Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 116

Thread: The VP Candidate from Alaska

  1. #46
    and... World Peace! Tonichelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Kenai, AK
    Posts
    18,662
    It did insult a lot of Alaskans. As the left likes to point out we're a small state and everyone knows everybody. It's not hard to find out what's okay and what isn't, and we'll gladly inform the outsiders.

    And again, it's not the fact that he mispronounced a random town. Wasilla has been on the lips of every newscaster and journalist in the political realm for well over a week before he went and said it incorrectly. It was a putdown, pure and simple. Especially to those of us in South Central Alaska.

    And I don't believe that democracy is bad, I wouldn't like it any other way. I like having a say in what goes on, and having my own opinions and thoughts. And having what little say I do about what goes on in my home state and town. and not having to rely on a 'grade curve'.

    My apologies to how Medusa was spelled, not sure why my s key got away from me.

  2. #47
    Custom Title Tigger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    100 Acre Wood
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    Or are you and that guy the same person?

    Well, if the strategy worked twice, the third time might be possible.
    Believe it or not, but I can actually think for myself and that was a pretty obvious thing about her speech last night. I don't need pundits and the "experts" to tell me what was right there in front of me to see and hear for myself.

    I still can't believe the Republican Party is trying to also do the "Change" thing. I'm sorry, but aren't you guys the ones who have run the US for the past eight years? Aren't the majority of the people from the Convention we've heard from the same that have brought in a good number of the laws over the last eight years? I guess we really shouldn't be surprised to hear "We will/are winning the war in Iraq." and "Iran is stocking nuclear weapons." in the speeches.

    So much for Change!!

  3. #48
    L'art pour l'art Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    Believe it or not, but I can actually think for myself and that was a pretty obvious thing about her speech last night. I don't need pundits and the "experts" to tell me what was right there in front of me to see and hear for myself.
    It was kind of meant to be a compliment and it was just a really funny coincidence, I basically read both comments at the same time. But be grumpy if you want to.

  4. #49
    and... World Peace! Tonichelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Kenai, AK
    Posts
    18,662
    The experts I were listening to were on your side, Tigger...

    Personally i love that the Alaskan is still in her and that it hasn't been beaten out of her yet, and I hope she doesn't ever change... but I wouldn't mind if she didn't punctuate her big points with a finger point, that bugs me to nno end (always does lol)

    and no, I wouldn't say the Republicans ran everything in the last 8 years. The Bush Administration, yes... and for a while the senate/congress were republican held, but the last two years, when it all went to pot had a Republican Administration and a Democrat congress. They're all so busy bickering at each other nothing gets done.

    That's the difference between the change campaigns. McCain is just dancing to Obama's original tune. The difference is McCain is talking about changing things up in Washington... and we're still not sure just what changes Obama has up his sleeve (if any, it took FDR several months after he was elected to come up with an outline of a plan)
    Last edited by Tonichelle; 09-05-2008 at 03:13 AM.

  5. #50
    L'art pour l'art Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,752
    I got a question.

    Lots of American politicians talk about this pro-life / pro-choice - thingy. And the way I understood it, lots of Republicans are pro-life. But wasn't Bush the president for like the last 7 years and isn't he pro-life? And abortion is still legal. So what's the buzz about who is pro-life and pro-choice if abortion stays legal anyway? Did I miss something here?

  6. #51
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Well if we are going to invade another country for Weapons of Mass Destruction we should be absolutely sure that's what said country has. The thousands of innocent lives slaughtered by orders from the President, and yet Iran may have the intention of building WMD, but it doesn't have oil. So what's point? The point is the Bush family can not stand any oil producing country not willing to take orders from the Oil rich Bush family.

  7. #52
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    I got a question.

    Lots of American politicians talk about this pro-life / pro-choice - thingy. And the way I understood it, lots of Republicans are pro-life. But wasn't Bush the president for like the last 7 years and isn't he pro-life? And abortion is still legal. So what's the buzz about who is pro-life and pro-choice if abortion stays legal anyway? Did I miss something here?
    The President has no power to enact laws, so he/she does nor really have any mechanism to declare abortion illegal all by himself. He would have to rally a lot of political support – in both houses of Congress, in the court system, and among the people – in order to prohibit abortion.

    It is virtually impossible that this will happen. Any position a politician takes on the abortion issue is a no-win deal. The reason is that there are a few people who think abortion is simply murder and there are a few people who think there is no moral issue involved at all. But the vast majority of people can see merit on both sides of the argument and are unable to stake out a clear and unambiguous ethical position for themselves that can stand to every challenge. That is why politicians, when asked about abortion, usually just mumble something about how nice it would be in unwanted pregnancies didn’t occur in the first place.

    Basically, they just wish the issue would go away because whatever position they took, they would end up making more enemies than friends.

    One thing that the pro-life people might be able to accomplish, however, is to get the Roe versus Wade decision overturned. In this 1973 case a woman became pregnant as the result of rape, and she challenged the anti-abortion laws of the state of Texas (coincidently, the state that George Bush became governor of years later.) The U.S. Supreme Court (more left-leaning in the 1970s than it is now) ruled that the Texas law was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    This was a victory for the pro-choice side, and the decision prevents any individual state or city from having its own local anti-abortion law.

