Why Sarah Palin shouldn't be VP

[Dannyboy1]

Check out this link: GrizzlyBay.org, Governor Sarah Palin information

Can anyone guess as to why McCain picked her?

[Lauxa]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Can anyone guess as to why McCain picked her?

Because she's hot?

[The David]

And John McCain is horny!

[Interpreneur]

McCain picked her because probably about 50% of America agrees with her policies and politics (even if you and I don't).

Plus, if she's a monster, she's a pretty hot monster. I don't mind watching her on TV with the volume muted.

[Angela]

Great. Let's hope foreign leaders are so dazzled by her hotness that they don't notice her lack of integrity or qualifications.

[jeff3]

I've often thought it would be cool to live in Alaska, looks like the hunting is great and the Governor is hot.

[Dannyboy1]

You guys are silly.

[Angela]

Well, we've got Arnold. He was hot once.

[Still Growing]

Because of her kick ass bear hunting skills.

[Dannyboy1]

I really wanted peoples opinions of the link at the top!

[Still Growing]

Palin clearly takes a counterbalance to liberalism.

This is a phenominon that plaques the Dem and Rep party. There is the truth on a subject but one party wants to distort the truth for political gain. Then the other party becomes even more extreme in an effort to counterbalance the argument over the issue.

Do you follow?

This creates hyper conservatism and hyper liberalism.

Lets take an issue like Global Warming. The Dems pick up the issue that CO2 is causing global warming (which it may), the Reps then go in completely the other way.

Take another issue like drilling for more oil in the US. The Reps say we should drill for more oil in the US (which we may should/or may not) and the Dems go in completely the other way and say it won't help or that it will hurt the environment.

Could it be the Dems are correct on one issue and wrong on the other and vice versa with the Reps. I chose two issues but this phenominon affects every issue.

With a 2 party system it creates a yin and yang thats about competition and positioning. It becomes about devisivness and not about truth or efficiency.

If you are a Rep you can find issues that the Dems are completely wrong on in their view. If you are a Dem you can find issues that the Reps are completely wrong on in their view.

An independent rational thinker can see that both playing some sort of game thats about winning and not about finding solutions or results.

The link is a perfect example. Part of its distorted and part of its true. I'm horrified to think that our country will be represented by either party at this point.

[Brutha]

Still Growing, I think you right that this link is an example of very low quality discussion as it's saying things that aren't true.

The problem with Palin is not that she has some view like paying bountys for left legs of wolves.
I don't think that's an important issue for being VP.
The problem is that she didn't give press conferences after being nominated.
The problem is that she thinks it viable to argue that she has foreign policy experience because you can see Russia from some isle in Alaska.

I don't have a problem with people being for more oil drilling. While I disagree with the position I can respect people who take it.
I can't respect someone who argues in her defence that experience doesn't matter for being president.
The rules of the game are simply include giving press conference and providing well layed out arguments.

Being asked whether she is ready to be president she answers that she will be ready once shes elected, with basically admits that she has to learn a lot of things till then.

I also find that "knowing you can't blink" remark strange.
That not the way politics should be done. Important decision has to be careful analysed.

The problem with her doesn't lie in the positions that she takes on issues.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Still Growing, I think you right that this link is an example of very low quality discussion as it's saying things that aren't true.
Being asked whether she is ready to be president she answers that she will be ready once shes elected, with basically admits that she has to learn a lot of things till then.

I also find that "knowing you can't blink" remark strange.
That not the way politics should be done. Important decision has to be careful analysed.

The problem with her doesn't lie in the positions that she takes on issues.

I received an email describing all of the underhanded things she's done and the many mistakes she's made in office by a women who knows both Sarah and her family. She's done some pretty awful things.

I wouldn't have a problem with drilling if they weren't trying to do it in protected wildlife areas. By the way, Sarah did fight to get the Polar Bear off the endangered species list because it interferes with drilling.

[Liveformx64]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

I really wanted peoples opinions of the link at the top!

Dannyboy That was the funniest thing I saw all day. Don't get me wrong we need to be critical of our potential leaders to be.

But the picture of her parent's house with their animal skins on the wall being used as proof of Palin's monster-like tendencies. Hilarious

That is the equivalent to using Obama's middle name as proof of his ineligibility for the white house.

