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

[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.

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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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 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 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 blankets.

[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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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 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 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?

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.

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.

[Husar]

This thread basically calls for this old link.

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

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...

[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.
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.

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

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

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

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



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.
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.

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

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.

[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