Sarah Palin to Resign from Governor of Alaska

[R G]

I don't know what to think....something tells me there's more to the story.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124664889369093021.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommenta rt

[elimination]

I'm replacing her.

[R G]

I'm replacing her.

So you would be Alaska's Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell?

I don't think so.

[bdog1321]

Palin 2012

[Jeffery]

I don't know what to think....something tells me there's more to the story.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124664889369093021.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommenta rt
I think she just got in over her head with the failed campaign......

Since then there has been a lot of bickering in the Republican Party over her and her "qualifications". Many blame her choice for the loss by McCain.

It was a bit out of the blue. People figured she wouldn;t be running again,but toduckand run now was a bit overboard.

But not that surprising.

[bdog1321]

I think she just got in over her head with the failed campaign......

Since then there has been a lot of bickering in the Republican Party over her and her "qualifications". Many blame her choice for the loss by McCain.

It was a bit out of the blue. People figured she wouldn;t be running again,but toduckand run now was a bit overboard.

But not that surprising.

No. If she was getting out of politics, why would she keep holding these talks? She's been traveling, she was recently in my state talking. Why would she do that if she just wanted to fade out of politics? No, you're going to see her again.

[Jeffery]

No. If she was getting out of politics, why would she keep holding these talks? She's been traveling, she was recently in my state talking. Why would she do that if she just wanted to fade out of politics? No, you're going to see her again.
Unfortunately,I have no doubt she will stick her head out again.

And notice I never said otherwise.

[R G]

I think she just got in over her head with the failed campaign......

Since then there has been a lot of bickering in the Republican Party over her and her "qualifications". Many blame her choice for the loss by McCain.

It was a bit out of the blue. People figured she wouldn;t be running again,but toduckand run now was a bit overboard.

But not that surprising.

I certainly wouldn't say she was to blame for the loss of McCain....I think she gave him a chance....not much of one...but a chance nonetheless....if there was anyone to blame for McCain's loss it would be Bush and the media.

[Jeffery]

I certainly wouldn't say she was to blame for the loss of McCain....I think she gave him a chance....not much of one...but a chance nonetheless....if there was anyone to blame for McCain's loss it would be Bush and the media.
They lost a lot of the possible cross-over Democrat vote, as well as some of the fence-sitting Republican vote when they went with a politicians whos best foreign interaction was "seeing Russia from her house".

The Republicans needed a woman running mate to counteract Hillary, and had to make a snap judgment when Obama picked Biden. Palin was a "safe"choice, but definitely not the winning choice. A stronger VP choice could have pushed McCain over the line. And no,I don;t have a ready alternative.

[sayter]

glad to see Mrs. Crazy leave. Someone that backwards and idiotic shouldn't be in charge of her own kids, let alone a populace.

[Coffin Fedder]

If Palin becomes president in 2012 I'm going to move. Seriously, I'll go to Canada, New Zeland, somewhere safe.

[bdog1321]

The Republicans needed a woman running mate to counteract Hillary, and had to make a snap judgment when Obama picked Biden. Palin was a "safe"choice, but definitely not the winning choice. A stronger VP choice could have pushed McCain over the line. And no,I don;t have a ready alternative.

Wrong again. Well, at least from my perspective. To me, Obama and his supporters were like the Giants facing the Patriots in the super bowl. The Patriots are easily the better team, more talented in almost every facet. Yet they still lost due to the heart and that indefinable IT factor that permeated the event. It was like the Patriots were bound to win, yet couldn't possibly. And they didn't.

It was the same way in this election. It didn't matter what Republican candidate won the nomination; which vice they chose. Obama had the IT on his side. McCain had the experience, the brains, and everything else it takes to be president. Obama had none of it (and still doesn't). He also had the better running mate. If anyone tries to tell me Biden is more intelligent that Palin, I will laugh until I throw up. Obama had the media-manufactured failures of Bush on his side. Obama had youth, change, color all on his side. None of which make a better president. All of which helped him win. The IT factor.

Hopefully Palin will have it in 2012, after everyone has seen the many, many shortcomings of the Obama administration and start turning their synapses back on.

glad to see Mrs. Crazy leave. Someone that backwards and idiotic shouldn't be in charge of her own kids, let alone a populace.

So, very, very ironic. And wrong. He is not in charge of us. He works for us. That's how a democracy rolls.

[Zander]

So basically what you're saying is that the republicans were the most over-rated team in decades, and their QB is a homo?

[Jeffery]

Wrong again. Well, at least from my perspective. To me, Obama and his supporters were like the Giants facing the Patriots in the super bowl. The Patriots are easily the better team, more talented in almost every facet. Yet they still lost due to the heart and that indefinable IT factor that permeated the event. It was like the Patriots were bound to win, yet couldn't possibly. And they didn't.

It was the same way in this election. It didn't matter what Republican candidate won the nomination; which vice they chose. Obama had the IT on his side. McCain had the experience, the brains, and everything else it takes to be president. Obama had none of it (and still doesn't). He also had the better running mate. If anyone tries to tell me Biden is more intelligent that Palin, I will laugh until I throw up. Obama had the media-manufactured failures of Bush on his side. Obama had youth, change, color all on his side. None of which make a better president. All of which helped him win. The IT factor.

Hopefully Palin will have it in 2012, after everyone has seen the many, many shortcomings of the Obama administration and start turning their synapses back on.



So, very, very ironic. And wrong. He is not in charge of us. He works for us. That's how a democracy rolls.
"media-manufactired"...

Perhaps you should watch something other than Fox News once in a while kiddo.Your political bias is bleeding through.

