the all-purpose Sarah Palin thread

Post Reply New Topic

Hmm.... the minimum wage didn't go up for the past decade - did that put a damper on illegal immigration?? Nope. As long as there is a huge differential between the US and nearby countries, there is strong incentive to work illegally.

A wage-price spiral that fuels inflation is a real possibility in some economies. An alternative is to have workers fall behind year after year, as food, fuel, and other essentials increase anyway. Another option - the benefits of increased productivity benefit the average worker, the CEOs, and the stockholders.

Let's see how much more of this I can address...

I've heard this before. Essentially the argument is that tariffs deny an economy the benefits of free trade; an economy with no trading partners cannot be better off than one with trading partners that are limited, and isolated economies do not necessarily implode.


1)Domestic oil companies aren't necessarily less corrupt than foreign ones.
2)Domestic oil resources aren't nearly as vast as foreign ones - a drop in the bucket on the international market, which is where they will be sold. There is no private American market for oil.



assuage?
Cutting taxes on companies that are already making huge profits, and not expanding job production, is not going to fix the problem. That's the 'throw money at it and assume it will fix the problem' solution, and it's just as false here as it is in education or healthcare or any other sector. We have to reward companies that are doing things right (employing Americans) and punish those who are doing things wrong (outsourcing).



Honestly, that's an idea I'm ambivalent about. Aside from the problems you mention, how much do we want to become an economy that doesn't really produce anything? Isn't part of our problem the fact that we have a huge trade deficit - how will that change if we lean even farther towards a service and information economy?



gahhh. 8 out of 10 links I'm finding for my searches are from blogs, and another one is debunking some idiotic rumor that some fool made up...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... in_on.html
quote:
in October of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Palin said the following about creationism at a debate:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

That statement IS the ID point of view. It's true that science can be taught in too dogmatic a way, but allowing ID into the biology classroom is not the way to remedy that any more than allowing the alchemy of turning lead into gold into the chemistry classroom will help.



that's because a baby is not the same thing as a fetus, and far less the same thing as an embryo.



Sorry, abortion is NOT easy. There may be a few girls/women out there who treat it as birth control, but the vast majority of women who go through the procedure take it very seriously. It's not something that women do casually.



...which totally ignores the burden of pregnancy.



It carries the father's genes. It is the product of the father's actions. It is inherently tainted by the father's evil, in the same way that the child of a great person carries a faint gloss of their parent's greatness, regardless of their own actions.



Which is how it would go in an equitable society, but not how it goes in reality. In reality, the same people who argue the hardest for overturning Roe v. Wade are the first to cut funding for head start, family planning, child care assistance, etc. Regardless of how terrible the mother's situation is. Palin included.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/200 ... alin_rape/
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/200 ... m_funding/

Which is totally beside the point that forcing a woman to carry a rapist's offspring to term is, for many, a continuation of the rape. Personally, I would rather do a home abortion with a dirty coat hanger than carry to term a rapist's offspring. And I'm not exceptional in that.



I can't agree on that. There may be a numerical surperfluity of women who are pro-life to some degree, but I'd take a big bet that they're not as extreme as Palin; I'd take an even bigger bet that the vast majority of the pro-life movement, especially those with positions that extreme, are men. Whether or not those women are 'liberated' is a personal opinion - and in my opinion, they are not.



I'm not sure that that's the case (not the part about him not succeeding as a democrat, you're probably right: the part about him having to kiss ass to the religious right in order to win the primary). He won the primary because he's the one candidate that the repubs put up that looked different from the last 8 years, and early repub voters were savvy enough to know that a more-of-the-same ticket would not appeal to enough people to win the general election. I think he would be in a better general position now if he had stuck to his guns 10 years ago.


anyone with an extreme position on abortion, who wants creationism taught in biology classes, qualifies as a wackaloon in my book. But there's also this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f- ... 26478.html
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ ... index.html



I should have specified: do you have any evidence that cultures which accept homosexuality are any 'weaker' or have to 'fight a lot harder to survive' than cultures which do not allow homosexuality in the open? (I'm familiar with the reputations of greece and egypt, though I haven't read specifically on the subject of either wrt homosexuality).



For one, I don't see open homosexuality as 'anarchy and disarray.' For another, evidence only continues to mount that homosexuality is built into the brain, not learned; straight students will continue to be straight, regardless of the social climate.

