McCain taps Palin for VP!

[Nalo Jade]

Divided we fail.

I don't want political "parties" with blanket for and against policies. I want individuals that are for or against something.

Why does the two party system destroy us?

It keeps us in a perpetual "us vs them" mentality. It keeps us from getting things done. It is totally absurd to me that ...

>>We allow politicians to collect lobby funds for campaigns, we tax payers could easily pay a small percentage of the cost for a stamped envelope with the persons resume' enclosed.

>>It does not require a degree of any kind to be in a position that requires intimate knowledge of foreign cultures, economics, military, sociology, ect...

>>We actually listen to people who try to polarize us into being too wrapped up in who's wrong or who did what so that we miss out on how messed up things have gotten.

>>We pay a patriot willing to give up his life for us far less than we pay a money blinded "popular kid" to bicker about things instead of getting things done.

>>We don't have a "problem solving" think tank that is neutral and just works on "solving problems". We have groups of scientists that work to solve the most complex mysteries known to man, but when faced with an economic problem such as gas prices we put on a show and claim that drilling for more oil will solve the problem...

Both parties are responsible for countless wasted man hours, pork barrel money loss and in general keeping the American people subdued into a state of apathy...

Give them cable television, video games, fast food, and political "entertainment" and they will stay pacified and let us do whatever we want while whining about the fact that they can't do anything to stop us.

The golden rule... He who has the gold makes the rules.

As a small point...

Try and solve this math problem...

How many barrels of oil does the US demand each year?

How many barrels of oil are imported?

How many barrels of oil can one off shore oil rig produce in one year?

Okay now ...

How many off shore oil rigs would we have to create to not have to depend on oil?

(( Just to give you a ballpark it is well above 10,000 rigs. ))

So when the republicans get permission to do the off shore oil rig crap, will the gas prices go down... nope, but those companies will make more money.

Look up helium 3.

Neither party talks about helium 3, they are too busy lying to us.

[HATEFACE]

Now I remember why I don't get involved in these discussions.

Congratulations HATEFACE. You now enjoy the distinction of being the first person to ever accuse me of being a racist. How ironic. I don't think you or anyone else should vote for Obama because of his race. But I do believe that the sad truth is that many people are not voting for him, and are voting for McCain, for that very reason.

Yes, it is 2009. Perhaps Obama and the American people will actually demonstrate in this election that racism and bigotry are a thing of the past. If the republicans want to take credit for it, that's fine by me.

I stand by my original post and now gracefully bow out of this discussion.

Cool! I don't mind having the honor and privilage of showing something new about themselves that they didn't know about. Yes, it's an unfortunate truth - But that is a believe that the majority of people who vote for him are, indeed, racist? But I am willing to bet the delagates and many republican voters know the history of our party. Know where we come from. I don't know if the southern sterotype holds true, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Last time I went down south, it certainly seemed filled with the old ways, even though it was unspoken and not observed. i.e. whites and blacks not sitting with each other or each to their side of the restraunt. Seeing that really hit me. It seemed like all that was accomplished by the liberal 60s movement by then championed LBJ didn't account for jackshit. The real credit goes to Dr. Martin Luther King and the influence of his father and faith.

I was sorta kidding about the credited for making demcorats change their damn minds. - thing, but, honestly it was pretty unpopular to side with the KKK in the minds of a few of us northerners. ;p

For the record, you're not racist, but your views certainly are hinged toward that way of thinking. Consider your ass unhinged. . .Now if only I can get my hands on Biden. . .
[
quote]
Yes, it is 2009. Perhaps Obama and the American people will actually demonstrate in this election that racism and bigotry are a thing of the past. If the republicans want to take credit for it, that's fine by me.
[/quote]

Ah, ah, ah! That's under the assumption he is the most worth while candidate to vote for. Let's wait for the debates, shall we? So radical is his views of race and so far left is his political ideology. Little does he know that people pay attention to voting records and McCain has had a lot of them long before bush was ever around as president. ;o

[ç i p h é r]

Now, Obama Republicans? That only works if 2 + 2 = 5. And here's why.

Actually the biggest reason why that's unlikely is McCain. He is a moderate, he's just willing to capitulate to the right to win. At 72, this is absolutely his last chance. He's come close before, and he's not going to let it get away this time, no matter who he has to appease. Picking Sarah was the decision of a political animal, not a person interested in good government. Her history is one of personal vindictiveness and the abuse of power. Just read the Wiki on her, which btw had to be frozen to prevent editing by her campaign staff.