[meat.eater]

The Republicans needed a woman running mate to counteract Hillary, and had to make a snap judgment when Obama picked Biden. Palin was a "safe"choice, but definitely not the winning choice. A stronger VP choice could have pushed McCain over the line. And no,I don;t have a ready alternative.

Actually, the Republicans (whatever few of us are left) would have been very happy with anyone competent (even if it was just another white male). The GOP, NOT to be confused with actual Republicans, decided that they wanted a female running mate with down syndrome. And it was noting short of pathetic.

[bdog1321]

If that's all the fault you can find or make up for the moment, I'm satisfied. I'm glad that because there happens to be one news channel out of pretty much THEM ALL that is not tinted liberal, I am jeered at for watching. Oh irony runs thick through the blood of TAO.

[meat.eater]

If that's all the fault you can find or make up for the moment, I'm satisfied. I'm glad that because there happens to be one news channel out of pretty much THEM ALL that is not tinted liberal, I am jeered at for watching. Oh irony runs thick through the blood of TAO.

That's because aside from independently wealthy celebrities, the Entertainment Industry is incredibly liberal. Including TV stations.

Because of that, Fox is less of a conservative TV network and more of an "anti-liberal" TV network. There's a difference. And that's why their news is so crappy: a network whose only goal is to combat other networks, not to make their own intelligent programming, provides for some very stupid journalism (PS: which isn't to say other networks don't provide other stupid journalism, too... because they do).

[Hatchet Klown]

She's publicly stated before that the only thing more important than her state is her family and faith. Speculation now is that after the absurd list of legal accusations against her (of which she was cleared of all charges), the money she's put out in defense combined with all of the stress it's put on her family, she is taking time off for them.

Her values and morals are right in line with the traditional Republican party, so at first glance she is a great candidate. With this time off, I hope she can refine her image, better familiarize herself with current issues and go for a second round at national politics. Perhaps not at the Presidential level, but we need less blind liberals trying to nationalize every part of our lives in congress.

[meat.eater]

Her values and morals are right in line with the traditional Republican party

Spending a lot of pointless money is not a value that I would associate with the "traditional" Republican party.

[Hatchet Klown]

Spending a lot of pointless money is not a value that I would associate with the "traditional" Republican party.

Name some projects you call pointless. She ended the bridge to no where, she cut earmarks, and ran things properly. The only thing I can somewhat be upset about is that Alaska is getting a new airport, it's something like $50 million, and it's in a town of less than 100 people or something like that. Heard about it a couple weeks ago.

[meat.eater]

She increased the spending budget of that little town (whatever the crap it's name was) she was Mayor of by like 50%... put them in debt by like 2500%....
She increased Alaska's overall budget ceiling by like 25%...
Thousands of Alaskan dollars were put into Christian Centers and anti-climate change/pro-oil.... which SHOULD have been privately funded.
And sure, she rejected a 260+ million dollar funding that would have continued bridge to nowhere.... after she put 400+ million into it already....

She's not a Republican. She's whatever this weird branch of failing politics consists of that was created by the GOP.

[bdog1321]

That's because aside from independently wealthy celebrities, the Entertainment Industry is incredibly liberal. Including TV stations.

Because of that, Fox is less of a conservative TV network and more of an "anti-liberal" TV network. There's a difference. And that's why their news is so crappy: a network whose only goal is to combat other networks, not to make their own intelligent programming, provides for some very stupid journalism (PS: which isn't to say other networks don't provide other stupid journalism, too... because they do).

But you're missing something important: they are not conservative. Do you know their slogan? Fair and Balanced. They have conservative anchors, they have liberal anchors, they have independent anchors. They invite people from both sides at every opportunity. Many times the democrats simply do not show. That's not for lack of trying. I'm not saying Fox doesn't put out some level of BS stories, as you correctly said that all stations do, I am just saying that because they are not liberal does not make them conservative, or anti-liberal. And it certainly does not constitute as a reason for the scorn of its watchers by watchers of the indoctrination networks.

[bdog1321]

There was an interesting statistic I saw at some time I cannot remember. It was the number of stories aired on all the major networks showing Obama in a positive light versus negative. Fox News was basically balanced. I think they may have had in the single digits more stories showing him negative, but the other networks went crazy with Obama love. There were massively disproportionate numbers showing him positively to negatively. If I remember correctly the worst offender was CNN.

[meat.eater]

Hiring a liberal anchor (NBC and CBS have conservative anchors too, ya know...) does not mean that the network will air liberal journalism. Because they won't.

EDIT: I suppose it would be most "balanced" if you aired some ridiculous claim about Obama being muslim and then "balanced" it with some ridiculous claim about Obama saving the world. So, sure, I could believe that Fox was "balanced" in this way. But in terms of good journalism, they'lre just about as low rung as you can get. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[bdog1321]

Hiring a liberal anchor (NBC and CBS have conservative anchors too, ya know...) does not mean that the network will air liberal journalism. Because they won't.

EDIT: I suppose it would be most "balanced" if you aired some ridiculous claim about Obama being muslim and then "balanced" it with some ridiculous claim about Obama saving the world. So, sure, I could believe that Fox was "balanced" in this way. But in terms of good journalism, they'lre just about as low rung as you can get. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And all of the other stations constantly, constantly running stories about how stupid Governor Palin is, when she obviously is not at all is good journalism? I'll watch a little more of these other networks, and get back to you on how the BS levels compare.

[meat.eater]

Sarah Palin is stupid. The entire neo-Republican is stupid. It is quite literally a forumla set up to fail.

Pointing that out is good journalism, bdog.

