Bush would have ended up a one-term President. With 09-11-01, and the Dems choice to oppose him with Kerry :inquisitive:, Bush played the security angle (with some fear appeals) into a return to the oval. He then blew most of his political capital from that win in an effort to do one thing that DID appeal to conservatives -- dialing back Social Security -- and then reverted to type. Like his Dad, Dubya never wanted to dial back government and ended up spending like a drunken sailor even though we were (and are) in the midst of a war.

RE 2)

Sarah Palin has, so far, been far more articulate about wanting to decrease the size, scope and role of government -- particularly in economics -- and this DOES appeal. Most GOP conservatives are economic conservatives first and social conservatives second, even though the latter are more vocal. Palin is harkening back to the Reagan years with her "get government out of people's way" stance.

What's harder to gauge, based on her record, is the degree to which she really would push for policies that were Reaganesque in character. Reagan took clear stances in California that made his conservatism easy to evaluate. Alaska -- its economy pivoting on oil revenues and production -- is a lot harder to use as clear evidence.


Thoughts:

One horrific interview cannot be validly used as the sole criterion for evaluating a person's intelligence. NONE of our GOP politicians are as stupid as their DEM opponents virtually always label them (and every GOP President since Nixon [who was called a crook] has been accused of stupidity). On the other side, NONE of the Dems are anywhere near being the neo-marxist lefties that the GOP typically tries to paint them as being (though to be fair, they really didn't label Carter as a socialist so much as they derided him for being a wimp).

Eisenhower wasn't a liberal. Ike wasn't a conservative. Ike was a centrist who was one heck of a bureacratic manager (that's WHY Marshall tapped him for SHEAF, not because he was a brilliant strategist). There are those who consider his Presidency to have been one of the best precisely BECAUSE so little appeared to be happening.

There is virtually no way to evaluate Palin's chances at this juncture. She is the presumptive nominee simply and solely because she is the previous VEEP nominee and because current political wisdom precludes a defeated nominee from trying again. There are no other persons currently in the spotlight. As Sec. Clinton's experience suggests, being the presumptive nominee three years out has only a limited impact on one's acquiring the nomination. Even if selected, she would then face an electoral contest against a person who is: The incumbent, America's first Black President, a good campaign speaker, very well funded, and an experience Chicago-school pol. Odds makers would not give her a winning chance at this stage.

For those of you considering an exo-terran migration should Palin be both nominated and elected to the Presidency, apply the following old saw: This too shall pass.

[Lemur]

And that person could be a feminist. The most basic definition of feminism is a belief in social, economic, and legal equality of the sexes. [...] Most feminists simply argue that people of both genders (including transgendered people) should be treated equally socially, economically, and legally.
Sorry to keep this OT bit alive, but I feel this needs a response. Scienter, if you've known and worked around dedicated, self-described feminists, then you know your statement is untrue. People who desire equal opportunity are called "egalitarians" or "classical liberals." People who call themselves "feminists" are explicitly in favor of empowering women, either because women are chronically disadvantaged by the "patriarchy," or because women are superior, or both. And there's often a very strong puritanical angle with self-described feminists.

No man ought to ever call himself a feminist. You can be an egalitarian, great. You can be a classical liberal, great. But avoid the F word like the plague.

[TinCow]

No man ought to ever call himself a feminist.

Scienter is a woman.

[HoreTore]

Sorry to keep this OT bit alive, but I feel this needs a response. Scienter, if you've known and worked around dedicated, self-described feminists, then you know your statement is untrue. People who desire equal opportunity are called "egalitarians" or "classical liberals." People who call themselves "feminists" are explicitly in favor of empowering women, either because women are chronically disadvantaged by the "patriarchy," or because women are superior, or both. And there's often a very strong puritanical angle with self-described feminists.

Wow, I never knew that was my view of the world, Lemur. Thanks for making it clear to me!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Scienter is a woman.Which consequently makes Lemur a sexist. :wink3:

[Major Robert Dump]

Mayas.:stare: [/nitpick]

Mayans/Aztecs....Earthquakes/Nukes....
Catholics/Lutherans......Sarah Palin/Rick Moranis.......

[Ronin]

Thoughts:

One horrific interview cannot be validly used as the sole criterion for evaluating a person's intelligence. NONE of our GOP politicians are as stupid as their DEM opponents virtually always label them (and every GOP President since Nixon [who was called a crook] has been accused of stupidity). On the other side, NONE of the Dems are anywhere near being the neo-marxist lefties that the GOP typically tries to paint them as being (though to be fair, they really didn't label Carter as a socialist so much as they derided him for being a wimp).


One horrific interview? During the campaign the could hardly ever open her mouth without putting a foot in it. And that was reflected in a very clear and transparent attempt from the campaign managers of keeping her away from the press as much as possible during the final phase of the campaign.

[Scienter]

Sorry to keep this OT bit alive, but I feel this needs a response. Scienter, if you've known and worked around dedicated, self-described feminists, then you know your statement is untrue. People who desire equal opportunity are called "egalitarians" or "classical liberals." People who call themselves "feminists" are explicitly in favor of empowering women, either because women are chronically disadvantaged by the "patriarchy," or because women are superior, or both. And there's often a very strong puritanical angle with self-described feminists.

No man ought to ever call himself a feminist. You can be an egalitarian, great. You can be a classical liberal, great. But avoid the F word like the plague.

I'm a self-described feminist and a woman. I find your remarks a little disturbing. Some feminists are in favor of empowering women to the detriment of men, but they are a minority. Just like some conservatives are also Christian dominionists. They're a noisy minority who are perceived as louder because they get a lot of attention.

Feminists aren’t man-hating harpies who think they’re superior to men. The majority of feminists want to be treated the same as men are in society. Equally. So yes, feminists believe in the empowerment of women, but not as you’ve described it. Not at the detriment of men.

A person can be a feminist and an egalitarian. But, feminism (a separate school of thought/area of activism) is necessary to combat misogyny. While egalitarians support the idea of equality for everyone, feminists look to the specific concerns regarding women: equal pay, bodily autonomy, rape and victim-blaming, the sexualization of girls, to name a few. Feminism is not just about equal opportunity, it’s about how society perceives women, how they are treated differently in society and by the law.

Patriarchy is not a word feminists like to throw around as an excuse for how women are treated. It’s the disproportionate conferring of leadership status on men. Maleness is assumed as the standard; women are seen as different, other, and thus, inferior or at least separate. Look at Congress, boards of major companies, other leadership positions, etc., women are not well represented. Our interests are not well represented.

I’m not arguing that all men support the idea of patriarchy, but it does exist in our society. It’s in our laws, who our leaders are, how our culture treats women.

[HoreTore]

I'm a self-described feminist and a woman. I find your remarks a little disturbing. Some feminists are in favor of empowering women to the detriment of men, but they are a minority. Just like some conservatives are also Christian dominionists. They're a noisy minority who are perceived as louder because they get a lot of attention.