This is exactly why someone's record matters. We can see if their deeds match their words.

In the case of McCain, he has a long history of bipartisanship, which at times has put him at odds with other Republicans. We know this. That he picked a number two who appeals to various factions within the Republican party and perhaps beyond doesn't change any of that. You can look at it as politicking, which it certainly has to be to some degree, but I think it's very obviously also about broadening the appeal of the ticket.

Obama talks eloquently about unity and bipartisanship, but McCain seems to be the one actually doing more in that regard, especially in this election. Even if Sarah's beliefs are not in line with yours (and other staunch Democrats), there are still things about her that you can admire and things about her that conservative Democrats will find very appealing.

Now how broad is the appeal of the Obama-Biden ticket? Both have strong liberal credentials (1st and 3rd most liberal senators last year, respectively). If he is a liberal record wise, why not pick a reliably centrist running mate to round off the ticket and underscore the message? Surely there are political moderates with the kind of experience he needed, and that's avoiding the obvious question about how you can represent change by selecting someone that embodies business as usual (which he beat over Hillary's head IIRC).

BTW Mulu, what abuse of power are you referring to?

Also, I think the $5million number that you mention was taken out of context. McCain was asked the question in the Saddleback debate (the videos are online) and used that number jokingly saying that it would surely be taken out of context (and of course it has been). I believe his point was that how you define rich doesn't matter when you're not in favor of raising taxes.

@oldgrayrogue: You're absolutely right about Obama. He is a terrific story. Unfortunately, the problem is if he is living proof that the American Dream is alive and well, why do we need to increase the role of government to achieve the American Dream? If Obama is that poster boy, clearly more government can't be necessary. Mind you, I'm a fiscal conservative so this is a particularly sensitive point for me.

Michelle is an even better example. In her speech, she pointed out that she is a product of her parent's sacrifices. So, if her father didn't have to work as hard as he did for his kids and consequently wasn't the sort of hero to his daughter that she describes, would Michelle even be where she is today? Would she understand the value of hard work that got her in the law firm where she met Barack and ultimately on that podium? If the American Dream is the pitch, Obama is running on the wrong platform.

The unfairness/inappropriateness of the attacks on Palin have to do with the nature of the attacks, which have been very personal in nature (on her family, not her) and sexist - if you're going to attack Sarah for being a bad mother by running for public office, shouldn't you be attacking Barack for being a bad father by running for office, and an even more demanding one at that? Both have young children and fathers need to be involved every bit as much in the lives of their children as mothers do.

[AcadiusLost]

(1st and 3rd most liberal senators last year, respectively).

I just wonder how these "rankings" are generated, and by who... I don't think it's the sort of thing one can put on a single axis and plot graph points for with any kind of credibility. Last I heard the talking point was about how Obama had such limited experience in the Senate, hadn't attended many of the votes due to campaigning, etc... yet apparently he managed to sneak in enough "liberal" votes to beat out everyone else in the whole senate? Sounds pretty fishy to me, honestly.

[fluffmonster]

Obama is the exception to the reality of the American dream, not the rule. The truth is that under republicans the last 60 years, social mobility is reduced, not increased; social inequality goes up; and economic growth goes down perhaps as much as a full percentage point depending on how you look at it. For the vast majority of us, where you end up in life is most directly dependent on how your parents ended up.

We know welfare isn't the answer, and no one is proposing a return to the welfare system despite the claims of some republican commentators. Where a difference can be made is making decent education and at least some basic level of health care available to everyone. These things are enablers...they are the boots you need to do any bootstrap pulling. Right now, these are not available to all...there isn't even equal opportunity, let alone equity in outcomes (which we all know should not be imposed). The republican position isn't one of living the American dream, its a policy of winner-take-all.

[HATEFACE]

(1st and 3rd most liberal senators last year, respectively).

I just wonder how these "rankings" are generated, and by who... I don't think it's the sort of thing one can put on a single axis and plot graph points for with any kind of credibility. Last I heard the talking point was about how Obama had such limited experience in the Senate, hadn't attended many of the votes due to campaigning, etc... yet apparently he managed to sneak in enough "liberal" votes to beat out everyone else in the whole senate? Sounds pretty fishy to me, honestly.

What's this?! I am suspicious of said thing that puts said candidate in favorable light.

[Rusty]

Palin is Maude Flanders. End of.

[Magile]

Palin is Maude Flanders. End of.