You never saw the other less extremist stations bashing Palin for her family situation except on rare occassions (which would be bad journalism), but you certainly saw Fox praising her for being the mother of a pregnant daughter and kid with disabilities (since that makes such a difference, right?). You did see other networks bash her fundamentals on what make a "successful economy," however, because her thoughts and track record on economy was pretty much terrible. Pointing that out is good (well... better, at least) journalism. Whereas stations that claimed her policy was founded and successful (FOX), was reporting not as good (well... bad) journalism.

Of course if you entirely supported Palin, you're going to think Fox is unbiased and balanced and a good news source. You just also don't happen to know the fundamentals of fiscal policy.

(Enter: RG: "Trickle down theory works in some instances, though, so the GOP is not wrong, it is not stupid." Yep! It worked so well we accumulated the most national debt ever in the shortest amount of time ever! Go trickle down!)

The neo-Republican has many beliefs that are well founded and can be backed up based on logical deduction of values, many of them. The economy, however, is not one of them.

[bdog1321]

I like Palin. I don't think you're really being fair since those are only a few stories, and it would take endless hours for us to actually prove anything in this argument.
I'll take your word on the last bit though, I'm 16 and fiscal policy doesn't interest me much.

[meat.eater]

I'll take your word on the last bit though, I'm 16 and fiscal policy doesn't interest me much.

Good. Excellent. A 16 year old can even pick out of a line up which of these works and which doesn't, I'll prove it to you. Politics used to simply be about preference of which type of fiscal policy to employ, now it's actually just about practicality (to the dismay of most real Republicans who would love to rewind time by about 40 years).

So, pick it out. 2 of these logically work, one does not. Find it, and you'll find what Sarah Palin, both Bush's, and probably McCain (though probably lesser) supported:

1) More government funding to spend more on more government programs.
2) Less government funding to spend less on less government programs.
3) Less government funding to spend more on more government programs.

[bdog1321]

Does 3. mean less money to spend on additional programs, or to spend on a greater number of programs Oh you edited it. How could you spend more on more programs with less money though?

[Jeffery]

Does 3. mean less money to spend on additional programs, or to spend on a greater number of programs Oh you edited it. How could you spend more on more programs with less money though?
Ask Reagen. He managed to do so wonderfully in the 1980's.

It's called creating a Deficit.

And yes, Obama is doing so "wonderfully" well as well.

[meat.eater]

*sigh*.

I don't agree with 1, and I'm sure you don't either (claimed as a Republican). But we can break these down into a logical statement.

Let "More Government Funding = F"
"More Spending = S"
"More Government Programs = P"
"-> = Implies"
"<-> = Equivalence"
"~ = Negation"

Premise:
1. If there is more funding, then there can be more spending.
2. If there is more spending, then there can be more Programs.
Conclusion: Therefore, a government with more money can have more programs..

Situation 1)
F -> S (T -> T; logically sound)
S -> P (T -> T; logically sound)
F <-> P (T <-> T; true conclusion)

Situation 2)
~F -> ~S (F -> F; logically sound)
~S -> ~P (F -> F; logically sound)
~F <-> ~P (F <-> F; true conclusion)

Situation 3)
~F -> S (F -> T; logically sound)
S -> P (T -> T; logically sound)
~F <-> P ( F <-> T; false conclusion)

If all of our premise's are true (T), as they are in this world, both situation 1 and 2 still are correct (correct is defined as a true premise concluding a true conclusion.. Situation 3, however, is wrong (wrong is defined as a true premise conclusing a false conclusion). There is no logic involved in the neo-Republican party. It is based off illogical practices of failed policy.

[Terps rock]

http://greg-loesch.com/blog/pics/2008/08/fox-osama.jpg

[bdog1321]

Yes I understand Meat. I had 1 as my initial answer before I edited. Nice equation though.

[R G]

(Enter: RG: "Trickle down theory works in some instances, though, so the GOP is not wrong, it is not stupid." Yep! It worked so well we accumulated the most national debt ever in the shortest amount of time ever! Go trickle down!)




Correction...on that. The Obama administration now would have that record of creating the most national debt ever in the shortest amount of time ever.....Over 700 TRILLION and counting. ;)

And I don't see the economy turning around anytime soon....compare that to Trickle down economics...the economy came roaring back and lasted well quite a long time.

[meat.eater]

Correction...on that. The Obama administration now would have that record of creating the most national debt ever in the shortest amount of time ever.....Over 700 TRILLION and counting. ;)

And I don't see the economy turning around anytime soon....compare that to Trickle down economics...the economy came roaring back and lasted well quite a long time.

I never said Obama's policy was brilliant either. He's kind of a bastardization of established liberal policy, just like Palin is to conservative policy. Neither of them should be running the country.

[Mithrandir]

I'm surprised by Palin's decision, and disappointed.

I think she was great in some ways, and lacking in others, and would have made for a better candidate later on if she hadn't been rushed on to the scene so quickly. The media is far more responsible for her downfall during the campaign than she was though. She had her slip-ups, but they let Obama and Biden get away with much worse.

Having said that, after today, I suspect that she has vindicated many of her critics for thinking she couldn't handle more responsibility than being a governor. I'm not going to make up my mind until I hear her reasons, but I kind of feel like if she can't finish her term as a governor, why should I trust her to finish a term as a president if we elect her in 2012?

It has either been a very bad couple of weeks for Republicans or a very good one depending on how you look at it. As it appears, Sanford and Palin were overhyped up and comers, and we're better off knowing now that they aren't cut out to lead the GOP.

[R G]

That's because aside from independently wealthy celebrities, the Entertainment Industry is incredibly liberal. Including TV stations.