Feminists aren’t man-hating harpies who think they’re superior to men. The majority of feminists want to be treated the same as men are in society. Equally. So yes, feminists believe in the empowerment of women, but not as you’ve described it. Not at the detriment of men.

A person can be a feminist and an egalitarian. But, feminism (a separate school of thought/area of activism) is necessary to combat misogyny. While egalitarians support the idea of equality for everyone, feminists look to the specific concerns regarding women: equal pay, bodily autonomy, rape and victim-blaming, the sexualization of girls, to name a few. Feminism is not just about equal opportunity, it’s about how society perceives women, how they are treated differently in society and by the law.

Patriarchy is not a word feminists like to throw around as an excuse for how women are treated. It’s the disproportionate conferring of leadership status on men. Maleness is assumed as the standard; women are seen as different, other, and thus, inferior or at least separate. Look at Congress, boards of major companies, other leadership positions, etc., women are not well represented. Our interests are not well represented.

I’m not arguing that all men support the idea of patriarchy, but it does exist in our society. It’s in our laws, who our leaders are, how our culture treats women.

Well said!! :2thumbsup:

Now please explain why your post count is as low as 39....

as for myself, I find that my feminism ties in nicely with my social anarchism, as feminism to me is to abolish society's written and unwritten laws and allow people do to whatever the heck they like with their lives, instead of being confined to a role based on your social class/birth/gender/whatever

[Samurai Waki]

I always like it when we get a woman's perspective around here...






...I still hate Palin.

[drone]

Now please explain why your post count is as low as 39....

Scienter is just Prole's alt account, the location gives it away. :clown:


2012, or rather late 2010 given the current creep of presidential election campaigning, should be interesting. The GOP does not really have a visible potential candidate that stands out, apart from Palin. She strikes me as more of a populist than a conservative anyway, and she is going to rub party leadership the wrong way all throughout the primaries. Odds are she will not win the nomination, but it will be entertaining to say the least. If she gets the nomination, she'll (hopefully) get crushed in the general election. If she runs third party, we'll get 4 more years of a Democrat in the White House.

I'll be even more curious about the Democrats. If the economy does not get turned around by the end of next year, I think there will be a serious challenger to Obama for the nomination. It's rare for the sitting prez to get bumped this way, but these are strange times. A lot will depend on the results of the midterms. If the GOP claws back one house of Congress, Obama will be a lame duck 2 years into his first term. :yes:

[Scienter]

I always like it when we get a woman's perspective around here...
...I still hate Palin.

I don't want her as President for two main reasons. First, I think she lacks the experience necessary to participate in the international community. She doesn't come across as intelligent. The President should be pretty :daisy:ing smart. I don't get that feeling from her. I don't think any amount of coaching or advisers could prop her up when she has to act on her own. Second, I strongly disagree with her stances on social issues that are important to me. She definitely does not represent me! I think it would be awesome for this country to have a woman president. Just not her. I'd rather wait for someone who is qualified for the job.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm a self-described feminist and a woman. I find your remarks a little disturbing. Some feminists are in favor of empowering women to the detriment of men, but they are a minority. Just like some conservatives are also Christian dominionists. They're a noisy minority who are perceived as louder because they get a lot of attention.

Feminists aren’t man-hating harpies who think they’re superior to men. The majority of feminists want to be treated the same as men are in society. Equally. So yes, feminists believe in the empowerment of women, but not as you’ve described it. Not at the detriment of men.

A person can be a feminist and an egalitarian. But, feminism (a separate school of thought/area of activism) is necessary to combat misogyny. While egalitarians support the idea of equality for everyone, feminists look to the specific concerns regarding women: equal pay, bodily autonomy, rape and victim-blaming, the sexualization of girls, to name a few. Feminism is not just about equal opportunity, it’s about how society perceives women, how they are treated differently in society and by the law.

Patriarchy is not a word feminists like to throw around as an excuse for how women are treated. It’s the disproportionate conferring of leadership status on men. Maleness is assumed as the standard; women are seen as different, other, and thus, inferior or at least separate. Look at Congress, boards of major companies, other leadership positions, etc., women are not well represented. Our interests are not well represented.

I’m not arguing that all men support the idea of patriarchy, but it does exist in our society. It’s in our laws, who our leaders are, how our culture treats women.

You know, one of the most damaging things I have come accross in Femenism is the devaluing of the traditional female role as a raiser of children. As though that wasn't a big enough job, femenists expect women to go out to work at the same time.

If you are an Egalitarian you don't need to be a femenist. Egalitarianism means valuing people for their merits, and treating everyone by the same stardard. Under egalitarianism men and women are treated by the same stardards, so if a woman works the same job as a man for the same number of years she will be payed the same for that work.

She won't get the same as a man if she takes two years off to have a baby that he doesn't.

[HoreTore]

You know, one of the most damaging things I have come accross in Femenism is the devaluing of the traditional female role as a raiser of children. As though that wasn't a big enough job, femenists expect women to go out to work at the same time.


The kindergarden was invented as a more efficient way of raising children.

....And as it turns out; it is! :yes:

Anyway, it's not the feminist in me that objects to people deciding not to work and raise children instead; it's the social democrat in me who objects to that. I believe people should be working, and if people have so much money they can decide to stop working, well, then they have too much money.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sorry to keep this OT bit alive, but I feel this needs a response. Scienter, if you've known and worked around dedicated, self-described feminists, then you know your statement is untrue. People who desire equal opportunity are called "egalitarians" or "classical liberals." People who call themselves "feminists" are explicitly in favor of empowering women, either because women are chronically disadvantaged by the "patriarchy," or because women are superior, or both. And there's often a very strong puritanical angle with self-described feminists.

No man ought to ever call himself a feminist. You can be an egalitarian, great. You can be a classical liberal, great. But avoid the F word like the plague.

I very much agree. The very use of the term feminism implies the targeting of only one sex. I am for equality, but I would never call myself a feminist for the reasons described.


The kindergarden was invented as a more efficient way of raising children.

....And as it turns out; it is!

Nothing can replace the love and care of dedicated parents. Kindergarten may be more efficient, depending how you define efficiency, but it is not a useful substitute for proper parenting.


Anyway, it's not the feminist in me that objects to people deciding not to work and raise children instead; it's the social democrat in me who objects to that. I believe people should be working, and if people have so much money they can decide to stop working, well, then they have too much money.

So your life should be one of toil until you die, with nothing to aspire to but more work. And the more people can work without collecting enough to stop working, the less they get to think. Very useful for keeping the masses under control. Of course, your only problem with that would be that they would need to be kept away from images of people who can work hard and earn enough to live and retire comfortably, and therefore you would need to strictly control the media. But I'm sure you've thought it through.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The kindergarden was invented as a more efficient way of raising children.

....And as it turns out; it is! :yes:

Anyway, it's not the feminist in me that objects to people deciding not to work and raise children instead; it's the social democrat in me who objects to that. I believe people should be working, and if people have so much money they can decide to stop working, well, then they have too much money.