She's dead because McCain didn't want a foot-long?

[NickD]

That's how the country started and it didn't work at all, sir.

I'm no expert on American history, but wasn't the United States formed to kick out the British? I don't think that's much of a concern these days. A lot of American states are powerful enough to stand on their own feet.

[Vendrin]

I'm no expert on American history, but wasn't the United States formed to kick out the British?

No, the articles of confederation were used for that, and without the british as an enemy force to unite the confederation in a common cause they fell to bickering and all sorts of bad things between the states.

[ç i p h é r]

You can check out the actual votes by senator online at the http://www.senate.gov. The rankings are put together by the National Journal, which promotes itself as a non-partisan organization.

While I prefer to look at the individual votes on the issues themselves, it's an enormously time consuming task. As such, I've reluctantly accepted the ranking based on head to head comparisons between senators. That's perhaps the most telling part of it. He is being compared to his peers, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Going back to 2005, Obama's voting record ranking has become increasingly "liberal" over time, not less. These results are really at odds with his campaign rhetoric, and as far as I know, the Obama campaign hasn't attempted to clarify the results of the ranking as one might expect if it were misleading or wrong. I'm happy to be better informed though if some non-partisan organization has compiled the results in an easy to read format.

[HATEFACE]

Obama is the exception to the reality of the American dream, not the rule. The truth is that under republicans the last 60 years, social mobility is reduced, not increased; social inequality goes up; and economic growth goes down perhaps as much as a full percentage point depending on how you look at it. For the vast majority of us, where you end up in life is most directly dependent on how your parents ended up.

;/ Wow, you put my idea that of both sides slowly putting an end to social mobhility to an end with that there statement. I understand you love obama, but take a peek at history. The truth is both democrats and republicans furthered social change on the local level as well as exectutive branch. So, I guess - According to democrats, the last 60 years were awful. I guess that backs up Michelle Obama's claim that she is only now, proud of america. For the record, the vast majority of us, where you end up in life, is mostly directly dependent on if your parents forced you to wear clown hats.

"We know welfare isn't the answer, and no one is proposing a return to the welfare system despite the claims of some republican commentators."

Just because welfare is broken doesn't mean republicans want to abolish it. That's the first time I've heard of such things. The question I ask you fluff; Is it possible to replace Welfare with a better system, one where, there are no welfare queens and people who choose/or don't choose to remain victims of the system?

The republican position isn't one of living the American dream, its a policy of winner-take-all.

As opposed to what? Obama's half-brother? Well, if you say so fluff, maybe it isn't JUST a republican position. "It was a short meeting," George Obama recalled. "We spoke to each other. It was odd -- like meeting a stranger." I guess it only applies to people INSIDE the country.
Winner-take-all indeed, share none with family. Fuck family, it ain't as important as politics.

Where a difference can be made is making decent education and at least some basic level of health care available to everyone.

Is it optional or are you required to take part in this system of socialized health care. Is it Manditory that everyone participate?

Want to know my views on education? I have a video somewhere that can sum it all up, I hope I can find it. It's definately not the democratic way. - Our education system would effectively become more european. Sorry to say fluff, it would require less money and more accountability on behalf of the educators.

Palin's daughter and her pregnancy effectively makes her fodder for the left and thier views of abstinence education. Unlike the majority of moderate republicans I do not view abstinence-only as effective, but a combination thereof, protection education, proper education of sex, and abstinence should effectively reduce unwanted child birth. Coincidently, Palin's daughter is a statistic. Roughly, 40% of women at 17, or so, will give birth outside of marriage. Good thing she has a rich mother or else she would no doubt be living in poverty. depression, more children? (abortions?) (suicide?)

[Mulu]

Obama talks eloquently about unity and bipartisanship, but McCain seems to be the one actually doing more in that regard, especially in this election.

The biggest complaint I read about Obama from the left is the fact that he is "too bipartisan" and "abandons liberal ideals for political practicalities." Of course, I don't see those as negatives. In government you have to get things done, and sometimes that means not getting what you want.

Even if Sarah's beliefs are not in line with yours (and other staunch Democrats), there are still things about her that you can admire and things about her that conservative Democrats will find very appealing.

I don't know, she's pretty much the AntiChrist. I guess I can admire some of her anti-corruption stances, but her willingness to abuse authority and her beliefs (and her ignorance) are absolutely shocking. She makes McCain look like a good Democrat.

