Sarah Palin's Speech

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
<<< You’re wrong. >>>

No, you’re wrong.

While there have always been disputes about some, even significant issues, the mere presence of disagreement does not mean that’s what we have now.

Any of the major thinkers who contributed to the founding of this country would be mortified at what both parties have become and the democrats are much further along that scale of destruction.

[/quote]

Could’ve fooled me with the last 8 years…Of course I have my hopes. But Bush ran as a small government, conservative too. Let’s drop the subject.

202

Rainjack- dude, I’ve been havin’ some pizza, learin’ about Cuba.

In all honestly, though, I just got burned out on politics. Watching the GOP completely shit the bed and go all FDR/LBJ on the rank and file that got them there was just too much to take.

I actually wanted them to lose in 2006, and if the lying traitorous fucks had to lose the Jackasses then so be it. A serious lesson was needed, and if Palin is as advertised, maybe the Stupid Party did learn something afterall.

All that was needed to get me out of my slumber was to read of few of the comments on Palin by the usual suspects, and some stupid broad in the Baltimore Sun.

That these morons think they have something profound or even useful to say bogles the mind. Been there, done that people. Its a new game, get in it.

Well that, and the fact that I was on my way to a 2-3 hour hike to a high alpine lake and then my car wouldn’t start and I had to kill some time and started writing.

Question: some would say that calling members of the GOP lying traitorous fucks for boosting spending like LBJ is bad, very bad. But given that they in fact did, as members of the same political party as Ronald Reagan, dealers of some epic electoral beat-downs, is it?

203

[quote]pushharder wrote:

And let’s not fail to mention that Obama “backed into” his US Senate seat. Palin never backed into anything.[/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean by “backed into” but if you mean having a significant lead on the opposing party’s candidate before he failed to pass his own party’s vetting process and then defeating a carpetbag opponent and winning as a Democrat from a Democratic state, then you are indeed correct that he “backed into” that seat.

If not, well then I think this one particular statement is probably false.

204

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Regardless of who started it. It is wrong either way. Palin is no better for being equally petty.

Sorry, Charlie - this is politics. Petty is how it is done. If you don’t like the rhetoric now, you’d better find a place to hide for the next 60 days. It hasn’t even got started good, yet.

[/quote]

Yeah, maybe so. But I think that we’ve brought that upon ourselves. Inherently, there is no reason to be so sensationalist and belligerent given the nature of communication and information that is so readily available to everyone today.

Whatever function being an asshat may have had once upon a time, is becoming increasingly irrelevant when anyone can just as easily find things for themselves.

Eitherway, I don’t let these divisions get in the way of my relationships with people, and I’d like to thank everyone for keeping this thread pretty sane.

205

[quote]Malevolence wrote:

Eitherway, I don’t let these divisions get in the way of my relationships with people, and I’d like to thank everyone for keeping this thread pretty sane. [/quote]

Unfortunately,some people and their political affiliations give me ideas for a Wayan’s parody of “Colors.”

206

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
<<< You’re wrong. >>>

No, you’re wrong.

While there have always been disputes about some, even significant issues, the mere presence of disagreement does not mean that’s what we have now.

Any of the major thinkers who contributed to the founding of this country would be mortified at what both parties have become and the democrats are much further along that scale of destruction.

Could’ve fooled me with the last 8 years…Of course I have my hopes. But Bush ran as a small government, conservative too. Let’s drop the subject.[/quote]

The Republicans have redefined “small government” to mean “smallER” which they then go on to show us means humongous rather than downright astronomical.

208

[quote]schrauper wrote:
Rainjack- dude, I’ve been havin’ some pizza, learin’ about Cuba.

In all honestly, though, I just got burned out on politics. Watching the GOP completely shit the bed and go all FDR/LBJ on the rank and file that got them there was just too much to take.

I actually wanted them to lose in 2006, and if the lying traitorous fucks had to lose the Jackasses then so be it. A serious lesson was needed, and if Palin is as advertised, maybe the Stupid Party did learn something afterall.

All that was needed to get me out of my slumber was to read of few of the comments on Palin by the usual suspects, and some stupid broad in the Baltimore Sun.

That these morons think they have something profound or even useful to say bogles the mind. Been there, done that people. Its a new game, get in it.