So people should always be kept working, and never earn enough to stop working?

Interesting.

I agree with Lemur as well; I'm an egalitarian. Equality is important.

I'd also argue you don't have to be the same race/gender/whatever of someone to represent their interests.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Anyway, it's not the feminist in me that objects to people deciding not to work and raise children instead; it's the social democrat in me who objects to that. I believe people should be working, and if people have so much money they can decide to stop working, well, then they have too much money.

Then you should not be on your computer talking, but working Comrade!

Foward, for the Glory of the Revolution!

[Scienter]

Feminists don't all agree on the work/life balance debate. Some feminists feel that feminism is about choice, and others think that women who stay home are harming all women. I believe that it's about choice, or at least that I need to respect others' choices, so you know where I'm coming from here.


You know, one of the most damaging things I have come accross in Femenism is the devaluing of the traditional female role as a raiser of children. As though that wasn't a big enough job, femenists expect women to go out to work at the same time.

If a woman chooses to stay home and raise children, more power to her! But, not all women want to stay at home and raise children, and it's just as insulting to tell women who want careers that they should be home as it is to tell a stay at home mom to get back to work. Some women who stay home don't actually want to be there. They can't afford day care, or they stay home because it's what's expected of them. There are women who work because they have to, and would rather stay home with their kids. Regardless, the notion that the "traditional" role of woman as homemaker needs to fade into obscurity. Telling women that they, in general, belong in the home is harmful to women and to society, unless you believe that women have nothing to offer society but free childcare and maid service.

I've never said that women have to work and raise children alone. But, for women who want to work and have a family (like men!), feminism stands for the idea that they should be able to do this, and that this should be an acceptable choice in society. Society and my country's laws should not force women into traditional gender roles. Personally I don't believe women are any more inherently able to parent than men just because we can get pregnant. Since I don't believe in traditional roles, I expect my partner to do his share in raising a child. We both work, we both actively parent. I believe dual working families who actively share parenting responsibility are happier and more economically secure.



If you are an Egalitarian you don't need to be a femenist. Egalitarianism means valuing people for their merits, and treating everyone by the same stardard. Under egalitarianism men and women are treated by the same stardards, so if a woman works the same job as a man for the same number of years she will be payed the same for that work.

It's not just an issue of work/life balance. The rights of single mothers, abused mothers and children, pregnant women, pregnant women and mothers in prison, and same sex couples who wish to be parents are all feminist issues related to motherhood. Some feminists may rail against the stay at home mom, but I think both choices acceptable. Feminism is about choices, and the context in which those choices are made. It's about women being as free to choose their roles as men are.



She won't get the same as a man if she takes two years off to have a baby that he doesn't.

A woman should be paid the same as a man if they work the same hours and do the same quality work. End of story. Otherwise, it's discrimination and should be illegal. I'm not comparing someone who has been absent in from the work place to someone who has not. A person who takes two years off can't expect to pick up right where they left off. But, if a woman has a child, and returns to work full time, she should not be paid less than a man for doing the same amount of work. Nor should women without children be paid less than their male counterparts.

[Watchman]

So people should always be kept working, and never earn enough to stop working?Most people don't, and never did. Moot point. The ones who *do* manage it tend to get referred to by monikers such as "the idle class" - and then have issues with excessive free time...

Anyway, kindergartens and other such family support measures have the quite considerable benefit of allowing both parents to keep working and earning money to support the family with minimal distruption (which makes for a generally higher standard of living and more accumulated resources to spend on the child's education), and without making one of them largely a pariah on the job market due to an extended break of many years spent caring for the children.
Also helps prevent one of the couple (namely the one who stays home to look after the kids) from becoming excessively economically dependent upon the other (the "breadwinner"), something that I consider a Very Good Thing...

Oh, and then there's the bit that such collective subvention of childcare etc. contributes to birth rates, because they actually make it an economically feasible option for people to have children in the first place.

[HoreTore]

So people should always be kept working, and never earn enough to stop working?

Interesting.

I agree with Lemur as well; I'm an egalitarian. Equality is important.

I'd also argue you don't have to be the same race/gender/whatever of someone to represent their interests.

CR

....Until you retire in your later years of course, but I thought that much was obvious, actually.


Then you should not be on your computer talking, but working Comrade!

Foward, for the Glory of the Revolution!

I actually just got out of the shower, and I'm now off to work shortly ~;)

Also, you're confusing "everyone should be working" with "everyone should be working constantly". Quality matters too you know, not just quantity. Without proper rest the quality of work is reduced significantly, and nobody benefits from that.

Just as nobody benefits from having half the workforce sitting at home watching Oprah.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Feminists don't all agree on the work/life balance debate. Some feminists feel that feminism is about choice, and others think that women who stay home are harming all women. I believe that it's about choice, or at least that I need to respect others' choices, so you know where I'm coming from here.

That's fine, I can respect that point of view.


If a woman chooses to stay home and raise children, more power to her! But, not all women want to stay at home and raise children, and it's just as insulting to tell women who want careers that they should be home as it is to tell a stay at home mom to get back to work. Some women who stay home don't actually want to be there. They can't afford day care, or they stay home because it's what's expected of them. There are women who work because they have to, and would rather stay home with their kids. Regardless, the notion that the "traditional" role of woman as homemaker needs to fade into obscurity. Telling women that they, in general, belong in the home is harmful to women and to society, unless you believe that women have nothing to offer society but free childcare and maid service.

I didn't say that at all. You're over-reacting (sadly, predictably). I said that women should not be made to feel that they are required to have a family and a career. Your objection to the "traditional" role of a woman devalues the raising of a family. My own mother would tell you that raising two children of her own was harder and more demanding than working as an accountant or a primary school teacher.


I've never said that women have to work and raise children alone. But, for women who want to work and have a family (like men!), feminism stands for the idea that they should be able to do this, and that this should be an acceptable choice in society.

"Have a family" is a conveniently bland statement. Men make fathers, women make mothers; that's basic biology. Only women can concieve, carry, birth, and feed an infant. Anecdotally, women wake when their babies cry, men don't. It's also been shown scientifically that when women hold babies their brains release a hormone that creates a sense of "bliss", the same hormone is released when breastfeeding. These things don't happen to men.


Society and my country's laws should not force women into traditional gender roles. Personally I don't believe women are any more inherently able to parent than men just because we can get pregnant.

I dissagree vehemently. I have never found a "mother" figure in a man, or a "father" figure in a woman. Men should obviously be involved in the raising of their children, but shoehorning them into the maternal role seems unfair, and doesn't play to most men's strengths in my opinion.


Since I don't believe in traditional roles, I expect my partner to do his share in raising a child. We both work, we both actively parent. I believe dual working families who actively share parenting responsibility are happier and more economically secure.

I believe most three year olds would rather run to "mummy" when they cut their knee than "daddy" or "nanny".


