How many Iraqis did Hussein kill? How many Iraqi's did Bush kill? two wrongs do not make a right. But oil makes sense. doesn't it?
Americans are killers, just ask the vietnamese.
How many Iraqis did Hussein kill? How many Iraqi's did Bush kill? two wrongs do not make a right. But oil makes sense. doesn't it?
Americans are killers, just ask the vietnamese.
What good does someone do who may be brave in making decisions if the decisions are questionable? That woman tried to have books banned from the library (I think that's one of the verified stories), was that somehow cool because it was "against anyone and everyone"?
She has a highly dangerous opinion on sex-ed. You said that she didn't really enforce her opinion - but you'll never know what happens if someone has even more power (and a country is going downhill). Do you want this kind of policy she prefers in all of the US? Do you want that the 14-year-old gay boy from ***city in South Dakota contracts HIV the first time he sneaks away from home for a weekend to party (+ other activities) in a gay club in the nearest bigger town? Because that's a possible scenario, if his parents are "social conservatives" and he was too afraid and ashamed to ask anyone and the parents had one of those funny programs that censor the internet. That's what teens do, they sneak out, they break the rules, they get pregnant at 17 despite having a abstinence-talking mom. And I ask myself - is anyone really really comfortable with that kind of scenario? I mean, this is not just some minor issue you have a different opinion about, this is a life-and-death-issue! But of course, if she stands up for her religious beliefs - who am I to judge? If someone risks innocent lives because of a personal religious opinion - that's just admirable.
You know, you keep saying that she is gutsy, a good governor and did so much for Alaska and that she is qualified. But you don't talk issues, you don't talk facts. If someone brings up something it's either questionable, or a rumour or not significant. I want to know what you really think about her. I think that you tell us what you feel about her - but I want to know what really qualifies her for the job.
What do you think about her stance on abortion, on sex-ed, on gay-rights, on Iraq, on intelligent design, on that scandal (well, you said that it's just a smear-campaign), on education (parents first), on climate change (she also had contradictory statements there)? What do you think about the fact that she actually reduced the budget for an institution that helps teen moms? Do you think that she has the ability to understand socio-ecomonic problems outside Alaska e.g. in the big cities? Do you think that you like her because of her political abilities, because of her outstanding opinions on important issues - or do you like her because she is from Alaska (and therefore gives Alaska some attention on the national stage) and a social conservative and because you got the feeling that she did a good job in Alaska?
I can't do this right, can't I? I deliberately chose the Alaska newspaper and not one of my European-Elitist-Liberal-Trash - and it's still questionable. But this quoteOriginally Posted by Tonichelle
was often metioned. I cannot guarantee you that she definitely said this because for that I would have needed to be there (even if I had a vid - you can falsify those, can't you?)"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."
You are right, the quote is somehow contradictory. Let's see - the first half is definitely the crusade / jihad part of the quote, the one where you legitimatise your crimes and greed (in this case for oil) through religious beliefs.
The second part shows some insecurity on her side, it is as if she can't find a rational reason for the war / crisis - but somehow can't admit that, especially not to the potential cannon fodder (or the potential shepherds of the cannon fodder since she was talking to ministry students). Therefore she brings God back to the equation and comes up with the everlasting "accept your suffering"-line. You know, the one that was dominant during the Middle Ages in Europe - that all your suffering on Earth makes sense and is God's will. In this case the Iraq war - even if they can't find a rational reason - has to be God's will and therefore all the suffering and death makes sense - somehow (at least to her and some selected Americans - I don't think that they conducted a poll about that among the civilians in Iraq).
The question is - will all this backstory motivate people to vote for the one candidate who really opposed the war from the beginning? Or will everyone accept that one can be wrong from time to time and that everything is well now?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.
I found it very poignant that Michael Moore answered Larry King's question: "Why didn't you support Hillary Clinton?" with the very simple answer "She was in favour of the war in Iraq" (quotes are not exact!).
And all that blood is on his hands. I hope he will realise that one day.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.