You guys and gals who regurgitate all of this information are actually inhibiting free thought. You are at no greater level than the right wing wackos that site Obama's name, pastor, and single upbringing as points of incompetence.

[Angela]

Hmmm. Our expressing our concerns is inhibiting free thought? How exactly does anything I say prevent anyone else from thinking what they choose to think?

[Brutha]

Actually, much of it IS true.

That's no viable standand for a news source. If there are a lot of false thing in a news source I don't trust the source it even when some things are true. 50% true statements is not enough.

I received an email describing all of the underhanded things she's done and the many mistakes she's made in office by a women who knows both Sarah and her family.

Right, everyone should trust internet chainmails for information...

FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin talks a bit about the claims:
11) While mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire the city librarian because the librarian refused to censor books
12) She supports the Alaskan Independence Party which seeks independence from the United States (VIDEO)
And both aren't 100% true (the video that cited in 12), defines support as being a former member.
3) As mayor of Wasilla, she made rape victims pay for their own forensic evidence kits
Is also a different claim than the one that the article that linked as source makes. She was mayor during the time in which rape victims had to pay for those kits but it isn't clear that doing so was her decision.
You can say that she didn't do enough to end that practice once she became mayor, but she the article provides no evidence that she is the cause for Wasilla having the practice of letting rape victims pay.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Right, everyone should trust internet chainmails for information...

FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin talks a bit about the claims:
11) While mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire the city librarian because the librarian refused to censor books
12) She supports the Alaskan Independence Party which seeks independence from the United States (VIDEO)
And both aren't 100% true (the video that cited in 12), defines support as being a former member.
3) As mayor of Wasilla, she made rape victims pay for their own forensic evidence kits
Is also a different claim than the one that the article that linked as source makes. She was mayor during the time in which rape victims had to pay for those kits but it isn't clear that doing so was her decision.
You can say that she didn't do enough to end that practice once she became mayor, but she the article provides no evidence that she is the cause for Wasilla having the practice of letting rape victims pay.

Ask Angela. She's gotten it too. The woman who wrote it gave her email address and credentials to check for whoever didn't believe the letter. HA!

[Brutha]

Theory:
Bush tells the truth.
Evidence:
Here's Bushs email address and his credentials (he's a president of the United States).

That's a very bad argument to make.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Theory:
Bush tells the truth.
Evidence:
Here's Bushs email address and his credentials (he's a president of the United States).

That's a very bad argument to make.

You want war with Iran? Vote McCain.

[Still Growing]

Brutha, I agree with you.

Dannyboy, I'm not a support of Palin but did you get what I was saying about how one party forces the other more right and this forces the other more left?

Somehow the best solution falls in the cracks on a given issue.

Do you believe that this is happening?

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Brutha, I agree with you.

Dannyboy, I'm not a support of Palin but did you get what I was saying about how one party forces the other more right and this forces the other more left?

Somehow the best solution falls in the cracks on a given issue.

Do you believe that this is happening?

I don't believe anything anyone says but the statistics. I DO know it would be terrifying to have McCain win. He's old school military. War is not the answer. And certainly the republican economics are not the answer. They never have been. I mean, has any president in the history of America lost more money and respect for America in a war than Bush??? McCain is his mini-me.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

You want war with Iran? Vote McCain.

I think the situation with Iran is more about US foreign policy rather than political party.

Israel has been thinking about bombing Iran Uranium enrichment sites or missle sites. As a matter of fact they've done this in the past but you never hear about it on the news. All you hear is about the mud being slung back and forth between the US and Iran. There has been discussion about Israel launching a full out assault. Iran is aware of it too and Iran believes it can crush Israel unless the US intercedes. The US has said that they would intercede if Iran did try to obliterate Israel.

I'm afraid that the US foreign policy position will not be changed much simply because a Democrat gets elected.

To say that if McCain gets elected he'll attack Iran is probably a false assumption. Or it could be correct if the US intercepted intelligence that Iran was indeed sending troops to the border of Israel and firing up their war machine. Of course on the news all we'd hear is "The US invades Iran, who's next"

Iraq is a separate issue.

When you watch the news about the "US is ramping up to invade Iran" its purely a political ploy.