Because of that, Fox is less of a conservative TV network and more of an "anti-liberal" TV network. There's a difference. And that's why their news is so crappy: a network whose only goal is to combat other networks, not to make their own intelligent programming, provides for some very stupid journalism (PS: which isn't to say other networks don't provide other stupid journalism, too... because they do).


So you have one network that is anti liberal and the rest are liberal....some to the point of being hillariously silly.

That's the exact reason that FOX does so well in crushing the other networks in terms of viewership....the others split viewership. On one extreme you have MSNBC which is nothing less than a joke....they don't even try to pretend of being balanced or reporting the news as it stands....always trying to spin it....or explain it to their viewers as if their viewership was a bunch of moronic idiots...which might be the case.

Just one example on Palin from MSNBC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irklZ-iZjhI

[Jeffery]

I'm surprised by Palin's decision, and disappointed.

I think she was great in some ways, and lacking in others, and would have made for a better candidate later on if she hadn't been rushed on to the scene so quickly. The media is far more responsible for her downfall during the campaign than she was though. She had her slip-ups, but they let Obama and Biden get away with much worse.

Having said that, after today, I suspect that she has vindicated many of her critics for thinking she couldn't handle more responsibility than being a governor. I'm not going to make up my mind until I hear her reasons, but I kind of feel like if she can't finish her term as a governor, why should I trust her to finish a term as a president if we elect her in 2012?

It has either been a very bad couple of weeks for Republicans or a very good one depending on how you look at it. As it appears, Sanford and Palin were overhyped up and comers, and we're better off knowing now that they aren't cut out to lead the GOP.
I agree she had good potential. If she had done some more time as Governor, maybe gotten into the other portions of government, then she could have had a good chance of going further on.
She had a lot of good intentions, and while some of her personal opinions were "stupid" (sex education), she at least was not a huge lying scumbag like most politicians.

But it was her own statements that sunk her. She did not have the experience enough to know when to say what.


Personally, I would absolutely love to see the Party System done away with completely. I say let people lie cheat and stealelections based on their own merits,not whether or not there is a R or D.

[meat.eater]

Yes I understand Meat. I had 1 as my initial answer before I edited. Nice equation though.

The REAL scary thing, bdog, is that if we don't get an administration that's willing to fall back on the older policy of our country, policy that worked (situation 1 and 2), the only way we're going to be able to reverse this deficit is by doing the opposite of what is happening now. Which will be to create MORE government funding (ie: more taxes on you and I and corporations), and provide LESS spending and LESS governmental programs.

Which sounds rightfully terrible to me, and probably does to you too.

So the key, in the next 20 years of politics, will be educating the voters enough to know how to fix their country themselves or with their vote, instead of blindly bandwagoning with a candidate whose policy is not logically sound. Doesn't matter WHO gets elected from what party, as long as their policy is logically sound. A true Democrat is a better candidate to vote for right now than a fake Republican. You have to understand that.

And that's going to be up to us: OUR generation, bdog. You up for it? I am.

[bdog1321]

The REAL scary thing, bdog, is that if we don't get an administration that's willing to fall back on the older policy of our country, policy that worked (situation 1 and 2), the only way we're going to be able to reverse this deficit is by doing the opposite of what is happening now. Which will be to create MORE government funding (ie: more taxes on you and I and corporations), and provide LESS spending and LESS governmental programs.

Which sounds rightfully terrible to me, and probably does to you too.

So the key, in the next 20 years of politics, will be educating the voters enough to know how to fix their country themselves or with their vote, instead of blindly bandwagoning with a candidate whose policy is not logically sound. Doesn't matter WHO gets elected from what party, as long as their policy is logically sound. A true Democrat is a better candidate to vote for right now than a fake Republican. You have to understand that.

And that's going to be up to us: OUR generation, bdog. You up for it? I am.

Sounds like a plan.

Lol you should be a motivational speaker.

[R G]

I'm surprised by Palin's decision, and disappointed.

I think she was great in some ways, and lacking in others, and would have made for a better candidate later on if she hadn't been rushed on to the scene so quickly. The media is far more responsible for her downfall during the campaign than she was though. She had her slip-ups, but they let Obama and Biden get away with much worse.

Having said that, after today, I suspect that she has vindicated many of her critics for thinking she couldn't handle more responsibility than being a governor. I'm not going to make up my mind until I hear her reasons, but I kind of feel like if she can't finish her term as a governor, why should I trust her to finish a term as a president if we elect her in 2012?

It has either been a very bad couple of weeks for Republicans or a very good one depending on how you look at it. As it appears, Sanford and Palin were overhyped up and comers, and we're better off knowing now that they aren't cut out to lead the GOP.


Good post....There were three people in my mind that had a chance in beating Obama, Palin, Sanford(SC) Jindal (LA governor). Of those Jindal was the one I thought would come out a winner in the end. Palin had her limelight...Sanford is governor to a small state in the South, Jimmy Carter ruined it for Governors in the south for quite a while IMO, and he's the typical white guy that so many people relate the Republican party with....Jindal he's a smart guy....really turning around the state of Lousianna, getting rid of corruption and rebuilding and addressing some problems that no one else has been able to tackle and did a masterful job during the last hurricane....quite the leader....It would really surprise me if he didn't come out on top in the end in 2012.

[R G]

Personally, I would absolutely love to see the Party System done away with completely. I say let people lie cheat and stealelections based on their own merits,not whether or not there is a R or D.

Well I don't agree with you on the lie, cheat and steal election comment, but I too would really love to see the two party system dissolved....What happened to the one party system? What party is that you ask? The American Party. The party that wanted to see the country survive for future generations. It is way past time that we as citizens wake up and realize what is going on.

