Everything you ever wanted to know about Sarah Palin

[Veilan]

That's also bad, but two wrongs don't make a right. *insert Godwin's law Hitler-Stalin comparison*

[Mulu]

That's what the studies suggest. I've had it happen, which is why I keep it to myself in real life.

I sure don't advertise it either. If asked point blank I'll respond, but I don't normally volunteer it, and I can and have discussed religion with a priest without him being aware of my non-belief. In fact I frequently get praised by ministers and priests for my depth of knowledge, with a comment to the effect of, "It's so refreshing to talk to someone who's obviously given a lot of thought about his beliefs." That's usually around the time I give in and say, "Well of course I have, I'm an atheist," as one of the rare occasions where I will volunteer it.

[Grand Fromage]

I sure don't advertise it either. If asked point blank I'll respond, but I don't normally volunteer it

Yeah, that's my policy. I've found I've gotten a pretty good eye for the really crazy evangelist types who will freak on you and can dodge them now, but every once in a while I answer honestly and get the RAR AGENT OF SATAN crap. Fortunately I can just laugh at them now, as a kid it was devastating.

[White Warlock]

It gets old when people argue the wrong points. Unfortunately, that is presently the selling ploy of the GOP. Palin is an unknown, and that is what the GOP wants. But i want to address a few things here:

One of those strawman arguments is that of Palin being a working-mother and how such makes her ill-prepared to be VP. This argument was first posed during the RNC. It is an argument that is on the table because the GOP wants it there. It's an argument they can sink their teeth into, even though they had to make it up in order for them to be able to sink their teeth into it.

Palin under Investigation
What they cannot argue about is that they vetted her for only one day (vetting = background investigation/interview/etc), that Palin is under investigation for abuse of power, and that McCain knew about this 'before' choosing her as VP (July 2008 article) - http://www.ktva.com/ci_10026165

Worse is, McCain's key Alaskan allies are trying to derail the investigation -- http://www.newsweek.com/id/157439/

And here's the proof -- http://www.newsweek.com/id/157438

Anti Pork-Belly Platform
In her VP candidacy acceptance speech, Palin said, "We suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that Bridge to Nowhere."

Actually, Congress told Palin, "Thanks, but no thanks." With the Bridge to Nowhere, Palin officially closed the project after Congress already effectively discontinued it. The money earmarked for it, however, was not returned. Instead, it is being used for 'other' projects. Regardless, her claim of being against earmarks does not match up to her track record:

Pork-Belly Mayor
Palin hired a lobbyist to secure 27 million dollars in earmarks for her small town of 9000, when she was mayor, that even McCain listed them in his "pork-lists" -- http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1593.story

Details of these earmarks are available here -- http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?c ... 20By%20TCS

Pork-Belly Governor
Palin requested $360 million in earmarks since being in office (less than two years). That's an average of over $180 million a year, buttloads more than any other State in the Union, per capita. -- http://stevens.senate.gov/earmarks/Appr ... Alaska.pdf

You know, there's plenty more:

• Under fire from environmentalists for opposing the Bush administration's decision in May to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
• Limited education in an unrelated field - Bachelor's degree, from 1987 (University of Idaho), in Journalism.
• Palin's inexperience undercuts the GOP's argument that Obama is inexperienced (in truth, Obama has more experience, seeing as he worked out-of-court as a civil rights attorney, but that's for another discussion).
• Palin was not voted in by the party, she was 'chosen' by the Presidential nominee. There is nothing to indicate she is a winning sidekick for McCain or that she is 'wanted' by the GOP.
• McCain choosing her, over far more qualified candidates, looks very much like a political gimmick. This, in turn, hurts McCain, who is trying to sell the notion of, "Country First."
• Other than being Governor of Alaska since 2006, Palin was the mayor of a town with a population of 9,000.
• Alaska's total population is 685,000. Ranked 48th among all territories (Puerto Rico has a population of 3,940,000), 47th among all States at 0.22% of the total U.S. population. On population alone, being the Governor of Alaska doesn't even compare to being the Mayor of a big city. She's only been doing it for less than 2 years, and she's already under investigation.
• There's more, but this is enough...

A pro argument posed is that she has an 80% approval rating in Alaska. Well, i decided to look this up, and it's not necessarily true. First off, the research was committed by Hays Research Group (a nobody in the field of ratings/polls). Second, there were two choices for approval: Very Favorable and Somewhat Favorable. Bunch these together and you get 80%. Third, they only interviewed 404 people (far lower than acceptable for such a demographic), and only did so once (again, far lower than acceptable to determine incidental or otherwise). Compare this to the Gallup Organization that is interviewing over 1000 citizens every day to keep tabs on the Presidential candidacy pulse -- http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080 ... s4m7a9.gif . Fourth, the Hays poll was made "before" the aforementioned investigation began -- http://www.haysresearch.com/oc072508.htm I have not been able to confirm newspaper reports that indicate her popularity in Alaska has since fallen by 15%.


Now for those who want to present strawmen, or other fallacious arguments, I don't really care. I acknowledge that choosing Palin was a tactical gamble, and that it is presently paying off in polling dividends, but it is exceedingly unlikely she'll survive a vice-presidential debate. Biden is one of the best in that arena and Palin is going to have to undergo a hardcore crash-course in both domestic and international politics if the GOP has any hope of her coming out even remotely viable. That, in and of itself, shows her to be a poor candidate choice for the American people, even if not for McCain.