As I hope that all those politicians, the American public and the allies (UK etc.) will realise one day that in order to protect something (nobody really knows what was protected in the end) or to gain something (oil) - half a million innocent people had to die. Was it worth it? This blood is on their hands.
And I hope that those selected few countries who didn't join the allies will realise some day that their work shouldn't have ended at the point where they didn't crumble under the superpower's pressure. That they shouldn't have spent the next months and years after the beginning of the war patting on each other's backs and congratulating each other for being called the "old Europe" (we were all very very proud of that) - I hope they realise that this war was indeed illegal, probably violated the Geneva Conventions and had no support in the UN or the NATO - after all, it was a preemptive strike. I hope they realise that there could have been diplomatic consequences, political consequences, it could have been a defining moment.
Last edited by Medusa; 09-06-2008 at 11:58 PM.
Medusa - the Anchorage Daily News is not an Alaskan paper, it's run by a group that I believe is in California. I could be wrong as to where the owners come from, but it is not Alaskan. The ADN goes up against a lot of what most Alaskans believe, think, and agree with. And most of the authors of the main articles (like ones with Palin and McCain) are not written by Alaskan reporters (actually most of the ADN writers that live up here moved here because the owners wanted them up here. They only hire Alaskans in the other parts of the job (paper pushers, receptionists, etc).
I am not attacking you, I understand why you did it, but you have to understand the source. The ADN is not well liked by journalism professionals that now teach in this area (and not because of politics)... if that means anything at all.
I still don't get why people are dancing at the thought that an abstinance supporting mom having to deal with a teenage daughter's pregnancy... it happens whether mom and dad believe in abstinence or not, and unfortunately Alaska has a high unwed pregnancy rate anyway... and WE DON'T TEACH ABSTINANCE up here. You said yourself that kids will run out and do what they please (I didn't, but whatever, I realize I'm not the norm), Sarah at least didn't shun her daughter or anything like that.
And Todd (Mr. Sarah Palin) didn't shoot Levi (father of daughter's baby) on site, which most Alaskan father's are known for at least threatening to do
I don't have the time to provide links, but her biggest thing is how she's gone up AGAINST "big oil" in the state. It's actually very researchable through media sources as well and government websites on both ends... That takes guts for a lot of reasons, the main reason is if big oil pulls out of Alaska our local economy tanks to basement levels if not into negative figures. However, because big oil had a lot of control up here certain things didn't get done because they didn't want them done. She's come in and changed things up.You know, you keep saying that she is gutsy, a good governor and did so much for Alaska and that she is qualified. But you don't talk issues, you don't talk facts. If someone brings up something it's either questionable, or a rumour or not significant. I want to know what you really think about her. I think that you tell us what you feel about her - but I want to know what really qualifies her for the job.
When Governor Murkowski (former Senator for Alaska) took office he did what Mathman accuses Bush of doing - he put friends/loyalists in the high places of local government whether they should have been or not. He bought himself a jet (which Sarah sold off in her first few months as governor) so that he could fly all over, though he said that it was for the different military and police forces to fly back and forth to Juneau. The public voted against it, but he did it anyway. The four years he was in office had people on all sides incredibly disappointed, he was running the state like he ran his office in washington and we were feeling it.
When Sarah took office she went basically through all of his major decisions and retooled them. The Alaska-Canada pipeline that Gov. Murkowski had promised to "big oil" went bye bye. She opened up bidding to everyone, it wasn't just gifted to the ones holding most of the cards, and she chose someone else to do the job. You can imagine the backlash that big oil and a lot of the 'good ol boys' gave. She also raised taxes on the oil companies, bringing in more revenue and basically telling the companies they were getting too big for their britches.
A lot of why I feel and think (I use the words interchangibly which I guess is confusing) is because I'm a life long Alaskan so I am so used to how it's done up here I don't really explain it. It's one of those 'don't you know????' type things. I forget that while we're the biggest state in the union and bigger than a lot of European countries, we're very insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Which is also my greatest frustration. Because our population is small our voice is small in our government. I selfishly want Sarah to do well for our state, but I also believe she's right. Because I live here and I've seen what she's able to do in two years without all of the experience in washington that Murkowski was touting.