Well that, and the fact that I was on my way to a 2-3 hour hike to a high alpine lake and then my car wouldn’t start and I had to kill some time and started writing.

Question: some would say that calling members of the GOP lying traitorous fucks for boosting spending like LBJ is bad, very bad. But given that they in fact did, as members of the same political party as Ronald Reagan, dealers of some epic electoral beat-downs, is it?[/quote]

I can’t argue against anything you said. Back in the spring I was actually thinking about voting for Obama, just to send a message to the “republicans” that they had abandoned the right in favor of power.

Then I realized that Obama would most likely get to appoint 3 USSC justices in his term. I can’t be a party to that.

But then they brought out Palin. Like you, I hope that is a signal that the “republicans” get it.

209

I thought the speach was entertaining. The first part was a little rough for me. A little too much hockey mom and not enough VP. I enjoyed the majority of it. What I got a kick out of in her speach and Rudy’s was that most of it sounded like a conversation me and my very few Conservative freinds would have.

A lot of ribbing but in a fun and clever way. I found it very entertaining and light hearted. Outside of Bill’s I found the DNC speaches depressing and unimaginative. I mean how many times are they going to compare McCain to Bush. At least come up with something clever and entertaining. Do Democrats ever laugh?

I am a little concerned about Palin. I am concerned with both of them (Palin and McCain) but for different reasons. She appears, to me, to be our Obama. A refreshing outsider that we identify with but has limited experience if we are being honest about it.

Someone we see as our equal or someone we could hang out with and could shake up Washington. I don’t feel this way about Obama but some wacky libs do.

I don’t think she is even remotely qualified to be VP in the traditional sense and I’m having a hard time trying to figure out if this is a good thing or not. I think 4 years as VP would do a world of good for her and we could have the leader of the next generation of conservatives.

Imagining her as president right now, if something should happen to McCain, has me a little uneasy.

Outside of gay marriage she seems to share a lot of my ideals but I’m having a really hard time trying to see here as second in charge. I want to like her and she is certainly better than the alternative.

I do stil feel a little disappointed that this is best we get to choose from but it may be better than the choices we have had for the last 20 years.

210

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

The Republicans have redefined “small government” to mean “smallER” which they then go on to show us means humongous rather than downright astronomical.

Precisely.[/quote]

It isn’t even smaller, it is just slower growth (and sometimes it isn’t even that).

And when the Republicans vote for a smaller budget increase for a program that the Dems want our MSM reports it as a budget cut.

It is unreal.

211

[quote]rainjack wrote:
But then they brought out Palin. Like you, I hope that is a signal that the “republicans” get it.
[/quote]

I think this is her biggest benefit. Hopefully republicans pull their heads out their asses and notice how pumped people are about her. She said the right things and I hope she gave a copy of her speach to our resident neocon here in MN, Tim Paulenty.

I might not vote libertarian after all.

213

[quote]rainjack wrote:
<<< Then I realized that Obama would most likely get to appoint 3 USSC justices in his term. I can’t be a party to that. >>>[/quote]

This has to be pounded into peoples heads. Be principled another time. The stakes are waaaay too high here. Just think of that grotesquely stacked court.

214

[quote]dhickey wrote:
<<< I don’t think she is even remotely qualified to be VP in the traditional sense and I’m having a hard time trying to figure out if this is a good thing or not. I think 4 years as VP would do a world of good for her and we could have the leader of the next generation of conservatives.

Imagining her as president right now, if something should happen to McCain, has me a little uneasy. >>>[/quote]

I really do get ya on this. One corner of my mind is saying, maybe talented inexperience is exactly what we need. I agree though, envisioning her in a war room with a unified combatant command just isn’t putting a serene smile on my face.

However, Obama in that position has me shopping for a bomb shelter.

215

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
<<< Then I realized that Obama would most likely get to appoint 3 USSC justices in his term. I can’t be a party to that. >>>

This has to be pounded into peoples heads. Be principled another time. The stakes are waaaay too high here. Just think of that grotesquely stacked court.[/quote]

Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. 10 or 15 years of misery is a mere blip in the history of this country. Sometimes I think holding my nose while voting is a lot like Greenspan or any other Kaynesian fucking with interest rates and money supply. Maybe it is only delaying and eventually intensifying the pain?

