McCain taps Palin for VP!

This is a forum for all off topic posts.
User avatar
White Warlock
Otyugh
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Knu-Mythia
Contact:

Post by White Warlock »

What a joke. This woman holds a bachelor's degree in journalism... that's it.

Her background for managing issues has been downright horrible. She fires people left and right, entire cabinets on a whim. And, in the end, she reverses her position on the issue that prompted her to fire people, but of course does not reverse her position on firing people.

She hasn't succeeded in getting anything accomplished, despite the allegations otherwise. Her background is being a mayor of a small town and a governor for two years. And yes, as Grand Fromage said, she's an extremist in many respects.

Nyar is also correct. McCain is gambling. He is gambling on a few fronts:
  • 1. That supporters of Obama will be stupid enough to make an issue of, biting down on, her qualifications, thus allowing the Republicans to slam dunk Obama's qualifications.
    • +((unfortunately, this is a very likely possibility, and one fool democrat has already bit down on this issue))

      -((But, if the democrats don't bite down, and instead focus on her actual 'performance' in her role as a community leader, McCain's campaign will be in bigger trouble than it was before))
    2. That supporters of Clinton, which foolishly looked at Obama as the enemy rather than as the same-party competition, will rally behind McCain because he has a woman for vice president.
    • +((Unfortunately, as one member here already indicated... stupid (or more aptly, ignorance) is the norm when it comes to politics, so there's a rather good chance he will gain some Clinton supporters.))

      -((On the other hand, this is, in many respects, an insult to American women, and it is possible the general consensus will view it as such. So while it may gain some Clinton fan votes, it may also very well cause many women to steer clear of McCain))

      -((Also, many conservative men may find the notion of a woman in the office of VP, with a good chance she may end up being the President (due to McCain's health history), to be an offensive notion... and thus refrain from even voting, as it is not likely these same people would vote for a Black man.))
The tough part for the Republicans is they don't have a large active voting base. The percentage of Republicans that actually get up and vote is significantly lower than what has recently been seen with the Democratic Party. Thus, even this tactic may not succeed in swaying votes to the GOP. If anything, depending on how things happen (how many people put their foot in their mouth) it may decrease the amount of people that show up at the polls.

On a personal level, I just don't see any chance for the GOP to win. They have so much going against them, there is very little they can possibly do to turn things around. Short of an assassination, Obama will be the next U.S. President.

Do I care? Actually, yes, I do. McCain would be a bad choice. On one example alone, the Surge was not successful as he claims. Sending more troops to Iraq wasn't the catalyst. The real catalyst was in putting insurgents on the U.S. payroll. The same Iraqi soldiers that were fired from the Iraqi payroll, by Rumsfeld in 2003, are now being put back on a payroll... except it's the U.S. payroll.

That's really been at the core of many of these problems. In 2003, the U.S. fired hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqi soldiers and police, leaving them to fend for themselves, to find a means of income and support for their families. Territorial wars began, religious zealots gained influence by providing shelter, sustenance, and purpose, and hatred was fueled. The U.S. took their livelihood away, placed them all in poverty, and humiliated them in front of the entire world.

So, really... this whole "surge" success story is a false sell, as is most of the sells from this administration, and now from McCain's lips.

This woman as a potential U.S. Vice President? Who cares? Her approach to leadership is to fire everyone. Is that positive? For that matter, is that change?
User avatar
NickD
Beholder
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:38 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by NickD »

White Warlock wrote:Short of an assassination, Obama will be the next U.S. President.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/sto ... d=10529356
This week it's been the smallest moments that reveal the biggest fissures. Moments like when an Obama staffer from Denver told me they had an "N word tally" posted on the office wall. The tally keeps growing as campaign volunteers canvas voters by phone and respondents use the word and hang up.

It comes when a dear friend mentions that his brother-in-law in Iowa, a bright man, is going to vote for McCain because he "still can't bring himself to vote for a black guy". There's not much you can say to move the cement in a sentence like that.

Pollsters are madly trying to quantify what number to put on racism. Good luck. Various polls range from 5-9 per cent of respondents who admit they feel uncomfortable voting for a black man.