IIRC, Sarah also spoke out against some of what Bush was doing with the military here in Alaska. For a while our troops were either left in Iraq & Afganistan longer, told the day they were supposed to leave that they were staying longer, or theyd get back to turn right around to go back out. But I could have her confused with Senator Lisa Murkowski (yeah her dad was the governor and senator before her. He hand picked her to take his place when he was voted in as governor and Alaskans were mad... we then voted her in two years later, and I am personally sorry I wasted my vote on her. She makes fewer decisions than just about anyone else down there.)
I hold a lot of respect for another Alaskan Governor even though he does not hold my party affiliation and I wish he were the one running for senator against Ted Stevens. Former Governor Tony Knowles also went up against his party, during the Clinton-Gore administration when they used the 'antiquities act' to close off Alaska to everyone including Native Alaskans (ie indians, eskimo, etc) from doing anything.. fishing, hunting, surviving. He went so far as threaten to sue the government if they didn't rework it. In the end there was a compromise, but it was impressive to say the least. I should have voted for him and not Murkowski, I let family friendships cloud my judgement. Never again.
ETA - I don't have time to look up specific links at the moment (shouldn't even be on here right now, I have a paper due monday!) but here is a section of a 'fan site' for Palin with links to major articles on her oil fight - http://palintology.com/category/energy/oil-gas/
Last edited by Tonichelle; 09-07-2008 at 12:48 AM.
No, Mr. Bush will never realize that.Originally Posted by Medusa
This is what I think Mrs. Palin brings to the Republican ticket. In American national politics, the person wins who can get his/her supporters actually to vote. Trying to win over independents, trying to influence undecided voters, trying to poach voters from the other party -- none of that is nearly as important as getting your own folks to the polls.
(John and Robert Kennedy were masters at that. The major emphasis of their campaigns was organizing volunteers to cruise heavily Democratic neighborhoods hectoring eveyone to get out and vote and offering them a ride to the polls. When that wasn't enough, they went to the Chicago graveyards and collected the names of dead people to enter in the voting lists. That put them over the top in the swing state of Illinois -- and the rest is history!)
McCain's biggest problem is that he is boring, even to the members of his own party. The died-in-the-wool right-wingers who are the most enthusiastic Republican activists have no passion for his candidacy. Sarah Palin, in contrast, is one of their own. She's firely, blunt-spoken, and on the right side of all the issues they hold dear. I think the Republican party is looking to Mrs. Palin to rally its core conservative wing who otherwise might fade into the background, feeling that they have no horse in the race.
Obama had the opposite problem. His left-of-center supporters were super enthusiastic, but he also needed to appeal to the great middle -- hence the safe choice of Joe Biden.
"Palintology?" I love it! :chorus:Originally Posted by Tonichelle
Last edited by Mathman; 09-07-2008 at 12:57 AM.
I still say that Biden and Palin are both more likeable and more anti-old washington establishment than Obama - who has been groomed for this moment - and McCain (who I still have issues with!). They at least acknowledge that "We the People" do not mean just the big wigs in the Congress
as for the Vietnam thing - I don't even want to say how much it angers me that people still make those that fought that war (draft or enlisted) as nothing short of murderers... John F Kennedy the man who was supposedly the original savior of this country during the turmoil of the 60s is the one we can thank for all of that... and a lot of his supporters were the ones who spat on the men who came home from that Hell.
okay NOW I'm off to write that paper... I think :D
Great piece on McCain and Palin
Ugh, if McCain/Palin pull it off and win, I will pretend that this funny piece of land between Canada and Mexico is annexed by the Canadians for the next four years.Originally Posted by NYT
Medusa, One of the problems in America is that we only have 2 political parties, and the populace are almost evenly split between them. Therefore, one of the things I "venerate as a human Christmas tree" is a politician who can get something done and who will make a decision. Our natural thing here is stasis and do-nothingness. Unfortunately, when as Mathman says, we get a Bush with a monomania about Iraq, we go to war and get the wrong thing done. I envy you Europeans your multiple parties. There is a chance to consider more points of view than 2, and thus to have a better chance to craft a solution.
