I sure as heck hope/think so. ~;) That gal is awesome! Time to shatter that glass ceiling!
Printable View
I sure as heck hope/think so. ~;) That gal is awesome! Time to shatter that glass ceiling!
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
And BTW, if neither of the choices fit you, then just vote "Vuk is God". ~;)
If she does, I'm moving to Mars.
I'll send you a postcard then. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
(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
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. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.
Tiger can tons of votes just by sending out a text message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.
Not only has Sarah Palin already been painted as an incompetent by a media, she is also actually incompetent.
I take it you were a Hillary supporter then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
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.
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.
Environmental policies decided in the US affects the rest of the globe, including me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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....
You wouldn't believe how hard it is to get a visa.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I really hope that that was a twisted joke of some kind.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
For you, yes.... But that's because you're german, and that's a punishment because your people killed Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Yes, you're actually upset about that comment vuk, I can tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Blackadder
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. ~;)
Why shouldn't I be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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'.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
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 ~;))Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
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.
Question of the day? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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.
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
CR
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
One quote that's stuck with me, from a middle aged father, "Woo! She's Hot".
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
You clearly are utterly incapable of reading and understanding polling data. She has a -6 net unfavourability rating and very few undecideds (And hence very little wiggle room). This is compared to -2 net for Romney and +5 net for Huckabee (+3 net for Obama). 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Yes, but not in the right circles. She has the votes of conservatives... but Independents still don't like her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
I'm going to admit right out. These are the points at which I laughed... really hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
And Obama doesn't? You seem to be assuming she isn't running against anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
I fear I may have wandered from the point again though.
Actually he is still perpetuating one of them and has only finished-up Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Speak for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
I suggest you read this article 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."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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Ahahaha, that was some funny :daisy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Vuk
The fact is though, that the media and her opponents did attack her because of her sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe
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.
If it comes to that please reserve a seat on that rocket ship for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You talk of these but are very short on detail. Elaborate please?Quote:
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 have clearly never had an intellectual discussion with a feminist. I have had many and you could not be more wrong.Quote:
Feminists define themselves first and foremost as women, and only create divides and problems.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
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.
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.
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
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.
I did not mean writers from WWII Watchman, but people who study and write about WWII. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.
Feel good to get that off your chest?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan
Okay bear with me here and explain - how's that in any manner relevant to present-day feminism ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
May I ask you the manufacturer of your crystal ball ?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.
Indeed. At least she's not *entirely* oblivious to facts then. :martass:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
You know that wording was just asking for it.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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).
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Then they must've just had an unusually bad day. For the past eight or so years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Also, Palin.
John. "Three purple hearts". Kerry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
https://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8005...kiopinionf.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
I got nothing. I think you're just disagreeing with me for the hell of it here.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
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.
I wouldn't call Eisenhower a RINO. He was a pragmatic conservative, in my opinion.
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".
Korea? Vietnam?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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
I take it I should have added the qualifier "within the last few decades" ? :no: Sheesh, so touchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
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 available online before taking it as gospel truth. Many people with firsthand knowledge of the events she narrates describe it as a work of magical fiction.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Really, Lemur? I didn't know about voting. I guess I've been living under a rock under all these years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'm sure no trouble could possibly be caused within four years though, right?
Ice, all I'm saying is that killing your opponents, or even publicly calling for their demise, is some serious Hutu Power. It's not the American way.
I think he has been watching and reading too much Death Note.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
"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!"
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.
Jeffrey Dahmer started out small too, you know. :/
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.
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.