But the story gets a bit muddier when the question is made less personally revealing. When asked if respondents had friends who wouldn't vote for Obama because of his colour, that number went up to 19 per cent, according to a New York Times poll. Translation: I'm not willing to admit out loud that I'm a racist but it's certainly more comfortable telling you my neighbours are.
Yes, Obama will overwhelmingly take the black vote, with 89 per cent saying they support him, but blacks usually vote Democratic anyway. John Kerry got 88 per cent of the black vote in 2004, according to CNN exit polls.
So, uh yeah... Don't count out the ignorance and bigotry of the Average American Voter(TM).
Current PCs:
NWN1: Soppi Widenbottle, High Priestess of Yondalla.
NWN2: Gruuhilda, Tree Hugging Half-Orc
User avatar
Lusipher
Talon of Tiamat
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Northrend
Contact:

Post by Lusipher »

Mayhem wrote:You know, for somebody who is in favour of scrapping the Off Topic Forum so that things that might upset other players (like, eg, political opinions) can be avoided, its a little hypocritical to put your political opinion in your avatar so even people who avoid off topic can see it.
Thats too bad. Its the political season and Im making a statement. Its not against any stupid rule here.
User avatar
Lusipher
Talon of Tiamat
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Northrend
Contact:

Post by Lusipher »

Her background for managing issues has been downright horrible. She fires people left and right, entire cabinets on a whim. And, in the end, she reverses her position on the issue that prompted her to fire people, but of course does not reverse her position on firing people.
She fired people who were corrupt. Its one reason I like her because shes not afraid to take on people if need be. Having some nads isnt a bad thing. I admire her gusto. As for changing her position I havent seen anything to the contrary.

Palin's tenure is noted for her independence from big oil companies, while still promoting resource development.[13][15] Palin has announced plans to create a new sub-cabinet group of advisors, to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska.[18]

Shortly after taking office, Palin rescinded thirty-five appointments made by Murkowski in the last hours of his administration, including the appointment by Murkowski of his former chief of staff Jim Clark to the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority.[19][20] Clark later pled guilty to conspiring with a defunct oil-field-services company to channel money into Frank Murkowski's re-election campaign.[21]

What a joke. This woman holds a bachelor's degree in journalism... that's it.
She didnt plan on entering politics. She was elected to the PTA board and from there she ran for Mayor. She then made a bid for Governor. Did pretty well for herself for being a hockey mom. Whats funny is she has more Executive experience than both Obama or Biden who have none. Biden will kill her on foreign policy, but he has nothing else he can hold a candle to her with. Obama has only been a U.S. Senator since 2005 and he's been plotting/running for President since 2006. He's spent more time campaigning, than being a Senator.


Palin was the Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she served from 2003 to 2004. She resigned in protest over the lack of ethics in the administration of the time. Former Governor Murkowski, a Republican, ignored Palin's whistleblowing complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest. After Palin resigned and at the risk of her political career, she exposed members of her own party and lobbyists for wrongdoing. Her formal complaints lead to the resignation of top officials. She later took Murkowski's job.


She hasn't succeeded in getting anything accomplished, despite the allegations otherwise. Her background is being a mayor of a small town and a governor for two years. And yes, as Grand Fromage said, she's an extremist in many respects.
She hasnt been in office for a long time, but shes already gotten this Alaskan pipeline project up and running from Anchorage to Alberta, Canada. Shes big on Energy. Here are a few things shes already done, though:

In March 2007, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) as the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.[22] Only one legislator, Representative Ralph Samuels, voted against the measure,[23] and in June Palin signed it into law.[24][25] On January 5, 2008, Palin announced that a Canadian company, TransCanada Corp., was the sole AGIA-compliant applicant.[26][27] In August, 2008 Palin signed a bill into law giving the state of Alaska authority to award TransCanada Pipelines a license to build and operate the $26-billion-dollar pipeline to ship natural gas from the North Slope to the Lower 48, through Canada. [28]

In response to high oil and gas prices, and in response to the resulting state government budget surplus, Palin proposed giving Alaskans $100-a-month energy debit cards. She also proposed providing grants to electrical utilities so that they would reduce customers' rates.[29] She subsequently dropped the debit card proposal, and in its place she proposed to send Alaskans $1,200 directly and eliminate the gas tax.[30][31]


"In Alaska, Governor Palin challenged a corrupt system and passed a landmark ethics reform bill. She has actually used her veto and cut budgetary spending. She put a stop to the 'bridge to nowhere' that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars."



