Correcting rumors about Sarah Palin

[taks]

She would be one heart beat away from being president and that is a concern. At least if Obama buys it we got someone on back up who could do the job.

still irrelevant. with a democratic congress, a republican president, palin or mccain, is powerless no matter what happens. they are at that point nothing more than mouthpieces wielding a veto pen. at least then nothing would get done. besides, presidents have an unbelievable number of advisers of all sorts (funny how they don't count now, but everybody gripes that they're the ones actually in charge in other instances... double standards abound when ideology is in play).

 

taks

[taks]

From what I know, the demographics in the Nordic countries are different from those of the US, UK, and southern and eastern Europe. Immigration for instance is a non-issue there. Perhaps the relation between that and the success of their model isn't simply casual.

 

I don't think their level of success could be duplicated anywhere else, so they are probably something of an oddity. Which is why they are the one and only example brought up when defending the effectiveness of socialism...

 

No argument, my only point is that 'it can work only under certain conditions' is very different to 'it doesn't work at all'.

well, if the "certain conditions" are "very small country with an abundance of resources and a fairly free market in which to sell/exploit" then it sort of works, but not really. it is still less efficient, i.e., it does not create as much wealth, and ultimately will bankrupt itself. to say something "works" just because it has been around for some relatively short period of time is a bit disingenuous at best (it took the better part of a century for the USSR to collapse, for example). those that claim it "works," too, seem to always be saying so from the inside, with very little knowledge of other (more free) systems.

 

taks

[taks]

i like matt damon's ability to act too much to allow myself to watch any of his liberal rants. ugh, hollywood.

 

taks

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Hatter might want to read this...

The conservative case against sarah palin

 

EDIT: The cited facts have been reported other places, but other then that I don't know anything about this source - I just stumbled upon it and thought it was relevant.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Rosbjerg]

^samm, my comment was not directed towards all europeans, just those that delight in telling us in the US why we are so bad for the world, and how we should run our country. those are the "euro-snobs" so to speak. in the end, they are probably either envious, or jealous of what we have. they are educated and feel a sense of entitlement, too. "why do those greedy Americans have so much" i suppose. oh well.

 

taks

 

It never occured to you that maybe they are simply responding in kind? Some Americans are utterly convinced that their system, ideas, beliefs and convictions are the best in the world, without ever setting foot outside their state - We have those here as well - but there seems to be more of them in America, or at least more that are vocal about it.

To me, it simply comes down to the fact that Europe is getting too "old", we as nations have been through alot over the centuries. While America is still "young" - this is the only thing I'm really envious of.. The spirit of America, that believes anything is still possible. But sometimes the rethoric gets a little boring. And yes, mostly likely that's because I wish we had that spirit at times.

 

And to answer your remark on better service.. I was talking about nurses being more friendly, food being better (more choices) etc. Not the quality of the healtcare. Which isn't better than the public. This is of course possible because, being a smaller hospital and being more expensive than the public ones, they can afford it.

[Killian Kalthorne]

She would be one heart beat away from being president and that is a concern. At least if Obama buys it we got someone on back up who could do the job.

still irrelevant. with a democratic congress, a republican president, palin or mccain, is powerless no matter what happens. they are at that point nothing more than mouthpieces wielding a veto pen. at least then nothing would get done. besides, presidents have an unbelievable number of advisers of all sorts (funny how they don't count now, but everybody gripes that they're the ones actually in charge in other instances... double standards abound when ideology is in play).

 

taks

That is another reason to vote in a Democrat president, so that something can be done instead of the usual political roadblocks. Nothing is more worthless than a government that doesn't govern.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Xard]

but Sand, how could you, that's again libertarianism!?!?!?1!

[random n00b]

That is another reason to vote in a Democrat president, so that something can be done instead of the usual political roadblocks. Nothing is more worthless than a government that doesn't govern.

Nonsense. The administrative functions of the govt are affected in no way by a permanent stalemate at Congress. It's the legislative prerogatives (if any) that are blocked. Reforms and other initiatives are stopped. Running the country proper is not. Surely you are familiar with the concept of separation of powers?

 

But yeah, any reason's good to vote Democrat if you apply impossible logic to false premises.

[Humodour]

Eh, Sarah Palin seems like a bit of a dumb bint to me.

[Walsingham]

I was chatting with my cab driver this morning about this*. We decided the biggest problem is that US domestic policy is 50% tied to external foreign developments. But the US voting public, and possibly the majority of Congressmen, understand next to nothing about those developments.

 

 

 

*Never knock cab drivers. They have a lot of time to think ,and listen to the news, and talk to a wide array of people, in addition to having usually had at least one career before. I some cab drivers above the average Member of Parliament.

[Killian Kalthorne]

That is another reason to vote in a Democrat president, so that something can be done instead of the usual political roadblocks. Nothing is more worthless than a government that doesn't govern.