It's not just an issue of work/life balance. The rights of single mothers, abused mothers and children, pregnant women, pregnant women and mothers in prison, and same sex couples who wish to be parents are all feminist issues related to motherhood. Some feminists may rail against the stay at home mom, but I think both choices acceptable. Feminism is about choices, and the context in which those choices are made. It's about women being as free to choose their roles as men are.

All of which is covered under egalitarianism. Except this; you seem to think women should be able to choose to be like men. That simply isn't possible on a lot of levels, and it begs the question of why on Earth you would want to in the first place.

I am reminded of The Life of Brian and a man demanding the right to have a baby.


A woman should be paid the same as a man if they work the same hours and do the same quality work. End of story. Otherwise, it's discrimination and should be illegal. I'm not comparing someone who has been absent in from the work place to someone who has not. A person who takes two years off can't expect to pick up right where they left off. But, if a woman has a child, and returns to work full time, she should not be paid less than a man for doing the same amount of work. Nor should women without children be paid less than their male counterparts.

You've skipped over my point. Legally, women who work the same job for the same number of years are due all the benefits of men. However, in many cases if you take maternity leave you fall behind in the payscale because you weren't working when the men were.

I can't think of a recent instance of a woman without children being paid less than a man; for all the rhetoric. Such a case would have made the national news and yet no femenist in Britain has ever produced an example.

[Watchman]

Jeez, not this parent-figure crap again. Look, quite a few kids don't even have one or the other and still grow up decent human beings; quite a few more would be considerably better off if they didn't have one or the other, or in some cases, both, of their parents...

And back in the day when men worked and women looked after the kids, it's not like most children saw much of their fathers anyway as they tended to be so busy working, what with being the sole breadwinner and all (and period cultural norms tended to prescribe something of an "aloof patriarch" model of behaviour); if anything, the modern "role-sharing" pattern means they interact more with both of their parents, or at least, more equally.

Merely not seeing the parents for the portion of each day the kids are in daycare, kindergarden or whatever matters little. Plus it could be argued the resultant socialising large numbers of their peers and adults outside the amily (ie. the staff of such facilities) is only positive...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A feminist is someone who has firm beliefs about the state of women in society today, and takes some action towards changing that. I don't see why a man can't be a feminist, or why feminism would be objectionable. It's not inherently different from any other specific interest group.

You can argue about the merits of feminism of course :book:


^^ I also agree with watchman, welcome back btw.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Jeez, not this parent-figure crap again. Look, quite a few kids don't even have one or the other and still grow up decent human beings; quite a few more would be considerably better off if they didn't have one or the other, or in some cases, both, of their parents...

For the psychological development of a child it is extremely important to have either parents or parental figures instead of merely plunking them in a facility. That isn't to say that children can't grow up to be normal and healthy people without a parent or parents, just that they would have been better off to have them.

Besides, doesn't wanting to entrust all child-rearing to the state make anyone nervous?

[Crazed Rabbit]

....Until you retire in your later years of course, but I thought that much was obvious, actually.

Just as nobody benefits from having half the workforce sitting at home watching Oprah.

So you would take the wealth of anyone who was successful enough that they could stop working before old age? Gee, that would encourage hard work.

And who are you to judge what people should spend their time doing? Who are you to judge one personal benefit above another?

It is a personal decision for every single human how much they want to work, and all choices will be different because we are all different. If a person is alright with working less, and therefore earning less money, would you force them to work however much you deem ideal?


Most people don't, and never did. Moot point. The ones who *do* manage it tend to get referred to by monikers such as "the idle class" - and then have issues with excessive free time...

If a person earned so much wealth that they could retire early, then they likely did so by providing a service or a good that a lot of people want.

I certainly wouldn't call such a person part of some "idle class".

And it's certainly not a moot point. You and Horetore want to take away the reward for hard work - larger rewards. In other words, you want to remove part of the foundation of any sane economic system.

Funny how some of the socialists here want so much control over our personal lives.


Society and my country's laws should not force women into traditional gender roles.

Do they? That is, the US? And if our laws do, then how so?

CR

[Watchman]

For the psychological development of a child it is extremely important to have either parents or parental figures instead of merely plunking them in a facility. That isn't to say that children can't grow up to be normal and healthy people without a parent or parents, just that they would have been better off to have them.

Besides, doesn't wanting to entrust all child-rearing to the state make anyone nervous?You state-phobics are tiresome. And silly.

Look, I went through the full welfare-state childcare assistance routine, kindergartens and all, both parents working long hours to make ends meet (and don't get me started on "father figures" - I've bad personal experience in the field), the works. What it meant in practice was that I was dropped off at the 'garten in the morning, played with the other kids etc. until something like four in the afternoon with mealtimes inbetween and so on, after which parents got home from work and fetched me (or I went home or to play with friends by myself, when I got older). Evening was then obviously spent with family or alternatively friends, and of course there were weekends and holidays and so on.

Do explain to me what part of that equals "not having parental figures" (nevermind now that the better of the 'garten staff made decent enough temporary substitutes) and "entrusting all child-rearing to the state"...?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You state-phobics are tiresome. And silly.

Hardly. When the state becomes too powerful the results are never good for society as a whole. We aren't scared of a state which has clearly defined roles and limits and a mandate not to exceed those limits except in specifically defined circumstances. I am not scared of the state having some programs for daycare for those who legitimately require it, but I am opposed to the state raising children in all cases except the most dire (where the parents are clearly unfit), in which case foster homes are preferred.


Do explain to me what part of that equals "not having parental figures" (nevermind now that the better of the 'garten staff made decent enough temporary substitutes) and "entrusting all child-rearing to the state"...?

It doesn't, that isn't what I was discussing. I'm sure all of us went to some form of daycare at least occasionally. I was discussing HoreTore's claim that it was better for children to be raised in a kindergarten than by their parents, which I fundamentally disagree with.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A woman should be paid the same as a man if they work the same hours and do the same quality work. End of story. Otherwise, it's discrimination and should be illegal.Strong words. Does you husband know you are posting subversive material on the internets? :sweatdrop:

[Watchman]

If a person earned so much wealth that they could retire early, then they likely did so by providing a service or a good that a lot of people want.Actually, by your own work you're pretty much not going to get past "comfortable" wealth levels. True wealth is only possible through putting yourself into a position where you can profit from other people's work. This being you, I feel it necessary to point out this is in no way passing judgement on people who do so; it is merely an observation of how socioeconomics work.
Also, quite a few folks plain inherit most of their wealth, or something similar, and don't really need to do much else than *own* it - the practical management of the assets tending to get delegated to salaried experts, so the owner can focus on spending the surplus.

I find your fantasy of only hard-working and succesful people populating the upper income levels both quite amusing and hopelessly naïve.

I certainly wouldn't call such a person part of some "idle class".Case in point: Paris Hilton. Though IIRC her gramps disowned her at some point, so she may not strictly speaking count anymore.