[Jeffery]

I say we just sell America to the highest bidder.

[Japtch]

Ebay.

[Silverkent]

Im not american, but i do remeber Sarah Palin said once that the only way to take Chavez out of Venezuela was to shoot him in the head, i dont know how that sounds to americans, but it scared the %#!& out of Chavez, and it was very very funy too me the react of Chavez, from that moment on... he has knightmares over Palin killing him. :bigsmile:

[Japtch]

Yeah, Palin was a crazy bizzle. Good riddance.

[iceman2001]

we need less blind liberals trying to nationalize every part of our lives in congress.

Please see the monica lewinsky scandal. There is not a more prime example of trying to nationalize someone's personal life in congress.

Not to say that someone's personal choices shouldn't be used to judge their ability to govern. Rather that this is a double edged sword.

[iceman2001]

There was an interesting statistic I saw at some time I cannot remember.

Stop right here. You are really going to use "an interesting statistic I saw some time I cannot remember" as the backbone of your point?

Let me try that one.

There was an interesting statistic I saw at some time I cannot remember that said all 95% Republicans would willingly eat Jewish babies if it came with a tax break.


I'll take your word on the last bit though, I'm 16 and fiscal policy doesn't interest me much.

Do I even dare comment on this one?

If you don't have the faintest idea of your candidate's fiscal platform, you have absolutely no place in politics, even as a voter.

[Realist]

Name some projects you call pointless. She ended the bridge to no where, she cut earmarks, and ran things properly.

0 for 3. Seriously, the first two claims are easily discounted by 2 seconds search on google so I won't even bother (Alaska was like #1 or 2 in earmarks when Palin was governor, she campaigned for them). I'm more interested in the fact that you restate complete lies so blatantly. I know you can get on the internet because I don't believe TAO forums can be reached any other way, so surely you have access to other sources than whoever tells you the propaganda to funnel.

[R G]

Im not american, but i do remeber Sarah Palin said once that the only way to take Chavez out of Venezuela was to shoot him in the head, i dont know how that sounds to americans, but it scared the %#!& out of Chavez, and it was very very funy too me the react of Chavez, from that moment on... he has knightmares over Palin killing him. :bigsmile:


I don't ever remember that being said....could have been but I can't find it anywhere.

[R G]

0 for 3. Seriously, the first two claims are easily discounted by 2 seconds search on google so I won't even bother (Alaska was like #1 or 2 in earmarks when Palin was governor, she campaigned for them). I'm more interested in the fact that you restate complete lies so blatantly. I know you can get on the internet because I don't believe TAO forums can be reached any other way, so surely you have access to other sources than whoever tells you the propaganda to funnel.

AK was dwarfed in earmarks in terms of money received by several states. CA recieved almost 3 times as much. TX and PA 2 times as much. If you are talking in terms of popluation than you might have an argument, if you are talking in terms of land area/money you wouldn't even be close.

http://www.dailyyonder.com/so-who-getting-all-those-congressional-earmarks

Even 2005 same thing....States like CA, TX and PA seem to consistently line up to the trough of greed way more than AK.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/earmarks/preview-public-site/statesc49e.html?source=APP&mode=agencies


I also find the argument about the bridge to no-where ridiculous. You have to have a road or in this case a bridge so that no where can develop into some where. The access to this island will now provide the means that will allow it to develop. Look at any major city in the US and you will see suburbs, that are now somewhere, but were no-where. They are now somewhere simply because there are roads that allow them to get somewhere else fast.

[Hatchet Klown]

Please see the monica lewinsky scandal. There is not a more prime example of trying to nationalize someone's personal life in congress.

Congressional Republicans didn't bring Clinton to congress because he had sex with some slut, he was brought there because he lied about it, which is a proper use of government.

Now trying to nationalize healthcare, essentially trying to nationalize the automotive industry (Car Czar), and speculation now is that instead of receiving the TARP money back, the government will ask for stake in the companies.

Hm... Socialism?

[R G]

Sounds like Socialism to me.....and you didn't even touch on the banks.

[Hatchet Klown]

Sounds like Socialism to me.....and you didn't even touch on the banks.

I kind of did with the TARP money, but yeah... it goes deeper than that with banks.

[bdog1321]

Stop right here. You are really going to use "an interesting statistic I saw some time I cannot remember" as the backbone of your point?

Let me try that one.

There was an interesting statistic I saw at some time I cannot remember that said all 95% Republicans would willingly eat Jewish babies if it came with a tax break.



Do I even dare comment on this one?

If you don't have the faintest idea of your candidate's fiscal platform, you have absolutely no place in politics, even as a voter.

I can't prove that the study exists, all I can say is that I saw it and I believe it. You can take it and try to make me look stupid if you wish. I can't find the exact study, but this one shows how much positive publicity he got anyways. http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/obamas_first_100_days

For your second part, I will undoubtedly educate myself on these things by the time I can vote, through Meat lessons or whatever. Did I mention I'm sixteen?

[Anarchy_United]

BDog brings to mind something that has always bothered me.


Why do we have a get out and vote, regardless of what you know campaign rather than an educate yourself and then vote, or don't campaign?


As far as I can tell it has to do with the desire of politicians to have people who are more concerned with personality than policy.

[Realist]

AK was dwarfed in earmarks in terms of money received by several states. CA recieved almost 3 times as much. TX and PA 2 times as much. If you are talking in terms of popluation than you might have an argument, if you are talking in terms of land area/money you wouldn't even be close.

