All things that I have ever formed an opinion on in a very large, bloated nutshell. Also, I critique games and books here.
VP Candidate Palin Needs to Have Q's Ahead of Time
Published on September 29, 2008 By Kaloonzu In Everything Else

It would seem that with the Vice Presidential debates on the horizon, the Republicans are realizing that McCain lying through his teeth and picking a VP candidate who knows nothing about anything relevant to this election, they are trying to get a safety net: they are requesting a highly structured debate, with Biden and Palin getting the questions well before Thursday, and giving anyone who isn't experienced enough *COUGH* Palin *COUGH* time to figure out how to answer each of the questions that will be asked that night. We can now only hope that Biden how some pretty witty rebuttals and retorts to throw Palin off her guard, because, unfortunately, she's going to know everything she needs to for all of 90 minutes. Post your thoughts here, I don't feel like linking this to CNN.com.


Comments (Page 1)
on Sep 30, 2008

Er isn't Palin just as experienced as Obama?..

www.voteforthemilf.com

 

I don't think she's that smart, and she has crazy eyes, which is why they're probably keeping her out of interviews.
On that note, have you seen Biden?

on Sep 30, 2008

I think its funny how we make fun have palin for little experiance when Obama is just as bad.  I one term senator has no place as president.  Then take into account how little time is acutlly spent working and you have some one with perhaps even less real experainace with goverement the palin.

McCain lies throught his teeth and so does the Obama, and neither one of them impress me anymore then the current idiot. 

on Sep 30, 2008

Well considering how bad some experienced presidents have been I don't see why it matters at this point.

 

Yeah like josef said neither impress me.  Well they do more than bush..

 

McCain the senator I might of voter for, but since he's running for president it's been pandering, pandering, pandering, GOP puppet dance dance dance.

on Sep 30, 2008

An Alaskan here.  I know all the assfucking shitbag politicians in question.

 

For Palin to beat Murkowski in the primary, and then beat Knowles in the general, in itself speaks volumes on her aptitude for politics.

 

Murkowski is to Alaska what guys like Ted Kennedy are to Massachussets.  He didn't even need to buy ad space to get the job.  Both of our long time Senators and our lone representative were a long standing trio of bacon bringing, moderate republicans that had the overwhelming support at every re-election.  He carried that stature when he switched to playing governor.  He also did just as piss poor a job once he got in.  Unfortunately, even with an approval rating around 30%, I'd have had a very hard time seeing anyone beat him in the primary.  Alaska is almost completely incapable of sending an incumbent packing, no matter how incompetent they are.

 

Knowles, despite being a monumental fuckup, much like Clinton was to the presidency, is a political icon up here, also much like Clinton.  He's a democrat, but one that tends towards the center, the only good things Clinton did were republican ideals like his pushing for NAFTA.  Likewise, Knowles royally screwed the state, came off smelling like a rose, and the only intelligent things he did gave him credence with the opposing party.  The natives love him, Anchorage, which comprises 50% of the population of the state, also loves him.  He even did a less than horrible job of being mayor in Anchorage early on in his career.  The guy was Governor twice already and went out with a good approval rating.  If it hadn't been Murkowski running against his Lt. Governor in the following election, she'd have won by a landslide.

 

The state is a lot like Senatorial politics are, the republicans and democrats are all exactly the same once they get into office.  Most of them are corrupt, and they all piss away money like it grows on trees.  She beat them both, cut the budget, and got quite a few people thrown in jail for corruption along the way.

 

If I had to speculate on the likelyhood of such a thing occuring, I'd have said not even if hell froze over.  It flat shouldn't be possible.  When the oil, natural gas, and every other resource dries up, the state goes broke, and people start starving up there, I'd still expect them to elect the same morons they've been electing.

 

The highly partisan commentary on her lack of knowledge I'll refute with a bit of history.  George W. Bush, no foreign affairs experience.  Bill Clinton, no foreign affairs experience.  Al Gore, no executive experience.  Ronald Reagan, no foreign affairs experience.  Most presidents have had just as little experience as she has, some have had less.  She's only running for the vp slot of someone who's mother is still alive and kicking.  The odds of her having any less than four years before becoming president are extremely small, and she'd probably be better equipped on all fronts than the opposing presidential nominee.

 

If you're going to attack experience, do so fairly.  Anything else and you just sound like an idiot.

on Oct 01, 2008

It's not just that Palin doesn't just have a lot of experience - her experience is . . . eerily familiar

She took a city of 5,000 with no debt, and left it with a debt of $22,000,000.

She pushed through a city gym of arguable worth, and put it on land the city didn't have clean title to - and Wasilla is evidently *still* dealing with that mess (and others) she left behind.