[/quote]The only part in all this that comes in cross with that, figuring out where civil rights and the greater good of the majority need to work out their concessions to stay in balance...[/quote]

Sure, civil rights always have to be balanced with the greater good (though I think that civil rights are a greater good in and of themselves: personal freedom for everyone else, as well as the self). However, how does giving equal rights to gays negatively impact the greater good at all?



...because the Iraqis now say that they want a timetable for withdrawl, and even McCain is starting to realize that Obama was right all along.



With, IIrc, the biggest American embassy in the world?



Are you talking here, on American soil? The only one I recall hearing about were a bunch of amateur wannabes in Florida. Worldwide, the number of terrorist attacks has increased.



I haven't heard any newscaster make that claim.



Coulter is a wingnut, but the analogy is fair. However, given that Iraq had virtually no Al Quaida presence before we invaded how has invading Iraq (and sending huge portions of our army there, making ourselves unable to respond to any other threat and even unable to present a credible 'big stick' to other countries invading their neighbors, even if (like Georgia) those countries happen to be our allies), how did invading Iraq make us safer?



Yet McCain thinks that "the fundamentals of the economy are fine." How can he solve anything when he doesn't think that there's a problem?

[/quote]Dependency on fossil fuels I have to say is incorrect, they want all the things the democrats want, they believe however that fossil fuels are a necessity until the technologies to make alternative fuels cost effective come along - anything less is economic suicide.[/quote]

But, at least in McCain's case, they vote against investing in R&D on new energy technologies. He's said that he'll change when he's president, but can we count on that? He thinks that coal can somehow be made 'clean,' and that building lots of new nuclear reactors would be a good idea. He says we'll 'find a solution for nuclear waste,' but doesn't suggest what that might be.



carrying a big stick is a part of diplomacy. My problem is that both Palin and McCain talk loud while their stick is currently stuck in the quicksand. America currently has no credibility: military, moral, financial, or otherwise.



I'm not so sure. Have you heard of the theory that WWI was caused, in large part, by a network of 'mutual defense' pacts? I'm not a student of the era, but that was the dominant dogma when I went through history.



In that case, they would deserve to be blown to smithereens by our superior nuclear capability.
Unfortunately, Ahmadinijad is just like Bush: dangerous and stupid. They both play up the other country as 'evil' or 'the great satan' in order to control their populations with the threat of a bogeyman. Iran is relatively civilized compared to the rest of the middle east; we screwed them over (with the CIA) royally in the past, and they've had a hard time forgetting that. It was one of those cases of the U.S. thinking that a favorable dictatorship was better than an unfavorable democracy.
We won't get anywhere while Ahmadinijad is in office, but they won't elect someone else, or someone better, if they're fearful of us. He's stupid enough that he needs to see the big stick overtly, but we have to let the population of Iran know that we're sane. Jokes about bombing them doesn't help in either case.



And yet Bush was not only not impeached, but was re-elected. Whereas Clinton was impeached over lying about an extramarital affair.

Aside from her policies, I really have to wonder how connected to reality she is. Consider this article, which makes it pretty clear that she thinks that her rise to governor was at least partly due to prophetic declarations from Thomas Muthee, who is best known for battling sorcery and witchcraft.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselecti ... ed-el.html

This Pastor Murthee, who has spoken often at Wasilla Church, has led 'spiritual warfare' that hearkens back to the good ole days of the Salem witch hunts. He identified one woman as a witch in part because she lived near an intersection where lots of traffic accidents happened. After whipping up hysteria against the woman, the police raided her home, and she was driven from the town.

The words 'prophetic power' are code for a world view that is really quite strange and alarming. These beliefs are not mainstream Christianity, where people pray to God and ask for favor - she and her church have the idea that God is a prayer genie that can be used like any other technology to get what they want - rub the God lamp with a few words and the genie appears to grant a wish. They don't pray to God for insight on a problem which may or may not come - they are closer to the child with an imaginary friend and they have elevated their subconscious mind to the status of God.

on the general topic of the economy and bail-outs, this from youtube:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ZlxsEioUA[/youtube]

That too, but the fact she believes in stuff like "pray away the gay" makes her a bigot. I don't need anymore information than that. We already have one of those in the Oval Office and look how much equal rights have suffered.

Does that mean that 'abstinence training' prevent unwanted pregnancies?
doesn't seem so that much.

And she will be the next vice-president, as I believe there is a great possibility that McCain will win, and well, it happens that people get what they ask for.

Equal rights haven't suffered in the slightest, so thanks for unmaking your point.

Your right - equal rights have not been established, so equal rights cannot suffer.