Right now we have a huge number of problems and need someone who can craft solutions. Both McCain and Palin in their respective spheres have gotten things done and have worked across party lines to do so.
Although there is a great deal of fear-mongering done about a McCain presidency, a hugely comforting thing to me is this statement by Sen. Russ Feingold, one of the most Liberal Democrats in the Senate. Feingold worked with McCain for many years to get the McCain-Feingold act, which regularizes a lot of things about campaign contributions and "soft money" to attempt to reduce corruption in our campaigns, and so knows McCain well:
But Feingold's history with McCain is much richer, especially the six-year bonding experience that was McCain-Feingold, a legislative Long March that annoyed people in both parties before it improbably passed Congress and was signed by President Bush. The two even hit the road together to drum up public support before the final Senate debate, McCain telling one New Orleans audience, "Russ and I are happy warriors."
"He's a very good legislator from my point of view, because when he gets onto something, he doesn't just want to introduce a bill, he likes to move it. And he's fearless," Feingold said of McCain, who once called the Wisconsin Democrat a "philosophical soul mate" on reform issues. (The two partnered on several other bills in addition to campaign finance.)
"People couldn't believe how long we stayed on McCain-Feingold. . . . We'd come to those press conferences (year after year) and you guys would laugh at us, I mean, literally," said Feingold, grinning.
"He's a great guy to fight an uphill battle with legislatively. He keeps his word. . . . I probably shouldn't be saying this stuff, but to be honest about it, it was one of the better professional experiences I've ever had in my life," Feingold said.
Plus, the Vietnam War was truly devisive. Half of the people thought we were saving the world from the great Satan of Communism, and the other half thought we we murdering an innocent population and that we were the great Satan. Positions in the middle were squeezed out.
Also, Vietnam was the first televised war. Americans actually saw their sons and daughters being loaded into military transport vehicles in body bags. The newspapers published full page photographs of screaming Vietnamese children burning with napalm.
The Vietnam experience had two consequences. One, the government learned not to allow newspeople to show the horrors of war, substituting instead a lot of patriotic jingoism by politicians. And two, the American people were ashamed of themselves for taking it out on the soldiers who were sent into battle, instead of on the rulers who sent them. In the current war, everyone -- politicians and just plain folks -- go out of their way to cheer the troops even while questioning the war.
(Just my opinion -- I have lots of them. )
Last edited by Mathman; 09-07-2008 at 02:04 PM.
not all Americans were/are ashamed...the American people were ashamed of themselves for taking it out on the soldiers who were sent into battle, instead of on the rulers who sent them.
considering every age elligible man in my family served in Vietnam I have a very different view than most my age about it. My dad went over there on a ship as a coreman. He spent a lot of time on the ship, but the couple of times he went on land with the marines he was a bigger target than they were. My oldest uncle on my mom's side was the only man drafted, and he also was the one that saw the most action and was one of those sharpshooters in the helicopters, he was wounded in the war... and then he came home to California and... well... yeah...
I bristled at the comment made above about "Americans just like to kill" in reference to Vietnam.
Doris is better at putting into words what I'm trying to say. Does anyone remember when Rev. Jesse Jackson called NYC a different name in reference to the Jewish population when he was running for PResident way back when. It was political suicide for him (not that I think he was a good choice to begin with) but apparently calling a bunch of Alaskans stupid is okay (they're just natives, and whites... and a couple of blacks anyway). I'm sorry if I am proud of where I come from, but I feel if he can brag about being from Chicago or whereever he decides he's from this week then I should be allowed to be proud of where I come from.
McCain didn't vote along party lines all the time which is why I think a lot of the 'other guys' like him. Granted he came out and said a lot of the reason he'd vote against a Bush decision early on was because he was upset about the way that Bush beat him in 2000 - which I find petty and not something I really want in a president - but I guess you could say he's like Sarah in that respect.
We do have more than two political parties, but the Republican and Democrat parties are the two BIG ones and they have the most say just due to their size. Which is why they're no longer effective IMHO. They've forgotten their true responsibility.