So, really... what's more important, Truth... or Party? The Nation, or the notion? The sell, or the same? (i have a few more of these, case you want to start up a t-shirt business)

[Veilan]

I sure don't advertise it either. If asked point blank I'll respond, but I don't normally volunteer it

See, and that's refreshing. Few things more annoying than advertising your faith, or often more appropriately, rubbing it into someone's face. Of course, christian's aren supposed to lord their faith over anyone either, and while I kind of am one, I often find it aggravatingly hostile if someone prefaces what they say with "I'm christian, so...".

[Mulu]

I acknowledge that choosing Palin was a tactical gamble, and that it is presently paying off in polling dividends, but it is exceedingly unlikely she'll survive a vice-presidential debate. Biden is one of the best in that arena and Palin is going to have to undergo a hardcore crash-course in both domestic and international politics if the GOP has any hope of her coming out even remotely viable.

Nah, she just has to be sexy and funny while being evasive. She'll have her dozen talking points that all questions will be responded with, whether related or not, a few zingers to get the audience going, and Biden will be left looking like a boring old man who talks too much next to the VPILF and her sound-bite analysis of the world. You just wait and see. Americans don't analyze or vote based on policy as a general rule. Bush should have made that obvious.

If the dems want to win this thing, they have to bang on the Roe v Wade drum and get it through the heads of the thong wearing masses that Sarah Palin and the old guy she's running with will take away their right to choose if elected and start a war in Iran. If they don't jump on the negative sound-bite wagon soon, they're done. They have less than two months.

At least we'll probably hold onto Congress.

[HATEFACE]

When it comes to being shunned and disrespected, it always looked from here as if the worst thing you could admit to being in the US was an Atheist.

In a country dominated by globalism and diversity you're just bound to run into people who you wont see eye to eye with. Oh well. . .

Christianity is the leading religion in the united states but not the only one. If you speak of a group, the ideology becomes clouded, i.e. you group that person and align that person based upon specific beliefs & sterotypes. What I have come to realize is this; Christians don't speak for christianity, athiests don't speak for non-belief, muslims don't speak for islam. . .etc. They can however comment on their own shortcomings within their group. This usually comes from interaction between the groups thus gaining a different insight.

Therein lies the problem; You have people railing against muslims because they don't speak out against islamic-fascist jihad. Christians not speaking out against attrocities in third world countries. Is it the group that is at fault or is it the sub group that goes against the tennants of parent group? Rather it's the sub group that commits the act but you cannot group them in with you, only acknowlege that, that group goes against your tennants not ignore them all together.

An example would be communist socialist-athiesm in russia. Did atheists comit the acts? Yes, but it wasn't based upon secular humanism.

coincidently Mayhem. . .
The current the worst thing would be to admit your Taliban though I should point out that the Taliban does not speak for all Taliban. Quick someone call the ACLU.

As far as people shouting their faith in public places, they can, its called free speech. One interesting, and by interesting I mean horrible, idiosyncrasy I've personally seen would be muslims stomping on a the united states of america while shouting in arabic while people walked by ignoring it completely. While at a twins game I witnessed some fervorish man speaking about god and judgement(twins lost) day while a bunch of teens yelled at him.

[NickD]

Anti Pork-Belly Platform
Pork-Belly Mayor
Pork-Belly Governor

Mmmmm pork!


Eh. Republicans are going to win and then America is going to end up with Palin as President. And America will deserve what they get from that, much as they have deserved what they have got from the last 8 years (no, not talking about 9/11).

[Mulu]

It's becoming more probable by the day....

Of course Republican policies tend to benefit me economically, they just cause me a lot of angst and horror. Oh, the horror.

Then again if it ends up being McCain with a Dem Congress, we get a moderate outcome overall. By the time McCain's presidency is over and Palin can take a shot, I'm sure she will have exposed herself as both dumb and evil. I can live with it. The Bush years were bad because they had Congress too until '06.

[Grand Fromage]

That's assuming Congress would do something, though. So far they've done nothing but roll over and suck Bush's dick since the election. But maybe, maybe McCain doesn't believe the shit he's been spouting. Maybe he's still the same man we all loved six years ago, and if elected he would behave like it.

[Mulu]

That would be ideal, of course.

[Lusipher]

Biden said today that Obama should have picked Clinton has his running mate. That says a lot for confidence of the VP to win this election.

[Mulu]

Oh, they're sunk and they know it. It'll take one of three things to reverse the situation.
1. Some irredeemably horrifying skeleton finally falls out of Palin's closet. Quite possible.
2. Palin tanks at the debates. Not likely.
3. Obama starts campaigning Rove style. Not likely, though necessary.

Other long shots include McCain having an aneurism (might win anyway, *shudder* ), Biden withdrawing and Clinton stepping up (it would change the dynamic anyway) or NARAL push polling on the abortion issue (they don't have the nerve or the resources, but it could tip the balance).

Or of course the unpredictable catastrophic event. Basically, they're looking for a hail mary. Having good policies will lose to thongs every time in the US.

Then again Obama has proven he can come up from behind. Maybe he'll outshine the GOP in the end after all, no tricks or divine intervention necessary.