After federal funding for the Gravina Island Bridge project that had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending was lost, Palin decided against filling the over $200 million gap with state money.[13][14] "Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on 'federal dollars,' as the state does today."[15]


Social issues which some of you wont agree on but im with her 100%:

Gov. Palin during a 2007 speechPalin is strongly opposed to abortion and supports capital punishment.[32] While running for Governor of Alaska, Palin supported the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools,[33] however, she noted she would not use "religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism" as criteria for selection to the school board.[33]

She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[12] While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with an Alaskan state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.[34] She disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling[35] and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[36] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.[37] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.[12]

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.[35]

In regards to the budget of Alaska:


Budget
In the first days of her administration, Palin followed through on a campaign promise to sell the Westwind II jet purchased (on a state government credit account) by the Murkowski administration. The state placed the jet for sale on eBay three times. In August 2007, the jet was sold for $2.1 million.[42]

Shortly after becoming governor, Palin canceled a contract for the construction on an 11-mile (18-kilometer) gravel road outside of Juneau to a mine. This reversed a decision made in the closing days of the Murkowski Administration.[43]


Some political positions:

Palin is pro-life and a prominent member of Feminists for Life.[83] In 2002, while running for lieutenant governor, Palin called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be."[22] Palin opposes same-sex marriage,[22] but complied with an Alaskan state Supreme Court order and signed an implementation of same-sex benefits into law, stating that legal options to avoid doing so had run out.[84] She does not support legalizing marijuana, concerned about the message it would send to her children.[22]

Palin is a life member of the National Rifle Association, and is popular among gun rights activists. She is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, and supports gun-safety education for youth.[85]

According to Time magazine, Palin's foreign policy positions were not clear at the time she was picked, but she has been critical of the lack of a long-term strategy on the war in Iraq.[86]


What has Obama done? Nothing.
User avatar
Lusipher
Talon of Tiamat
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Northrend
Contact:

Post by Lusipher »

Here is what Obama's rep could say about his accomplishments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o

:roll:


Obama is just a figure head. People want to rally behind that smile and hope the guy will lead us all to the promise land when he hasnt done one damn thing since becoming a senator. Real experience indeed.

I did find he had worked with Emil Jones here in IL to pass a few bills and that Emil took Obama as his protegee'. Whats funny about that is everyone here in IL knows that Emil Jones is in the pocket of Energy businesses like Illinois Power and killed bills that actually tried to put money back into IL citizens pockets because Illinois Power overcharged the hell out of us. Emil Jones is a typical Chicago politician who doesnt care one bit about anything outside of Chicago and what can line his pockets. If Obama is his protegee' then I can understand all those rumors of corruption that dog Obama from his days in Chicago.
User avatar
Mulu
Mental Welfare Queen
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:25 am

Post by Mulu »

Lusipher wrote:What has Obama done? Nothing.
Right, all of his accomplishments in the public and private sector are vapor compared to her firing a few corrupt officials. He's just been shooting hoops for the last 20 years hoping he could smile his way to the White House someday. :lol:

Bubble reality must be fun for you. Though if you change "shooting hoops" to "snorting cocaine" it's a pretty accurate portrayal of Bush Jr. back in 2000, though admittedly his resumé did include overseeing more executions than any governor in history. :P
Neverwinter Connections Dungeon Master since 2002! :D
Click for the best roleplaying!

On NWVault by me:
X-INV, X-COM, War of the Worlds, Lantan University.
Veilan
Lead Admin
Posts: 6152
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:33 pm
Location: UTC+1
Contact:

Post by Veilan »

As sad as it is, I have to agree with Dan on one notion: Obama seems empty. In his own words, he wants to be the canvas, and in the TIME magazine's words, he's "not a window into america's soul, but a mirror for each american to see themselves in" - but what happens if you hold up the mirror before that guy who wants to be the blank canvas? Right. I don't see much substance with him, he seems a windbag, hyped by people, someone where everybody ends up nodding to him - no matter they have fundamentally opposint viewpoints. That just doesn't work.

Not to say I prefer McCain or some loony that apparently suffers from mental retardation (teach ID and evolution? lawl...), but I'm highly skeptical of the lack of skepticism towards the messiah.
The power of concealment lies in revelation.
User avatar
Lusipher
Talon of Tiamat
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Northrend
Contact:

Post by Lusipher »

Here is some fun stuff about Obama and his ties to corruption in chicago:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/o ... eb.article

Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed “political candidate” referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in “sham” finder’s fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.

Rezko, who was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing “at least one other individual” to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual — in possible violation of federal election law.



Obama — a state senator when he got the contributions in 2004 — has moved to distance himself from Rezko since his longtime friend and supporter was indicted in October 2006. After news reports that Obama had engaged in a real estate transaction with Rezko’s wife at a time Tony Rezko was known to be under investigation, the senator called the episode “boneheaded” and “a mistake.”