Oh, and Medusa, not all of America is inbetween Canada and Mexico AK is North of all that Though there has been talk that Alaska should become its own country. (sarah's hubby is actually not against the idea lol or at least wasn't at one time) anymore I think AK would be better off going back to being a territory if not our own country.
I am wondering how does the US end the Iraq war? That is a real test for McCain if he would be the next president. I don't think it will end in the next four years if he is to be the leader. And I don't expect to see anything different would come out of his administration on this issue. Patriotism is, in the end, a narrow minded view to the entire human civilization.
Last edited by jennylovskt; 09-08-2008 at 03:38 AM.
Oh, give me a break with this one. He didn't pronounce it correctly, what a capital crime. So much more significant than issues like, let's say, taxes or the war in Iraq.Originally Posted by dorispulaski
Do I believe that Obama is an elitist? Of course he is one! As are McCain, Bush and all the men and women up there. They are filthy rich, most of them went to the best schools, they have their mansions... McCain said in an interview that he is going to recruit the best and brightest for his government. Read: he is going to recruit the elite. I mean, what do you expect? And I doubt that most people want it any other way.
The British are constantly complaining about their upper-class, who never enter a state school, speak best upper-crust English and have their places at Oxbridge secured - and now they have for once a Prime Minister who is not part of the upper-class - and everybody is complaining, not just about the fact that he is a bad Prime Minister (which he probably is), but also that he lacks refinement etc. And everybody is currently swooning over David Cameron (opposition leader), who has aristocratic roots, took the normal Eton-Oxford way and has a beautiful refined English. I think people want to look up to their leaders. And if people look up to someone, this someone automatically looks down on them.
Well, that's the theory. But it has unfortunately nothing to do with the reality. In Germany we have 5 parties, that really play a role. We got theOriginally Posted by dorispulaski
- Conservatives (nothing like yours, they are all pro-choice, anti-death-penalty, pro-gun-control, they call themselves Christian, it's even part of the party name - they are basically the moderate-capitalists, they are pro-USA and were pro-Iraq-war, it was just our luck that they weren't in power when the decision was made -- about 40% of the German population vote for them)
- Centre-left (social-democrats, mostly union-people, workers, the big cities, some intellectuals, they are no fans of the US -- about 25% of the German population vote for them)
- Far-left (socialists, mostly disencouraged workers, East-Germans, intellectuals, they are anti-USA -- about 10% of the German population vote for them)
- Green (well they are green, they are probably closest to the Centre-left, just with green principles, they are also very liberal concerning social matters, pro-gay-rights including marriage, adoption etc., also quite anti-USA -- about 10% of the German population vote for them, mostly intellectuals, students, young families)
- Liberals (they are economically liberal, they want an absolutely free economy, less taxes, less health care, they are pro-USA, but they are also liberal concerning social matters -- about 9% vote for them, no idea who these people are *shudder*)
So the problem we have is that not every party wants to team up with one of the others - historically the liberals (opportunistic snakes they are) teamed up with the Centre-left as well as with the Conservatives, the Greens mostly team up with the Centre-left, and nobody wants to team up with the Far-left. In one of our states we currently have a situation where none of the common coalitions have enough votes - now the Centre-left is thinking about teaming up with the Far-left and it's all one big mess. Nationally the two coalitions partners - Centre-left and Conservatives - are constantly biggering about everything and nothing. So we actually admire a system where there are two parties and nothing inbetween. There are other examples, the Finnish have currently 8 different parties in their parliament so everything is a compromise.
He never said that.but apparently calling a bunch of Alaskans stupid is okay
I disagree.Patriotism is, in the end, a narrow minded view to the entire human civilization.
I think it's a little more than just the "abstinence" thing. As Barney Frank has said (not that I fully agree with him, but whatever) - conservatives have long accused liberals of creating spoiled irresponsible kids who go out and do things like getting pregnant at 17. Here is a living proog that the same thing happens to conservatives. BTW, I agree with you in one regard here - as I'm sure Bristol could have gotten an abortion somehow, I do appreciate that Sarah must be a good mother if Bristol felt comfortable enough with going through with this pregnancy. OK, that came out very awkward, but you know what I mean.I still don't get why people are dancing at the thought that an abstinance supporting mom having to deal with a teenage daughter's pregnancy... it happens whether mom and dad believe in abstinence or not, and unfortunately Alaska has a high unwed pregnancy rate anyway... and WE DON'T TEACH ABSTINANCE up here.