And it's certainly not a moot point. You and Horetore want to take away the reward for hard work - larger rewards. In other words, you want to remove part of the foundation of any sane economic system.:strawman1:
HT can speak for himself, but don't go putting words in my mouth. I dare you to show wherever did I express a wish for something so silly.

All I did was point out the stark reality that most people never do earn enough to stop working (although sooner or later they're forced to stop due to failing health, at which point their standards of living tend to dip - pensions and whatnot aren't usually *that* good) - and never have.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A woman should be paid the same as a man if they work the same hours and do the same quality work. End of story. Otherwise, it's discrimination and should be illegal.

What if the man asked for a pay raise and the woman didn't?

[Beskar]

I didn't say that at all. You're over-reacting (sadly, predictably). I said that women should not be made to feel that they are required to have a family and a career. Your objection to the "traditional" role of a woman devalues the raising of a family. My own mother would tell you that raising two children of her own was harder and more demanding than working as an accountant or a primary school teacher.

Though the point was, your father could do that while your mother worked.


Only women can concieve, carry, birth, and feed an infant.
That one is not true. I was never breast fed.


Anecdotally, women wake when their babies cry, men don't.
They do, but they grunt and moan and tell their 'wife' to do it. Or they are actually a good father and do go to their child.


I dissagree vehemently. I have never found a "mother" figure in a man, or a "father" figure in a woman. Men should obviously be involved in the raising of their children, but shoehorning them into the maternal role seems unfair, and doesn't play to most men's strengths in my opinion.

They don't need a "mother" nor a "father" figure. They just need a figure there to love and care for them. Also, what is playing to not playing to most men's strengths? Majority of fathers I know are good and takecare of their children and raising kids do play to their strengths. I am also good with children. Just because you might be a bad father or raised by one, doesn't men that you just label everyone else.



I believe most three year olds would rather run to "mummy" when they cut their knee than "daddy" or "nanny".
And you are wrong there, unless they were a bad father, then obviously would go to "mummy" because "daddy" would be at the pub. Even seen three year olds come to "Uncle", (oh wait, that was my niece who came to me.)


All of which is covered under egalitarianism. Except this; you seem to think women should be able to choose to be like men. That simply isn't possible on a lot of levels, and it begs the question of why on Earth you would want to in the first place.

I think John Lennon once sang a song about you:
We make her paint her
face and dance
If she won't be slave ,we
say that she don't love us
If she's real, we say she's
trying to be a man
While putting her down we
pretend that she is above us
Woman is the :daisy: of
the world...yes she is
If you don't belive me take a
look to the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Ah yeah...better screem
about it
We make her bear and raise
our children
And then we leave her flat for
being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only
place she would be
Then we complain that she's
too unworldly to be our friend
Woman is the :daisy: of
the world...yes she is
If you don't belive me take a
look to the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Yeah (think about it)



You've skipped over my point. Legally, women who work the same job for the same number of years are due all the benefits of men. However, in many cases if you take maternity leave you fall behind in the payscale because you weren't working when the men were.

Actually, men can take maternity leave as well.


I can't think of a recent instance of a woman without children being paid less than a man; for all the rhetoric. Such a case would have made the national news and yet no femenist in Britain has ever produced an example.

LOL, it is a commonly known fact and is usually in the news regularly on BBC. Look at the various figures such as payscale differences, and national averages. It is usually at the bottom of the list because it is something which is known but they just don't make a fuss over it.

[Samurai Waki]

They do, but they grunt and moan and tell their 'wife' to do it. Or they are actually a good father and do go to their child.

I always liked holding my daughters in the wee hours of the morning, I'm not much of a sleeper (maybe 4-6 hours per night on average), best alarm clock I ever had. I don't really get that anymore, when something is wrong they always climb into bed, and steal MY :daisy: blankets. :thumbsdown:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Though the point was, your father could do that while your mother worked.

Hasn't it been shown that very young children have a closer connection to their mothers than their fathers? I need to dig out that study.



That one is not true. I was never breast fed.

I think he meant naturally.


They don't need a "mother" nor a "father" figure.

Again, they do not need one but it is beneficial to have one. I personally know people who have various levels of problems in their lives because they never knew a mother figure or never knew a father figure, biological or otherwise.


Actually, men can take maternity leave as well.

Paternity leave.


LOL, it is a commonly known fact and is usually in the news regularly on BBC. Look at the various figures such as payscale differences, and national averages. It is usually at the bottom of the list because it is something which is known but they just don't make a fuss over it.

I seem to recall reading an excellent response to an accusation like this, unfortunately my bookmarks have all been erased and I cannot find it. To Google it is, I suppose.

[Beskar]

I seem to recall reading an excellent response to an accusation like this, unfortunately my bookmarks have all been erased and I cannot find it. To Google it is, I suppose.

I remember reading one as well, mainly where men asked for raises and the females didn't. However, there is still the pay difference.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Though the point was, your father could do that while your mother worked.

I still believe the mother is better at this when the child is at a young age.



That one is not true. I was never breast fed.

No, it is true. Only women have the biological capacity (without messing with hormones etc.) to feed an infant using their own body. This is an adaptation which naturally makes the unweened infant more dependant on the mother than father. To get around this you have to domesticate animals.


They do, but they grunt and moan and tell their 'wife' to do it. Or they are actually a good father and do go to their child.

I know one father who doesn't, he asks his wife to wake him because he doesn't think it's fair. It doesn't have to be about "bad" fathers. You know what else women do when babies cry?

Lactate.


They don't need a "mother" nor a "father" figure. They just need a figure there to love and care for them. Also, what is playing to not playing to most men's strengths? Majority of fathers I know are good and takecare of their children and raising kids do play to their strengths. I am also good with children.

I dissagree, I see men and women dealling with children differently. This doesn't make men bad parents, but it doesn't make them mothers either.


Just because you might be a bad father or raised by one, doesn't men that you just label everyone else.

I beg your pardon? That's dangerously close to ad hominem. You know very little, if anything, about my father. If you must know, I didn't meet him until two years old because he was always working. Despite this, I probably have a better relationship with him than my mother.


And you are wrong there, unless they were a bad father, then obviously would go to "mummy" because "daddy" would be at the pub. Even seen three year olds come to "Uncle", (oh wait, that was my niece who came to me.)

It might have something to do with "daddy" stinking of sheep muck and having big calloused, clumsy, hands, you know. Your assumption is, again, that because the man can't perfom the woman's function as well as her he must have been incompetant.




I think John Lennon once sang a song about you:
We make her paint her
face and dance
If she won't be slave ,we
say that she don't love us
If she's real, we say she's
trying to be a man
While putting her down we
pretend that she is above us
Woman is the :daisy: of
the world...yes she is
If you don't belive me take a
look to the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Ah yeah...better screem
about it
We make her bear and raise
our children
And then we leave her flat for
being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only
place she would be
Then we complain that she's
too unworldly to be our friend
Woman is the :daisy: of
the world...yes she is
If you don't belive me take a
look to the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Yeah (think about it)

So now we have moved to ad hominem. Congratulations, I must be a bigot because I don't agree with you. So, I suppose it's acceptable for men to punch and kick women, leave them to do all their own heavy lifting, not stop to offer to help change a tire, God forbid the woman might be insulted! Obviously, we shouldn't hold heavy daws open for them either, even the small women with tiny hands who have to lean into the things with their shoulders!