She went from there to a state with a total population (670,053) between that of Memphis Tennessee (669,864) and Austin Texas (691,263), a state that gets so much tax revenue from a single industry that it *has* no state income tax, but chose to accept the funds for a bridge to nowhere even after it canceled the actual bridge. If a single mother did that, republicans would be screaming "Welfare Queen" - and somehow I suspect they would be just as vehement if it were a Democratic state. Interestingly enough, it's, ah,  . . . not.

And yet, with all these fiscal advantages, a small population, a strong tax base, *plus* money from washington - she hasn't performed particularly well there - this 'reform' candidate is under investigation for dismissing 'disloyal' people that felt she was abusing power.

While she's insisting that there was nothing wrong with her getting a man removed for refusing to commit acts he felt were unethical on her behalf (i.e. fire her ex-brother in law), Attorney General Mukasey has been forced to appoint a special prosecutor to finish the investigation that the DOJ's inspector General's office couldn't finish because it had been blocked by the White House.

That investigation, interestingly enough, is about the White House removing attorneys that refused to commit acts they felt were unethical on behalf of the White House.

I can't help but be reminded about George Bush being asked about the debt Texas had rung up with him as governor and his 'joking' (Paraphrase) "Well hopefully I won't be there to worry about it.".

And that's who she feels like to me - Charming, looks harmless, with the ethics of a barracuda and a tendency to get out of her job right before the wrecking ball hits. I'm sure a lot of men would like to 'have a beer with her'.

John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all three have experience of actually making some good public judgement calls when it wasn't politically popular to make them - I actually do think Obama has had the best record of combining fast and sound judgements in recent history, but both McCain and Biden have good reason to be proud of their records.

She doesn't.

I never understood those that really 'liked' George Bush or considered him 'charismatic' - because every vibe he gave off to me was, frankly, creepy - he has always felt to me like one of those 'charming' sociopaths and we were three inches from finding out he tortured small squirrels, if not worse. Frankly, she gives me the exact same vibe.

Jonnan

on Oct 01, 2008

Come on don't bash Bush so much.  I really am going to miss the presidental comedy nights.....oh wait you mean hes not trying to sound like an idiot?

on Oct 01, 2008

Not to mention that Palin is a hardcore cristian fundamentalist. I almost lost my faith in the world as I saw this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biP3Wdd7PRI

I'm german and I just don't understand america. And I really try. I just heard that a huge percentage of american people beliefe in the noa's arc story literally. From my point of view that's just weird. I really don't want to offend anyone but I really don't understand.

on Oct 01, 2008

Don't feel left out - lot's of us *in* America don't understand.

There is a large segment of the population in the U.S. (And elsewhere, but we seems to be losing to them worse here) that just don't accept science, as a concept.

Emotionally, I suppose I can understand it - Science hones in on a consistently better and better understanding of the universe, but by definition there is always room for a theory to be disproved or a grand paradigm shift to show what we thought we knew just ain't so, so if you're one of those people that has an emotional need to *know* you are right, Science and logic are never going to fulfill that need.

Still, there is part of me that would be perfectly happy with passing a law that says those that extoll a belief in a fundamentalist word for word view of the bible (or other holy book of choice) shall be restricted from utilizing any scientific discovery that could, with strict interpretation, be considered to contradict any paragraph.

"I'm sorry sir, yes, we know Pneumonia is often fatal without treatment, but as an avowed fundamentalist that has argued the being gay is a sin, you are restricted from getting any medicine developed using the theory of evolution among it's premises. I'm sorry sir, no you *can't* use our web connection to find another hospital - the GPS imagery it uses has been found to contradict the biblical view of a flat earth. I would be delighted to drive you, if only I could, however the bibilical statement that pi=three has forced us to restrict your use of 'round' items, and our hexagonal wheeled car is getting the tires changed today - they wear out so fast . . ."

Fundamentalist's always tell me they believe in it as literal word for word truth with no interpretation, yet they never seem to actually understand what that would imply.

Jonnan

on Oct 01, 2008

sir, yes, we know Pneumonia is often fatal without treatment, but as an avowed fundamentalist that has argued the being gay is a sin, you are restricted from getting any medicine developed using the theory of evolution among it's premises. I'm sorry sir, no you *can't* use our web connection to find another hospital - the GPS imagery it uses has been found to contradict the biblical view of a flat earth. I would be delighted to drive you, if only I could, however the bibilical statement that pi=three has forced us to restrict your use of 'round' items, and our hexagonal wheeled car is getting the tires changed today - they wear out so fast . . ."