Rezko is one of Obama’s earliest political patrons. Long known as a prolific fund-raiser, the Syrian-born businessman helped raise money for Obama’s political campaigns beginning in 1995, when Obama was running for the Illinois Senate.

In 13 years in politics, Obama has gotten at least $168,000 in campaign donations from Rezko, his family and business associates. The Sun-Times reported that figure last June. Obama’s “best estimate” seven months earlier had been that Rezko had raised no more than $60,000 for him.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, Rezko held a June 27, 2003, cocktail party in Rezko’s Wilmette mansion, picking up the tab for the lavish event. Obama’s campaign staff has said it has no records to show who attended that party, or how much it cost.

Obama’s relationship with Rezko dates to 1990, when Obama, then a Harvard law student, interviewed for a job with Rezko’s development company, Rezmar Corp. Obama turned down the job, instead going to work for a small Chicago law firm — Davis Miner Barnhill. That firm did work on more than a dozen low-income housing projects Rezmar rehabbed with government funds.

Eleven Rezmar buildings were in the state Senate district Obama represented between 1996 and 2004. Many of the buildings ended up in foreclosure, with tenants living in squalid conditions, the Sun-Times reported last year. In one instance, Rezko’s company left tenants without heat for five weeks. Obama said he was unaware of problems with the buildings and minimized the legal work he’d done.

Obama’s relationship with Rezko grew closer in June 2005, when Obama and Rezko’s wife bought adjoining real estate parcels from a doctor in the South Side Kenwood neighborhood. Obama paid $1.65 million for the doctor’s mansion, while Rezko’s wife paid $625,000 for the vacant lot next door. Obama’s purchase price was $300,000 below the asking price; Rezko’s wife paid full price.

Six months later, Obama paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for one-sixth of the vacant lot, which he bought to expand his yard. In November 2006, he expressed regret about the transaction.
User avatar
White Warlock
Otyugh
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Knu-Mythia
Contact:

Post by White Warlock »

The nice thing about b.s., is that you can smell it long before you step in it.

Dan, there is absolutely no reason for me to participate further in this thread. McCain simply won't win. In the exceedingly unlikely event he were to win, our international status would plummet, which likely will cause stocks to fall, thus influence our economy and further deteriorate it, etc etc. It's not merely about the person, it's about the effect such a 'gesture' tells the world at large.

Obama will win, whether you or I want it to happen or not, so debating all these little talking points, most of which have nothing 'directly' to do with Obama, is pointless. You don't like him, that's your choice. But somewhere along the way you must concede that Bush Jr. has been a major disaster for the GOP, and the U.S. as a whole. That, in and of itself, whenever he opens his mouth to provide support to McCain or Palin, only undermines their chances further.

Enjoy your ... self. I'm out.
User avatar
Lusipher
Talon of Tiamat
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Northrend
Contact:

Post by Lusipher »

The nice thing about b.s., is that you can smell it long before you step in it
The majority of what you write?
McCain simply won't win. In addition, if he were to win, our international status would plummet, which likely will cause stocks to fall, thus influence our economy and further deteriorate it, etc etc.
Thats why he have an election. We will see.
But somewhere along the way you must concede that Bush Jr. has been a major disaster for the GOP, and the U.S. as a whole
Bush Jr. has done a lot of good and bad. I dont buy into the whole he caused 9-11 bullshit that a lot of left extremist are spouting. He took a extremely terrible situation and tried to do the best he could from it. Do I think him attacking Iraq was dumb? In hindsight, yes. I agree with many that it gave him an excuse to go after Saddam Hussein. We went to war over many reasons and some of them werent very valid. I dont think he had all the information he needed. I think we could have directed our aims at Afghanistan and went right after Bin Laden and killed him when we had our chances instead of dealing with Iraq.

Only good thing you can now see from Iraq is that those that were under that terrible dictator are now free to make lives for themselves. I guess if anything we can be proud we helped them get out from under the boot heel of a mad dicatator. What they do with their new freedoms is up to them. We gave up a lot in blood and money to help them so it would be nice to see us keep some friendly ties with them both politcally and economically.