I certainly like that she did that. OTOH, though, I believe Alaska is now in too much of a reliance on oil. With oil prices possibly dropping, it's sad that the state has not really used this windfall to grow other areas of its economy.She also raised taxes on the oil companies, bringing in more revenue and basically telling the companies they were getting too big for their britches.
Thank you, Medusa. The whole "Elitist" thing has been driving me mad!Do I believe that Obama is an elitist? Of course he is one! As are McCain, Bush and all the men and women up there. They are filthy rich, most of them went to the best schools, they have their mansions... McCain said in an interview that he is going to recruit the best and brightest for his government. Read: he is going to recruit the elite. I mean, what do you expect? And I doubt that most people want it any other way.
Yes--the fact that the elitists don't know what elitists are and don't recognize themselves is still very maddening.
Elitists are not rich people. Elitists are snobs, people who look down their noses at others. A person can be as rich as a vat of butter and not be an elitist because they do not think their wealth makes them intrinsically better than a poor person. A person can be poor as Job's turkey but so vain of their educational achievements, their cultural tastes, their blue-blooded forebears, or their self-identification as "high information voters" that they consider themselves so far superior to others, that their choices, needs, and opinions are more valuable and more important than those of others.
Kipling understood it:
http://www.swarthmore.edu/~apreset1/docs/if.htmlIf you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
This was particularly annoying when someone would wonder why Obama was an elitist and the Clintons were not elitists when the Clintons had more money than the Obamas.
You can't be an elitist and be the sort of person that elitists call "Bubba Clinton" who listened to everyone, gave them attention, and "felt their pain". Coming from Arkansas helps too, although it shouldn't-it made Bill part of the group that the elitists look down on, whether they should have or not.
I can't speak about why Barack Obama is an elitist. Maybe it was the Punahou prep school or being a college professor. Maybe it was Harvard Law. Maybe he was born looking down on others. Certainly his autobiography records him looking down on his grandparents and others who did not detect that he was hiding his drug use behind an assumed submissiveness and a smile. It is a temptation that very bright people who are also socially adept have, that temptation to look down on others.
If he weren't an elitist, he wouldn't have spoken to the San Francisco wealthy donors the way he did about people clinging to guns & God and about white guys don't want to work. He wouldn't have called the reporter Sweetie, and when he apologized, he wouldn't have called her by her first name and left it on her message machine. He wouldn't have told a group of voters that if he kissed them, would they vote for him.
But most of all he wouldn't have made an ad that says John McCain has 7 house he must be an elitist.
BLEEEEP. Time's Up. It's obvious that neither he nor his advisors have a bleeping clue about what an elitist is.
The Democrats didn't understand this last election with John Kerry who Is Elite, but who never struck me as an elitist. Now they're running a real elitist instead of someone the Republicans can paint as one.
yes, it's true that Alaska relies a lot on the oil industry up here, but really I don't see what other options we have... but that could be because we haven't really looked at the options as a whole... our logging industry WAS big, but Clinton/Gore fixed that "problem"
and our summer season is too short to make farming something worthwhile...
so I don't know what else there would be for the state as a whole.
"Wah" "Silly" implies their backwoods stupidity. They're silly simple minded Alaskans. It's exactly how it's meant when an Alaskan not from Wasilla (normally other Valley towns, such as Palmer) says it that way.He never said that.
Why is it a big deal, aside from this Alaskan being teed off? He seems to care more about being intune with how not to offend other country's than he is his own. Which, yes, is important, but you would *think* that he would try to show at least marginally the same respect for his country men. He doesn't, time and again he makes snide remarks about the country HE WANTS TO RUN. If you must be snide... Attack the opponents, not the people.
Last edited by Tonichelle; 09-08-2008 at 07:34 PM.