Fundamentalist's always tell me they believe in it as literal word for word truth with no interpretation, yet they never seem to actually understand what that would imply.

Jonnan

I am going to speak as some one that beleives in intelligain design. (some one made the univers)  It should not ever be in a public school.  Since to truely beleive in it you have to be able to believe with out there being and evidence to support its existance. 

Science on the other hand needs to other evidence to support it.  I am not sure if her stance is to try and add in intelligent design or take out evolution.  Adding in is bad and taking out is just as wrong  The issue I have with evoultion is its taught as fact when its is still just theory. Even things just a few years ago have since been changed end or tossed out complety with new findings.  I will repeat this when I say it needs to be noted clearying that this is still just theory and new findings keep changing.

Not everyone that beleives in something has this narrow view that it is literal word.  Take the saying that Jesus supposedly said "Its easier for a camel to fit throught the eye of a needle then a rich man to get to heavin".  I know that in the older times people liked paribles like that one to help explain the scope of something.  Perhaps the people need to understand that.

No one has brought it up yet but I know its coming. The seperation of church and state.  It is really screwed up how that is viewed today.  Its supposed to be just what it says seperation of church and state.  Meaning that no single church can make only there point of view matter.  But people don't understand there is a difference between that and seperation of "God" and public.  There is nothing wrong with people bringing there moral views into goverment.  Since if they are truely representing the people that back them. Which is the true basis of our goverment.  Our founding fathers new that true democracy is a poor form of goverment which is why the set it up as a republic.  It sticks up for the little guy.  Yet they took it a step farther by adding in both the voice for the little guy as well as allowing the crowds voice to be head.

Not only should the moral veiws coming from somes personal beleives be tossed out but also any note of any kind of God in public because it may offend some one.  Can't say Merry Christmas because some jewish man may upset (which I have yet to meet a Jew that is offended and I have plenty of freinds) so you have to say happy holdidays.

I respect those who beleive in what every they beleive in whever it be Chirstain, Jewish, or don't beleive in any God at all.  What I do find offensive is how one is attacked for daring to display the beleive in a God but its okay to express ones feelings for not believing. To not sound Bias I also beleive that attacking someone that beleives in Science is just as much of a crime since they have just as much right as I do.

on Oct 01, 2008

Captain-Shiny
Not to mention that Palin is a hardcore cristian fundamentalist. I almost lost my faith in the world as I saw this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biP3Wdd7PRI

I'm german and I just don't understand america. And I really try. I just heard that a huge percentage of american people beliefe in the noa's arc story literally. From my point of view that's just weird. I really don't want to offend anyone but I really don't understand.

 

[applause]

 

Ever seen "Jesus Camp?" Welcome to our nation.

 

I can tell you that THIS massachusetts Jew wants nothing to do with the ignorant, creationist, frankly moronic louts that the Republican party is dressing up as politicions these days. John McCain wasn't that bad until he went and chose Palin, one of the worst of them, as his running mate.

 

on Oct 01, 2008

Don't feel left out - lot's of us *in* America don't understand.

 

Organized religion can be just as deadly as it is good.  The only difference between Christianity and Scientology is that Christianity has been around longer.  When you look at all religions in general they all do seem kinda funky. 

There is nothing wrong with people bringing there moral views into goverment.

When you have a governement offical win because he says he will promote Jesus that is the violation of seperation of church and state.  There is no problem with somebody bringing their morals to goverenement.  The problem happens when somebody says that thier morals are better than somebody else's morals.  No body's morals are better than anyone elses because there are so many different definitions for  good morals.  Same reason why there are so many different forms of Christianity.

 

The difference between a terrorist and freedowm fighter is who supports them.

 

 

on Oct 01, 2008

When you have a governement offical win because he says he will promote Jesus that is the violation of seperation of church and state

Okay, yeah I can see your point.  That would be one of those that could very well be a violation.  Reason I said could is because of how he carrys it out.  I am going to use the evangelical thing (since its shes evangelical). Say for example the pro-life veiw.  So in that way it would be fine.  But I think what your talking about goes way beyound that.  Perhaps to the point where saying you will observer evangelical ways and only that way....that is with out a doubt a violation.

I have to state this I am not evangelical so I am only going off a couple of people I work with.  I don't know if its normal but they really like to stick you with their belifs and reject everyone elses.  So even being some one that has some pretty strong beliefs I know its not for everyone and should not be forced on some one. 

on Oct 01, 2008

Josef086

sir, yes, we know Pneumonia is often fatal without treatment, but as an avowed fundamentalist that has argued the being gay is a sin, you are restricted from getting any medicine developed using the theory of evolution among it's premises. I'm sorry sir, no you *can't* use our web connection to find another hospital - the GPS imagery it uses has been found to contradict the biblical view of a flat earth. I would be delighted to drive you, if only I could, however the bibilical statement that pi=three has forced us to restrict your use of 'round' items, and our hexagonal wheeled car is getting the tires changed today - they wear out so fast . . ."