Nonsense. The administrative functions of the govt are affected in no way by a permanent stalemate at Congress. It's the legislative prerogatives (if any) that are blocked. Reforms and other initiatives are stopped. Running the country proper is not. Surely you are familiar with the concept of separation of powers?

 

But yeah, any reason's good to vote Democrat if you apply impossible logic to false premises.

If there is a Democrat majority in Congress, even the slightest of margin, then whatever the Democrats seek to put into law is sent over to a Democrat president and he or she would be more incline to sign it. Also, during his reign as president, the Democrat president could appoint liberal minded justices of the Supreme Court which would be backed by the Democrat majority Congress. In this set up, government would be progressing towards a more liberal way of thinking.

 

Good or ill, the government would actually be doing something instead of being stagnate.

[random n00b]

If there is a Democrat majority in Congress, even the slightest of margin, then whatever the Democrats seek to put into law is sent over to a Democrat president and he or she would be more incline to sign it. Also, during his reign as president, the Democrat president could appoint liberal minded justices of the Supreme Court which would be backed by the Democrat majority Congress. In this set up, government would be progressing towards a more liberal way of thinking.

 

Good or ill, the government would actually be doing something instead of being stagnate.

Yeah, so you just want a Democrat president alongside a Democrat-dominated Congress... because you like the way you believe they think better. In other words, you don't care about reasons, and might as well flip a coin and vote based on that, for all the reasons behind your carefully woven discourse. I mean, even impossible logic isn't good enough anymore!

 

The joy of democracy.

[Humodour]

If there is a Democrat majority in Congress, even the slightest of margin, then whatever the Democrats seek to put into law is sent over to a Democrat president and he or she would be more incline to sign it. Also, during his reign as president, the Democrat president could appoint liberal minded justices of the Supreme Court which would be backed by the Democrat majority Congress. In this set up, government would be progressing towards a more liberal way of thinking.

 

Good or ill, the government would actually be doing something instead of being stagnate.

Yeah, so you just want a Democrat president alongside a Democrat-dominated Congress... because you like the way you believe they think better. In other words, you don't care about reasons, and might as well flip a coin and vote based on that, for all the reasons behind your carefully woven discourse. I mean, even impossible logic isn't good enough anymore!

 

The joy of democracy.

 

Doom doom doom!

[Killian Kalthorne]

Yeah, so you just want a Democrat president alongside a Democrat-dominated Congress... because you like the way you believe they think better. In other words, you don't care about reasons, and might as well flip a coin and vote based on that, for all the reasons behind your carefully woven discourse. I mean, even impossible logic isn't good enough anymore!

 

The joy of democracy.

We have both seen what a Republican Dominated Congress and Republican President got us, and a Democrat Dominated Congress and a Republican President as well. Now it is time for a Democrat Dominated Congress and a Democrat President and see how well that does us. If it doesn't work out, then we vote a different way next time around. As you said...

 

The joy of democracy!

[taks]

We have both seen what a Republican Dominated Congress and Republican President got us

spend, spend, spend.

 

and a Democrat Dominated Congress and a Republican President as well.

reduced spending since bush is actually wielding the veto pen now.

 

Now it is time for a Democrat Dominated Congress and a Democrat President and see how well that does us.

wow, that's almost moronic, but not quite as well thought out. it will be the same spend, spend, spend, but with additional taxes.

 

the whole point of "learning from the past" is to actually really learn from it. one party in control has almost always equated to a spend-fest.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are on CNN proclaiming to open the debates and to support third-party candidates.

 

Ron Paul and Nader agreeing on something?

Edited September 11, 2008 by Meshugger

[random n00b]

Doom doom doom!

Nah. Just politics...

[Nick_i_am]

Never knock cab drivers.

 

Agreed.

[Pop]

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are on CNN proclaiming to open the debates and to support third-party candidates.

 

Ron Paul and Nader agreeing on something?

It's not all that surprising. Sort of crafty of Paul, making a (fruitless) show of endorsing third parties but not running with one, where he'd be the strongest of any this race. Not that it would've mattered had he endorsed any actual candidate. The logic is the same as in any American national election. You can think of voters as a big pool, divided up. Whoever has the biggest share of the pool in a state wins, but you have to figure that third party voters only really affect elections in the same way people who don't vote do - they subtract from the vote pool of the candidate they'd otherwise vote for. Ron Paul's fanbase has been up its own ass for so long that they'd never actually say they'd vote for McCain even though he's closer in ideology to Paul than Obama is, and more importantly, he's much whiter than Obama. But I'm betting that, just like the evangelicals, they'll fall in line come election day. He's endorsed McCain, he just doesn't know it. Or maybe he does?

 

Anyway, watch McCain walk into a beatdown at the View, of all places. Also, Slate examines the many personality similarities between Palin and GWB. Here's one difference she has with Bush - apparently she still believes Iraq and 9/11 were linked.

 

Another interesting developing story - Palin charged for rape kits?