Look, you can read in articles in New York Times, Washngton Post, Financial Times (not a bulwark of liberalsm by any means) LA TIMes (not a lover of Obama by any means) and of course also, The New Republic, and Huffington Post about the Alaska DEbacle, which is to say anything to do about Palin. Lately, this would mean being shocked that the Republican campaign of McCain is now squelching investigation into Troopergate and also that Palin's aides and employees refuse to comply with subpoenas and testify. Anyone who has any logic, or is not a brainwashed fool who thinks the Republican party will do something for him/her (it won't unless you're a millionaire)) can see that this is an obvious ploy to COVER SOMETHING UP. You may argue about Bush all you like, although how you can defend him given the evidence of the past 8 years is simply another matter of being brainwashed, you may argue about where 9-11 came from (the terrorists want you to), you may argue about where the financial crisis came from (it's Reagan's deregulation, sillies, and even Greenspan is wringing his hands and saying he should have done something other than what he did, which was nothing and he knew the warning signs as early as 2002-2004) you may argue that drilling will supply America's oil needs of 20 million barrels a day (it will NOT -- offshore drilling, in ten years (because that's how long it takes to locate and develop site, drill, remove, refine, sell) will STILL only supply about 1% of current American needs. ANd in 10 years those needs will probably increase), you may argue that draining oil and natural gas out of every piece of Alaska will supply America's energy needs, (it will not, only about 3-4% we will still be buying, buying, buying making the Saudis and the Russians and everyone in OPEC VERY happy because they will see that America will not ever develop its own supply of alternate energy), but still the current facts of this matter, and more facts about Palin's character rise from the melting ice of her character every day. Put aside what is happening with her family. (It is not sexist to suggest that her Downs baby will need her more than the country, for this is unfortunately very true, as every family with a Downs baby knows.) PUt aside that abstinence education only does not work, even in a super religious family, so religious that Palin herself thinks her governorship came from prayer, not hard work. Put aside the family matters and look just at Palin and you will see a person whose past is riddled with issues about favoritsm, cronyism, earmark spending into the hundreds of millions, even without the Bridge to Nowhere money, most of which Alaska kept, cut and slashed programs which have to do with protection for abused women and children (Alaska has the highest rate in the nation for domestic abuse, incest, and rape). Palin's record is spotted with instances of cover-ups, even to the fact that her aides send email of state business in their private emails, just to keep emails from being subpoenaed just in case something happens. What are they doing with state businesss that they think they need to hide something? It is the hidden, the cover-ups, and the fact that the Republicans in McCain's Campaign are keeping Palin from general interviews, from the public eye, from as much scrutiny as they can. When Palin ran for governor, same thing happened. Why does she run from scrutiny? It is no compliment to strong intelligent women that this woman must be fed her information, but she has never been strong on the issues, not even as a candidate for governor. She has quips, not answers, style, not substance. And that is what is sexist. How she presents herself, how she thinks that she cannot be questioned, that she should be deferred to, how the McCain Campaign keeps her out of any situation where she may be in an awkward positon answering questions she wasn't prepped by the campaign to answer. This is the biggest insult to women everywhere, that she is not the brains behind her organization. She's a puppet, but, in fact, a people person, a politician of such power that she can beguile people to the point where they don't ask tough questions of her that they should. Is that all a woman as leader can do? Beguile? Charm? No of course not. Women can lead. The real Sarah Palin is behind all the cover-ups and the campaign wall of protection. And she is no pushover and not really very charming behind all the makeup. And she's just waiting. That's the scariest thing of all.

If people are already getting full tax refunds and are getting a tax refund, its less a tax refund and more wealth distribution.




Watching all that on CNN for the past few weeks - its scary. A lot of experts are saying that it won't blow away the 401k's, that as its financial banking the assets and investments that the mutual funds would have are not tied down to the investment banks but, unfortunately, the tax payers will be shelling out for this :S. CNN did have an analyst on, she has a show on their channel and I forgot her name, but she did mention that a lot of this money that was going to be sunk in by the tax payers was more like a loan and that when it was pulled back out by the government that it would have increased yield. It just scared me that they could have Ali, a whole bunch of other experts, Ben Stein, Donald Trump, and they're all saying different things - sometimes contrary. It blows my mind how the best of the best out there can't even agree.



Green has this on its side - the more a company, GE or anyone else, can come up with green inovation - it doesn't just save them money, it makes a far superior product and innovates their ability to make it. In that sense green does sell itself. I agree though, we should not have environmental protections lifted in terms of pollution, and while I won't even talk about Greenpiece or PETA I will say that it makes sense to at least let large companies know that they are being actively watched.