WTF? This has got to be the worst argument you've ever made, RG, and that's saying something. Of course its per capita that matters. CA gives more to the federal government than it gets back--its a net donor state. If I remember correctly, AK takes in ~2x as much as it gives--its basically the welfare queen of states. And that was when Palin was governor.

Even 2005 same thing....States like CA, TX and PA seem to consistently line up to the trough of greed way more than AK.

CA, TX, PA, AK. Which one of these is not like the others? How about the one which has fewer citizens in total than any random city in the other three?

I also find the argument about the bridge to no-where ridiculous.

So do you think Palin made a ridiculous argument against the bridge to nowhere (contradicting her earlier pro stance) to gain political capital, or just because she's an idiot?

[R G]

WTF? This has got to be the worst argument you've ever made, RG, and that's saying something. Of course its per capita that matters. CA gives more to the federal government than it gets back--its a net donor state. If I remember correctly, AK takes in ~2x as much as it gives--its basically the welfare queen of states. And that was when Palin was governor.

CA, TX, PA, AK. Which one of these is not like the others? How about the one which has fewer citizens in total than any random city in the other three?

WTF??? Are you telling me that you aren't as big of a socialist as you have portrayed youself in the past? You know "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Of course AK is not going to be able to contribute as much as other states with many states....but it's the biggest damn state there is with the smallest amount of infractructure.

What have you become a card carrying member of the Republican or Libertarian party now? ;)

So do you think Palin made a ridiculous argument against the bridge to nowhere (contradicting her earlier pro stance) to gain political capital, or just because she's an idiot?

She just did what any other policitician does...says what the people want to hear....much like Obama on what he has said regarding Iran.

[Realist]

WTF??? Are you telling me that you aren't as big of a socialist as you have portrayed youself in the past? You know "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Nice work changing the subject. I have no interest in arguing this on the merits, only on the facts. HK made two statements. Both are demonstratably false. Palin did not cut earmarks, and AK remained among the top per capita recipients of federal aid under her term.

[R G]

Nice work changing the subject. I have no interest in arguing this on the merits, only on the facts. HK made two statements. Both are demonstratably false. Palin did not cut earmarks, and AK remained among the top per capita recipients of federal aid under her term.


Hope to see you at either a Tea Party or a Libertarian Convention real soon....


I really didn't change the cruix of the subject that much at all. The federal government charges taxes and redistributes them to those it deems need the funds....or as Karl Marx says "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"....that is taking money from the those states that have more people and pay more taxes and distributing to the states with less people who pay less taxes....it is much the same as charging a higher rate of taxes to someone who makes more money and redistributing it to someone who makes less money.

Now in the past you have argued exactly against that....which sir would make you kind of a hyprocrite.

[R G]

BDog brings to mind something that has always bothered me.


Why do we have a get out and vote, regardless of what you know campaign rather than an educate yourself and then vote, or don't campaign?


As far as I can tell it has to do with the desire of politicians to have people who are more concerned with personality than policy.


Good question....Alot of it has to do with the era of TV....people are more visual than ever....Think about it for a second. The best looking person has won the last few elections.


Carter - Ford Nixon did Ford in but that bald head of his could not have helped him
Reagan- Carter Carter was about the goofiest looking guy there was...how he ever got elected is beyond me.
Reagan - Mondale Modale didn't have a chance...Reagan was a actor remember
Bush - Dukakis Bush almost had a cowboy image during this time
Clinton - Bush Clinton was a good looking guy compared to Bush
Clinton - Dole Ole Dole didnt have a chance in this beauty contest
Bush - Gore Gore is quite a goofy looking guy if you ask me Kind of a nerdy looking dweeb
Bush - Kerry Kerry is one ugly MF'er if you ask me.
Obama - McCain You tell me who you think is a better looking dude?

Hell at this point I think they should have the election coincide with the Miss America pagent and have Mr. America pageant right before the finale of Miss America pageant....make them all wear some short shorts with a banner over their chest stating their political party.

I think it would be just as effective and the outcome would have been the same too for the past few years....would certainly saved everyone money and having to listen to those stupid political ads too.

I am thinking this is a great idea at this point.

[Mithrandir]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[R G]

Ummmm What?

[Mithrandir]

It's the name of a fallacy. It means "after, therefore because of."

While the visual nature of the culture is certainly relevant, I think it tends to be overblown. Heck, ugly as McCain is, he did win the primary over a good range of much better looking men. Similarly, Kerry beat out much better looking men in his primary.

[iceman2001]

What mith was referncing basically is a fallacy which states:

A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B. (this is not true)

Thank the lord for wikipedia.



As far as Alaska being a state with a lot of pork, an interesting statistic I saw some time I cannot remember stated that Alaska has the most pork of any state! (take that bdog)

And in my not to subtle transition to bdog- I'd certainly be willing to cut you some slack in the intellectual disparity between you and most of the rest of us due to your age. However, when you make such bold claims about Obama's lack of intellect which will inhibit his ability to lead, you probably should have some of your own. You keep on insisting I'm picking on you, but in reality I'm just picking on the worst responses in this thread. The fact that 80% of those come from you should say something.

[bdog1321]

And in my not to subtle transition to bdog- I'd certainly be willing to cut you some slack in the intellectual disparity between you and most of the rest of us due to your age. However, when you make such bold claims about Obama's lack of intellect which will inhibit his ability to lead, you probably should have some of your own. You keep on insisting I'm picking on you, but in reality I'm just picking on the worst responses in this thread. The fact that 80% of those come from you should say something.

I'm pretty sure I could memorize the speeches he needs the prompter for. Until he loses it I'm not acknowledging his mental capacity for anything.

[meat.eater]

I'm pretty sure I could memorize the speeches he needs the prompter for. Until he loses it I'm not acknowledging his mental capacity for anything.