Fundamentalist's always tell me they believe in it as literal word for word truth with no interpretation, yet they never seem to actually understand what that would imply.

Jonnan


I am going to speak as some one that beleives in intelligain design. (some one made the univers)  It should not ever be in a public school.  Since to truely beleive in it you have to be able to believe with out there being and evidence to support its existance. 

Science on the other hand needs to other evidence to support it.  I am not sure if her stance is to try and add in intelligent design or take out evolution.  Adding in is bad and taking out is just as wrong  The issue I have with evoultion is its taught as fact when its is still just theory. Even things just a few years ago have since been changed end or tossed out complety with new findings.  I will repeat this when I say it needs to be noted clearying that this is still just theory and new findings keep changing.

Not everyone that beleives in something has this narrow view that it is literal word.  Take the saying that Jesus supposedly said "Its easier for a camel to fit throught the eye of a needle then a rich man to get to heavin".  I know that in the older times people liked paribles like that one to help explain the scope of something.  Perhaps the people need to understand that.

No one has brought it up yet but I know its coming. The seperation of church and state.  It is really screwed up how that is viewed today.  Its supposed to be just what it says seperation of church and state.  Meaning that no single church can make only there point of view matter.  But people don't understand there is a difference between that and seperation of "God" and public.  There is nothing wrong with people bringing there moral views into goverment.  Since if they are truely representing the people that back them. Which is the true basis of our goverment.  Our founding fathers new that true democracy is a poor form of goverment which is why the set it up as a republic.  It sticks up for the little guy.  Yet they took it a step farther by adding in both the voice for the little guy as well as allowing the crowds voice to be head.

Not only should the moral veiws coming from somes personal beleives be tossed out but also any note of any kind of God in public because it may offend some one.  Can't say Merry Christmas because some jewish man may upset (which I have yet to meet a Jew that is offended and I have plenty of freinds) so you have to say happy holdidays.

I respect those who beleive in what every they beleive in whever it be Chirstain, Jewish, or don't beleive in any God at all.  What I do find offensive is how one is attacked for daring to display the beleive in a God but its okay to express ones feelings for not believing. To not sound Bias I also beleive that attacking someone that beleives in Science is just as much of a crime since they have just as much right as I do.

Well, philosophically, I disagree.

I'm not aware of anyone that has made a blanket statement that there is something wrong with bringing someone's moral background into government, regardless of the underpinnings. It's the part where they decide they want to impose that moral background on everyone, typically backed by the statement that they don't *have* to logically make their argument because it's the documented "Will of God" that people have a problem with.

Because the instant you're enforcing someones moral belief because it's the documented "Will of God", then yes, you're involving the state in the enforcement of church doctrine, whether that is writ into the text of the law or not.

Jonnan

on Oct 01, 2008

Jonnan, can you give an example of something forced?  Do you mean like gay marrage and other things along that line?  I just want to make sure we are on the same page before or if I say anything else.  Since I know with matters like this I can say anything I want and you could say anything you want but it really goes no where since both people pretty much not going to move on there stance.

I really don't want Mccain/Paldin in office, but I would have them over Obama/Biden.  Obama just, there are to many of his views I don't agree with.  His almost communist views on somethings kind of scares me.  The fact he always talks about change but never talks about what the change is and no one has asked. I could go on. 

This is like the worst election ever.  You got Obama with his ideas (which I expressed how I feel above) and then the other extream on the other side.  Which is why none of those losers are getting my vote......

on Oct 02, 2008

Wow - an 'example'?

Educational funding going to religious schooling.

Exemptions from the law for churches using federal funds.

Attempts to use churches as political tools without losing their tax exempt status.

Attempting to put religious symbols in courthouses and on public grounds specifically as displays of our 'christian heritage' (As distinguished from displays that honor a variety of cultures)

Attempts to override Roe v Wade and restrict a womans right to control her own body. (I have my own, secular, objections to Roe V Wade, but they are not based in fundamentally religious arguments)

The Gay Marriage thing, although that is, in general, more red meat that gets tossed out to the base every four years than anything I feel deeply concerned about.

The general attempts to politicize religion on the right, or to attempt to pretend that "The government shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof" (Probably not exact quote) means something other than that government business and religion should not be mixed.

Jonnan

Meta
Views
» 3384
Comments
» 40
Category
Sponsored Links