Now how broad is the appeal of the Obama-Biden ticket? Both have strong liberal credentials (1st and 3rd most liberal senators last year, respectively). If he is a liberal record wise, why not pick a reliably centrist running mate to round off the ticket and underscore the message?

The pick wasn't political. He chose someone who would be a hard-working partner in governance, despite the fact Biden probably hurts his chances at election. A politically risky, and yet responsible move, versus McCain's irresponsible gamble. The problem with Democrats historically is they are willing to lose to hold up their ideals. It means they lose a lot. Carter made decisions he felt were morally mandated, knowing full well it would probably cost him re-election.

BTW Mulu, what abuse of power are you referring to?

TrooperGate, of course, plus she fired anyone who didn't agree with her. Examples:

In October 1996, she asked the Wasilla police chief, librarian, public works director, and finance director to resign, and she instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters.[20] In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the town librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons that they were being fired.[21] Palin said in a letter that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration.

Very similar to the firing of DOJ attorneys actually. Female Bush indeed.

In 2007, the Alaska Creamery Board recommended closing Matanuska Maid Dairy, an unprofitable state-owned business. Palin objected, citing concern for dairy farmers and a recent infusion of $600,000 in state money. Palin subsequently replaced the entire membership of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation.[73] The new board reversed the decision to close the dairy. Later in 2007, the unprofitable business was put up for sale. No offers met the minimum bid of $3.35 million,[74][75] and the dairy was closed. In August 2008, the Anchorage plant was purchased for $1.5 million, the new minimum bid. The purchaser plans to convert it into heated storage units.

I love this example because the original board was proven correct. So not only does she abuse her authority, she's dumb.

Also, I think the $5million number that you mention was taken out of context. McCain was asked the question in the Saddleback debate (the videos are online) and used that number jokingly saying that it would surely be taken out of context (and of course it has been). I believe his point was that how you define rich doesn't matter when you're not in favor of raising taxes.

It was his answer. The rest of the quote is him being evasive. I've read the whole transcript. Why didn't he say "over $400,000.00" or something else? Besides, our government cannot both fight wars and cut taxes, Bush proved that. McCain is in favor of wars. How is he going to pay for them, beer distributor funds? Besides, Anheuser-Busch Companies got bought by a Dutch company due to the rampant devaluation of the dollar (oh, the irony of an iconic American company losing to a hostile take over due to Bush policies devaluing the dollar), so Cindy McCain may just lose her source of wealth....

Now Sarah has finally talked the press. What did she say? Obama's campaign is responsible for all the attacks on her family. Right...

She did not take questions from reporters.

I suspect that is going to be her MO. Not only is she unqualified to govern, she can't even field questions from reporters. What a coward.

[fluffmonster]

PD, now you are just being an idiotic shit-disturber. "Welfare" in the sense usually derided by Republicans was ended in 1996, and it was always a posterchild boogieman republicans have always hated. Hating welfare is such a fundamental piece of party ideology that you have to be stupid or blind to miss it. Go back to poking out the eyes of kittens.

[HATEFACE]

Going back to 2005, Obama's voting record ranking has become increasingly "liberal" over time, not less. These results are really at odds with his campaign rhetoric, and as far as I know, the Obama campaign hasn't attempted to clarify the results of the ranking as one might expect if it were misleading or wrong. I'm happy to be better informed though if some non-partisan organization has compiled the results in an easy to read format.

Dude, you do know that in elections you tell people what you think they want to hear right? The same goes for McCain. Heh, he believes in evolution and. . .uh uhm. . . god? What a smooth operator! He is the voice of reason within the party, in evolution. Just what we need to reverse a increasingly dangerous trend brought in by southern democrats. Though none of these questions should even be fucking asked of the candidates, they are. Now maybe, but I'll be damned if its forever.

I haven't met so many republicans in one place before. . . Minnesota is consider a blue state, as most of you well know. I'll tell you, I didn't meet as many supporters of creationism as I expected around the Xcel center. So, that's a good sign. A lot of them seem to have adopted republican views and they were genuinly nice to me!

Truthfully I was half-expecting some texan to jab me in the forehead with a drill to expel the spirit-folk, yet was my view of southerners was challanged? Yes! and No. Though my thoughts of them remain ambigious at best. Hell, there is hope for Texans, there is hope for Danubus! J/King Danubus, you know I like you.

I am more than relieved that there are republicans that even share my view, sans atheism, of course, but I've always sort of expected that some would.

I feel like driving there again, if not to talk, I could always eyeball peoples.