I don't think text memorization is a function of ones intelligence. It's a function of ones performance capabilities.

[bdog1321]

Well what has he done then to warrant such respect?

What a waste of a 2000th post.

[Kyir]

Well what has he done then to warrant such respect?

What a waste of a 2000th post.

He was elected to the office of President of the United States of America.

[R G]

It's the name of a fallacy. It means "after, therefore because of."

While the visual nature of the culture is certainly relevant, I think it tends to be overblown. Heck, ugly as McCain is, he did win the primary over a good range of much better looking men. Similarly, Kerry beat out much better looking men in his primary.

Well you taught me a new term....:)

I learned another one today that was french that deals with the curve of a battery discharge, but I will not bore you with it....lol


I certainly see what you are saying, but I also feel that the primary brings out more intelligent type of voters more so than election day. In my opinion Primary voters actually consider the issues.....then come election day is when the other morons come out and vote on popularity or coolness factor or just good looks.

[Jeffery]

I'm pretty sure I could memorize the speeches he needs the prompter for. Until he loses it I'm not acknowledging his mental capacity for anything.
In a world where ONE misplaced word is jumped upon and rediculed by bigots such as yourself, teleprompters are very much needed.

[R G]

In a world where ONE misplaced word is jumped upon and rediculed by bigots such as yourself, teleprompters are very much needed.


Yea Bush sure could have used one huh? Oh the irony.;)

[bdog1321]

In a world where ONE misplaced word is jumped upon and rediculed by bigots such as yourself, teleprompters are very much needed.

Did you just call ME a bigot? LOL!

Adding on to what RG said, that is a ridiculous double standard. The liberals painted bush as a demon EVERY TIME HE OPENED HIS MOUTH, and Obama is still doing so. Please do not TALK about pouncing on a misplaced word.

[Jeffery]

Yea Bush sure could have used one huh? Oh the irony.;)
Bush could have used a body double......

Part of bush's problem wasn;t him mispeaking on a speech, but just saying things completely off the wall. he could have used a teleprompter installed in his head.

As could Biden. Or Biden could have his jaw broken.


And bdog, yes, I called you a bigot. As in someone who has hatred of someone else based entirely upon their placement in a certain group.

[bdog1321]

Bush could have used a body double......

Part of bush's problem wasn;t him mispeaking on a speech, but just saying things completely off the wall. he could have used a teleprompter installed in his head.

As could Biden. Or Biden could have his jaw broken.


And bdog, yes, I called you a bigot. As in someone who has hatred of someone else based entirely upon their placement in a certain group.

I don't have hate for anyone based upon what they are. Except terrorists.

[Jeffery]

I don't have hate for anyone based upon what they are. Except terrorists.
Funny, you have spouted nothing but inane hatred of everything Democrat.

[bdog1321]

Funny, you have spouted nothing but inane hatred of everything Democrat.

I've changed a lot lately, you'd be surprised. What you saw me post months ago isn't necessarily what I believe now.

[Jeffery]

I've changed a lot lately, you'd be surprised. What you saw me post months ago isn't necessarily what I believe now.
Everything you've said on the topic of politics lately shows something different.

[bdog1321]

Everything you've said on the topic of politics lately shows something different.

My Obama hate? That's warranted. Not bigotry.

[Serge]

I don't have hate for anyone based upon what they are. Except terrorists.
Some people from around the world would consider Americans terrorists...

[Jeffery]

My Obama hate? That's warranted. Not bigotry.
Warranted based on what? Your single source of Fox News?

[bdog1321]

Some people from around the world would consider Americans terrorists...

Some people are idiots. We do not commit, or try to commit genocide because of religious beliefs or possessed freedoms.

@Jeff, that's getting old. And no.

[Jeffery]

Some people are idiots. We do not commit, or try to commit genocide because of religious beliefs or possessed freedoms.

@Jeff, that's getting old. And no.
Fine.

Explain why you are so rightious in your inane hatred of Obama. Real reasons, not just because Fox told you to.

[Coffin Fedder]

I'm not gonna lie, I'm not much for Obama. Ever since he tried getting a bill passed saying if they could prove that there ancestors could get proof that there ancestors where slaves they'd get a certain amount of money. That's unnecessary, not in a racist or bigot point of few. It's wrong, I understand why he wanted to do it but really?

[Jeffery]

I'm not gonna lie, I'm not much for Obama. Ever since he tried getting a bill passed saying if they could prove that there ancestors could get proof that there ancestors where slaves they'd get a certain amount of money. That's unnecessary, not in a racist or bigot point of few. It's wrong, I understand why he wanted to do it but really?
Where exactly did you get that from?

[bdog1321]

Fine.

Explain why you are so rightious in your inane hatred of Obama. Real reasons, not just because Fox told you to.

Obama is a community organizer. He was propelled onto the scene by a speech he gave, and people became enamored with him for reasons I can't fathom. He is a product of the chicago machine, and he is treating the presidency in the same manner. He's just a chicago hack. He still hasn't stopped campaigning either. I don't like him as a person, I don't like him as a president. He will not stop insulting the previous president, which I have never even heard of any other president doing, at least to the extent this kid is.

He's had a shady past; he has been affiliated with: terrorists, racists, and criminals. I don't like that in a man who is going to be running the country. He's a sleazebag. I don't agree with his policies; I think he is quite simply an idiot, and he's a crummy citizen to boot. He apologizes for us in foreign countries like we're beasts of burden, like America is a bunch of idiots he cleans up after.

I don't understand how you can know Obama, his history, and what he stands for and not feel contempt for him, if not for his handling of the presidency, or his lies therein, but for what a bad person he is underneath.