I'm not a Republican and I believe the Democrats have a lot of things right but this is a game being played.

I know that as an Obama supporter and someone who dislikes the Republican party its hard to concede issues but the top politicians do it all the time. They bluff , trade concessions, bolster and generally deal make to get their agendas across. Sometimes Democrats or Republicans actually side with the other party on an issue but just keep it to themselves. How could intelligent people not have varying opinions?

The public just opens their mouth for the hook to be inserted and has no clue whats really going on.

I know what I'm saying will probably fall on deaf ears with you because you've made your mind up on this issue. Your team is good and the other is bad but its much more complex than that.

In the matter of Iran, Obama will follow US foreign policy, wait and see. If I'm wrong I'l be the first to admit it.

[Dannyboy1]

Is she a bee-atch or what?!

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Is she a bee-atch or what?!

Maybe so, but until I see something more they have my vote.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

I don't believe anything anyone says but the statistics. I DO know it would be terrifying to have McCain win. He's old school military. War is not the answer. And certainly the republican economics are not the answer. They never have been. I mean, has any president in the history of America lost more money and respect for America in a war than Bush??? McCain is his mini-me.

The problem is the entire Bush team. If I go through them one by one it was obviously the dream team for an assault on Iraq from day one. We have Bush "an TX oil guy" and Cheney "a military defense contractor" get elected and then what do we get? Halliburton fighting a war that drives oil barrel cost up to the point where oil can finally start being drilled for in TX. Coincidence? Of course not.

Then to top it off we can put in a Israel defense base for the upcoming war between Israel and Iran, liberate the Iraqis and issue a blow to a Dictator regime. Sounds like a movie doesn't it. For those deciders it sounds to good to pass up. We'll make money, protect an ally and liberate people? When do we get started. Now the dust settles and innocent people have died, money spent and we have a mess. Disaster.

McCain may be different; we don't know. Odds are not because he's changed his positions on so many things to get the conservative vote. Did he do this just to get in and once he gets in he'll be a maverick? Who knows.

I'll probably vote for Obama even though I disagree with his increasing taxes on the wealthy and he wants to create more gov't programs. I'd prefer a smaller gov't. I do think Obama would be a boost in the product we call "America" and therefore increase int'l consumer financial investments into USD. This would help the dollar and economy. Its a jolt that could kick start our economy. I don't think McCain would give that confidence in change that we need.

As for the middle east situation I am not so sure that Obama will be much different. Read for my other post why.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Is she a bee-atch or what?!

But back to Sarah Palin?

You mean after you said McCain will invade Iran and I gave you all that juicy background on whats really going on with Iran and Israel you take it back to the gutter?

C'mon Dannyboy are you interested in the world or just want to wallow in the mud?

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

But back to Sarah Palin?

You mean after you said McCain will invade Iran and I gave you all that juicy background on whats really going on with Iran and Israel you take it back to the gutter?

C'mon Dannyboy are you interested in the world or just want to wallow in the mud?

I want people to see why we cannot elect her into office.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

McCain may be different; we don't know.

I'd say McCain's campaign slogan, "Fight with me," does not bode well for him being different.

[Liveformx64]

Originally Posted by Angela

Hmmm. Our expressing our concerns is inhibiting free thought? How exactly does anything I say prevent anyone else from thinking what they choose to think?

It is the lack of free thought from the pundits that encourage the distribution of the rhetorical rotgut, from both parties. Which only serves to keep the true issues from ever surfacing.

Palin's parents have animal skins??? Obama's middle name is Hussien??

lets focus on immigration, energy policy, health care etc.

----

What I am getting at is, this site full of intelligent open minded conversation. I believe it is a true treasure of the internet. But, we are so eager to point out the faults of the opposing party we totally disregard the faults of the side we want to have elected. It is this type of "can do no wrong" thinking which has allowed Bush to create the blunders he has.

In the words of "STILL GROWING" why do we have to take it in the mud? When this forum is otherwise just about as far away from the mud as I have ever seen any public discussion board.

[Liveformx64]

What was insulting? I never implied anything to you personally. I was talking about the Monster website.

You posted a Link to a website and asked for opinions, which is exactly what I did.

Unless, maybe you created the website?