216

Potentially so. However, as a conservative/libertarian (which are you? I really don’t recall), you should also remember the fact that the SCOTUS has almost never repealed or otherwise reversed it’s rulings in the last 80 years or so.

So damage done from the conservative perspective is likely never to be fully undone. Additionally, SCOTUS opinions shape the culture because they shape the law. This means that decisions that are controversial but onerous now are likely to be semi-forgotten or at least accepted by the majority of the public 30 years from now.

Which, given your and Tirib’s leanings, means that SCOTUS damage is really unthinkable and potentially irreversible.

217

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
<<< Then I realized that Obama would most likely get to appoint 3 USSC justices in his term. I can’t be a party to that. >>>

This has to be pounded into peoples heads. Be principled another time. The stakes are waaaay too high here. Just think of that grotesquely stacked court.

Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. 10 or 15 years of misery is a mere blip in the history of this country. Sometimes I think holding my nose while voting is a lot like Greenspan or any other Kaynesian fucking with interest rates and money supply. Maybe it is only delaying and eventually intensifying the pain?[/quote]

10 or 15 years is being a little optimistic. These are lifetime appointments. O’connor was on the bench for the better part of 25 years.

I don’t want to be too old to enjoy it waiting on the worse to get better.

You are looking at probably 20 years minimum for the next opportunity to load the court. Obama should never have that opportunity.

218

[quote]rainjack wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
<<< Then I realized that Obama would most likely get to appoint 3 USSC justices in his term. I can’t be a party to that. >>>

This has to be pounded into peoples heads. Be principled another time. The stakes are waaaay too high here. Just think of that grotesquely stacked court.

Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. 10 or 15 years of misery is a mere blip in the history of this country. Sometimes I think holding my nose while voting is a lot like Greenspan or any other Kaynesian fucking with interest rates and money supply. Maybe it is only delaying and eventually intensifying the pain?

10 or 15 years is being a little optimistic. These are lifetime appointments. O’connor was on the bench for the better part of 25 years.

I don’t want to be too old to enjoy it waiting on the worse to get better.

You are looking at probably 20 years minimum for the next opportunity to load the court. Obama should never have that opportunity. [/quote]

One can only imagine the shear idiocy that would come out of a Supreme Court with 3 more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs in there. We are talking about rampant liberal social engineering like we can’t imagine. It would take decades to undo something like that.

Let’s not forget the trio we would have:

Pelosi - Reid - Obama

Common, tell me that does not make you pay attention.

219

Back on topic:

Some truths about that speech:

http://www.adn.com/politics/story/515517.html

and

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check;_ylt=AjG9RA67KoDMnxLy9DXEl8gDW7oF

220

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
rainjack wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
<<< Then I realized that Obama would most likely get to appoint 3 USSC justices in his term. I can’t be a party to that. >>>

This has to be pounded into peoples heads. Be principled another time. The stakes are waaaay too high here. Just think of that grotesquely stacked court.

Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. 10 or 15 years of misery is a mere blip in the history of this country. Sometimes I think holding my nose while voting is a lot like Greenspan or any other Kaynesian fucking with interest rates and money supply. Maybe it is only delaying and eventually intensifying the pain?

10 or 15 years is being a little optimistic. These are lifetime appointments. O’connor was on the bench for the better part of 25 years.

I don’t want to be too old to enjoy it waiting on the worse to get better.

You are looking at probably 20 years minimum for the next opportunity to load the court. Obama should never have that opportunity.

One can only imagine the shear idiocy that would come out of a Supreme Court with 3 more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs in there. We are talking about rampant liberal social engineering like we can’t imagine. It would take decades to undo something like that.

Let’s not forget the trio we would have:

Pelosi - Reid - Obama

Common, tell me that does not make you pay attention.
[/quote]

The 15 years of misery I spoke of was not a liberal supreme court. The 15 years of misery would be the complete collapse of this country. Bankrupt, 20% unemployment,etc.

Unfortunately we need the masses to give a shit about economics and politics before any significant changes can be made. For this to happen things need to get a lot worse. Most of the people I know begrudgingly give up 40% of salary but would still rather watch Dancing with the stars than take any interest in economics or politics.