As far as state to state tax reform though, it has worked for Jindal in Louisiana, but I think your right in this sense - it does only have so much mileage before every state maybe decides to do what one active citizen is thinking of doing in Massachusetts with her community action committee - you can cut away at state level taxation, omit state income tax, make your state sales tax exempt, but when 50 states get to that point it means that all things really are equal. On this point I don't really know either, I would like to think that the world market will hit its equilibrium, until that point I would think that the companies who are producing from within the U.S. and paying the least to make their product will be the most successful in supplying export potential. Keep in mind though, I am typing this from Ohio and I think 3 states really should at least think about cutting taxes as much as they can - my state, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Governor Stickland has already been kicking around ideas to make Ohio sales tax free, hopefully that will do something to revive our state.



Don't know how many of those there are to compare (messy unstable democracies), maybe if your speaking of satellite states of the old U.S.S.R. but they don't have the economic pull on the overall system.




In the case of that mess I'm not certain, I do know that corporations regularly pay 'fixers' these sorts of amounts and, when they fail, its a 'please go away!' payment - as in the results can't be guaranteed in many cases. People who do grab up failing companies and turn them around are paid much like pro athletes, most of the time its because they've earned it. With Fannie and Freddy though, I don't know their story in terms of the CEO's specifically.

On the other hand I do remember the name of the guy who it was that people have been saying has had heavy implications with both of these failings and who's somehow managed to duck media scrutiny - Barney Frank. There has been some debate over the WSJ's editorial article on what he did but from what's out there, he and some other congressman had been in charge of oversight for Fanny and Freddy and let it fall to pieces while their lobbyists (which they had many who were pouring cash all over Washington) were lining their pockets.




That last part - I do think anti-trust laws have some merit here. If barriers to entry are too high for competition it is a problem if its only a small handful of companies controlling a whole field. On the other hand, I think a grass-roots consumer's type group for the labor market would be great. Of course, I don't know if it would be legal for them to have a 'consumer's report' page with different companies paying wages, I know they can do it with insurance quotes but I don't know whether or not it would get legally sticky or border on arguable slander.

On the Medicare bit - I would have to research this more. I've heard cases mentioned where a single person was able to pull of 140 frauds but, that's heard, I haven't seen it documented.

Palin is evil, all she cat\res about is money. Drilling Oil in the Artic Circle, Letting people hunt animals from helicopters. Teacher creatism in schools. She is a Dicator that will lead this country in Doom. No Regulation= Crime and a 90% Poverty Rate.

I think there probably is a fair balance, it may be right for some countries, don't know about the U.S.. I would say that Zimbabwe right now is the best country to look at in terms of what not to do.



1). Its not so much about the producers themselves but the societies they're fueling, particularly where you have dictatorships (ie. Chavez, Putin and Medvedev questionably) or countries that have terrorist training and schools of radical Islam that have exponentiated with the new money. A lot of these same countries do something much different, they don't have fee-market oil prospectors and refiners, their oil companies are socialized.

2). We would still be selling, this is correct. On the other hand we would at least balance the offset a bit more, keep a bit more of our own money (sell some, buy some). I think we're in agreement that U.S. resources aren't as immense, we have plenty of shale oil and that is a technology which is still a work in progress. All the same though, its about freedom of choice to an extent, while its a commodity I can't imagine that we'd be forced to sell everything we've got.



That is a good question, though I don't think its one that either side of the isle is really addressing effectively.



This is something that I think may have back-peddled on "well she meant to say that the teacher should just have freedom to bring it up, not necessarily teach it". She might not be Biden yet but I am seeing where there have been a lot of things in her past that she left herself open for.



That's telling. I think your very well articulating the differences between pro-life and pro-choice on this as well; pro-life would argue that from a zygote its substantively the same thing; like arguing that an under-ripened banana isn't the same thing as a full grown banana.



I didn't mean easy on the personal level. Politically speaking (politically correct) its much easier to approve a procedure than tell people how to live.



Or they're really that serious about the matter of life - all factors included.



That does make an inherent argument that people are good or bad based on the genes they receive from their parents. I'll admit that early childhood influences can developmentally gnarl people up, including alcoholic parents, physical abuse, molestation, but I can't say I've ever seen research to suggest that you are your parents in that sense.



On your last point , it has to be hell - not something I'd argue in the least. With the programs you mentioned them wanting to cut, do you know what their reasoning is?




What issues are you thinking of?