ANCHORAGE, Alaska --Two state leaders lashed out at the public record of Gov. Sarah Palin yesterday as witnesses in a new "Alaska Mythbusters" forum coordinated by supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

 

Speaking to a teleconference audience of reporters around the nation, former Gov. Tony Knowles and current Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein -- both Democrats -- accused Palin of misleading the public in her new role as the vice presidential running mate of Arizona Sen. John McCain.

 

While some of their complaints have already been aired, Knowles broke new ground while answering a reporter’s question on whether Wasilla forced rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests when Palin was mayor.

 

True, Knowles said.

 

Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide.

 

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said

 

A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla’s newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece.

 

"(But) the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests," the newspaper reported.

 

It also quoted Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon objecting to the law. Fannon was appointed to his position by Palin after her dismissal of the previous police chief. He said it would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year if the city had to foot the bill for rape exams.

 

"In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims’ insurance company when possible," Fannon told the newspaper. "I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."

Now that's libertarianism. The City's records are open to the public, and if you read the figures, they seem to bear out the claims - $15,000 was set aside for the department's 1st year of existence (1993-1994), $5,000 for 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, and $13,000 for the last year of the first police chief's employment (Palin fired him for "interfering with her governance") in 1996-1997, spending $11,625 of that $13,000.

 

Charlie Fannon, Palin's new chief, took the budget allocation from 1997-1998 and about halved it, requesting of $7,298, spending $3,454 of that. After that in 1998-1999, the "personal responsibility" initiative kicked into gear. That year a measly $3,000 for sexual assault victim assistance was requested. Just $205 of that was spent. Palin's signature is on all the documents, so she either wasn't diligent or she had knowledge of the policy.

 

Thankfully the state legislature (who, let's face it, are probably socialists) got wind of it and banned the practice statewide. As to if anyone was affected by this (lord, I hope not) nobody knows at this juncture.

Edited September 13, 2008 by Pop

[Kelverin]

Anyway, watch McCain walk into a beatdown at the View, of all places

 

Where was the beat down???? It sure wasn't in the clip they showed???

[Pop]

beatdown

[Kelverin]

beatdown

Weak

[tarna]

the hell doea that mean?

And to answer your remark on better service.. I was talking about nurses being more friendly, food being better (more choices) etc. Not the quality of the healtcare. Which isn't better than the public. This is of course possible because, being a smaller hospital and being more expensive than the public ones, they can afford it.

I cannot speak for the smaller hospitals in smaller towns but it is fairly common for hospitals now to employ real chefs to run their kitchens. The hospitals feel ( finally ) that the moral improvement due to eating something besides night-dirt can actually be condusive to improved recovery. Imagine that! lol. While you chuckle, consider that Louis Pastuer was lampooned for suggesting that surgeons actually wash their hands before cutting into someone. God-damn progresives! If leeches were good enuf for my betters, they are good enuf for you!

Mirrors are good when appropriate to improve the lives of the patients [ look it up if you don't post ]but not so good when those very mirrors are used to deflect the facts that Democraps simply wish to continue to make slaves out of the mentally defective simply to further their agenda. They don't actually give a good squeeze of turd about you. It's how many of you fools will eat what they squirt in your direction that sounds like it has a good taste.

 

The Gover'ment will give you healthcare...What the Hell does that mean?

The Gover'ment will protect you. I seem to remember the same theme being offered to pre-WW2 italy.

The Gover'ment will 'give you'...yadda yadda. Are you peeps f**king stupid!?!!! The goverment cannot give you anything! They can only return what they have already taken from you.

They make the offer to return to you what they have already taken from you if...and only if...you do as they ask ( require ). To think otherwise only indicates that you have your head firmly planted in your ass.

I will freely admit that Obama gives a smokin speech. I was seriously considering screwing it up in a major way when he was here in Denver. The only reason I didn't was because a critical piece of hardware didn't show up in time ( maybe the op in near future :wink: ). I'm pretty freeking unhappy with McCain for his lack-luster ( idiocy ) showing lately. I've never voted for a Democrap and would rather gnaw a tattoo off of Rosanne Barr's ass than vote for a Dem but right not it's looking about 50/50 and that's not sitting real well with me. I keep watching McCain's ads and it seems that he's simply copying Senator Obama's ( notice the credit given ) ads and simply throwing a spin on them. I'm sorry but I want a candidate that can actually show a platform that he stands behind and not someone that simply responds to someone else's ad time.

 

I don't like Obama because he is a Liberal but McCain is pissing me off more because he is acting like a Moron.

[Walsingham]

Huh? Tarna, "The government can only return what you give it?" You mean like the autoshop does, or the bakery? A properly run government does things you can't do on your own, like commission motorways and dams, launch a space program etc. I mean, sure we've all maintained the odd personal CDC, but come on!

[taks]

i don't think that was his point, walsh. the government can't "give" anything to you that it did not originally "take" from you. in other words, what the government has to provide is derived from the resources the people provide.

 

taks