    But legally, the decision was on shaky ground. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the U.S. Civil War in order to grant the full privileges of citizenship to former slaves. It says,

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    The Court held, in a majority opinion written by the great civil rights jurist Thurgood Marshall, that the language “life, liberty and property” implied an “umbra” of other coincident rights, and the right to abortion fell among them.

    (For what it’s worth, I think that was baloney – they just wanted to throw out the Texas law and that is how they managed to do it. It is not the responsibility of Court to decide whether a law is good or bad, only whether it violates the Constitution. The plain fact is, the Constitution is silent on abortion. My two cents. )

    Anyway, with a conservative majority on the court after several appointments by Republican presidents over the last 25 years, it is possible that the court might now review Roe versus Wade and come to a different conclusion. This would allow individual states to prohibit abortion, but would not comprise a national policy.

    But I don’t think the court wants to touch the issue any more than the President or the Congress does.
    Last edited by Mathman; 09-06-2008 at 10:47 AM.

  8. #53
    and... World Peace! Tonichelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Kenai, AK
    Posts
    18,662
    where I think the pro-life/choice comes into play these days is the stem cell issue more than anything else... abortion won't be done away with (I wish doctors of moms with 'less than perfect' babies would quit pushing it when the mom has made the CHOICE to keep the baby, but that's just a personal rant. when a dr. tells a mom point blank that because the baby has health issues and she won't abort then she is not a main priority... GRRRR!) but the case comes down to what laws should be on abortion such as partial birth, or the rights of a young teen who goes to a doctor and does not want her parents finding out (I find it interesting that a 13 or 14 year old is able to make these decisions on her own, but if she's in trouble with the law she's not capable of making adult choices so she's charge as a child... makes no sense to me... but again that's another rant)

    at least that's what I take it to mean when a politician takes a stand one way or the other. I think it matters more on a state level than it does a Washington level in the long run.

  9. #54
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    The President has no power to enact laws, so he/she does nor really have any mechanism to declare abortion illegal all by himself. He would have to rally a lot of political support – in both houses of Congress, in the court system, and among the people – in order to prohibit abortion.
    But he can defy the findings of the United Nations and lie to his fellow Americans so that they will go along with his plans.

  10. #55
    and... World Peace! Tonichelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Kenai, AK
    Posts
    18,662
    he had congress on board, including the 'other side,' so the checks and balances did their job whether we agree with it or not...

    and you know, for a moron, he's gotta have some intelligence to be able to pull off such a big stunt (he's also god since he was the one who created Katrina to kill off the people in New Orleans)

  11. #56
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    How many in congress, if they had known the truth, would have ok'd his war to get the oil market? They all changed their minds once it was known that he lied about about the WMD. What he did to Colin Powerll was and is shameful.

    If one belies lying is part of the game of war, then that's where it stands. Is it sinful? That is another question?

  12. #57
    L'art pour l'art Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,752
    Palin has an interesting opinion on the war in Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Guardian
    The death toll among Iraqis as a result of the US-led invasion has now reached an estimated 655,000, a study in the Lancet medical journal reports today.

    [...]

    Of the deaths, 31% were ascribed to the US-led forces. Most deaths were from gunshot wounds (56%), with a further 13% from car bomb injuries and 14% the result of other explosions.
    The Guardian, October 11 2006

    That was as of October 2006, only the civilian victims are counted. That makes 203050 civilians killed directly by the "allied forces". Of course those numbers and the study itself were much debated and criticised - but then again highly acclaimed experts also praised the study.

    At this point I would like to quote governor Palin

    Quote Originally Posted by Anchorage Daily News
    Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

    "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

    Anchorage Daily News, September 4 2008


    If the Iraq War - that cost half a million, probably mostly innocent, lives - is a task from God, then the only thing I can do is to pray that Mrs. Palin and I do not believe in the same God. Because I don't want to believe in that kind of God.
    Last edited by Medusa; 09-06-2008 at 07:21 PM.

  13. #58
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonichelle View Post
    He had congress on board, including the 'other side,' so the checks and balances did their job whether we agree with it or not...

    and you know, for a moron, he's gotta have some intelligence to be able to pull off such a big stunt
    President Bush did trick some people into supporting the war, but I think they wanted to be tricked. After the 9-11 terrorist attacks Bush pretty much had a green light to say, let's go after the bad guys and if you're not with me you are a traitor. The Democrats didn't want to look like they were soft on terrorism, so they went cheerfully along.

    As for the American people -- they were just mad and fearful and wanted to shoot somebody -- anybody would do, it didn't really matter whether Iraq or Saddam Hussein had anything to do with Al-Qaida, weapns of mass destruction or anything else.
    (he's also god since he was the one who created Katrina to kill off the people in New Orleans)
    I do fault the Bush administration for it's inadequate response, though. The people in charge of the relief effort were Bush's political cronies who neither knew nor cared anything about disaster relief. They were just given cushy high-payoing jobs as their reward for being loyal Bushies.