Let be tell you what I think of men, they're boring, mind-numbingly, soul-crushingly, boring. At any given time I would rather be in the company of women than men.

[Watchman]

Lactate.Or get the milk bottle. Common enough. Also, know what a "wet nurse" is ? Not exactly a lively tradition, but that's beside the point.

You really do seem to have a bit of a biological-mechanist take on this stuff you know.

[Shaka_Khan]

Looks like the poll has a very long middle finger. Is that the purpose of the OP? :beam:

Btw- more power should be given to the people and Congress. The president should have more of a representative role. More emphasis would be put on appearance. I wouldn't mind if Sarah Palin was president if she didn't make the decisions. I dream of a day when president elections would become beauty pageants so that the leaders of the world would be pleasing to the eye.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, by your own work you're pretty much not going to get past "comfortable" wealth levels. True wealth is only possible through putting yourself into a position where you can profit from other people's work. This being you, I feel it necessary to point out this is in no way passing judgement on people who do so; it is merely an observation of how socioeconomics work.

Yes, most of the wealthy profit by their labor and the labor of others - others they gave employment to. So I think gaining profit from other people when you gave them jobs is fair.



Also, quite a few folks plain inherit most of their wealth, or something similar, and don't really need to do much else than *own* it - the practical management of the assets tending to get delegated to salaried experts, so the owner can focus on spending the surplus.

I find your fantasy of only hard-working and succesful people populating the upper income levels both quite amusing and hopelessly naïve.
Case in point: Paris Hilton. Though IIRC her gramps disowned her at some point, so she may not strictly speaking count anymore.


:strawman1:
~;p
I never said only hard working and successful people are rich. Certainly there are people like Paris Hilton, people who didn't earn their money, who inherited it. But someone's got to provide capital to banks for loans, don't they?


HT can speak for himself, but don't go putting words in my mouth. I dare you to show wherever did I express a wish for something so silly.

Perhaps I confused you two.

CR

[Watchman]

Yes, most of the wealthy profit by their labor and the labor of others - others they gave employment to. So I think gaining profit from other people when you gave them jobs is fair.That's an interesting way to word it - as if they were doing some kind of favour, rather than renting human labour in order to have a working, productive business.

It's a mutually beneficial exchange (one hopes), but hardly an equal one - the employee, after all, does not on his own have more to put on the bargaining table than his ability to work. Proletariat and all, you know.

I never said only hard working and successful people are rich. Certainly there are people like Paris Hilton, people who didn't earn their money, who inherited it. But someone's got to provide capital to banks for loans, don't they?Given that the banks *pay* people for keeping their money (through interest and whatnots), which they can then make use of...


Perhaps I confused you two.Now that's just rude. :beadyeyes:

[Husar]

This thread basically calls for this old link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w).

I was breastfed for a long time by the way, you can draw your own conclusions... :sweatdrop:

If Sarah Palin is held to the same standard as everyone else and more than half the nation thinks she is really stupid then I doubt she'll get elected. I haven't really seen a lot from her so I don't really have an opinion but her reputation hurries/runs ahead of her as we say here so I'm a bit prejudiced against her I guess.

On the topic of employers and employees, it all depends on the job market IMO, in a situation where jobs are scarce and the unemployed are many, employees get the short end of the stick, if it's reversed then employers will try to lure employees with bonuses and higher wages. The current situation here is such that the minimum wage of the US would probably equal a 100% pay increase for some...and they call us commies... :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or get the milk bottle. Common enough. Also, know what a "wet nurse" is ? Not exactly a lively tradition, but that's beside the point.

All of which requires a woman, and one who has either recently given birth or is about to. Any other solution requires a female from another mamalian species; at no point is a male required.


You really do seem to have a bit of a biological-mechanist take on this stuff you know.

Biology 101, mammalian infants are dependant on their mothers, in some species the mother is supported by the father, in others not. Beskar's quoting of Lennon is illuminating, burried in those lyrics is the opinion that to be "real" is to conform to a mascaline standard; all the things he rails against are feminine. The song doesn't place any value on women for what they are; it requires them to be something else in order to be valued.

Femenism trys to fit women into a man's world; instead of trying to change the world to value and accomodate women. This is why, increasingly, it seems to have failed in it's objective. Women do't want high pay or important jobs as much as men, many women prefer shorter working hours and less pay in order to spend more time with their family.

There was an article in the Times (I think) which talked about the experiences of the first and second generation "working women" many of whom admitted to being miserable being "successful" but away from their families. It also covered a number of women who went into traditinally "masculine" jobs and ultimately decided they'd be happier teaching their specialisation than working it.

That's another thing, this aspect of the Feminist movement places too much value on "success" in terms of the ability to accumulate resources. A measure I consider largely irrelevant for both sexes.

[Watchman]

All of which requires a woman, and one who has either recently given birth or is about to. Any other solution requires a female from another mamalian species; at no point is a male required....which hardly means a male cannot substitute pretty well via the expedient of feeding the infant with infant formula or similar, now does it ?

Biology 101, mammalian infants are dependant on their mothers, in some species the mother is supported by the father, in others not.Biology 102: humans use technology and can use it to thumb their noses at lot of the de facto rules other mammalians are stuck with.

Beskar's quoting of Lennon is illuminating, burried in those lyrics is the opinion that to be "real" is to conform to a mascaline standard; all the things he rails against are feminine. The song doesn't place any value on women for what they are; it requires them to be something else in order to be valued.Talk about completely failing to graps the point of the lyrics... did you even not even read them, or something ? Basics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_Is_the_Nigger_of_the_World#Meaning).
One should also note that you just went and defined as somehow essentially "feminine" a heapin' big pile of archaic, restrictive and de facto disenfranchising "patriarchal" cultural roles and norms women have been stuck in/with since forever and only recently gotten free of...

Smooth going there, pal.

Femenism trys to fit women into a man's world; instead of trying to change the world to value and accomodate women. This is why, increasingly, it seems to have failed in it's objective.:thinking: Okayyyyyyy... care to elaborate ?

Women do't want high pay or important jobs as much as men, many women prefer shorter working hours and less pay in order to spend more time with their family.And I'm sure they need you to speak for them of the matter, O Man Who Knows These Things. Dodgy generalisations and stereotyping much ?

Also, you sure you're not actually talking of the funny way how these days most people, particularly if they have children to support, need to work far longer hours (and often enough take work home to boot) than they'd actually prefer just to make ends meet, with that latter ? 'Cause I'm rather familiar with the way that cuts into peoples' "free time" most would prefer to spend otherwise...

There was an article in the Times (I think) which talked about the experiences of the first and second generation "working women" many of whom admitted to being miserable being "successful" but away from their families.Yeah, and ? I've heard the exact same thing about succesful men who in their later years regret not having spent enough time with their family back in the day.

Also note that people can be unnecessarily harsh on themselves over this issue - my mother keeps angsting over having been so busy working when I was little, though I don't recall having felt neglected - and that cultural-normative expectations can rather skew perceptions here.

It also covered a number of women who went into traditinally "masculine" jobs and ultimately decided they'd be happier teaching their specialisation than working it.Which is relevant how and supposed to prove what exactly ?

That's another thing, this aspect of the Feminist movement places too much value on "success" in terms of the ability to accumulate resources. A measure I consider largely irrelevant for both sexes.Your opinion is pretty much irrelevant compared to the practical importance of accumulating resources for having a tolerably comfortable life. Money does not bring happiness, true enough; but lack of it sure as Hell makes it a whole lot more difficult to have a happy life...

Are you incidentally aware that you seem to have this funny habit of fixating on a single solution and, apparently, considering it damn near the only acceptable one, at least on this topic ? And it's sounding more and more like the Fifties Housewife paradigm...

[Meneldil]

How a thread about Palin's idiocy turned into a thread about breast-feeding is beyond me :inquisitive:

Could we go back to Plain and americans bashing please?

[Fragony]

How a thread about Palin's idiocy turned into a thread about breast-feeding is beyond me :inquisitive:


not to me

and Vuk is a god

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How a thread about Palin's idiocy turned into a thread about breast-feeding is beyond me :inquisitive:

Well, politics and "sucking off the teat" seem to be a least somewhat linked.......:beam:



Equal pay for equal work should be the norm. Sasaki does bring up one important cultural point, however. Traditionally, our culture trains women to negotiate in the consumer marketplace but teaches our men to negotiate the compensation for their services. I've always wondered how much of the remaining wage gap stems from this factor.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

...which hardly means a male cannot substitute pretty well via the expedient of feeding the infant with infant formula or similar, now does it ?
Biology 102: humans use technology and can use it to thumb their noses at lot of the de facto rules other mammalians are stuck with.

That doesn't mean we aren't designed a certain way though...



Talk about completely failing to graps the point of the lyrics... did you even not even read them, or something ? Basics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_Is_the_Nigger_of_the_World#Meaning).
One should also note that you just went and defined as somehow essentially "feminine" a heapin' big pile of archaic, restrictive and de facto disenfranchising "patriarchal" cultural roles and norms women have been stuck in/with since forever and only recently gotten free of...

I get the point, but I don't agree. Some of the things he says are de facto disenfranchising, but it's also an extreme characature. Most housewives were not confined at home all their lives; for example.


:thinking: Okayyyyyyy... care to elaborate ?
And I'm sure they need you to speak for them of the matter, O Man Who Knows These Things. Dodgy generalisations and stereotyping much ?

Just repeating what I've heard from some women, in articles often written by women. The opinion is out there, and needs seriously considering.


Also, you sure you're not actually talking of the funny way how these days most people, particularly if they have children to support, need to work far longer hours (and often enough take work home to boot) than they'd actually prefer just to make ends meet, with that latter ? 'Cause I'm rather familiar with the way that cuts into peoples' "free time" most would prefer to spend otherwise...

Well, that doesn't help. I admit that part of my dislike of Femenism is the way it ties in with Modern Life generally.


Yeah, and ? I've heard the exact same thing about succesful men who in their later years regret not having spent enough time with their family back in the day.

So have I, but less often.


Also note that people can be unnecessarily harsh on themselves over this issue - my mother keeps angsting over having been so busy working when I was little, though I don't recall having felt neglected - and that cultural-normative expectations can rather skew perceptions here.

Fair point.


Which is relevant how and supposed to prove what exactly ?
Your opinion is pretty much irrelevant compared to the practical importance of accumulating resources for having a tolerably comfortable life. Money does not bring happiness, true enough; but lack of it sure as Hell makes it a whole lot more difficult to have a happy life...

For most of my childhood only my father worked, a poorly paid job (1.5 jobs, really), we were fine most of the time. Over here "tollerable" too often includes a tv in every room.


Are you incidentally aware that you seem to have this funny habit of fixating on a single solution and, apparently, considering it damn near the only acceptable one, at least on this topic ? And it's sounding more and more like the Fifties Housewife paradigm...

I'm aware I tend to overstate my case and come accross as extreme. As to the Fifties Housewife paradigm; the paridigm includes her holding the purse strings. Something often forgotten.

[Vuk]

not to me

and Vuk is a god

:bow:
Thank you, thank you, thank you. ~;)

[Strike For The South]

Sarah Palin stinks of suburban politics. She has no idea what the world is truly like beyond her six figure household and 8 person state.

Obama represents America better than her and it aint even close.

If they were to run agianst eachother I would burn polling station down.

[Vuk]

Sarah Palin stinks of suburban politics. She has no idea what the world is truly like beyond her six figure household and eight (if you are going to spell one out, you have to spell the other out. You cannot have it both ways, it is either six and eight, or 6 and 8) person state.

Obama represents America better than she does, and he does not come close to representing America.

If they were to run against each other I would burn the polling station down.

That is a very arrogant, presumptuous, self-important thing to say. And sorry, but a corrupt Chicago thug certainly does not represent me.

[seireikhaan]

She gave up an otherwise good paying, powerful job because she thought it was best for her state. That takes guts. She is no quitter, she just knows how to pick her territory.



So her being in charge of the state government of Alaska was not in the best interests of the state of Alaska. That's basically what you're saying?
???

[Vuk]

???

Yeah, because she was not really in charge. She and the Alaskan government were being crippled by the attacks of a bunch of liberal ****. She was the one drawing the fire, and Alaska was being hit, so she did the right thing and pulled away for the sake of her State.

[seireikhaan]

Yeah, because she was not really in charge. She and the Alaskan government were being crippled by the attacks of a bunch of liberal ****. She was the one drawing the fire, and Alaska was being hit, so she did the right thing and pulled away for the sake of her State.
You'll have to specify a bit more on that.

[Major Robert Dump]

LOL @ Alaska filled with liberals.

I don't think what SFTS said was out of line at all.

Palin has no chance in hell, but I hope she runs because the comedians are running out of jokes again.

Her book sucks.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yeah, because she was not really in charge. She and the Alaskan government were being crippled by the attacks of a bunch of liberal ****. She was the one drawing the fire, and Alaska was being hit, so she did the right thing and pulled away for the sake of her State.If she was not in charge of Alaska, then apparantly her entire experience of running stuff consists of what exactly? One term as mayor of Wasilla, the town of 6000 souls?

Even more worryingly, if she's president and we get ourselves some libreals **** together to tell her off will she run again?

And if running is what she does over some libarels, what's she going to do when Ahmadinejad gives her a hard time? Surrender?


Palin would do better to just tell it like it is: she dissed her voters in Alaska to further her own career. Which is still more impressive than your account above: Palin as a right wuss not even capable of taking charge of her own job - because of some free-roaming lirbeals - and subsequently quitting and running.

[Reverend Joe]

That is a very arrogant, presumptuous, self-important thing to say. And sorry, but a corrupt Chicago thug certainly does not represent me.

Isn't it also arrogant, presumptuous and self-important to grammatically correct another person's post just to look better than them?

[Vuk]

Isn't it also arrogant, presumptuous and self-important to grammatically correct another person's post just to look better than them?

Nah, just a helpful hint to make his post at least readable so that I do not have to pain my brain just to make sense of it. Strike is fond of making posts that you need to be a code-cracker or Texan to understand. ~;)
Seriously, I honestly do not care if someone's spelling or grammar is not perfect, as long as they make an effort not to be offensive. Wouldn't you be a little perturbed if I started SpElInG Licke ThIs? It is one thing in IM, it is something else entirely when you are posting on a forum and have time to write out an at least somewhat understandable post. It is not arrogant to ask someone to stop being so rude.

[Watchman]

Eh, that's just Strike's playful little quirk we all know and love. :love:

[ajaxfetish]

Nah, just a helpful hint to make his post at least readable so that I do not have to pain my brain just to make sense of it. Strike is fond of making posts that you need to be a code-cracker or Texan to understand. ~;)

Right, cause Strike's post was so incomprehensible before you came along and altered it . . .

Ajax

[Lemur]

Nah, just a helpful hint to make his post at least readable so that I do not have to pain my brain just to make sense of it.
Actually, you mis-read his post anyway, so all of that pain in your brain was for naught. Let's look at it again:

She has no idea what the world is truly like beyond her six figure household and 8 person state.
I believe "six figure household" refers to her income bracket (which should actually be seven-figure after the book deal.) "Eight person state" obviously refers to Alaska's tiny population.

You mis-read this as a mix-up of six people and eight people. You gotta be on your toes with these tricky Texans.

[Fixiwee]

I love the impartial poll.

3 options in favour of Palin.
1 option in disfavour of Palin.
3 joke options.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I love the impartial poll.

3 options in favour of Palin.
1 option in disfavour of Palin.
3 joke options.

Actually, one yes pro-Palin, one yes anti-Palin, one no pro-Palin, and one no-anti Palin. Then two neutral options and one joke option. My only problem is that the traditional Orgah option is left out.

[Fixiwee]

Actually, one yes pro-Palin, one yes anti-Palin, one no pro-Palin, and one no-anti Palin.
Touché.

[Csargo]

How utterly ridiculous. I mean come on...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Touché.

Still none that actually fit my viewpoint, of course, so I just went with "I don't care."

[Major Robert Dump]

Vuk should change his name to Flip Flop, or BackPeddle. At least when I screw up I stop posting.

[Beskar]

I like the vast majority of Orgah's selected "No, and thank goodness." in overwhelming numbers. It is a new backroom record of conformity.

[Vuk]

Vuk should change his name to Flip Flop, or BackPeddle. At least when I screw up I stop posting.

lol? Sorry Dumpster, but you are probably talking to one of the most steadfast people on this board. I honestly don't give a flying **** if others don't like them, I got my opinions and I don't change them. Pray tell me where I did.


I like the vast majority of Orgah's selected "No, and thank goodness." in overwhelming numbers. It is a new backroom record of conformity.

lol, good thing this board is not representative of America, huh? ~;) It will be nice to say "Told ya so" come 2012. ~;)
You know I made a similar poll to this about Bush's second term with extremely similar results. lol Ya'll are not too great at predicting elections.

[Ser Clegane]

You know I made a similar poll to this about Bush's second term with extremely similar results. lol Ya'll are not too great at predicting elections.

You joined 2006... :inquisitive:

[Major Robert Dump]

LOL you said SFTSs post was pompous, then corrected SFTS use of numbers and text, then defended yourself by saying it was too hard to read. I love it. It's almost as funny as the olive oil debacle.

I agree with you though: you are steadfast.

Can we please get back to talk of breastfeeding please?

[Vuk]

You joined 2006... :inquisitive:

The poll must have been about him being impeached before his second term was up then. Sorry, I mis-remembered.

[Vuk]

LOL you said SFTSs post was pompous, then corrected SFTS use of numbers and text, then defended yourself by saying it was too hard to read. I love it. It's almost as funny as the olive oil debacle.

I agree with you though: you are steadfast.

Can we please get back to talk of breastfeeding please?

SFTS's post was both pompous and riddled with errors. I did not change my stance on that at all. You will have to do better than that.

[Ser Clegane]

The poll must have been about him being impeached before his second term was up then. Sorry, I mis-remembered.

No poll at this place.

[Major Robert Dump]

*Points to the above referenced poll*

So did Palin resign for the good of the state? Or to escape that huge leftist movement in Alaska? Or to prep herself for a presidential run? Or to get out of the media spotlight, which she so willingly thrusts herself back into?

Palin is taking a page from the left's victimology book.

[Vuk]

hmm...then I must be thinking of another forum. I argued on a lot of forums during and after the Bush election. I stand corrected. :bow:

[HoreTore]

*Points to the above referenced poll*

So did Palin resign for the good of the state? Or to escape that huge leftist movement in Alaska? Or to prep herself for a presidential run? Or to get out of the media spotlight, which she so willingly thrusts herself back into?

Palin is taking a page from the left's victimology book.

I think it's fair that both the left and right sides, as well as the occasional centrist, are all equally good at blaming the other side or the media whenever they do bad.

As we're all perfect beings, if anything doesn't go as planned, then it's obviously because someone sabotaged it.

[Meneldil]

lol, good thing this board is not representative of America, huh? ~;)

lol, good thing you're not representative of America, huh? ~;)

The civilized world doesn't really give a damn about the bunch of racists, hypocrit and inbred biggots who live in Amerikkka. Obama is more representative of the US in the eyes of the rest of the world than any of your far right nutjob will ever be.

[Vuk]

lol, good thing you're not representative of America, huh? ~;)

The civilized world doesn't really give a damn about the bunch of racists, hypocrit and inbred biggots who live in Amerikkka. Obama is more representative of the US in the eyes of the rest of the world than any of your far right nutjob will ever be.

So are you saying that Palin is a racist, hypocritical, inbred bigot, or just me? :inquisitive:

[Ser Clegane]

I would highly appreciate if the overall tone in this thread from both sides would change a bit.

Frequently suggesting that people who do not follow your voting preference are stupid, racist, ignorant etc. is not acceptable.

Thanks

[Strike For The South]

Sarah Palin appeals to know one besides soccer moms with money to burn.

When did America become represented by a fundamentilist penacostal whom doesn't even live in the lower 48 and makes more money than 10 middle class families?

I mean lets get real here.

Not to mention she has no policy exp. At least Obama went to a half competent school and didn't do the great western academic tour.