[Jeffery]

Obama is a community organizer. He was propelled onto the scene by a speech he gave, and people became enamored with him for reasons I can't fathom. He is a product of the chicago machine, and he is treating the presidency in the same manner. He's just a chicago hack. He still hasn't stopped campaigning either. I don't like him as a person, I don't like him as a president. He will not stop insulting the previous president, which I have never even heard of any other president doing, at least to the extent this kid is.

He's had a shady past; he has been affiliated with: terrorists, racists, and criminals. I don't like that in a man who is going to be running the country. He's a sleazebag. I don't agree with his policies; I think he is quite simply an idiot, and he's a crummy citizen to boot. He apologizes for us in foreign countries like we're beasts of burden, like America is a bunch of idiots he cleans up after.

I don't understand how you can know Obama, his history, and what he stands for and not feel contempt for him, if not for his handling of the presidency, or his lies therein, but for what a bad person he is underneath.
And yet you don;t hate Bush for being the EXACT SAME THING?

Bush who is the product of the Bush family political machine, who wa spushed into office based upon his name and his family money, who attacked Clinton at every step possible early on, who is associated with the exact same type people as you seem to dislike Obama for?
Obama is a politician. All of them are 100% everything you just described.

And yet it just happens to be the first not 100% white guy that you get all pissy over.


Convenient, eh?

[bdog1321]

And yet you don;t hate Bush for being the EXACT SAME THING?

Bush who is the product of the Bush family political machine, who wa spushed into office based upon his name and his family money, who attacked Clinton at every step possible early on, who is associated with the exact same type people as you seem to dislike Obama for?
Obama is a politician. All of them are 100% everything you just described.

And yet it just happens to be the first not 100% white guy that you get all pissy over.


Convenient, eh?

I don't like Bush. He's just better than the HDBIC we have now. Head douchebag in command.

[Jeffery]

Yeah, but yet you never whined about him using a teleprompter, but find it as evidence that Obama is unfit....

Wow, again very convenient.

[bdog1321]

Maybe you don't understand - no matter i will spell it out. I don't like bush. If i knew that he needed a teleprompter for anything longer than five minutes i would have called him out on it. I would still take him hands down over the loon we have now though.

[Mithrandir]

I didn't feel like creating a new thread.

Is there anyone here that is a big supporter of the "fair tax?"

I think it's an unrealistic pipe dream, a terrible waste of political resources, and ultimately a bad idea even if it could be implemented, but I haven't had any luck finding big supporters of it. I'd kind of like to hear a defense of it.

[Jeffery]

I didn't feel like creating a new thread.

Is there anyone here that is a big supporter of the "fair tax?"

I think it's an unrealistic pipe dream, a terrible waste of political resources, and ultimately a bad idea even if it could be implemented, but I haven't had any luck finding big supporters of it. I'd kind of like to hear a defense of it.
It depends on which version of the Fair tax you are talking about.

I would support the mythical version that was fair to all. Unfortunately, anytime people start getting into the fair tax, then there are all the loopholes and crap once again that makes the current system unusable.


The most basic idea behind it is simple. Charge a flat tax on all purchases made.

Then the rich and poor would pay the same tax base. Yes, not the same tax. Not even the same percentage of income. But still the same tax base.


Say a poor man buys a car for $500. He pays the same tax base on it as the rich guy buying the car for $1,000,000.

Also, people like drug dealers, who pay zero income tax on illicit income would be paying taxes, the same as the corporate CEO. When he buys that Escalade with 24" rims, he would be paying taxes the same as that poor guy buying the $500 Metro.


Unfortunately, it will never happen like that because then there are a bajillion reasons to exempt this, or rebate that....

[Anarchy_United]

It depends on which version of the Fair tax you are talking about.

I would support the mythical version that was fair to all. Unfortunately, anytime people start getting into the fair tax, then there are all the loopholes and crap once again that makes the current system unusable.


The most basic idea behind it is simple. Charge a flat tax on all purchases made.

Then the rich and poor would pay the same tax base. Yes, not the same tax. Not even the same percentage of income. But still the same tax base.


Say a poor man buys a car for $500. He pays the same tax base on it as the rich guy buying the car for $1,000,000.

Also, people like drug dealers, who pay zero income tax on illicit income would be paying taxes, the same as the corporate CEO. When he buys that Escalade with 24" rims, he would be paying taxes the same as that poor guy buying the $500 Metro.


Unfortunately, it will never happen like that because then there are a bajillion reasons to exempt this, or rebate that....

This. Really, it is a great idea, its simply too easy to be politician-ed.

[Kyir]

http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2009-07-09.gif

[R G]

I didn't feel like creating a new thread.

Is there anyone here that is a big supporter of the "fair tax?"

I think it's an unrealistic pipe dream, a terrible waste of political resources, and ultimately a bad idea even if it could be implemented, but I haven't had any luck finding big supporters of it. I'd kind of like to hear a defense of it.

I love the idea of a fair tax. It will never happen simply because it takes away some of the power of the politicians.

The embedded tax rate of items would offset the percentage of increase in tax, so when you hear about the increase you have to put it in perspective.

Go read about it at fairtax.org.

[Serge]

Some people are idiots. We do not commit, or try to commit genocide because of religious beliefs or possessed freedoms.

@Jeff, that's getting old. And no.
You go on believing our military doesn't kill people just because they pray to a different god and have darker skin than us...

[R G]

You go on believing our military doesn't kill people just because they pray to a different god and have darker skin than us...

He will...just as you will go on believing they do....

Neither of you have proof either way....