I agree that the war killed Bush's approval rating and turned most americans against him even staunch republican supporters like myself. I think somewhere the man lost his sight. He looks tired. He repeats the same old mantra. Its like the life was sucked out of him over the past 8 yrs. We do need a change and I hope somewhere down the line that what President Bush did in Iraq will one day look favorably because that is his legacy. So many things he could have done here at home like health care, funding for schools, etc were all turned aside because his main focus has been this war and its blinded him to what was happening here at home.
That, in and of itself, whenever he opens his mouth to provide support to McCain or Palin, only undermines their chances further.
I agree. If the GOP was smart they would just tell Bush to stay out of the election altogether and this hurricane bearing down on the South could politically be a godsend for the GOP if it means Bush wont speak at the Republican National Convention. He has done enough damage to the party.
User avatar
Mayhem
Otyugh
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Norfolk

Post by Mayhem »

Lusipher wrote:
Mayhem wrote:You know, for somebody who is in favour of scrapping the Off Topic Forum so that things that might upset other players (like, eg, political opinions) can be avoided, its a little hypocritical to put your political opinion in your avatar so even people who avoid off topic can see it.
Thats too bad. Its the political season and Im making a statement.
Oh, it doesn't bother me. But from your own anti-off-topic stance, it ought to bother you.
Lusipher wrote: Its not against any stupid rule here.
No, but it would have been, if you got your way.

;)
*** ANON: has joined #channel
ANON: Mod you have to be one of the dumbest f**ks ive ever met
MOD: hows that ?
ANON: read what I said
ANON: You feel you can ban someone on a whim
MOD: i can, watch this
ANON: its so stupid how much power you think you have
User avatar
Lusipher
Talon of Tiamat
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Northrend
Contact:

Post by Lusipher »

Not really. I have been asked to change my avatar before because it had 2 females kissing in it from a comedy skit that people see on cable tv (g4)

I've been censored and thought it was stupid. Had Olivia licking a Apple TV box and was told to change it. Again, a cable tv program that millions of people watch everyday and its not R rated or anything, but was told to change it because it offends someone. Whoop de doo.

I dont care if people talk in Off topic about controversial things, but I do expect those same people to deal with it if someone with another view point comes in and discusses it also. We see folks get up in arms if someone comes in and says something they dont agree with. Its just not being fair. If you talk about a topic dont expect everyone to share you viewpoint no matter how extreme you view it. To someone whos gay and openly spouts it to the world I find that extreme, but dont find it extreme when someone who doesnt like that lifestyle tells you so.
User avatar
White Warlock
Otyugh
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Knu-Mythia
Contact:

Post by White Warlock »

Only good thing you can now see from Iraq is that those that were under that terrible dictator are now free to make lives for themselves.
Make lives for themselves in what? Rubble? Have you seen footage of Iraq before and after this war? 1 out of every 5 Iraqis are dead or disabled since the start of this war, a greater percentage due to coalition (U.S.) actions. One would be hard-pressed to find a family that has not suffered loss and great hardships in these past 5 years.

Dancing and claiming victory on their graves is what McCain is proposing. But, there is no 'victory' here, only national shame.
User avatar
Lusipher
Talon of Tiamat
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Northrend
Contact:

Post by Lusipher »

Your obviously more delusional than I thought. It was War. People die in war. Not only did innocents die but so did our troops. Things happen to make better things come about. Its tough, but it was necessary. I guess we could have let Husseins cronies continue to torture, rape, and kill and drop their bodies in huge fields of corpses. Out of sight out of your mind, eh? :roll:
User avatar
White Warlock
Otyugh
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Knu-Mythia
Contact:

Post by White Warlock »

Lusipher wrote:Your obviously more delusional than I thought. It was War. People die in war. Not only did innocents die but so did our troops. Things happen to make better things come about. Its tough, but its was necessary. I guess we could have let Husseins cronies continue to torture, rape, and kill and drop their bodies in huge fields of corpses. Out of sight out of your mind, eh? :roll:

Oh right, war. Collateral damage and all that. Better to kill them all, let God sort em out. :roll:

The civilian casualties exceed the insurgent casualties, and far exceed the coalition casualties. Some conservative estimates indicate over a 2 to 1 civilian/insurgent casualty ratio. In the invasion phase alone, which lasted only 41 days, the most 'conservative report' indicated that 9200 Iraqi combatants and 7,300 civilians were killed by Coalition forces. Almost a 1 to 1 kill ratio. At what point does collateral damage become genocide?

Go read this article -- http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/1571

Dan, as nicely as i can put it, swallow your pride and open your eyes. Your ignorance is not my failing, and the facts are not my delusion. If you fail to do the homework, you fail to obtain the facts, and then you succeed in believing anything you want to believe in order to make yourself feel better for the mistake of having voted twice for Bush Jr. Really, there's nothing more i can say to you.
Locked