I don't think it made them weaker, I'm just saying that even they didn't offer it as a marriage option to the best of my knowledge.



I don't think it would cause shifts in sexual identity as much as it would change people's concepts of marriage and in end result the family unit. The idea tends to be that straights would be even more likely to treat marriage certification like overinflated fiat.



No one really knows I guess, its never been done to this extent. Personally I know progress and change will happen, I wouldn't stand in the way of it. At this point if anything I think a lot of this should be tried - if it works great, if not its either more likely to be done right the next time or more likely not to be repeated.



That I can't go with, he still denies the surge to this day.



http://www.heritage.org/research/Homela ... bg2085.cfm

You may not like the source but it gives specifics, names, things you could check up on.



Don't know what to tell you on that one, aside from the fact that its practically a dead horse that we've all had the chance to kick to our hearts content and then some ad nauseum. The reasons for going in were apparent ties between Al Qaeda and Hussein, intelligence agencies all over Europe, the Middle East, and northern Africa agreeing that he had WMD's, his shooting at planes over the parallels, his awards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, the yellow cake controversy. If we're safer now its partly that he wasn't able to bribe the U.N. (Oil-For-Food vouchers) into letting him off the hook and going back to what he wanted to do which was make nukes.

You can debate whether that was good enough reason, as compared to Iran, as compared to North Korea. On the other side of things though as we're there we do have to finish the job appropriately.



I'd have to guess your joking with the first bit. Our big concern of course, by the time a major city blows it pretty much ushers in an economic era like we've never seen. Unlike Japan as well we have a situation where most of the populace lived largely westernized lives, are largely pro-west, and are held hostage by their leadership (and yes - thank you Jimmy Carter :eww: ). If Israel does strike it will be as surgical as possible, though yes, the administration is playing the collateral damage game as despots do best - underneath its citizens for the sake of great photos for Reuters. I would like to think the Iranian people can oust him, with our help even, before he awakens the 12th Imam from the well to hasten the apocalypse - that's one thing we quite thankfully don't hear out of our own leadership on any side.

[/quote]

He took a hell of a media hammering, though I still really wonder to this day - as much as many in congress were out for his blood, if they had enough on him why they wouldn't have taken it.

When people talk like this they act like its somehow new. We've had 42 presidents now and they've all been protestant or evangelical of some type? The only way competant adults still cling to those sorts of beliefs is that they'll have them reconciled with reality - they may still have a very intense spirituality, they may talk that sort of Pentecostal rhetoric, but you sure as hell wouldn't see them talking that from the presidents office or the vp's for that matter and its given that impinging on people's free will in terms of religion is very much morally and ethically wrong (unless they're attacking liberties of others).

[/quote]When people talk like this they act like its somehow new. We've had 42 presidents now and they've all been protestant or evangelical of some type? The only way competant adults still cling to those sorts of beliefs is that they'll have them reconciled with reality - they may still have a very intense spirituality, they may talk that sort of Pentecostal rhetoric, but you sure as hell wouldn't see them talking that from the presidents office or the vp's for that matter and its given that impinging on people's free will in terms of religion is very much morally and ethically wrong (unless they're attacking liberties of others).[/quote]

ACtually we've had 43 presidents and only one of them have been Catholic, John F. Kennedy. (The rest have been Protestant, but it would be stretching it to say evangelical, for this movement is one of the most radical and not popular outside of tent revivals until the last few decades.) It was a big deal back tin he early 60's that JFK overcame people's predjudice against voting for a Catholic. I guess voters thought the Pope would be running the US or something. Their fears were groundless of course, and JFK obviously one of the most popular presidents ever. While it is true that it is easiest to judge others because of their religious beliefs, Palin's church has been associated with the more radical edge of the Third Wave, which I guess are associated with the pentecostals. The Third Wave believe in the power of prayer to bring about disasters, and their entire belief system revolves around ultimately bringing to pass the "end of days" scenario in which they believe they will be at the head of a new world order, new apostles answerable only to God (Third Wave leaders call themselves apostles even now). They pray not to end suffering or to ask favors, but to bring about the END, and it is that fanatical belief that is so scary. To read about them and their belief system is even scarier as they seem like a group with a very cult-like ideology and rigidity. This association for the #2 position in the US is for me, too far a stretch, although I believe in freedom of religion. I would never tell anyone what to believe or that they must follow such and such a doctrine, but the Third Wave believes that they can tell people what to follow, and also that if people don't follow them, that they will be destroyed. All pretty scary stuff.

Sarah Palin annoys me.