    FEMA chief Michael Brown spent more time consulting with his advisors about which necktie looked best for his TV appearances than in doing anything to help the victims.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    How many in congress, if they had known the truth, would have ok'd his war to get the oil market? They all changed their minds once it was known that he lied about about the WMD.
    I think it is more acurate to say that they changed their minds once Bush's popularity declined after the American people got bored with the war and started to wonder, sure it's fun to kill Iraqies, but is it a billion dollars a month worth of fun? I think the Democrats in Congress were playing a political game just like the Republicans.
    What he did to Colin Powell was and is shameful.
    True, but that's politics. Colin Powell is a big boy. He could have stood up to Bush instead of being his toady.

    So could we all have. We didn't. Shame on us.

  14. #59
    and... World Peace! Tonichelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Kenai, AK
    Posts
    18,662
    I do fault the Bush administration for it's inadequate response, though.
    I remember a press conference where one of the local government leaders of New Orleans said - before the hurricane hit - that they wouldn't need outside help. I don't think the feds did anything wrong by letting local government make that call. Granted it was the wrong call, but that's what seperate but equal should mean. No one should be able to force their ways on another state (this coming from an Alaskan who knows what thats like).

    I personally feel that choosing to rebuild right back on top of it all is a bit like thumbing your nose at 'mother nature'... kinda like what people in Anchorage are doing now in a part called "Earthquake Park" which basically was washed out into the ocean during the big earthquake of 64. You know it's going to happen again with the same if not worse results, why put yourself in that position again?

    Granted, I understand that that's someone's home, but I guess I just don't have that strong of an urge because I've not been there.

    I think the Democrats in Congress were playing a political game just like the Republicans.
    I don't think that goes along with just thoughts on the war. That's what's wrong with our government right now... everyone's too busy trying to beat the other guy at the same game. It's not working. That's why I like Sarah. I may not agree with everything she says or does but she DOES go up agaisnt anyone and everyone not just the 'other side'... it takes a lot of guts to stand up to your own side, especially when you have to try and be successful in the political structure. But she doesn't seem to care to play the political game. That's why I don't think she was being fake in her speech the other night when she spoke about the big boys in washington. she hasn't let them bully her so far as governor.


    as for her quote in the Anchorage Daily News... they're great at taking bits and pieces of a press conference or other interview and putting them into whatever context they want. She's not completely for the war, based on her latest speeches. Considering she somewhat contradicts herself I wonder if the author of the article got it right. "It's a task from God" vs "Let's pray that it is in God's plan"...
    Last edited by Tonichelle; 09-06-2008 at 08:04 PM.

  15. #60
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    If the Iraq War - that cost half a million, probably mostly innocent, lives - is a task from God, then the only thing I can do is to pray...
    IMHO, as an armchair psychologist, the whole key to George Bush the younger and the Iraq War is 2nd Chronicles 10:10. King Rehoboam, speaking of his dad, Solomon:
    (The people will see that) my little finger is thicker than my father's penis.
    The Sunnis and the Shi'ites have been fighting each other since 632 AD, the latest installment being the decades-long war between Iraq (Arabic Sunnis) and Iraq (Persian Shi'ites). U.S. foreign policy in the Persian Gulf for at least thirty years (following the fall of the U.S. supported Shah of Iran) was based on the principle of alternately supplying to each side just enough military aid to keep the other side from winning. If one side won and the other lost, the victor would emerge as the dominant power in the region. This would be bad for U.S. oil interests, bad for Israel, and bad for pro-U.S. factions among the other Arab states of the region.

    When Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait in the first Gulf War, President George Bush Senior responded by sending some troops to the region to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait. This they did. Then they came home.

    But the macho hawk forces, like the young advisors who counseled Rehoboam, criticized the father for being a wimp -- why didn't he continue on to Baghdad and string Saddam up to the nearest tree, like John Wayne (the late American cowboy actor) would have done? Saddam rubbed it in by thumping on his chest and bragging how he faced down Bush Senior and how Bush Sr. was afraid of him, etc.

    Little Bush couldn't stand this. He plain hated Saddam for "humiliating" his father and, when young Bush became President, he seized his first opportunity to prove that he was a more manly man than his dad.

    If you actually followed the months leading up the the invasion of Iraq, even if the weapons of mass destruction charges had been true (they weren't), even if Iraq had been pursuing fissionable material from Africa (they weren't), even if Al-Qaida had been trying to recruit in Iraq (they hadn't -- they were Arabians who hated Saddam and the Iraqis) -- even if all of Bush's eager self-delusions had been true -- there was still plenty of opportunity to head off a crises.

    Bush would hear none of it. I can only describe his personal obsession with Suddam Hussein as maniacal. This obsession has cost the U.S. dearly. Among the costs -- Iran has now won the real Persian gulf war, negating decades of U.S. foreign policy in the region.

    Maybe Mr. Bush feels that he won, since his vendetta cost the lives of only 5000 American soldiers, compared to 100 times that many Iraqis.

    (Just my opinion, of course.)
    Last edited by Mathman; 09-06-2008 at 08:55 PM.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •