Palin Interview [Archive] - M4Carbine.net Forums

thopkins22

01-08-09, 15:52

She is a great woman...

REALLY? I mean she may not be a bad person on an individual level, but she represents much of what's wrong with the party...the part that rejects science, hasn't read the constitution much less comprehends it, hypocrisy on "family values," and embracing what often came down to racist or fearmongering politics. I'm sure that I'm messing up the quote from my favorite blog;), but here goes, "While she occasionally had the right answers, I'm not sure she understood the questions."

Why oh why won't she just go away?

ETA: Not knocking family values, just pointing out that she apparently ignored her own while chasing power...and then had the nerve to spout the traditional rhetoric about family and religion.

R.P.

01-08-09, 16:03

What I stated had nothing to do with politics....however, I would definitely take her over what we are getting ready to have.

I mean, at least she is an American citizen right?

thopkins22

01-08-09, 16:09

What I stated had nothing to do with politics....however, I would definitely take her over what we are getting ready to have.

No doubt. And the bias in the media was apparent. But there are already calls for her to run in 2012, and it scares the hell out of me.

Business_Casual

01-08-09, 16:13

REALLY? I mean she may not be a bad person on an individual level, but she represents much of what's wrong with the party...the part that rejects science, hasn't read the constitution much less comprehends it, hypocrisy on "family values," and embracing what often came down to racist or fearmongering politics. I'm sure that I'm messing up the quote from my favorite blog;), but here goes, "While she occasionally had the right answers, I'm not sure she understood the questions."

Why oh why won't she just go away?

ETA: Not knocking family values, just pointing out that she apparently ignored her own while chasing power...and then had the nerve to spout the traditional rhetoric about family and religion.

Hey, nothing like buying the MSM line about Sarah hook, line and sinker! Because I'm certain a bigoted moron wouldn't be the chief executive of Alaska. Sorry, I just don't buy the conventional wisdom on her.

Maybe you can help me out, other than one answer in the Katie Couric interview, which I will grant you, can you show me exact quotes from her that demonstrate she "rejects science" is "racist" and finally doesn't understand the questions?

I'm giving you a chance to change my mind, so don't waste it by citing your preconceptions, do some actual research and show me. In the mean time, try watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

So, what say you?

M_P

bkb0000

01-08-09, 16:20

No doubt. And the bias in the media was apparent. But there are already calls for her to run in 2012, and it scares the hell out of me.

yea.. seems like a sympathy kind of thing. how the hell could anyone think she's qualified to be president? she's cool, i like her, seems like a nice lady, etc... but a stupid choice for VP and absurd choice for pres

R.P.

01-08-09, 16:22

But there are already calls for her to run in 2012, and it scares the hell out of me.[/QUOTE]

And why is this?

On a side note, it would not surprise me if she had "The Art of the Tactical Carbine" in her DVD library at home.

thopkins22

01-08-09, 16:59

Because I'm certain a bigoted moron wouldn't be the chief executive of Alaska.
I don't know whether or not she's a bigot/racist. I definitely think she played to that element of society during many of the rallies in an effort to garner votes. All the emphasis on middle names, preachers(funny videos in her history as well,) radicals that Obama taught alongside, and so on. Issues that while I'm happy to learn about them, were the focus of many of her speeches as opposed to what she should have talked about policy/ideology.

Maybe you can help me out, other than one answer in the Katie Couric interview, which I will grant you...
You don't think it was a telling answer? In elementary school I could have stated as fact that privacy was a constitutionally assured right. Perhaps she didn't understand the question, or perhaps she just forgot. I think the point is that the office and party deserves a person who can not only survive the questions and debates, but win them. Logic and history's most revered politicians are on our side. An honest, well educated, and charismatic person should be able to win easily. This year's field was full of people with those qualities, though none of them had it all. It shouldn't be this hard.

I watched the video, and I agree the media ripped her to shreds while they didn't seemingly hit Obama as hard. Though how he survived the Rev. Wright thing is beyond me, I must have seen that one thousand times on the MSM.

R.P....Why does Palin in 2012 scare me? Because I fear the party will tank again and we'll be subjected to serious big government once Obama has no reelections to worry about.

BVickery

01-08-09, 17:23

One thing that really gives me a 'positive' feeling about Palin is her view on handling issues that directly relate to a Constitution. From what I read (even gone as far as checking gay blogs about it) she vetoed a bill that would have very much been highly Anti-gay in nature. Her reasoning for the veto was along the lines of "Though I disagree on a personal level about this lifestyle, according to the Alaskan Constitution it is very much unconstitutional and as such I need to reject it."

That's NOT verbatim but gist of the quote. When a pol CAN put aside their own personal beliefs about an issue and rules in accordance with what she is required to do. Needless to say this shocked the living hell out of the militant gay crowd.

Business_Casual

01-08-09, 18:00

thopkins22

01-08-09, 18:15

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to start a fight. If you had given this answer to me and I were your professor, I would have to say you failed.

M_P

I would have failed me too, as it was based on feelings instead of quotes. But it's a feeling she did nothing to dismiss.

Spinone

01-08-09, 21:46

I don't know whether or not she's a bigot/racist. I definitely think she played to that element of society during many of the rallies in an effort to garner votes. All the emphasis on middle names, preachers(funny videos in her history as well,) radicals that Obama taught alongside, and so on. Issues that while I'm happy to learn about them, were the focus of many of her speeches as opposed to what she should have talked about policy/ideology.

You don't think it was a telling answer? In elementary school I could have stated as fact that privacy was a constitutionally assured right. Perhaps she didn't understand the question, or perhaps she just forgot. I think the point is that the office and party deserves a person who can not only survive the questions and debates, but win them. Logic and history's most revered politicians are on our side. An honest, well educated, and charismatic person should be able to win easily. This year's field was full of people with those qualities, though none of them had it all. It shouldn't be this hard.

I watched the video, and I agree the media ripped her to shreds while they didn't seemingly hit Obama as hard. Though how he survived the Rev. Wright thing is beyond me, I must have seen that one thousand times on the MSM.

R.P....Why does Palin in 2012 scare me? Because I fear the party will tank again and we'll be subjected to serious big government once Obama has no reelections to worry about.

I don't post much, hardly ever actually. But this post just makes me cringe. It is thoughts such as this that cause the GOP to lose. Independents decided this election and they mostly voted for BHO. BHO has no, zip, nada, executive experience. Not even leadership in politics! The man is a really expensive empty suite. But he could give a great speech and prey on peoples FEELINGS. Is this the type of candidate that you want from the GOP?

I am not totally sold that Palin should be the designated GOP candidate; we don't even know who will run in 2012. But, Palin is the exact opposite of Obama. She is not smooth, she is not an intellectual, she is not a political machine, SHE IS NOT THE MESSIAH! She is a real person. She is exactly what the GOP needs. I am not trying to start a fight but I just really feel strongly that you should reevaluate your opinion of Palin.

If you want someone like Obama, then vote for Obama. If the GOP is going to win in 2012 then they need someone that is NOT Obama. Palin fits that bill perfectly. I would rather the GOP lose the election than have a candidate like BHO.

Jeff

Business_Casual

01-08-09, 22:12

I would have failed me too, as it was based on feelings instead of quotes. But it's a feeling she did nothing to dismiss.

Fair enough! :)

M_P

thopkins22

01-09-09, 00:43

It is thoughts such as this that cause the GOP to lose. Independents decided this election and they mostly voted for BHO.

Don't blame me, I abandoned my libertarian principles and voted for McCain because while I still think he would make the wrong decisions, they would generally be better than Obama's wrong decisions. I died a little bit inside though, the whole put the campaign on pause to help pass the most atrocious spending bill in my lifetime(that had more pork in it than he'd voted against in most of his career) thing really put me off. And then having the nerve to talk about how the only way it would effect his presidency was that he would have to work harder to cut pork.

Independents that listen to reason will come back to the Republicans when they show that they actually stand behind their rhetoric. As I said before the intellectual arguments should be easy for a person worthy of the office. Unfortunately as you said, many/most Americans vote on feelings, and despite where we stand, many/most of them were turned off by Palin. We don't need someone who wants to increase gov't at a slower pace than Obama...we need someone who can make quality arguments to drastically CUT government...the way Reagan campaigned.

I will vote for anyone of any gender and with most any personal life who can make an intelligent argument for small government, fortunately I know there are better spokespeople out there for these beliefs than Palin.

If you want someone like Obama, then vote for Obama. If the GOP is going to win in 2012 then they need someone that is NOT Obama

If they want someone that is significantly different from Obama, then they need people with far better conservative credentials than McCain or Palin.

noops

01-09-09, 08:19

I agree with the poster above who thinks that she's the cause of some of ailments of the Republican party. Sure the media sucks, but Palin screwed the pooch an aweful lot. How come it's gotcha journalism to ask her what newspapers she reads? what crap. William Buckley said that, "I spent my life separating the right from the kooks." Well, I put her in the cook list. I want old style Buckley/Reagan republicans back. I'm sick of this shit about the "guy you want have beer with" Republicanism. Reagan wasn't "one of the dudes." I want a passionate, SMART, experienced person running for the job. It's a hard, complicated job that requires some serious brainpower.

Hell, in a "respect your opponent" sort of way, I don't see much doubt that Obama is a hell of a smart dude. A lot smarter than Palin, it just happens that I disagree with his politics on every level. Find a me a republican constitutional attorney with those kinds of faculties, and I'm in. Palin ain't that.

Politically, I think if she becomes the face of the party, we're in trouble. She mobilizes the base, but alienates the middle/center/swing voters. And you gotta have those to play.

Business_Casual

01-09-09, 08:48

larry0071

01-09-09, 08:58

I would love it if any of you that was over 50 years old, worked all your life at a job that made you wake up at 5am to go to work every day, and raised your family from nothing...you would be a great president. You would look at each problem, and ask the right questions to your aids, and think like one of us. All the candidates are so far out of touch will real life and what we go through to make it... that we are more like ants in one of those little ant farms to them. They can't think like us or for us, and they really can't help us. So fr gone are the days when a man that walks in our shoes could be a president... but man, it would be a great thing. Next time, I'm voting for my Father. He would be a great leader.

Palin may not be the best choice of everyone in the country, but for what is available....she looks better than most at being grounded with the people and having at least some understanding of where we come from.

mmike87

01-09-09, 09:58

REALLY? I mean she may not be a bad person on an individual level, but she represents much of what's wrong with the party...the part that rejects science, hasn't read the constitution much less comprehends it, hypocrisy on "family values," and embracing what often came down to racist or fearmongering politics. I'm sure that I'm messing up the quote from my favorite blog;), but here goes, "While she occasionally had the right answers, I'm not sure she understood the questions."

Why oh why won't she just go away?

ETA: Not knocking family values, just pointing out that she apparently ignored her own while chasing power...and then had the nerve to spout the traditional rhetoric about family and religion.

She's a normal person. She doesn't know everything. He family is flawed. Not everything in her life has worked out exactly as planned, and she's making the best of it.

If we want a REAL change, we need REAL people in office. The Supereducated, Superrich Elitists have had their chance from both parties, and they have f***ed the country up possibly beyond repair.

Seriously, we give a crap what newspapers she's reads? Have you read the newspapers these days? Most of them are crap.

I don't know who everyone is looking for - but I am looking for someone more like me - a normal person, not of priviliged upbringing, who isn't a self-proclaimed super genius hiding behind Harvard, Yale or Oxford credentials, and just MAY bring a little bit of common sense to government. Common sense is what's needed - not someone who knows big words and can smile through a Katie Couric interview.

I'm not saying that she IS that person, but I'm pretty sure NONE of the other candidates meet those criteria.

The super smart, super rich, and super connected had their chance and THEY screwed the pooch.

noops

01-09-09, 10:00

Obama sounds smart because he went to schools that teach you how to sound smart.

I think you're just slinging mud. The fact is, he's considered by many of his smart detractors, to be a damn smart guy. Graduating top of the class at Harvard Law School and being elected Review Editor probably means he's friggin damn smart.

I still disagree with him, but I think you do us a disservice by underestimating our political opponent.

noops

01-09-09, 10:04

Seriously, we give a crap what newspapers she's reads? Have you read the newspapers these days? Most of them are crap.

You missed my point. I DON'T give a crap what newspaper she reads. I give a crap that she can actually answer a simple question. I give a crap that she can't answer a simple question, and then accuses the media of "gotcha journalism" over what is usually the most softball question that every politician gets answered. If she thinks that's gotcha, then she's either dumb, or just not ready for the big leagues. Either way, it's not good. Everyone called that gotcha journalism but cheered when some reporter asked Biden a bunch of hardcore aggressive questions. I cheered too. ALL reporters should have an adversarial relationship with politicians. They should ask gotcha questions. They should try to make them defend their beliefs and decision making processes.

thopkins22

01-09-09, 10:12

She's a normal person. She doesn't know everything. He family is flawed. Not everything in her life has worked out exactly as planned, and she's making the best of it.
I question the normalcy of any person who would sign up for the vp slot and potentially the presidency with a newborn, a pregnant daughter, and all the time and attention those things should entail. In fact it's downright appalling to me to put power over family.

Sam

01-09-09, 10:13

Back in August I started a thread asking who do people think John McCain would pick as his VP candidate. I threw in my guess and so did a bunch of members. They were all the usual politician names from the recent past and present, including the former presidential candidates that dropped out during the primary. One member named this governor from Alaska, Sarah Palin. I thought, who??? I went and did some googling and read her profile and saw her pictures. First impression was, she's hot and she's a governor? When I got past her look and read into her achievements, I realized she's got potential. But I thought McCain wouldn't pick an unknown. Well I was wrong, he did and the rest is history. I was very enthusiastic about the campaign since Gov. Palin was chosen and I contributed to the campaign, a first for me. So did a bunch of my republican friends. She energized the republican base, and I think she still does.

To me, she's a real person, and I hear this very often. She didn't go to an ivy league school like b. hussein o did and don't have a law degree like most of other politicians. I thought that was a plus. People pick on her accent, hell, we all talk funny to someone living 3 - 4 hours of plane ride away. She's a working mother and wife, just like many other moms who are small business owners or professionals. She can relate to normal people. Didn't we want to elect someone to represent us? who else would do a good job of representing us than Sarah Palin or someone like her. They said she's got no experience in world or national politics. bho has no executive job experience period. Other members have already mentioned the "empty suit with the ability to make canned speech".

I experienced the Sarah Palin phenomena first hand in December when she came to GA to campaign for Senator Saxby Chambliss. Her popularity is real with the people. I keep hearing about bho being treated like a rock star at his rallies. Palin is treated the same way by the population. Big shot republicans like Rudy Guiliani, Mike Huckabee and John McCain came to help campaign for Chambliss. They drew much less crowds than when Sarah was here.

2012 is a long way off, especially with bho and his cronies of ex-clintonistas in his administration. Who knows which republicans will be the front runner in 2011, Palin has as much chance as Bobby Jindal, a name being thrown around lately. Who knows, if the economy gets turned around, democrats , independents and even some fringe republicans will attribute the success to the messiah and probably will put him back in. God help us all.

All I can say is, if I get a chance to vote for Sarah Palin on any ticket again, I will push that button every time.

thopkins22

01-09-09, 10:21

Who knows, if the economy gets turned around, democrats , independents and even some fringe republicans will attribute the success to the messiah and probably will put him back in.

Fortunately:confused: unless he abandons much of what he campaigned on(to some degree or another he's abandoned much of it) it won't turn around. At least not in any kind of long term way...four or five years from now could be a very scary time.

Business_Casual

01-09-09, 10:41

I think you're just slinging mud. The fact is, he's considered by many of his smart detractors, to be a damn smart guy. Graduating top of the class at Harvard Law School and being elected Review Editor probably means he's friggin damn smart.

I still disagree with him, but I think you do us a disservice by underestimating our political opponent.

Or perhaps it is a matter of perspective.

M_P

toasterlocker

01-09-09, 20:30

I experienced the Sarah Palin phenomena ...

You realize you sound exactly like the blind Obama followers when you say stuff like this?

Palin is the Republican parallel of Obama, plain and simple. A questionably qualified figurehead chosen simply to motivate people who are emotional and easily influenced by a distinct personality and image. All style, no substance.

Sam

01-10-09, 07:53

You realize you sound exactly like the blind Obama followers when you say stuff like this?

And you sound like the blind katie couric, chris matthews and the rest of the left wing media who took one sentence of my post and turned it into something else. One partial sentence may sound like a "blind follower" but the rest of my observation of Palin is laid out in the remaining post. Unlike matthews, I didn't have a tingle up and down my leg when Palin came on stage.

El Mac

01-10-09, 07:55

El Mac

01-10-09, 07:59

R.P....Why does Palin in 2012 scare me? Because I fear the party will tank again and we'll be subjected to serious big government once Obama has no reelections to worry about.

A non-sequitor. The party (GOP) has already 'tanked' and THAT is the reason you have Obama and his ilk. It tanked long before they tried to use Palin (as a gimmick) to win back their base - but it was too little too late. The base knows the Retardicans are liars and backdoor Demoturds and quite frankly are sick to death of voting for the worms.

El Mac

01-10-09, 08:04

The super smart, super rich, and super connected had their chance and THEY screwed the pooch.

BIGTIME.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 08:37

REALLY? I mean she may not be a bad person on an individual level, but she represents much of what's wrong with the party...the part that rejects science, hasn't read the constitution much less comprehends it, hypocrisy on "family values," and embracing what often came down to racist or fearmongering politics. I'm sure that I'm messing up the quote from my favorite blog;), but here goes, "While she occasionally had the right answers, I'm not sure she understood the questions."

Why oh why won't she just go away?

ETA: Not knocking family values, just pointing out that she apparently ignored her own while chasing power...and then had the nerve to spout the traditional rhetoric about family and religion.

I guess I have been watching a different person than you have. She does not reject science and there is ZERO hypocrisy in their family values. You are also ASSuming that she was not paying attention to her family. This is incorrect I think.

Kids get pregnant all the time (no matter if they are Christian or not). Jesus (God) was perfect and we (humans) are far from perfect. You do not have to be pefect to be a Christian (FYI). ;)

What I most like about SP is that she is honest. Correct, she does not know everything about everything, but neither do you or I. I much rather hear the truth or someone just say, "I don't know much about that subject" VS the same old rehearsed political double talk.

She actually represents what the Republican party SHOULD be about (moral beliefs, honesty, cutting taxes, supporting our Military and fighting corruption). These are of course all things she has done as the Gov. of Alaska.

C4

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 08:40

Seriously, this election is over and the choice of Sarah Palin was looked on unfavorably by most of the country.

Do I agree she was savaged in the press? Yes, but life's unfair and politics is hard ball. That she had never bothered to prepare herself intellectually for national politics (and what the press was going to do to her) is not something that can be compensated for in a few short weeks after she was nominated.

The McCain campaign made a fundamental error in nominating her. The electorate didn't want a conservative ideologue, they wanted an independent. Invariably Americans pick the candidate that runs to the center. The pick of Palin was perceived as pandering to the social conservative fringe when you really needed to appeal to the broader center. Sure he motivated the far-right, but he also alienated everyone else by choosing someone who was not prepared. The broader center turned out in droves against the ideologues. Obama recognizes this as well which is why he's thumbing his nose at people like Howard Dean.

Getting wrapped up in social issues on both sides has paralyzed the purpose of a functional government.

Conservatives and Republicans need to get back to their basic premises: Small Government, Low Taxes, Individual Responsibility and a Strong National Defense. Palin did NOT embody these and the electorate spoke loud and clear.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 08:46

I think you've confused socioeconomic class with intelligence.

Obama sounds smart because he went to schools that teach you how to sound smart. If you listen to his unscripted comments, he can barely string two words together without an "um" or an "ugh" inbetween. Put him on a prompter and he sounds great.

Sarah Palin sounds Canadian and/or has a lower middle class accent. She didn't have years of training in how to speak; she drops her endings and conflates some words.

M_P

Yes. There is a BIG difference between book learned people and common sense oriented people (rarely the two meet). I know too many book learned people to know that I wouldn't let them start my car let alone run a country!
Give me a good ole common sense oriented President any day of the week.

C4

El Mac

01-10-09, 08:46

She actually represents what the Republican party SHOULD be about (moral beliefs, honesty, cutting taxes, supporting our Military and fighting corruption). These are of course all things she has done as the Gov. of Alaska.

C4

Absolutely. And she scared hell out of the Leftstream Retardicans because she was the real deal and not a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch my back and we'll both screw over the American taxpayer while laughing our way to the bank and a nice retirement" Washington, District of Corruption, Crap and Collusion.

El Mac

01-10-09, 08:47

Conservatives and Republicans need to get back to their basic premises: Small Government, Low Taxes, Individual Responsibility and a Strong National Defense. Palin did NOT embody these and the electorate spoke loud and clear.

Well, on this we agree.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 08:51

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 09:08

Actually, the only reason I voted for JM is because he picked SP. This is also the reason people like G. Beck voted for him as well.

That's you, the vast majority of Americans didn't see it that way. I've almost no interest in how pundits vote, I don't make decisions based on their endorsement.

SP represents all the things you listed (Small Government, Low Taxes, Individual Responsibility and a Strong National Defense). She is also the MOST 2nd Amend. proponent we have ever seen to date (that I am aware of).

C4

Again most Americans didn't view her that way and they certainly didn't find her intellectually prepared to represent those things.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 09:11

That's you, the vast majority of Americans didn't see it that way. I've almost no interest in how pundits vote, I don't make decisions based on their endorsement.

Again most Americans didn't view her that way and they certainly didn't find her intellectually prepared to represent those things.

I would say that you are wrong. The hardcore conservatives of this country ONLY voted for JM because SP was on the ticket. Period.

I never heard anything she said that was nearly as damaging as what Obama had said and what I heard come out of the mouths of his closest friends and advisers.

C4

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 09:15

I would say that you are wrong. There hardcore conservatives of this country ONLY voted for JM because SP was on the ticket. Period.

That's fine I'd say you're wrong too, moreover I'd say that the election results don't jive with your assessment.

Most Americans aren't "hardcore" conservatives. They may be more right than left, but fundamentally most Americans cleave to the center. Reagan and Bush 1 and 2 all won because they ran to the center of their opponents.

Pandering to the hardcore conservative element of the electorate is a sure-fire way to lose. That lesson should be plain after the 2008 election.

As I said, she did great for motivating the hardcore conservative base, and in so doing alienated the large middle.

I never heard anything she said that was nearly as damaging as what Obama had said and what I heard come out of the mouths of his closest friends and advisers.

C4

Hear from who? I'd say an electoral landslide is pretty well proof of the damage she did to the ticket.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 09:23

That's fine I'd say you're wrong too, moreover I'd say that the election results don't jive with your assessment.

I think JM did as well has he did BECAUSE of the fact that SP was his VP. Let us not forget that she was attracting far larger crowds that JM ever did. This would be classified a "clue." ;)

Most Americans aren't "hardcore" conservatives. They may be more right than left, but fundamentally most Americans cleave to the center. Reagan and Bush 1 and 2 all won because they ran to the center of their opponents.

Yes, I know. This IS the problem.

Pandering to the hardcore conservative element of the electorate is a sure-fire way to lose. That lesson should be plain after the 2008 election.

This maybe true. It also tells us that our populace is going to down a very bad rabbit hole.

As I said, she did great for motivating the hardcore conservative base, and in so doing alienated the large middle.

We just need to get the middle of the country back on good ole fashioned morals and beliefs and we would be a far better country for it.

Hear from who? I'd say an electoral landslide is pretty well proof of the damage she did to the ticket.

I do not think he would have won ANY State if it wasn't for her.

C4

thopkins22

01-10-09, 09:31

Kids get pregnant all the time (no matter if they are Christian or not). Jesus (God) was perfect and we (humans) are far from perfect. You do not have to be pefect to be a Christian (FYI). ;)

Indeed, if she wasn't a sinner she couldn't even be a Christian. I don't blame her(entirely) for her daughter getting pregnant. I blame her for tossing her daughter to the wolves and running for office. I think anyone who would pick such a time intensive job, after having just given birth to a newborn(especially a sick one that needs extra attention and love) has screwed up priorities.

Gunshot John, who knew you'd ever swoop in and argue my position? With better arguments as well;)

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 09:40

Indeed, if she wasn't a sinner she couldn't even be a Christian. I don't blame her(entirely) for her daughter getting pregnant. I blame her for tossing her daughter to the wolves and running for office. I think anyone who would pick such a time intensive job, after having just given birth to a newborn(especially a sick one that needs extra attention and love) has screwed up priorities.

Gunshot John, who knew you'd ever swoop in and argue my position? With better arguments as well;)

I don't blame SP at all. Her daughter chose the road she wanted to walk down. All her mother can do now is support her. I never saw ANY indication that SP threw her daughter to the wolves (not one). Who you should blame (and be pissed at) is the media for attacking her daughter. Something like that should be WAAAAY out of bounds.

Your argument is kind of like blaming the car company for building a car that a drunk driver used to kill someone with. SP is free to do whatever she wants and trying to be a VP (or Gov.) should NEVER be viewed as "throwing her family to the wolves." This is how she supports her family. Not a single thing wrong with that.

When you have a special needs child, you have to go on with life as normal (or the best you can). Remember that there is no law that says that the FATHER cannot care for the child. It appears that is a lot of sexism going on in the media and on this forum. :rolleyes:

C4

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 09:42

I think JM did as well has he did BECAUSE of the fact that SP was his VP. Let us not forget that she was attracting far larger crowds that JM ever did. This would be classified a "clue." ;)

---End Quote--- Actually if you look at the polls it was neck and neck until the end...then it turned into a landslide. The clue would be that SP didn't make it close.

---Quote---
Yes, I know. This IS the problem.
---End Quote---
No it's just the way it is. If the hardcore conservative message doesn't have any appeal in the "marketplace of ideas" than oh well. The "hardcore" conservatives have lost touch with a basic tenet of being conservative - Pragmatism. So while hardcore it isn't necessarily conservative.

---Quote---
This maybe true. It also tells us that our populace is going to down a very bad rabbit hole.
---End Quote---
True or otherwise we live in a democracy. Any pure ideology is going to fail. The center prevents going down liberal as well as conservative rabbit holes.

What it tells us is that conservatism needs to make itself relevant again, and that the "hardcore" right-wing has hindered rather than helped that effort.

---Quote---
We just need to get the middle of the country back on good ole fashioned morals and beliefs and we would be a far better country for it.
---End Quote---
That's not the middle, that's YOUR perspective. The real middle wants a government that functions on a practical level, rather than an ideologic one.

---Quote---
I do not think he would have won ANY State if it wasn't for her.
---End Quote---
And you'd be wrong. Virtually every poll (including the only poll that counts) discredits that idea outright.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 09:50

Actually if you look at the polls it was neck and neck until the end...then it turned into a landslide. The clue would be that SP didn't make it close.

I am not sure if you weren't paying attention or what, but before JM picked SP, he was behind in the polls. When he chose her, he SKY ROCKETED up. That IS the clue (not to mention that she drew much larger crowds than he ever did).

What it tells us is that conservatism needs to make itself relevant again, and that the "hardcore" right-wing has hindered rather than helped that effort.

We have not seen a true hardcore conservative in a REALLY long time so that cannot be it.

That's not the middle, that's YOUR perspective. The real middle wants a government that functions on a practical level, rather than an ideologic one.

You must not be familiar with what true conservative values are. This is what we want (small Govt, the functions well and serves the people).

And you'd be wrong. Virtually every poll (including the only poll that counts) discredits that idea outright.

You should stop watching the liberal media and move over to Fox news and listen/watch Hannity, Rush and Beck.

thopkins22

01-10-09, 10:04

We have not seen a true hardcore conservative in a REALLY long time so that cannot be it.

You must not be familiar with what true conservative values are. This is what we want (small Govt, the functions well and serves the people).
Gotta agree with Grant here...but I don't think Sarah Palin filled that mold very well. In fact had any of these recent elected Republicans been true conservatives the results would speak for themselves and the center would have moved much farther to the right.

I get "letters" from Sean Hannity all the time. I'd watch Fox more often if it wasn't for him and Bill OReilly. Cavuto is twice the Journalist.

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 10:06

---Quote (Originally by C4IGrant)---
I am not sure if you weren't paying attention or what, but before JM picked SP, he was behind in the polls. When he chose her, he SKY ROCKETED up. That IS the clue (not to mention that she drew much larger crowds than he ever did).
---End Quote---
Uhm no, Look again. Real clear politics has the trend line. McCain was within the MOE leading up to Palin, within a month after her pick, he plummeted in the polls. Moreover if you look at all the states that were traditional "red" states that went blue. If the hardcore conservative base counted, they would have carried those states.

---Quote---
We have not seen a true hardcore conservative in a REALLY long time so that cannot be it.
---End Quote---
Exactly, that should be what you call a clue.

---Quote---
You must not be familiar with what true conservative values are. This is what we want (small Govt, the functions well and serves the people).
---End Quote---
I'm quite familiar. Unfortunately the religious right has changed what true conservatism actually was, turning it into a "pure" ideology rather than a recognition of political realities. You believe that true conservatism is this ideologic rather than pragmatic form. This is an ahistoric interpretation.

---Quote---
You should stop watching the liberal media and move over to Fox news and listen/watch Hannity, Rush and Beck.
---End Quote---
The presumption in the above statement is telling. You're confusing news with punditry. A little critical thought would serve you well.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 10:10

I get "letters" from Sean Hannity all the time. I'd watch Fox more often if it wasn't for him and Bill OReilly. Cavuto is twice the Journalist.

I think that might be your problem (or the problem with many). BO and SH are true conservatives and is why they are SO popular (have two of the highest rated cable television shows on).

C4

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 10:16

I think that might be your problem (or the problem with many). BO and SH are true conservatives and is why they are SO popular (have two of the highest rated cable television shows on).

C4

You're confusing correlation with causality.

They have the highest rated cable television NEWS programming. Yes I'd agree that there are more conservatives watching SH and BO than there are liberals watching Keith Uberqueer and Chris Mattews, but don't make the mistake that this represents the true center of this country. Most of America is watching something else.

SH and BO are NOT true conservatives. They are ideologues. TRUE conservatism rejects ideology in favor of pragmatic realities.

SH and BO (as well as Dubya) are actually fairly radical, they just use conservative jargon. Big difference. You certainly shouldn't rely on them to tell you who is and who isn't a "true" conservative.

thopkins22

01-10-09, 10:18

I think that might be your problem (or the problem with many). BO and SH are true conservatives and is why they are SO popular (have two of the highest rated cable television shows on).

C4

They may be...unless it's the GOP who has decided to embrace less than conservative ideology, then they forget.

I send the Heritage Foundation money every year(hence the reason Hannity sends me mail) because by and large it's one of the biggest conservative think tanks. I do wish they didn't have Hannity on the payroll.

CATO is much better.

ETA "Keith Uberqueer" I'm stealing that for future use.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 10:20

Uhm no, Look again. Real clear politics has the trend line. McCain was within the MOE leading up to Palin, within a month after her pick, he plummeted in the polls. Moreover if you look at all the states that were traditional "red" states that went blue. If the hardcore conservative base counted, they would have carried those states.

Hmm, I saw polls that said the exact opposite. Conservative Americans did not come out in the force that they needed too. We also saw a HUGE spike in Minority voters. Couple this with a general dislike of GWB (which JM got labeled under) and that is how red states went blue.

Exactly, that should be what you call a clue.

You blamed or said that hardcore conservatives were the problem with the Republican party. I told you that he have not seen any in a really long time. This means that what you think is the problem with the Republican party is incorrect.

I'm quite familiar. Unfortunately the religious right has changed what true conservatism actually was, turning it into a "pure" ideology rather than a recognition of political realities. You believe that true conservatism is this ideologic rather than pragmatic form. This is an ahistoric interpretation.

We could use a whole lot more Christian Conservatives in our Govt. Even if you are not a Christian, you would have to agree that they couldn't do any worse the what we have now.

The presumption in the above statement is telling. You're confusing news with punditry. A little critical thought would serve you well.

Not confusing the two at all. I think you might be too used to the LIBERAL view of the news.

C4

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 10:22

They may be...unless it's the GOP who has decided to embrace less than conservative ideology, then they forget.

I send the Heritage Foundation money every year(hence the reason Hannity sends me mail) because by and large it's one of the biggest conservative think tanks. I do wish they didn't have Hannity on the payroll.

CATO is much better.

ETA "Keith Uberqueer" I'm stealing that for future use.

I do not consider myself a Republican as they are NOT conservative enough for me. The unfortunate part is that I have to vote for them as my options SUCK!

The Heritage Foundation is a good one, but I personally like SH. He is a pit bull that does not back down or run and hide.

C4

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 10:30

You're confusing correlation with causality.

They have the highest rated cable television NEWS programming. Yes I'd agree that there are more conservatives watching SH and BO than there are liberals watching Keith Uberqueer and Chris Mattews, but don't make the mistake that this represents the true center of this country. Most of America is watching something else.

SH and BO are NOT true conservatives. They are ideologues. TRUE conservatism rejects ideology in favor of pragmatic realities.

SH and BO (as well as Dubya) are actually fairly radical, they just use conservative jargon. Big difference. You certainly shouldn't rely on them to tell you who is and who isn't a "true" conservative.

What it tells you is that there are a lot of CONSERVATIVE Americans alive and well and do NOT like the softer Republican party. They want them to move more to the right. Now, the Republican party is hard to differentiate w/ the Dems. We need clear boundries between the two.

The defintion of an ideologues is an advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology. If we look at the defintion of ideology, it is such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

Neither of the two gentlemen mentioned fall into to these definition. They ARE conservatives and practice what they preach. Their views are JUST as "realistic" as anyone else (as are mine). They do not live in some fantasy land, they live right here and see with both eyes open where this country is going.

If the defintion of radical is to be different from the "norm" than that is a VERY good thing. I would also NEVER classify GWB as a radical or a conservative. If anything, he would do fairly well in the Democratic party (especially after his auto bailout).

C4

R.P.

01-10-09, 10:31

I do not consider myself a Republican as they are NOT conservative enough for me. The unfortunate part is that I have to vote for them as my options SUCK!

C4

Agree 100%

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 10:32

Hmm, I saw polls that said the exact opposite. Conservative Americans did not come out in the force that they needed too. We also saw a HUGE spike in Minority voters. Couple this with a general dislike of GWB (which JM got labeled under) and that is how red states went blue.

Check again.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

You blamed or said that hardcore conservatives were the problem with the Republican party. I told you that he have not seen any in a really long time. This means that what you think is the problem with the Republican party is incorrect.

I said socially conservative ideologues (what you called hardcore) were the problem. What I call "hardcore" is low tax, small government, stay the hell out of my business (and my personal life) individual responsibility and a strong national defense. The "social" conservatives have totally undermined this basic premise.

We could use a whole lot more Christian Conservatives in our Govt. Even if you are not a Christian, you would have to agree that they couldn't do any worse the what we have now.

That's your belief which you're stating as a truism. While you might believe that many others do not and they get a say too.

The vast majority do not want Christians or anyone injecting the moral beliefs into the pragmatic business of government. All ideology does, whether liberal or conservative, is paralyze the basic function of government in an attempt to pander to the extreme of either end of the political spectrum while ignoring the vast middle who just want a government that functions.

Not confusing the two at all. I think you might be too used to the LIBERAL view of the news.

Again your presumption is telling. You have no way of knowing any such thing. Moreover you'd be wrong.

I could similarly say that I don't think you're used to a view of the news that challenges you intellectually.

I could likewise say that I don't think you've ever been introduced to the intellectual origins of conservatism.

But I would have no basis for such an opinion other than your statements in this thread. Just so you know that the knife cuts both ways.

R.P.

01-10-09, 10:35

JM lost the election when he put his campaign on hold to go vote for the bailout. He did not lose b/c of SP. In fact, he would have lost by double digits if she were not on the ticket.

thopkins22

01-10-09, 10:41

I said socially conservative ideologues (what you called hardcore) were the problem. What I call "hardcore" is low tax, small government, stay the hell out of my business (and my personal life) individual responsibility and a strong national defense. The "social" conservatives have totally undermined this basic premise.

I'm all for your definition of hardcore. It's what we're lacking. You can't remain "hardcore" and then say big government is ok, so long as it's enforcing my beliefs and not yours.

Even where they haven't been successful, they've managed to turn off enough voters over trivial issues like wanting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that it has significantly hurt the party.

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 10:42

What it tells you is that there are a lot of CONSERVATIVE Americans alive and well and do NOT like the softer Republican party. They want them to move more to the right. Now, the Republican party is hard to differentiate w/ the Dems. We need clear boundries between the two.[QUOTE]

John McCain ran to the far-right of Obama. If what you said held true he would have won in a landslide. Obama ran to the center of John McCain, just like Reagan ran to the center of Carter/Mondale, just like 41 ran to the center of Dukakis, just like Clinton ran to the center of 41 and Dole, just like 43 ran to the center of Gore/Kerry.

They don't won't them to run to the far-right, they want them to run to the center. Americans want politicians that put government function ahead of ideology.

[quote]The defintion of an ideologues is an advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology. If we look at the defintion of ideology, it is such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

Neither of the two gentlemen mentioned fall into to these definition. They ARE conservatives and practice what they preach. Their views are JUST as "realistic" as anyone else (as are mine). They do not live in some fantasy land, they live right here and see with both eyes open where this country is going.

The common political definition of an ideologue is a proponent of PURE ideology ahead of pragmatic considerations. BO and especially SH are ignoring the pragmatic realities of the polls and election in favor of advocating more purity.

If the defintion of radical is to be different from the "norm" than that is a VERY good thing. I would also NEVER classify GWB as a radical or a conservative. If anything, he would do fairly well in the Democratic party (especially after his auto bailout).

C4

Dubya oversaw one of the radical expansions of government power in our history. That seems a bit "radical" to me.

Sorry but the "norm" is where most people fall, like it or not.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 10:45

Check again.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

I have. Fox news polls painted an entirely differnt story.

I said socially conservative ideologues (what you called hardcore) were the problem. What I call "hardcore" is low tax, small government, stay the hell out of my business (and my personal life) individual responsibility and a strong national defense. The "social" conservatives have totally undermined this basic premise.

I have no idea what a "social conservative" is. That kind of sounds like political double talk.

That's your belief which you're stating as a truism. While you might believe that many others do not and they get a say too.

It is what I believe and so do many others. We would be far better off than what we have now.

The vast majority do not want Christians or anyone injecting the moral beliefs into the pragmatic business of government.

I guess you did not know that our founding fathers were Christians and "injected" a lot of Christian beliefs into our Govt. (FYI). ;) You are also making the incorrect assumption that Christians want to tell you what to believe. This would also be incorrect. We are all for you doing what you want (as you will in the end have to answer for your actions).

All ideology does, whether liberal or conservative, is paralyze the basic function of government in an attempt to pander to the extreme of either end of the political spectrum while ignoring the vast middle who just want a government that functions.

Our founding fathers were Conservative Christians. It wouldn't hurt us in any way to return to those beliefs and standards.

What would you get with a true Christian Conservative? Lower taxes, pro 2nd Amend., smaller Govt, freedom of religion, strong Military/defense and a strong love for our country. Doesn't sound all that bad eh??

Again your presumption is telling. You have no way of knowing any such thing. Moreover you'd be wrong.

Ah, but what if I was right! :eek:

I could similarly say that I don't think you're used to a view of the news that challenges you intellectually.

Having served in the Military as a Cryptologist and worked for the Govt (in an intelligence position), I trust nothing and no one! I know from the INSIDE what actually goes on, bad things that have happened (that never made onto the news) and things that we have done for God and Country. So you can save your thoughts/comments about what I know and don't know about what is actually going on and what the news is telling us. ;)

I could likewise say that I don't think you've ever been introduced to the intellectual origins of conservatism.

But I would have no basis for such an opinion other than your statements in this thread. Just so you know that the knife cuts both ways.

I think I actually have the correct view of Conservatism (as I live it every day).

C4

Business_Casual

01-10-09, 10:48

Hold it - stop calling McCain a conservative.

Gun show loophole?

Immigration reform?

Maverick/Straight Talk Express?

McCain Feingold?

The conservative base didn't pick McCain. Fact.

M_P

thopkins22

01-10-09, 10:55

John McCain ran to the far-right of Obama.

I don't think that's accurate though. He was to the right of Obama, but he was so close he could have kissed Obama on the neck. Why did he support spending nearly a trillion dollars in a total rejection of the free market? Can you recall him wanting to slash ONE major government program? Where did he take a significantly different stand from Obama where individual liberty was concerned? How was his energy policy significantly different from Obama's? They differed slightly, only Obama had much more appeal to those who vote on feelings, or based on *perceived* leadership.

Modern Pirate gave other good examples.

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 11:18

I have. Fox news polls painted an entirely differnt story.

If you look at the RCP poll it factors in individual polls like Fox news. Brush up on statistics, the average of polls is far more likely to be accurate than a sample of one.

I have no idea what a "social conservative" is. That kind of sounds like political double talk.

I'm sure you do. A social conservative is one who votes based on a candidate's views on social issues (abortion, gay marriage etc.) instead of political issues (low taxes, fiscal restraint etc) that have direct bearing on how government functions. Just like there is a difference between social liberals and those that simply view big government as necessary.

It is what I believe and so do many others. We would be far better off than what we have now.

In your opinion. A true conservative would recognize his human flaws and that he might not have a monopoly on truth.

I guess you did not know that our founding fathers were Christians and "injected" a lot of Christian beliefs into our Govt. (FYI). ;) You are also making the incorrect assumption that Christians want to tell you what to believe. This would also be incorrect. We are all for you doing what you want (as you will in the end have to answer for your actions).

You're conflating religion with faith. Many of our founding fathers were religious, they became from many disparate denominations: Moravians, Baptists, Methodists, Shakers, Anabaptists etc. In Europe these denominations were suppressed as heresy, they had no freedom to dissent with established religion.

The separation of church and state was intended to GIVE religious freedom, not impose Christian or any other belief. I made no statement that Christians as a whole wish to impose their beliefs in government. There is however that trend amongst the religious right and is as flawed as the far-left.

Our founding fathers were Conservative Christians. It wouldn't hurt us in any way to return to those beliefs and standards.

Uhm no. They were radical revolutionaries who believed that you had the freedom to pursue your own conscience, irrespective of whether you were Christian or not.

What would you get with a true Christian Conservative? Lower taxes, pro 2nd Amend., smaller Govt, freedom of religion, strong Military/defense and a strong love for our country. Doesn't sound all that bad eh??

That's what you think you'd get. You have no way of knowing nor guaranteeing that outcome.

Having served in the Military as a Cryptologist and worked for the Govt (in an intelligence position), I trust nothing and no one! I know from the INSIDE what actually goes on, bad things that have happened (that never made onto the news) and things that we have done for God and Country. So you can save your thoughts/comments about what I know and don't know about what is actually going on and what the news is telling us. ;)

Thank you for proving my point. You'd do well to follow your own advice.

I think I actually have the correct view of Conservatism (as I live it every day).

You have the monopoly on what it means to be a true conservative? Well I'm glad you're here to tell the rest of us. :rolleyes:

Again you're projecting your beliefs onto the rest. Unfortunately your stated beliefs in conservatism are antithetical to its intellectual history.

C4[/QUOTE]

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 11:20

Hold it - stop calling McCain a conservative.

Gun show loophole?

Immigration reform?

Maverick/Straight Talk Express?

McCain Feingold?

The conservative base didn't pick McCain. Fact.

M_P

McCain was the conservative choice. Do I think he's the perfect conservative? No, but then that's my point which you missed.

Obama won because he ran to the CENTER of McCain. McCain was clearly more conservative than Obama. His choice of Sarah Palin as many have pointed out, demonstrate this...and its failure.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 11:23

JM lost the election when he put his campaign on hold to go vote for the bailout. He did not lose b/c of SP. In fact, he would have lost by double digits if she were not on the ticket.

Agree.

C4

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 11:26

JM lost the election when he put his campaign on hold to go vote for the bailout. He did not lose b/c of SP. In fact, he would have lost by double digits if she were not on the ticket.

Actually McCain was foundering well before the October bailout.

His post-convention bounce was gone by mid-September and he was already outside of the MOE by the time he "suspended" his campaign.

His reason for doing so was he was desperate to change the dynamic that had been created by the botched SP pick.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 11:31

John McCain ran to the far-right of Obama. If what you said held true he would have won in a landslide. Obama ran to the center of John McCain, just like Reagan ran to the center of Carter/Mondale, just like 41 ran to the center of Dukakis, just like Clinton ran to the center of 41 and Dole, just like 43 ran to the center of Gore/Kerry.

Hitler could have run to the far right of Obama! JM played the most center of ANY Republican to date.

They don't won't them to run to the far-right, they want them to run to the center. Americans want politicians that put government function ahead of ideology.

I have not to date seen a true Christian Conservative impose their beliefs on anyone. So I am not sure how Americans could say that they do NOT want a true conservative (as they have nothing to base their opinion on).

Dubya oversaw one of the radical expansions of government power in our history. That seems a bit "radical" to me.

Sorry but the "norm" is where most people fall, like it or not.

No, not really. He just did what the Dems would do. That maybe classified at "radical" for republicans, but that does not mean that he himself is a "radical." It just means that he went too far to the left of center.

C4

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 11:33

I don't think that's accurate though. He was to the right of Obama, but he was so close he could have kissed Obama on the neck. Why did he support spending nearly a trillion dollars in a total rejection of the free market? Can you recall him wanting to slash ONE major government program? Where did he take a significantly different stand from Obama where individual liberty was concerned? How was his energy policy significantly different from Obama's? They differed slightly, only Obama had much more appeal to those who vote on feelings, or based on *perceived* leadership.

Modern Pirate gave other good examples.

He was to the right of Obama (barely) if at all. You are right in saying that a lot of their policies alligned and is why the populace really had no choices in this election. Either way they sliced it, they were getting a liberal. :mad:

C4

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 11:38

Hitler could have run to the far right of Obama! JM played the most center of ANY Republican to date.

NOT against his opponent. In the past Republicans could run more ideologic conservatives (whom I voted for) because Democrats kept running leftists like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. Obama learned from their mistake and from Bill Clinton. Keep to the Center. The more the hardcore right moves to the fringe, the more political cover they give to leftists to go left but still capture the center. This is what I fear.

I have not to date seen a true Christian Conservative impose their beliefs on anyone. So I am not sure how Americans could say that they do NOT want a true conservative (as they have nothing to base their opinion on).

The whole Terry Schiavo thing? That was seen by most Americans as the Religious Right imposing its morality on what was viewed as a private issue.

They want a TRUE conservative, but you're equating true conservative with religious conservative. Often these co-exist, but just as often they do not.

No, not really. He just did what the Dems would do. That maybe classified at "radical" for republicans, but that does not mean that he himself is a "radical." It just means that he went too far to the left of center.

"I abandoned free market principles to save the free market" - GW Bush.

He oversaw the nationalization of large segments of our economy. If that's not radical I don't know what is.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 11:38

I'm sure you do. A social conservative is one who votes based on a candidate's views on social issues (abortion, gay marriage etc.) instead of political issues (low taxes, fiscal restraint etc) that have direct bearing on how government functions. Just like there is a difference between social liberals and those that simply view big government as necessary.

I do not break people down into sub catagories and I generally ONLY VOTE on where their 2nd Amend. stance is. I am a ONE issue voter.

In your opinion. A true conservative would recognize his human flaws and that he might not have a monopoly on truth.

No one is right all the time, but they have a much better chance at it. :)

You're conflating religion with faith. Many of our founding fathers were religious, they became from many disparate denominations: Moravians, Baptists, Methodists, Shakers, Anabaptists etc. In Europe these denominations were suppressed as heresy, they had no freedom to dissent with established religion.

No, not really. They all believed in a God and that they needed God in their lives and that God was what gave them the strength to do what they needed to do to make this country great.

Uhm no. They were radical revolutionaries who believed that you had the freedom to pursue your own conscience, irrespective of whether you were Christian or not.

They knew they were being oppressed and needed to change. Their faith helped guide them.

C4

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 11:41

Actually McCain was foundering well before the October bailout.

His post-convention bounce was gone by mid-September and he was already outside of the MOE by the time he "suspended" his campaign.

His reason for doing so was he was desperate to change the dynamic that had been created by the botched SP pick.

Here is something funny John. You state in this thread that the REASON why JM is winning in the polls is BECAUSE of his pick of SP!

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=18897&highlight=sarah+palin

If you are going to have an opinion on a subject, please try and keep it the same.

C4

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 11:52

Here is something funny John. You state in this thread that the REASON why JM is winning in the polls is BECAUSE of his pick of SP!

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=18897&highlight=sarah+palin

If you are going to have an opinion on a subject, please try and keep it the same.

C4

No you're absolutely right, and I was proven wrong.

Initially I believed that she represented the "independent" part of the party, but the perception, as borne out by the election results, discredit my initial impression.

I voted for McCain because I still believe that this was the best option. The 2A was the most significant consideration I brought to that equation.

I "misunderestimated" how profoundly unprepared she was. Her subsequent statements have served to enhance this perception.

PS. If you look at the dates of the thread, this was within two weeks of the convention. Subsequent events proved me wrong. I had hoped she would be an independent voice who represented competence in government. However if she can't project a competent campaign image how can she be a competent executive?

I like her personally, but she's a horrible politician.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 11:52

NOT against his opponent. In the past Republicans could run more ideologic conservatives (whom I voted for) because Democrats kept running leftists like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. Obama learned from their mistake and from Bill Clinton. Keep to the Center. The more the hardcore right moves to the fringe, the more political cover they give to leftists to go left but still capture the center. This is what I fear.

To quote G. Beck; "Really?" If Obama was in the center for the election then I must have missed it. Everything I heard come out of is mouth was liberal/socialist.

Never once did I hear JM say anything that I remotely thought of as Conservative.

The whole Terry Schiavo thing? That was seen by most Americans as the Religious Right imposing its morality on what was viewed as a private issue.

Again, "REALLY?" The parents didn't want the feed tube removed and the husband did. That is a personal fight between two people that love the same person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

They want a TRUE conservative, but you're equating true conservative with religious conservative. Often these co-exist, but just as often they do not.

A TRUE Conservatvie will also have a faith background. They go hand and hand. I know of not a SINGLE Conservative that doesn't believe in God.

"I abandoned free market principles to save the free market" - GW Bush.

He oversaw the nationalization of large segments of our economy. If that's not radical I don't know what is.

Nope, don't view it as radical as he was just as liberal as the Dems (on some things).

C4

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 11:56

No you're absolutely right, and I was proven wrong.

Initially I believed that she represented the "independent" part of the party, but the perception, as borne out by the election results, discredit my initial impression.

I voted for McCain because I still believe that this was the best option.

I "misunderestimated" how profoundly unprepared she was. Her subsequent statements have served to enhance this perception.

Are you so sure you were proven wrong or were you right, but it just doesn't fit your argument in this thread? ;)

SP had all the tools she needed to the VP. She was fiscally conservative, cut taxes, pro gun and went after corruption (even in her OWN party)! That puts her above the majority of VP's I have ever seen.

Did she stumble on some "gotcha" question? I am sure she did as she was/is not perfect. The parts she got right were FAR more important than ALL the questions she was asked by the liberal media.

C4

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 12:01

To quote G. Beck; "Really?" If Obama was in the center for the election then I must have missed it. Everything I heard come out of is mouth was liberal/socialist.

Never once did I hear JM say anything that I remotely thought of as Conservative.

I understand, but most of the electorate didn't see it that way, and that's my point.

Actually if you remember his campaign theme was to work across party lines and reject the "politics of division" that was a mirror theme of Bush in 2000. Whether that actually turns out to be the case will be seen, but on November 4th most Americans saw him as the center/safe choice.

Again, "REALLY?" The parents didn't want the feed tube removed and the husband did. That is a personal fight between two people that love the same person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

I agree, so why did President Bush get involved? Why did the Federal government seek to interject itself into a private family dispute that was resolved in the courts?

[quote]A TRUE Conservatvie will also have a faith background. They go hand and hand. I know of not a SINGLE Conservative that doesn't believe in God.

Then you don't know many conservatives. Again most Americans have a broader perspective. I DO agree that a belief in God imbues a sense of transcending man's law in favor of a greater morality, but that morality of liberty means that people are free to dissent both within a church as well as without.

A true conservative will recognize the limits of political power. The flaw of Terri Schiavo was that it disabused them of the notion that the religious right would restrain itself from their individual lives. So long as they also limited the power of government and kept taxes low, myself and many Americans voted for social conservatives. When it became clear that they were not only willing to throw out the doctrine of states' rights BUT ALSO increase the size of government exponentially in order to preserve their political power, they were discredited.

I have nothing against the religious right, I am a religious man. But religion is a personal, not political imperative.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 12:09

I agree, so why did President Bush get involved? Why did the Federal government seek to interject itself into a private family dispute that was resolved in the courts?

Everyone has to choose a side. He chose the parents side. I would have done the same thing. Her husband was also questionable (which I am sure played heavily into it).

Then you don't know many conservatives. Again most Americans have a broader perspective.

I know tons of them and they are just like me. They are also ALL over this forum (FYI).

C4

12oreo

01-10-09, 12:16

Are you so sure you were proven wrong or were you right, but it just doesn't fit your argument in this thread? ;)

SP had all the tools she needed to the VP. She was fiscally conservative, cut taxes, pro gun and went after corruption (even in her OWN party)! That puts her above the majority of VP's I have ever seen.

Did she stumble on some "gotcha" question? I am sure she did as she was/is not perfect. The parts she got right were FAR more important than ALL the questions she was asked by the liberal media.

C4
Right on!
I see you know your weapons and politics.
McCain was trailing prior to Palin coming on board and shot ahead after her nomination then lost ground because of the economic meltdown. What the press did to her and what they allowed Biden to get away with is disgusting. It is a miracle that any conservative in a national election could be elected with this liberal press. If McCain had the same level of campaign management as Obama he could have overcome biased organizations like the Washington Compost and NYTimes.

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 12:20

Everyone has to choose a side. He chose the parents side. I would have done the same thing. Her husband was also questionable (which I am sure played heavily into it).

But again that's not what the law states. It was resolved in the courts as part of the marriage contract. You might not like the decision, but one doesn't set aside states' rights when it suits their purposes. It's not a "conservative" position. If you're ok with that, than no problem.

I know tons of them and they are just like me. They are also ALL over this forum (FYI).

C4

You're missing the point. Belief in God has historically meant the freedom to dissent from the established Church. All of those denominations exist because of the fundamental freedom at stake. To believe as you chose, you acknowledge the right of others to believe as they chose.

I'd probably agree with you that modern atheists violate this basic premise as well.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 12:20

Right on!
I see you know your weapons and politics.
McCain was trailing prior to Palin coming on board and shot ahead after her nomination then lost ground because of the economic meltdown. What the press did to her and what they allowed Biden to get away with is disgusting. It is a miracle that any conservative in a national election could be elected with this liberal press. If McCain had the same level of campaign management as Obama he could have overcome biased organizations like the Washington Compost and NYTimes.

Thanks. I like to think I have a common sense view of politics.

You are very accurate as to why JM did not get elected and the reasons why.

The other simple fact is that he was tied (by party) to GWB. People are just NOT happy with the job GWB did (right or wrong) and I believe that he (and any other Republican) was doomed to lose.

C4

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 12:22

Right on!
I see you know your weapons and politics.
McCain was trailing prior to Palin coming on board and shot ahead after her nomination then lost ground because of the economic meltdown. What the press did to her and what they allowed Biden to get away with is disgusting. It is a miracle that any conservative in a national election could be elected with this liberal press. If McCain had the same level of campaign management as Obama he could have overcome biased organizations like the Washington Compost and NYTimes.

Nonsense, media bias has existed against republicans for years and yet they've more than held their own in the electorate.

This was nothing new. McCain was trailing because of Obama's post-convention bounce two weeks before. It happens in EVERY election.

McCain however couldn't sustain his bounce. McCain lost because he ran a shitty campaign. SP clearly didn't help, but it's not exactly her fault either.

That he did as well as he did was because he was not perceived as Bush. Any other Republican would have been stomped even worse.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 12:23

But again that's not what the law states. It was resolved in the courts as part of the marriage contract. You might not like the decision, but one doesn't set aside states' rights when it suits their purposes. It's not a "conservative" position. If you're ok with that, than no problem.

The Feds should have stayed out of it, but then again, a lot of States laws and court rulings are FUBARD so I can understand when someone wants to right their wrongs.

You're missing the point. Belief in God has historically meant the freedom to dissent from the established Church. All of those denominations exist because of the fundamental freedom at stake. To believe as you chose, you acknowledge the right of others to believe as they chose.

I'd probably agree with you that modern atheists violate this basic premise as well.

I have ZERO problem with people not wanting to believe in God and would NEVER tell them they had to. I also do not want a President that would tell them either.

C4

ToddG

01-10-09, 12:24

12oreo

01-10-09, 12:36

Nonsense, media bias has existed against republicans for years and yet they've more than held their own in the electorate.

This was nothing new. McCain was trailing because of Obama's post-convention bounce two weeks before. It happens in EVERY election.

McCain however couldn't sustain his bounce. McCain lost because he ran a shitty campaign. SP clearly didn't help, but it's not exactly her fault either.

That he did as well as he did was because he was not perceived as Bush. Any other Republican would have been stomped even worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, media bias has existed for years and gets worse during each election but I don't see how it could get any worse than it is now. Even liberal organizations such as the Post are now admitting it. To say that Palin didn't help and that McCain was not perceived as a Bush associate are both ridiculous. Obama's entire compaign was based on McCain's association with Bush.

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 12:50

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, media bias has existed for years and gets worse during each election but I don't see how it could get any worse than it is now. Even liberal organizations such as the Post are now admitting it. To say that Palin didn't help and that McCain was not perceived as a Bush associate are both ridiculous. Obama's entire compaign was based on McCain's association with Bush.

Yes and No, just because it was a campaign strategy doesn't mean it worked. Poll after poll asked this very question and overwhelmingly the respondents didn't buy this line from Obama. That he wasn't Bush was why he had any support at all.

Where McCain failed was in pandering to that Bush/Social conservative wing of the party in order to secure the nomination. McCain made the association himself without any help from Obama.

12oreo

01-10-09, 12:58

Yes and No, just because it was a campaign strategy doesn't mean it worked. Poll after poll asked this very question and overwhelmingly the respondents didn't buy this line from Obama. That he wasn't Bush was why he had any support at all.

Where McCain failed was in pandering to that Bush/Social conservative wing of the party in order to secure the nomination. McCain made the association himself without any help from Obama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have got to be joking.

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 13:14

Why would I kid? I voted for McCain.

Sorry but like most Americans I don't really have a positive view of the national media moreover most saw right through the bias. I doubt very much anyone cared what MSNBC or the NYTimes said.

mattjmcd

01-10-09, 13:29

I don't blame her(entirely) for her daughter getting pregnant. I blame her for tossing her daughter to the wolves and running for office. I think anyone who would pick such a time intensive job, after having just given birth to a newborn(especially a sick one that needs extra attention and love) has screwed up priorities.

Gunshot John, who knew you'd ever swoop in and argue my position? With better arguments as well;)

Really? I must say, that's very big of you.:rolleyes:

As to the issue of priorities, I am reminded of the expression "opinions are like...". I guess that's your opinion- that she ought not work, or work in public service, or whatever. As the father of a special needs child myself, I occasionally wish I had the luxury of not working. OTOH, I can't feed my children on love and attention. Perhaps Gov. Palin should busy herself with finding a solution to that little conundrum? (here's a thought- as VP of the United States, it just may be that she might have had access to significantly greater personal assistance wrt her young son. After all, I doubt that Cheney does his own grocery shopping, cooking etc. Not that it matters, since she seems to do just fine as the governor of a state. )

Personally, I think that whole "parenting/priorities" argument is lame. Biden was lauded for his heroic performance as a single father who gutted it out in elected office. Gov. Palin was portrayed as a power-hungry lunatic who was by definition a terrible mother and unfit for office. Go figure.

ToddG

01-10-09, 13:38

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 13:44

Anyone who believes the media bias in the '08 election was nothing more than "business as usual" is kidding himself. Even the mainstream media reported on how biased the mainstream media was this time!

The Obama campaign very actively targeted media big shots to get them on board, and gave very special attention to members of the press so they would do a great job reporting on the "excitement" and "historic nature" surrounding BHO. It actually reminded me a lot of how Scientology targets celebrities ... and with similar results.

Sigh, I didn't say there wasn't a bias. I simply said that bias has existed in the media for years.

It only works when republicans become a caricature of themselves.

The media was in the tank for Obama for months, but McCain was still competitive with Obama until his campaign self-immolated in the closing weeks of the campaign.

We can't blame the media for everything.

ToddG

01-10-09, 13:56

Sigh, I didn't say there wasn't a bias. I simply said that bias has existed in the media for years.

Sigh, I didn't say the bias was new. I simply said that it was far worse this time than previously.

In '04 the media was all over the swiftboat thing. This year they didn't even report on the birth record issue until the election was over. That's just one example.

The interviews with Palin were nothing shy of ambushes. In contrast, no one in the MSM questioned BHO that way even though the complaints about his experience and his knowledge and his credentials were floating around for months before Palin was announced as McCain's running mate.

How many times did BHO get parodied on SNL?

Why did Palin's decision to work while raising children come under attack at the same time the MSM ran in-depth stories about what a wonderful loving hard-working hero of a father Biden was?

Remember, up until BHO hit the scene John McCain was a media darling. Hell, even John Stewart used to like him. But they mustered the troops to get BHO elected and the skew in reporting was far worse than it's ever been.

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 14:03

Sigh, I didn't say the bias was new. I simply said that it was far worse this time than previously.

You said that the mainstream media confirmed they were biased, as if that acknowledgment somehow made it worse than before.

The media is going to be biased. You can't expect them to be anything but. If however media bias was the end all be all of a campaign, McCain would have lost by 40% points.

That he didn't lose by such a wide margin would tend to indicate that most of the electorate didn't buy into it until McCain gave them a reason to.

In '04 the media was all over the swiftboat thing. This year they didn't even report on the birth record issue until the election was over. That's just one example.

As I recall they were all over the swiftboat thing...to discredit the swiftboat veterans...and yet it had no effect on the outcome of the election. Why not if they were all powerful? It seems to discredit the notion that their biases determine the outcome of elections?

The interviews with Palin were nothing shy of ambushes. In contrast, no one in the MSM questioned BHO that way even though the complaints about his experience and his knowledge and his credentials were floating around for months before Palin was announced as McCain's running mate.

It was an ambush that any competent pol could have seen coming a mile away. She was wholly unprepared to be a VP candidate.

How many times did BHO get parodied on SNL?

Quite a few times as I recall, Fred Armesin was great.

Why did Palin's decision to work while raising children come under attack at the same time the MSM ran in-depth stories about what a wonderful loving hard-working hero of a father Biden was?

I agree unfair, but you may recall they treated Hillary the same way. Expecting fairness is misplaced.

Remember, up until BHO hit the scene John McCain was a media darling. Hell, even John Stewart used to like him. But they mustered the troops to get BHO elected and the skew in reporting was far worse than it's ever been.

Which only mattered to liberals.

I'd say the fact that the far-right of the Republican party vilified their own candidate had far more to do with his loss than anything the media did.

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 14:10

My fundamental point is that media bias would not have mattered if McCain had run a competent campaign.

Sarah Palin was only one aspect of this incompetence. It's not entirely fair to blame her, but it should provide a valuable lesson about the selection process in the future.

ToddG

01-10-09, 14:11

I'd say the fact that the far-right of the Republican party vilified their own candidate had far more to do with his loss than anything the media did.

While I don't agree it was worse than the effect of the media bias, I would agree with you that it certainly helped nail the coffin shut on his campaign. See my first post in this thread.

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 14:16

While I don't agree it was worse than the effect of the media bias, I would agree with you that it certainly helped nail the coffin shut on his campaign. See my first post in this thread.

I thought it would sound familiar. ;)

Seriously though you are correct, McCain had to pander to the far-right in order to gain their support by choosing Palin, had he been given the freedom to run to the center, he would have denied it to Obama. Basically the far right sabotaged McCain by claiming he couldn't win and then helping to guarantee it. It's the political equivalent of proving that a man can't swim by holding his head underwater.

Media bias was entirely secondary to this flawed political strategy.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 14:19

I certainly know very politically conservative people who are not just atheists but very public (even militant) about their atheism. While it's silly to deny that Christian Conservatives are a substantial foundation of the Republican party, they aren't the only conservatives.

The reality is that the abortion issue is an albatross around the Republic party's neck. Americans overall oppose a ban on abortion anywhere from 2:1 to 5:1 depending on which poll you look at and how strict the proposed ban would be. But there is no question that the "pro-choice" folks outnumber the "pro-life" folks by a huge margin.

It's also pretty clear that there are far more people who are single issue voters on the abortion issue than on the 2A issue.

However, the Christian Conservatives (ranging from evangelicals to Catholics and everything in between) have a tremendous amount of influence over the Republican party and as we all know, they are vehemently opposed to abortion. So either you get a Republican Presidential nominee who is pro-life and leaves the gate with a substantial number of independents (and some socially moderate/liberal Republicans) against him for his abortion stance, or you get one who is pro-choice and ostracized by critical segments of his own party.

Like it or not, the fate of our Second Amendment rights is tied very tightly to a party that places far more emphasis on being the pro-life party, a stance that is demonstrably unpopular with the general voting population.

The abortion issue is a VERY sticky one. I am pro-life 100%, but put more weight on the 2A issue when voting.

I don't really know what the answer is on the abortion issue. I am actually in favor of a Mother's right to choose IF they are raped, molested or the child is endangering the mom's life. Other than that, I am opposed to it as there are just too many families in the US that cannot have kids and would LOVE to adopt (and pay for the birth of the child).

My problem is that too many women use abortion as form of birth control (instead of a condom or just keeping their legs together). The mass public FLIPS OUT if an animal is killed for no good reason, but it is ok to kill a baby. I cannot figure this one out.

C4

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 14:21

Yes, media bias has existed for years and gets worse during each election but I don't see how it could get any worse than it is now. Even liberal organizations such as the Post are now admitting it. To say that Palin didn't help and that McCain was not perceived as a Bush associate are both ridiculous. Obama's entire compaign was based on McCain's association with Bush.

Right you are. BHO did a FANTASTIC job linking JM to GWB. The funny part is that I do NOT believe the JM and GWB actually got along and or had the same view on a lot of issues.

People have such a dislike for GWB, that JM had little to any chance of winning.

C4

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 14:23

Really? I must say, that's very big of you.:rolleyes:

As to the issue of priorities, I am reminded of the expression "opinions are like...". I guess that's your opinion- that she ought not work, or work in public service, or whatever. As the father of a special needs child myself, I occasionally wish I had the luxury of not working. OTOH, I can't feed my children on love and attention. Perhaps Gov. Palin should busy herself with finding a solution to that little conundrum? (here's a thought- as VP of the United States, it just may be that she might have had access to significantly greater personal assistance wrt her young son. After all, I doubt that Cheney does his own grocery shopping, cooking etc. Not that it matters, since she seems to do just fine as the governor of a state. )

Personally, I think that whole "parenting/priorities" argument is lame. Biden was lauded for his heroic performance as a single father who gutted it out in elected office. Gov. Palin was portrayed as a power-hungry lunatic who was by definition a terrible mother and unfit for office. Go figure.

Amen brother!

C4

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 14:25

Sigh, I didn't say the bias was new. I simply said that it was far worse this time than previously.

In '04 the media was all over the swiftboat thing. This year they didn't even report on the birth record issue until the election was over. That's just one example.

The interviews with Palin were nothing shy of ambushes. In contrast, no one in the MSM questioned BHO that way even though the complaints about his experience and his knowledge and his credentials were floating around for months before Palin was announced as McCain's running mate.

How many times did BHO get parodied on SNL?

Why did Palin's decision to work while raising children come under attack at the same time the MSM ran in-depth stories about what a wonderful loving hard-working hero of a father Biden was?

Remember, up until BHO hit the scene John McCain was a media darling. Hell, even John Stewart used to like him. But they mustered the troops to get BHO elected and the skew in reporting was far worse than it's ever been.

Two words for you: DOUBLE STANDARD

C4

photo2u

01-10-09, 14:41

What I stated had nothing to do with politics....however, I would definitely take her over what we are getting ready to have.

I mean, at least she is an American citizen right?

We have not started with the new president and statements like this will lead to no where. Bush and his party had 8 years to improve this country. He had his chance. Palin, in the other hand does not have the tools to be a vise president or president. In my view, she can not even control her own daughter.

I am not trying to make fun of Palin but the facts speak for themselves. I will support who ever is trying to improve this country. If she gets in power in the future I will support her.

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 14:51

We have not started with the new president and statements like this will lead to no where. Bush and his party had 8 years to improve this country. He had his chance. Palin, in the other hand does not have the tools to be a vise president or president. In my view, she can not even control her own daughter.

I am not trying to make fun of Palin but the facts speak for themselves. I will support who ever is trying to improve this country. If she gets in power in the future I will support her.

I don't know that Bush is the SOLE reason for the country having issues (mainly financial ones) as most of the things I have read directly point the congress and how they handle/handlesd the mortgage companies.

If you believe that it is wrong to question if BHO is an actual citizen or not, then it is EQUALLY dumb to make your comment about SP! Control a teenage daughter????? Are you crazy? If you ever figure out how to "control" a teenager, please write books on it, you will make a ton of money! ;)

Now let us look at your other statement about SP not being qualified to be VP. Do you realize that a Governor of a State does FAR more in one year than a senator will do in 10 years??? Do you also realize that BHO spent MOST of his time in the Senate campaigning to be president??? Since when does running for an office make you prepared for doing jack chit????????? :rolleyes:

I would do a little more research on what a Governor does and all the decisions they have to make (on their own) that DIRECTLY influence how people live their lives in their State.

C4

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 15:35

C4IGrant

01-10-09, 15:43

In thinking about it a bit I do agree that some of the treatment Palin received about her children and her career were among the most disingenuous questions to be asked of a VP candidate of any party. I don't believe she can be faulted for her family choices as she seems to take personal responsibility for her decisions. That said I can't believe anyone actually thought it was going to be a fair fight after Hillary.

It's not Palin's personal choices that I question, but rather her political acumen. She was a poor choice that was poorly considered. Initially I thought it was a bold choice, I had no idea it would turn out to be so inept. That she allowed herself to be portrayed in this light, no matter how unfairly, is part of politics. That she couldn't compensate for it made her a poor political choice.

Re the abortion issue, I agree it's sticky and moreover I agree that Roe was a poor decision especially for its imprecise nature that mandates abortion on demand. Like you I don't think it's an immoral choice in all cases, especially concerning the life of a mother and I'm content to allow states to restrict abortion as they see fit with that sole caveat.

That said I also believe we have a fundamental right to privacy. The National Government should not be making decisions about how individuals live their lives.

I personally think that the JM campaign screwed her and so did the Republican party. Instead trying to "coach" her, they should have just let her speak her mind and also do a MUCH better job selecting which interviews she went on. :rolleyes:

She might not have been the best choice for VP right now, but as she continues to do well in her State and carry a high approval rating, she will do well in the future IF she runs for a higher office.

Again, the abortion issue is a nasty one and no matter which way the laws go, someone will lose. I am all for States picking and choosing how they handle it. If people do not like their States position on abortion, they can just move.

C4

thopkins22

01-10-09, 16:09

I guess that's your opinion- that she ought not work, or work in public service, or whatever....as VP of the United States, it just may be that she might have had access to significantly greater personal assistance wrt her young son.
I don't think I said she shouldn't have been working. What I said was that it was wrong for her to drag her daughter into the spotlight. It wasn't the bulk of my argument, it was in response to the idea that she's a normal citizen. Sorry, but I can't imagine how horrible it must have been for that girl who was already experiencing the consequences of her actions, to have them judged by the entire nation. It was just wrong. Her son's age had more to do with my point than his condition, and I should have made that clear. I volunteer once a week with a young man(older than I am) with autism, and I have GREAT respect for anyone who does it full time, be it a job or for family, especially if they have a full time job. The office of Vice President however, is more than a full time job.

Biden was lauded for his heroic performance as a single father who gutted it out in elected office. Gov. Palin was portrayed as a power-hungry lunatic who was by definition a terrible mother and unfit for office. Go figure.

And if his daughter was in the same position as Palin's and he chose to parade her in front of the nation, I'd view him in the same way. As it was, I still think it's bizarre and abnormal to think one can raise a family as a single politician. My father worked in politics at the end of his life, and I almost never saw him...I'm very fortunate my mother was a great woman. I still loath Joe Biden for his policies especially relating to gun control, and any family issues would not have taken priority in my argument against him.

As I stated earlier I voted for McCain/Palin, but her fans are deluding themselves if they think it was because of her. I voted for that ticket despite both of them...because as Gunshot John is fond of saying, I was trying to be pragmatic and keep Obama out of office.

photo2u

01-10-09, 16:54

I don't know that Bush is the SOLE reason for the country having issues (mainly financial ones) as most of the things I have read directly point the congress and how they handle/handlesd the mortgage companies.

If you believe that it is wrong to question if BHO is an actual citizen or not, then it is EQUALLY dumb to make your comment about SP! Control a teenage daughter????? Are you crazy? If you ever figure out how to "control" a teenager, please write books on it, you will make a ton of money! ;)

Now let us look at your other statement about SP not being qualified to be VP. Do you realize that a Governor of a State does FAR more in one year than a senator will do in 10 years??? Do you also realize that BHO spent MOST of his time in the Senate campaigning to be president??? Since when does running for an office make you prepared for doing jack chit????????? :rolleyes:

I would do a little more research on what a Governor does and all the decisions they have to make (on their own) that DIRECTLY influence how people live their lives in their State.

C4

My friend, I am a teacher. I teach a very well controlled groups of 55+ teen age students per class. There is no book to write. What ever happened to life skills that our parents tough us? WE the parents, are the main source of education to our kids. In my view not being able to control a teen age person is just plain weak excuse for parents.

I do not need to be told to research,I have a very good idea of how government works. I am a service retire officer. I have been dedicated to service since 1983.

I Will support who ever gets elected. That is my view. Many will not agree with me. That is perfectly acceptable.

Finally,

Why is there so much talk about this lady? She had a shot to VP. That was good! America spoke and she lost.

This will be my last post.

George from Pasadena,

El Mac

01-10-09, 17:49

McCain was the conservative choice.

Oh for God's sake. What BS. McCain was far from a or THE conservative choice. The guy is a leftwing kook disguised as a Retardican.

Gutshot John

01-10-09, 18:10

Oh for God's sake. What BS. McCain was far from a or THE conservative choice. The guy is a leftwing kook disguised as a Retardican.

You mean like Bush? Welcome to my world, I've felt the same way about every single Republican candidate I've ever voted for. No one gets to vote for the person they actually feel is the best choice. Invariably it's a pick between the lesser of two evils.

Perhaps you think Obama was a better choice, but Mac remains the conservative choice.

Once again the watchword is pragmatism.

El Mac

01-10-09, 18:17

You mean like Bush?

Yes. In many ways Bush is just a disguised libtard. Bush was a fiscal wreck.

Perhaps you think Obama was a better choice,

Don't put words in my mouth especially when you know better. Quite pedantic and unbecoming such an intellectual. ;)

but Mac remains the conservative choice.

BS. He never was and thankfully now, never will be.

Once again the watchword is pragmatism.

Your watchword, not mine brother.

mattjmcd

01-10-09, 18:52

photo2u

I reckon yo should stay on. we need more SGV guys!

El Mac

01-10-09, 19:44

I Will support who ever gets elected. That is my view. Many will not agree with me. That is perfectly acceptable.

Hmmm...I've heard that before.... when was it?

Oh yeah, Germany circa 1930s...

mattjmcd

01-10-09, 20:15

Hmmm...I've heard that before.... when was it?

Oh yeah, Germany circa 1930s...

No need to go there dude. just my .02.

Alaskapopo

01-10-09, 20:42

She is a great woman and seeing the media treat her like they do makes me want to puke.

She is a very unethical woman and pretty much all LEO's in Alaska would not vote for her myself included. Most did a write in on the ticket instead of her. I was going to vote for McCain up until he picked this bimbo.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 13:14

My friend, I am a teacher. I teach a very well controlled groups of 55+ teen age students per class. There is no book to write. What ever happened to life skills that our parents tough us? WE the parents, are the main source of education to our kids. In my view not being able to control a teen age person is just plain weak excuse for parents.

My Mother and both my in-laws are teachers. I also have a lot of teacher friends. Controlling teenagers 24/7 is impossible they tell me. I would have to agree.

About the only way you are really ever going to keep a teen from trying drugs, booze and sex is to lock them in your basement. Some say that is illegal. ;)

I do not need to be told to research,I have a very good idea of how government works. I am a service retire officer. I have been dedicated to service since 1983.

Your comments do not support your background.

I Will support who ever gets elected. That is my view. Many will not agree with me. That is perfectly acceptable.

I think it is a good idea to support whomever is elected (as the damage is done now). I hope BHO does a fantastic job and fixes a lot of the issues in this country.

Finally,

Why is there so much talk about this lady? She had a shot to VP. That was good! America spoke and she lost.

This will be my last post.

George from Pasadena,

To date, we have not really seen a woman like this in a high political position. I mean, she loves guns, CHOSE to have a baby that she KNEW was handicapped, she fought corruption in her OWN party, cut taxes and gave oil money back to the people. I don't know about you, but I have NOT seen to many men, let alone women with this kind of background. This is what we were/are excited about.

Talking to some SS customers of mine, they all advised that they just loved her. She was polite and friendly to them and did whatever they told her to do. BHO and his lovely wife were not so well liked.

C4

sjc3081

01-11-09, 13:19

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 13:21

She is a very unethical woman and pretty much all LEO's in Alaska would not vote for her myself included. Most did a write in on the ticket instead of her. I was going to vote for McCain up until he picked this bimbo.
Pat

Up until Oct. 08, she had an 80% approval rating in Alaska. Now she has a 69% approval rating. Even though it dropped, it is still the highest approval rating of any Governor.

She must be doing something right to get such a high rating and Lord knows I would trade my States Governor for her in a split second!

C4

12oreo

01-11-09, 13:28

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 13:44

What kind of LEO are you. Are you for example, a Food Inspector or a Police Officer

I am a police officer. Food inspectors are not cops. Your question makes little sense.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 13:47

What ethic charges have been proven and what data do you have to confirm that most LEO's voted against her?
The legislatures investigator found she violated the state ethics law with regard to using her position for personal gain. I have no data to confirm most leo's voted against her. But its a small state for leo's and we do talk. Most of us are not happy with her.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 13:48

Up until Oct. 08, she had an 80% approval rating in Alaska. Now she has a 69% approval rating. Even though it dropped, it is still the highest approval rating of any Governor.

She must be doing something right to get such a high rating and Lord knows I would trade my States Governor for her in a split second!

C4

Yea she handed out a free 1200 check to all residents. People love wellfare.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 13:53

Yea she handed out a free 1200 check to all residents. People love wellfare.
Pat

Was that really wellfare?? Or were the people over taxed from the get go and she simply gave them their money back? Or was it a tax on oil companies that she didn't believe the AK Govt needed so she gave it to the people?

What a horrible thing to do!

Its funny how people look at things.

C4

12oreo

01-11-09, 13:59

The legislatures investigator found she violated the state ethics law with regard to using her position for personal gain. I have no data to confirm most leo's voted against her. But its a small state for leo's and we do talk. Most of us are not happy with her.
Pat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should get your facts straight- she was found not in violation of any ethics laws by the Personnel Board who is chartered to investigate these matters not some politically biased state legislature. I don't typically quote Chicken Noddle News but this is directly from CNN. Also, I thought Alaska was a very large state.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Alaska's Personnel Board concluded Monday that Gov. Sarah Palin did not violate ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police, contradicting an earlier investigation's findings.

"There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," Timothy Petumenos, the Anchorage lawyer hired to conduct the investigation, wrote in his final report.

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 14:03

The legislatures investigator found she violated the state ethics law with regard to using her position for personal gain. I have no data to confirm most leo's voted against her. But its a small state for leo's and we do talk. Most of us are not happy with her.
Pat

Interesting. I read that Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority." He also went on to say, that he (Branchflower) thinks Governor Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both the complete right to perform and other very good reasons to perform.

What from what I have read about her brother in law, he most likely deserved what he got.

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 14:26

Interesting. I read that Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority." He also went on to say, that he (Branchflower) thinks Governor Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both the complete right to perform and other very good reasons to perform.

What from what I have read about her brother in law, he most likely deserved what he got.

C4

Grant you have no clue what your talking about. Those of us up here that know the case know better. Also your right Wooten did deserve what he got he got suspended. She was trying to get him fired illegally and Monegan refused to break the law so she fired him. That is the real issue. I hope the legislature follows through and impeaches her.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 14:29

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should get your facts straight- she was found not in violation of any ethics laws by the Personnel Board who is chartered to investigate these matters not some politically biased state legislature. I don't typically quote Chicken Noddle News but this is directly from CNN. Also, I thought Alaska was a very large state.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Alaska's Personnel Board concluded Monday that Gov. Sarah Palin did not violate ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police, contradicting an earlier investigation's findings.

"There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," Timothy Petumenos, the Anchorage lawyer hired to conduct the investigation, wrote in his final report.
I have my facts straight. You are the one confused. the personal board was a joke it serves at the pleasure of the governor. Anything it found is bound to be biased as she can fire every member of the board. The lesislative investigation was set up by 8 republicans and 4 democrats. Hardly what I would call biased. Next time you post learn the facts.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 14:29

Was that really wellfare?? Or were the people over taxed from the get go and she simply gave them their money back? Or was it a tax on oil companies that she didn't believe the AK Govt needed so she gave it to the people?

What a horrible thing to do!

Its funny how people look at things.

C4

Again learn what you are talking about. Alaska has no state level taxes. No income tax and not sales tax or property tax.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 14:31

Grant you have no clue what your talking about. Those of us up here that know the case know better. Also your right Wooten did deserve what he got he got suspended. She was trying to get him fired illegally and Monegan refused to break the law so she fired him. That is the real issue. I hope the legislature follows through and impeaches her.
Pat

Really? I am just reading what the guy that investigated the case ACTUALLY said.

If you were not ACTUALLY in the room when the conversations happened, then all you have is 3 or 4th hand info at best and is most likely as about as reliable as mine. ;)

Actually I think he deserved to get fired (not just suspended). Sometimes people need to be fired and if the person that needs to do it won't you have to make it happen. I see no issue with this.

I will send you an NIB EOTech if she is impeached. ;)

C4

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 14:32

Again learn what you are talking about. Alaska has no state level taxes. No income tax and not sales tax or property tax.
Pat

Roger that, then as I said she gave money back to the people from the taxes collected from big oil.

Good on her!

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 14:34

Really? I am just reading what the guy that investigated the case ACTUALLY said.

If you were not ACTUALLY in the room when the conversations happened, then all you have is 3 or 4th hand info at best and is most likely as about as reliable as mine. ;)

Actually I think he deserved to get fired (not just suspended). Sometimes people need to be fired and if the person that needs to do it won't you have to make it happen. I see no issue with this.

I will send you an NIB EOTech if she is impeached. ;)

C4
Read more and post the portion where he found she violated the state ethics law.
QUOTE
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides

END QUOTE

Selective reading you have there Grant.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 14:38

Roger that, then as I said she gave money back to the people from the taxes collected from big oil.

Good on her!

C4
I bet if a democrat had done the same thing you would be calling it welfare yourself. That is what it is when the state hands out money. Funny how peoples political views twist their views of reality. She is the main reason I did not vote for McCain. If you look at the entire investigation you will find that the governor also shared in the illegal moose kill that wooten did. She also did not report the crime until 2 years after the fact when the divorce started. She is as corrupt as the come. I appoligize for the tone I took on this thread as its a subject near and dear to most Alaska Cops. But the fact remains Palin is a disgrace to the republican party and to the state of Alaska.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 14:40

I have my facts straight. You are the one confused. the personal board was a joke it serves at the pleasure of the governor. Anything it found is bound to be biased as she can fire every member of the board. The lesislative investigation was set up by 8 republicans and 4 democrats. Hardly what I would call biased. Next time you post learn the facts.
Pat

Are we talking about the State Personnel Board where the lead investigator is a "loyal democrat" and he (Petumenos) cleared her of any wrong doing???????

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/03/AR2008110303043.html?hpid=topnews

I am sorry, but dems are not looking to make ANY Republican look good these days and if he didn't find any issues, then no one else is either.

C4

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 14:43

I bet if a democrat had done the same thing you would be calling it welfare yourself. That is what it is when the state hands out money. Funny how peoples political views twist their views of reality. She is the main reason I did not vote for McCain. If you look at the entire investigation you will find that the governor also shared in the illegal moose kill that wooten did. She also did not report the crime until 2 years after the fact when the divorce started. She is as corrupt as the come.
Pat

No, not in the least. Giving credits to people that do NOT actually pay taxes is FLAT WRONG. Giving money back to the people that the State does not need to run is simply FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!

A moose shooting? Really? That is why you didn't vote for her? Please! :rolleyes:

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 14:44

Are we talking about the State Personnel Board where the lead investigator is a "loyal democrat" and he (Petumenos) cleared her of any wrong doing???????

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/03/AR2008110303043.html?hpid=topnews

I am sorry, but dems are not looking to make ANY Republican look good these days and if he didn't find any issues, then no one else is either.

C4

Again the state personal board was biased in the very fact the members were selected by Palin and they could be fired by her. How would you like it if a murder suspect could hand pick his own jury and fire any one of them at any time or stop the trial at any time.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 14:44

Read more and post the portion where he found she violated the state ethics law.
QUOTE
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides

END QUOTE

Selective reading you have there Grant.
Pat

No I read that as well. I imagine though that if it was actually true, she would either be impeached/removed in some way. To date that has not happened.

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 14:46

No, not in the least. Giving credits to people that do NOT actually pay taxes is FLAT WRONG. Giving money back to the people that the State does not need to run is simply FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!

A moose shooting? Really? That is why you didn't vote for her? Please! :rolleyes:

C4

I did not vote for her because she fired a very good man who was doing a good job. (Walt Monegan) She fired him because he refused to break the law. I know ethics and following the law may not matter to you but it does to me.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 14:46

No I read that as well. I imagine though that if it was actually true, she would either be impeached/removed in some way. To date that has not happened.

C4
You read it and you did not post it for obvious reasons. That is basically dishonest. Also it takes time to impreach someone the legislature is just starting up.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 14:47

Again the state personal board was biased in the very fact the members were selected by Palin and they could be fired by her. How would you like it if a murder suspect could hand pick his own jury and fire any one of them at any time or stop the trial at any time.
Pat

Again really? The Personnel Board's three members were first appointed by Palin’s predecessor, and Palin reappointed one member in 2008. So you are INCORRECT in that ALL the members were appointed by SP.

C4

12oreo

01-11-09, 14:48

I have my facts straight. You are the one confused. the personal board was a joke it serves at the pleasure of the governor. Anything it found is bound to be biased as she can fire every member of the board. The lesislative investigation was set up by 8 republicans and 4 democrats. Hardly what I would call biased. Next time you post learn the facts.
Pat

Do you yeally live in Alaska?

Several republician members of the investigation board complained that the probe had turned into a political witch hunt. If the Personnel Board is such a joke why is it chartered to investigate these matters.

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 14:49

You read it and you did not post it for obvious reasons. That is basically dishonest.
Pat

It was the guys opinion. He also stated that what she did "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority."

Funny how you left that part out as well in your argument against her.

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 14:51

Again really? The Personnel Board's three members were first appointed by Palin’s predecessor, and Palin reappointed one member in 2008. So you are INCORRECT in that ALL the members were appointed by SP.

C4

You are not stating the fact she could call off the investigation at any time and fire any board member for no reason at any time. They had a lot of motivation to make the investigation go her way. The Branchflower investigation was truly non partisan if anything it was more republican backed with 8 republicans and just 4 democrats.

Palin also stalled the investigation by ordering her staff not to testify until the last minute. This woman is a snake. You don't know her.
pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 14:53

It was the guys opinion. He also stated that what she did "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority."

Funny how you left that part out as well in your argument against her.

C4

No he said the firing of Monegan was technically legal but her reasons for doing so violated the Ethics act. Monegan was an at will employee so she could fire him for no reason that was legal. What was illegal was using her office to carry out a family fued which is what she did.
Regardless even the most hard core republican is starting to realize that Palin did more to hurt McCain than help him. She is party to blame for Obama winning the election.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 14:54

I did not vote for her because she fired a very good man who was doing a good job. (Walt Monegan) She fired him because he refused to break the law. I know ethics and following the law may not matter to you but it does to me.
Pat

I think there is more to the story though. If someone threatened the life of one of my family members, I would not take too kindly to someone not helping me remove them (getting them fired).

Monegan, might have been a "good man" and might have also had performance-related issues and is why he was fired.

In this age of being able to sue someone or something for any amount of money at the drop of a hat. I imagine that if he was really let go for an incorrect reason, that he would have sued them. If he has filed a suit against her, I have not seen it and kind of tells me that there might be more to the story than what really know.

C4

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 14:59

No he said the firing of Monegan was technically legal but her reasons for doing so violated the Ethics act. Monegan was an at will employee so she could fire him for no reason that was legal. What was illegal was using her office to carry out a family fued which is what she did.
Regardless even the most hard core republican is starting to realize that Palin did more to hurt McCain than help him. She is party to blame for Obama winning the election.
Pat

Why hasn't Monegan sued anyone yet?? I imagine if he was really let go improperly, then he would have sued someone by now.

Hmm, most of us "hardcore conservatives" ONLY voted for JM BECAUSE of the fact that he chose her (FYI)

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=18320&highlight=sarah&page=3

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 15:00

I think there is more to the story though. If someone threatened the life of one of my family members, I would not take too kindly to someone not helping me remove them (getting them fired).

Monegan, might have been a "good man" and might have also had performance-related issues and is why he was fired.

In this age of being able to sue someone or something for any amount of money at the drop of a hat. I imagine that if he was really let go for an incorrect reason, that he would have sued them. If he has filed a suit against her, I have not seen it and kind of tells me that there might be more to the story than what really know.

C4
Grant you seem to be one of those people who thinks another republican can do no wrong.

Palin praised Monegan's performance in his job right up until he refused to fire Wooten. She came up with the performance issues as a smoke screen to cover her own but late in the investigation. That womans story changed each different time she was interviewed regarding this investigation.

Monegan was doing wonders to increase Trooper moral and help them do a better job. After he left moral went in the toliet. Palin did not stop there. She also slashed the Troopers budget to the point they can't afford practice ammo for their weapons. They are on the verge of financial crisis right now thanks to that witches grudge.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 15:02

You are not stating the fact she could call off the investigation at any time and fire any board member for no reason at any time. They had a lot of motivation to make the investigation go her way. The Branchflower investigation was truly non partisan if anything it was more republican backed with 8 republicans and just 4 democrats.

Palin also stalled the investigation by ordering her staff not to testify until the last minute. This woman is a snake. You don't know her.
pat

You mean the investigative group that had a "loyal democrat" leading it?

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 15:04

Why hasn't Monegan sued anyone yet?? I imagine if he was really let go improperly, then he would have sued someone by now.

Hmm, most of us "hardcore conservatives" ONLY voted for JM BECAUSE of the fact that he chose her (FYI)

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=18320&highlight=sarah&page=3

C4

Monegan was an at will employee he does not have grounds for a suit. Wooten on the other hand is about to sue and will probably win a lot of money.

Palin only energized the most extreme right of the republican party. The side that wants to have women forced to keep a baby after being raped rather than have an abortion (her actual stance look it up) .

I agree with some of Palin's political views like her pro gun stance and her views on oil exploration. But I will not and could not vote for a person I knew was unethical no matter how much I liked or did not like her politics. Integrity means a lot to me, perhaps you feel differently.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 15:04

You mean the investigative group that had a "loyal democrat" leading it?

C4

BS Loyal Democrat? Cite please. Even if there were one democrat the board you are dismissing the fact she had the power to fire any board member. The real investigation was done by Branchflower.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 15:07

Grant you seem to be one of those people who thinks another republican can do no wrong.

No, not in the least. In fact, one of the things I like about SP is the fact that she found bad people doing bad thngs in her party and fought to get them removed!

I am all for bad people (no matter what their political party getting what they deserve. What I do not like is people making things up or putting their spin on it in order to make someone look bad.

Palin praised Monegan's performance in his job right up until he refused to fire Wooten. She came up with the performance issues as a smoke screen to cover her own but late in the investigation. That womans story changed each different time she was interviewed regarding this investigation.

Where can this be found (that she praised his performance)? Link please.

Monegan was doing wonders to increase Trooper moral and help them do a better job. After he left moral went in the toliet. Palin did not stop there. She also slashed the Troopers budget to the point they can't afford practice ammo for their weapons. They are on the verge of financial crisis right now thanks to that witches grudge.
Pat

No practice ammo? So you are just like all the police dept.'s around me (they have no money for ammo either).

A lot of State Police and small PD's have zero money for ammo either as times are kind of tough right now.

C4

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 15:08

BS Loyal Democrat? Cite please. Even if there were one democrat the board you are dismissing the fact she had the power to fire any board member. The real investigation was done by Branchflower.
Pat

Uhm, I already did! Check out page 7. ;)

C4

AirmanAtwood

01-11-09, 15:14

I will send you an NIB EOTech if she is impeached. ;)

C4

Hey Grant, If she DOESN'T get impeached, can i get a comp M2? I dont care if its open box ;)

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 15:15

Hey Grant, If she DOESN'T get impeached, can i get a comp M2? I dont care if its open box ;)

LOL, no.

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 15:20

[QUOTE=12oreo;286000]Do you yeally live in Alaska?

/QUOTE]

What do you think? I am a member of the LEO forum here where I had to send in my credentials to post.
Pat:confused:

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 15:22

Uhm, I already did! Check out page 7. ;)

C4

So the guy called himself a loyal democrat. He still worked for her and could be fired by her. Sorry your argument holds no dice. The way the republican party is heading I think I am going to re-register as an Independent. I voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the last election. I vote for the person and the issues not just party line like you.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 15:33

So the guy called himself a loyal democrat. He still worked for her and could be fired by her. Sorry your argument holds no dice. The way the republican party is heading I think I am going to re-register as an Independent. I voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the last election. I vote for the person and the issues not just party line like you.
Pat

What's not credible? The Washington Post or the lead investigator stating that he is a "loyal democrat" and found nothing wrong with what SP did??

Everyone works for someone and we could all be fired for calling it like we see it. There is however a little thing call Whistleblower protection and I imagine that if they found something illegal going on and brought it to the attention of the people and then were fired for it, they would get some level of protection.

I always vote for the candidate and not the party. I am a one issue voter though and if the candidate is NOT pro 2A, then I cannot vote for them. This is why I did NOT vote for BHO.

Good try though, trying to type cast me as a Republican. ;)

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 15:42

What's not credible? The Washington Post or the lead investigator stating that he is a "loyal democrat" and found nothing wrong with what SP did??

Everyone works for someone and we could all be fired for calling it like we see it. There is however a little thing call Whistleblower protection and I imagine that if they found something illegal going on and brought it to the attention of the people and then were fired for it, they would get some level of protection.

I always vote for the candidate and not the party. I am a one issue voter though and if the candidate is NOT pro 2A, then I cannot vote for them. This is why I did NOT vote for BHO.

Good try though, trying to type cast me as a Republican. ;)

C4

I used to be a one issue voter but not anymore. While the 2nd amendment is very important to me. I will not vote in an evil person just because they promise to let me keep my guns. Also Whistleblower protection is very limited for at will employees. In the end Palin did not get elected and Thank God for that. And yes Grant you may deny it but your post give you away. You are a through and through party line Republican.
Pat

ZDL

01-11-09, 15:46

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 15:51

You only come out of the woodwork to post dumb shit like this. Give it a rest. Everyone shares the same opinion concerning you and you aren't going to make it better by doing things of this nature. Give it a rest.

You voted for Obama. You win. Everything that happens while he is in office you can take credit and blame for. Talk to us in 4 years and let us know how you feel about your choice then. In the mean time, do something constructive.

Grow up and learn to talk about the subject rather than resorting to personal attacks. You are not a child so don't act like one. I am free to post on this board so long as I follow the rules as are you. Also your use of profanity is not appreciated nor does it lend strength to what you posted. Obviously this thread is going down hill. So I am bowing out. Its true what they say when you talk about religion, politics and women.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 15:54

I used to be a one issue voter but not anymore. While the 2nd amendment is very important to me. I will not vote in an evil person just because they promise to let me keep my guns. Also Whistleblower protection is very limited for at will employees. In the end Palin did not get elected and Thank God for that. And yes Grant you may deny it but your post give you away. You are a through and through party line Republican.
Pat

You are what I would call a "multi-issue" voter. They are typically willing to let some things that should be at the top of the list go in order to gain something that they believe will happen (as the candidate said they would do it in a campaign promise).

To date, I have NEVER voted for an "evil person" just because they were pro 2A. ;)

If you are a TRUE gun owner and 2A supporter you HAVE to be a one issue voter. Why? Because without the 2nd amend., all other rights go out the window as you cannot force anyone (at gun point if need be) to give you your rights. This is why I am a one issue only voter.

All politicians make campaign promises. The problem is that rarely do they ever actually happen (or happen as they said they would). This is why none of the other issues ever matter. People also seem to forget that Congress actually has to vote and pass the crazy ass things that Presidential campaigners want to do. They always forget to mention that part for some reason.

The current Republican party is NOT conservative enough for me (which I have stated numerous times in this thread and on this forum). So again, you are in correct in your ASSumptions. ;)

C4

ZDL

01-11-09, 15:56

Grow up and learn to talk about the subject rather than resorting to personal attacks. You are not a child so don't act like one.
Pat

Simply awesome what you consider a personal attack.

Palin is a good woman. Good leader. Good pro 2a candidate.

Ready to be 2nd in command over our entire country? no. But more so than Obama, and when given the choice.. Every single time I will choose her over him.

My ideal candidate wasn't even in the final running so, I did the defensive vote thing. I lost. Shit happens.

I'll do what I can now with the cards I've been dealt and hopefully it comes out my way.

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 15:59

You are what I would call a "multi-issue" voter. They are typically willing to let some things that should be at the top of the list go in order to gain something that they believe will happen (as the candidate said they would do it in a campaign promise).

To date, I have NEVER voted for an "evil person" just because they were pro 2A. ;)

If you are a TRUE gun owner and 2A supporter you HAVE to be a one issue voter. Why? Because without the 2nd amend., all other rights go out the window as you cannot force anyone (at gun point if need be) to give you your rights. This is why I am a one issue only voter.

All politicians make campaign promises. The problem is that rarely do they ever actually happen (or happen as they said they would). This is why none of the other issues ever matter. People also seem to forget that Congress actually has to vote and pass the crazy ass things that Presidential campaigners want to do. They always forget to mention that part for some reason.

The current Republican party is NOT conservative enough for me (which I have stated numerous times in this thread and on this forum). So again, you are in correct in your ASSumptions. ;)

C4

Grant you did vote for Palin I assume so you did vote for an evil person. If the economy does not recover none of us except the very rich will be able to afford guns or ammo.

The current republican party is too conservative and the current democratic party is too liberal in my opinion. Both need to come to the center.
pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 16:01

Simply awesome what you consider a personal attack.

Palin is a good woman. Good leader. Good pro 2a candidate.

Ready to be 2nd in command over our entire country? no. But more so than Obama, and when given the choice.. Every single time I will choose her over him.

My ideal candidate wasn't even in the final running so, I did the defensive vote thing. I lost. Shit happens.

I'll do what I can now with the cards I've been dealt and hopefully it comes out my way.

Palin a good woman. That is a good joke. Also I appreciate the fact your second post was on topic and contained no profanity. Thank you for that. I believe that if you knew more about Palin you would not think as highly of her. But I can not convey that information to you over the internet you would have to know what she has done for yourself. Obama's politics on the gun issue may be screwed up but he is basically a good man with the best of intentions for this country and that is why I voted for him.
Pat

12oreo

01-11-09, 16:08

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 16:08

Grant you did vote for Palin I assume so you did vote for an evil person. If the economy does not recover none of us except the very rich will be able to afford guns or ammo.

The current republican party is too conservative and the current democratic party is too liberal in my opinion. Both need to come to the center.
pat

SP evil? I think not.

Funny that you think that the Republican party is too conservative. Most of us one time Republicans think the EXACT OPPOSITE and have basically left the party.

I have no issue coming to the "center" to get things done, but I would like to be able to vote for a conservative candidate once in a while.

C4

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 16:13

Palin a good woman. That is a good joke. Also I appreciate the fact your second post was on topic and contained no profanity. Thank you for that. I believe that if you knew more about Palin you would not think as highly of her. But I can not convey that information to you over the internet you would have to know what she has done for yourself. Obama's politics on the gun issue may be screwed up but he is basically a good man with the best of intentions for this country and that is why I voted for him.
Pat

How in the world do you know that BHO is a "good man?" What would EVER give you that idea????? Was it his drug use? Was it is connection to a KNOWN terrorist? Was it his anti-gun position? Was it is tax plan? Was it his connection to his fruit bat Pastor? Is it is his interest in taxing people with jobs so that he can give money to people that pay no taxes? Is it his interest in taxing pensions of people that retire before the age of 62 (like cops) so that he can fund all of his socialist programs?

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Unless you PERSONALLY know BHO and have spent your life with him (as friend or family member) that I don't think you know jack chit about him.

C4

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 16:15

Let's be honest- you voted for Obama because you have an intense hate for Plain.

He is also a union guy and believes that unions are good for the country. :rolleyes:

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 16:15

Let's be honest- you voted for Obama because you have an intense hate for Plain.

Never denied that. I have dishonest evil people.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 16:17

He is also a union guy and believes that unions are good for the country. :rolleyes:

C4

Yes they have done a lot for this country like end child labor, make safer working conditions, gave us the 40 hour work week. Before Unions there were a lot more work related injuries and death and the boss had a lot more of the money vs the workers. You obviously are anti working class american. How does that silver spoon taste.
pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 16:21

How in the world do you know that BHO is a "good man?" What would EVER give you that idea????? Was it his drug use? Was it is connection to a KNOWN terrorist? Was it his anti-gun position? Was it is tax plan? Was it his connection to his fruit bat Pastor? Is it is his interest in taxing people with jobs so that he can give money to people that pay no taxes? Is it his interest in taxing pensions of people that retire before the age of 62 (like cops) so that he can fund all of his socialist programs?

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Unless you PERSONALLY know BHO and have spent your life with him (as friend or family member) that I don't think you know jack chit about him.

C4

Bush used drugs too and I don't see harping on that. His connection to a terrorist. Please what bunk. So if you lived next door to a sex offender can I talk about your connection to a sex offender. That was pure and simple campaign BS. His tax plan is good. Percentage wise the Rich do not pay their fair share of taxes. I am all for making the rich (over 250 K) pay more taxes. I have no problem with social programs. What kind of country lets its people go hungry int he streets. That is what would happen without some social programs. People fall on hard luck sometimes. Also your the one who praised Palin for her 1200 giveaway. So by your own admission you support wellfare.

As for Obama I don't know him that well. But I know Palin and she is corrupt and evil. When faced with a man who appears good with a woman I know is evil I will chose the unknown every time.

Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 16:27

Yes they have done a lot for this country like end child labor, make safer working conditions, gave us the 40 hour work week. Before Unions there were a lot more work related injuries and death and the boss had a lot more of the money vs the workers. You obviously are anti working class american. How does that silver spoon taste.
pat

You forget about getting over paid for what they do, ruining companies and allowing people that would normally be fired to keep their jobs.

http://teachersunionexposed.com/bargaining.cfm

My mother is/was a union worker. I served in the Military (another form of Union). I know all about it and is why I am against them. ;)

C4

12oreo

01-11-09, 16:28

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 16:32

Please do not take this as a personal attack but don't you think you would be happier as an LEO in France or Sweden? Social programs galore!

I like America. I am all for some social programs. Tell me this do you think there should be no social security for old folks. No agencies to take care of homeless children. No agency to help a out of work person get back on their feet. I won't say our social programs are ran perfectly. Far from it but without them this country would be a disgusting place. Also in most European countries their citizens get health care. Over 60% of americans do not have health insurance. We have the best hospitals and doctors money can buy yet most of us can't afford to use them. That needs to be fixed and fixed now.

Also many people equate a more socialist government with less freedom. That does not have to be the case. Nothing says just because we have more social programs we have to give up the bill of rights. The two are not intertwined.
Pat

Sam

01-11-09, 16:32

For those of you who voted for the democrat, your guy won, our guy and gal lost. We'll go home and hug our elephant, you go home and kiss your ....... well, you know what I mean, I can't say it because someone will say that I'm childish or ignorant or something. But the word rhymes with glass. ;)

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 16:36

Bush used drugs too and I don't see harping on that. His connection to a terrorist. Please what bunk. So if you lived next door to a sex offender can I talk about your connection to a sex offender. That was pure and simple campaign BS. His tax plan is good. Percentage wise the Rich do not pay their fair share of taxes. I am all for making the rich (over 250 K) pay more taxes. I have no problem with social programs. What kind of country lets its people go hungry int he streets. That is what would happen without some social programs. People fall on hard luck sometimes. Also your the one who praised Palin for her 1200 giveaway. So by your own admission you support wellfare.

As for Obama I don't know him that well. But I know Palin and she is corrupt and evil. When faced with a man who appears good with a woman I know is evil I will chose the unknown every time.

Pat

GWB did do drugs. I am no fan of that either. William Ares bunk? I think not. He is a personal friend of his! You say that you don't want to vote for evil people, but you just did!

Rich do not pay taxes? Dude, I know that you are a little on the naive side, but damn! http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

Try educating yourself a little about who is paying the bills in this country and then get back to me.

I am all for SOME social programs (especially if the state does NOT need the money). I am NOT for a re-distribution of wealth (which is what BHO wants to do).

If you think that SP is evil and BHO is a "good guy", you should have your head examined as I think (as you have most likely hit it and did not realize it). You are also (most likely) the ONLY guy on the is forum that voted for Obama and think that he is a "good guy."

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 16:38

You forget about getting over paid for what they do, ruining companies and allowing people that would normally be fired to keep their jobs.

http://teachersunionexposed.com/bargaining.cfm

My mother is/was a union worker. I served in the Military (another form of Union). I know all about it and is why I am against them. ;)

C4

If a union worker is over paid that simply means the administration did not negotate well at the table. That is their own fault. Unions have no more power than the employer does. They just level the playing field for the employees. Also I have worked both union and non union jobs. Bad employees get let go either way. What a union does is protect the employees due process rights and simply keeps the employer honest in that he has to follow the rules. He can not fire someone simple because he does not like the way he looks or because he is a democrat and the boss is republican. The Military is not a union. That is a stupid statement. The troops do not have the right to bargain with the general about their pay or anything else for that matter.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 16:40

GWB did do drugs. I am no fan of that either. William Ares bunk? I think not. He is a personal friend of his! You say that you don't want to vote for evil people, but you just did!

Rich do not pay taxes? Dude, I know that you are a little on the naive side, but damn! http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

Try educating yourself a little about who is paying the bills in this country and then get back to me.

I am all for SOME social programs (especially if the state does NOT need the money). I am NOT for a re-distribution of wealth (which is what BHO wants to do).

If you think that SP is evil and BHO is a "good guy", you should have your head examined as I think (as you have most likely hit it and did not realize it). You are also (most likely) the ONLY guy on the is forum that voted for Obama and think that he is a "good guy."

C4

Grant yes the Rich pay more taxes in volume of money but they pay a less percentage of their income. The richest people in the country often pay less than 10% in taxes. My tax rate is approximately 25%. We should all have to pay the same percentage. Frankly I don't care if I am the only person on this forum who voted for Obama. Whats popular is not always right and whats right is not always popular. I vote my conscious. If I am wrong so be it. But I will not knowing vote for a evil person.
pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 16:43

I like America. I am all for some social programs. Tell me this do you think there should be no social security for old folks. No agencies to take care of homeless children. No agency to help a out of work person get back on their feet. I won't say our social programs are ran perfectly. Far from it but without them this country would be a disgusting place. Also in most European countries their citizens get health care. Over 60% of americans do not have health insurance. We have the best hospitals and doctors money can buy yet most of us can't afford to use them. That needs to be fixed and fixed now.

Also many people equate a more socialist government with less freedom. That does not have to be the case. Nothing says just because we have more social programs we have to give up the bill of rights. The two are not intertwined.
Pat

You are again believing what the liberal media and BHO have told you (specifically about medical care).

I am self employed and pay my own medical for a family of four. My cost is under $400 a month with a deductable of $3k. Is $300 + dollars too much for a family of four to pay? I don't think so at all. The plan I am on is also on the high side. I know of people paying much lower than I and single people paying in the $100 range with a low deductable.

So the question is, do you have to make money to afford health care in the US? Sure do. Would I like to see it come down a little bit? Sure would, but do not view the medical plan I have as bad at all.

Having been in the Military, I know all about socialized medicine. I also have a lot of European friends (and Canadians) that paint a not so positive picture of their healthcare system.

Let's ask the active duty and ex-military folks on this board if they think the medical system in the Military is a good one.

C4

M4arc

01-11-09, 16:44

And yes Grant you may deny it but your post give you away. You are a through and through party line Republican.
Pat

This thread is extremely entertaining! I specifically had a good laugh at the statement above.

I’m curious, what do you think your posts say about you?

12oreo

01-11-09, 16:44

thopkins22

01-11-09, 16:45

I am all for making the rich (over 250 K) pay more taxes. I have no problem with social programs. What kind of country lets its people go hungry int he streets. That is what would happen without some social programs.

Imagine how much more investment there would be, and as a function of that, how many more jobs there would be for people down on their luck if we weren't so excessively taxed. Nobody can show me the pictures of hordes of people starving in a true free market.

A story. My mother used to work every summer at a summer camp(financed privately) for underprivileged kids. One of the activities was where they could dress up to be whatever they wanted to be when they grew up. Fireman, policeman, carpenter, or whatever. One boy didn't dress up as anything. When questioned about it, and what he wanted to do when he grew up, he stated that he wanted to get a check like his daddy. My mother went home and registered Republican, which she remained for 40+ years until 2008.

Welfare and public subsidies in general, don't provide innovation or safety nets. They give incentive to continue the same bad behavior that landed you there.

What WOULD happen if we didn't exist in a welfare state? Illegal immigration wouldn't be as much of an issue, Americans would fill these low paying jobs that immigrants find plentiful enough to justify pouring into the country. People would have to move from states with laws that stifle business and into free states...or they would change the laws in their own states. Private charity would make a comeback, as would personal responsibility. This sense of entitlement, this demand for instant gratification that plagues us, would start to wave goodbye.

And to answer your question, I think it's been proven for decades that the kind of country that let's it's citizens starve in the streets is the kind of country with the most social programs. Look at the Soviet Union and China. When government was in charge of feeding everyone, millions of people starved to death. Look at Venezuela now that Chavez has put price controls on food in place...grocery stores can't afford to stay open.

Is the free market and capitalism perfect? No, of course not. But it's by far the best system for the largest amount of people.

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 16:49

If a union worker is over paid that simply means the administration did not negotate well at the table. That is their own fault. Unions have no more power than the employer does. They just level the playing field for the employees. Also I have worked both union and non union jobs. Bad employees get let go either way. What a union does is protect the employees due process rights and simply keeps the employer honest in that he has to follow the rules. He can not fire someone simple because he does not like the way he looks or because he is a democrat and the boss is republican. The Military is not a union. That is a stupid statement. The troops do not have the right to bargain with the general about their pay or anything else for that matter.
Pat

Really? So they didn't threaten to strike and hold the company hostage if they didn't pay their high salaries? :rolleyes:

I know too many Union employees that have kept their jobs when they should have been fired (read the link I posted as just ONE example).

The court system will protect employees all day long. People sue companies all the time (and win) for all kinds of things. So there is zero need for a union to protect them from anything. We have ambulance chasing lawyers for that.

The Military operates much like a Union in that you are stuck with dirt bags that don't do their job. I should know as I have worked with quite a few. Union workers do not get to negotiate their pay with the owners of the company either! They get whateve the union gets for them. Same goes with the Military. We get what Congress and the President say we should get.

C4

thopkins22

01-11-09, 16:49

We should all have to pay the same percentage.

Absolutely. If the federal government must tax us excessively for the welfare state, a flat tax is the fairest way. The best solution for most Americans would be to do away with it altogether and let the federal government collect money through excise taxes and such.

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 16:51

This thread is extremely entertaining! I specifically had a good laugh at the statement above.

I’m curious, what do you think your posts say about you?

I am a pro gun moderate who usually votes republican (60 to 70% of the time) But I am also pro labor. I am not ashamed of these views.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 16:54

Grant yes the Rich pay more taxes in volume of money but they pay a less percentage of their income. The richest people in the country often pay less than 10% in taxes. My tax rate is approximately 25%. We should all have to pay the same percentage. Frankly I don't care if I am the only person on this forum who voted for Obama. Whats popular is not always right and whats right is not always popular. I vote my conscious. If I am wrong so be it. But I will not knowing vote for a evil person.
pat

Gosh, I sound like G Beck as I keep saying; "REALLY?" I pay over 40% in taxes and would LOVE to know who these people are that make more than me and only pay 10%. Do they have special accountants that I do not have that allow them to hide their money??? Please let me know how they do this as I would LOVE to know!

Not popular? Not only is your POV different than 99% of the people on this forum, but I have yet to ever meet a cop with your outlook (not a one).

Here is clue for you. When you are the ONLY ONE with an opinion that is different than the masses (especially about unions and having voted for BHO), it doesn't make you "unpopular" it makes you out to lunch!

C4

M4arc

01-11-09, 16:55

But I will not knowing vote for a evil person.
pat

Come on Pat...

I don't care if you voted for Obama or not. He said a lot of great things during his campaign and he certainly convinced a lot of middle of the roaders to vote for him and he said a lot of things that I thought sounded nice and would like to see him follow through with.

BUT

He's still a politian so don't pretend that Palin is the wicked witch of the North and Obama is mister straight laced. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. He's more of the same just a different face and better at selling himself.

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 16:55

Absolutely. If the federal government must tax us excessively for the welfare state, a flat tax is the fairest way. The best solution for most Americans would be to do away with it altogether and let the federal government collect money through excise taxes and such.

Sounds great! Love me some flat tax! It would be rude awakening for all the people in the country that don't pay any taxes though.

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 16:56

Really? So they didn't threaten to strike and hold the company hostage if they didn't pay their high salaries? :rolleyes:

I know too many Union employees that have kept their jobs when they should have been fired (read the link I posted as just ONE example).

The court system will protect employees all day long. People sue companies all the time (and win) for all kinds of things. So there is zero need for a union to protect them from anything. We have ambulance chasing lawyers for that.

The Military operates much like a Union in that you are stuck with dirt bags that don't do their job. I should know as I have worked with quite a few. Union workers do not get to negotiate their pay with the owners of the company either! They get whateve the union gets for them. Same goes with the Military. We get what Congress and the President say we should get.

C4

Striking is a tool the unions have. The management can also attempt to hire a new workforce to replace the union. Also its really hard to sue a company when you are out of work. It takes money to hire a attorney. The court system is also very slow and the deck is stacked against you as the boss has the money to hire the best attorneys while you will have to make do with what ever you can afford unless you can get a good attorney to take the case based on a percentage of the settlement which will take years to get.

Yes the workers negotiate their pay. Its obvious you have never been a union member so let me explain how it works in plain english. The employees meet with their union reps and tell them what they want. The reps go to the table and negotiate with the employers reps and at the end of the day a deal is worked out with compromises on both sides.

Pat

Jay Cunningham

01-11-09, 16:57

Please do not post any comments that are intentional personal attacks against other members. (Including, but not limited to, name calling, comments of a racial, religious or sexual nature.) Debate is welcome and encouraged. Personal attacks, and name calling, serve no purpose in the exchange and debate of good information. Please be respectful to your fellow shooting enthusiasts whether they are new shooters or seasoned veterans.

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 16:59

Come on Pat...

I don't care if you voted for Obama or not. He said a lot of great things during his campaign and he certainly convinced a lot of middle of the roaders to vote for him and he said a lot of things that I thought sounded nice and would like to see him follow through with.

BUT

He's still a politian so don't pretend that Palin is the wicked witch of the North and Obama is mister straight laced. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. He's more of the same just a different face and better at selling himself.

I know all politicians lie and by nature are dishonest. But I know personally Palins scandals. I know the union president representing Wooten and I also know the Trooper Lt that investigated the case for the State. I have the facts from both sides. I can't ignore what I know about Palin. I am not alone. Most of my fellow LEO's that I have talked about this issue with up here did not vote for her. I admit I was one of the few that voted for Obama. Most refused to vote in the presidential race or put in a write in canidate.
Pat

thopkins22

01-11-09, 16:59

Sounds great! Love me some flat tax! It would be rude awakening for all the people in the country that don't pay any taxes though.

It would. It's the one reason Huckabee had my attention. That and the fact that he carries.

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 17:00

Imagine how much more investment there would be, and as a function of that, how many more jobs there would be for people down on their luck if we weren't so excessively taxed. Nobody can show me the pictures of hordes of people starving in a true free market.

A story. My mother used to work every summer at a summer camp(financed privately) for underprivileged kids. One of the activities was where they could dress up to be whatever they wanted to be when they grew up. Fireman, policeman, carpenter, or whatever. One boy didn't dress up as anything. When questioned about it, and what he wanted to do when he grew up, he stated that he wanted to get a check like his daddy. My mother went home and registered Republican, which she remained for 40+ years until 2008.

Welfare and public subsidies in general, don't provide innovation or safety nets. They give incentive to continue the same bad behavior that landed you there.

What WOULD happen if we didn't exist in a welfare state? Illegal immigration wouldn't be as much of an issue, Americans would fill these low paying jobs that immigrants find plentiful enough to justify pouring into the country. People would have to move from states with laws that stifle business and into free states...or they would change the laws in their own states. Private charity would make a comeback, as would personal responsibility. This sense of entitlement, this demand for instant gratification that plagues us, would start to wave goodbye.

And to answer your question, I think it's been proven for decades that the kind of country that let's it's citizens starve in the streets is the kind of country with the most social programs. Look at the Soviet Union and China. When government was in charge of feeding everyone, millions of people starved to death. Look at Venezuela now that Chavez has put price controls on food in place...grocery stores can't afford to stay open.

Is the free market and capitalism perfect? No, of course not. But it's by far the best system for the largest amount of people.

Interesting story.

Our welfare system is screwed up for sure. One of the major issues I see with it is that if someon is on welfare and WANTS to work and finds a job, the Govt pulls their check. The job they got doesn't pay the bills though and then end up having to go back on welfare.

Why can't they just cut back on the welfare check so that the person that is trying to get off of welfare still is making the same amount of money??

I just don't understand our socialistic system and I cannot fathom why people vote for more of them.

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 17:00

Sounds great! Love me some flat tax! It would be rude awakening for all the people in the country that don't pay any taxes though.

C4

I am all for the flat tax and I agree it would be a rude awakening for a lot of people but most of them are those making upwards of 250 k a year.
pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 17:01

It would. It's the one reason Huckabee had my attention.

Understand. At this point, I would take just about ANYTHING else than what we have.

I also like the goods and services thing and is why I like Huckabee as well (and voted for him).

C4

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 17:02

Interesting story.

Our welfare system is screwed up for sure. One of the major issues I see with it is that if someon is on welfare and WANTS to work and finds a job, the Govt pulls their check. The job they got doesn't pay the bills though and then end up having to go back on welfare.

Why can't they just cut back on the welfare check so that the person that is trying to get off of welfare still is making the same amount of money??

I just don't understand our socialistic system and I cannot fathom why people vote for more of them.

C4
I would like to see welfare changed to workfare much like some churches do. Make the person work for their check rather it be picking up trash or washing the sidewalks.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 17:03

I am all for the flat tax and I agree it would be a rude awakening for a lot of people but most of them are those making upwards of 250 k a year.
pat

Uhm no on it being a rude awakening for people making over $250K. Ten percent of 250K is $25K. I would take that ANY DAY OF THE WEEK VS what I am paying now!

C4

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 17:04

I would like to see welfare changed to workfare much like some churches do. Make the person work for their check rather it be picking up trash or washing the sidewalks.
Pat

This I can agree with you on. They should have to do SOMETHING in order to get my tax dollars.

C4

M4arc

01-11-09, 17:07

I am a pro gun moderate who usually votes republican (60 to 70% of the time) But I am also pro labor. I am not ashamed of these views.
Pat

I don't think that is what most of us are taking away from your posts.

You make some good points but it's hard to listen and take them into context with some of your other rantings. You can't call someone like Grant out when your posts make you look like the polar opposite. You lose all credibility.

No one is going to bash you for your views. It's how you express them while belittling everyone else that doesn't agree with you.

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 17:16

I don't think that is what most of us are taking away from your posts.

You make some good points but it's hard to listen and take them into context with some of your other rantings. You can't call someone like Grant out when your posts make you look like the polar opposite. You lose all credibility.

No one is going to bash you for your views. It's how you express them while belittling everyone else that doesn't agree with you.

Belitting like Grants comments to me about being out to lunch or needing my head examined. I know my views on some issues are not going to be popular here but what about equal treatment. Many posters here get away with a lot while those with unpopular views get slammed with demerit points. I have nothing personally against Grant or any poster here. I do disagree with a fair amount of their politics outside of the gun issue. I will admit I get worked up more about this issue than most because I am a cop in Alaska and Palin had not been a friend to cops here. But that is another story.
Pat

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 17:23

Striking is a tool the unions have. The management can also attempt to hire a new workforce to replace the union. Also its really hard to sue a company when you are out of work. It takes money to hire a attorney. The court system is also very slow and the deck is stacked against you as the boss has the money to hire the best attorneys while you will have to make do with what ever you can afford unless you can get a good attorney to take the case based on a percentage of the settlement which will take years to get.

Yes the workers negotiate their pay. Its obvious you have never been a union member so let me explain how it works in plain english. The employees meet with their union reps and tell them what they want. The reps go to the table and negotiate with the employers reps and at the end of the day a deal is worked out with compromises on both sides.

Pat

It is a tool alright (a bad one that screws the company). Also, most all lawyers will work for free (if the case is a legit) as they will get paid in the end (FYI).

In the mean time while they wait for their payment, they can (oh my gosh) find another job! :eek:

I am 100% familar with how a union works. Workers can tell the union bosses whatever they want, but at the end of the day, the union bosses make the final decision based upon what they think they can get away with.

C4

C4IGrant

01-11-09, 17:26

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 17:31

It is a tool alright (a bad one that screws the company). Also, most all lawyers will work for free (if the case is a legit) as they will get paid in the end (FYI).

In the mean time while they wait for their payment, they can (oh my gosh) find another job! :eek:

I am 100% familar with how a union works. Workers can tell the union bosses whatever they want, but at the end of the day, the union bosses make the final decision based upon what they think they can get away with.

C4

Grant yes it screws the company that is what its designed to do. Companies also routinely screw employees. Grant I have worked for union shops and we the workers had the say not the union bosses. Not sure where you are getting that idea. Right now I am in a non union department and I working hard to change that. The administration recently changed the way raises are given out to patrol officers equally between a 2.5 to 7.5 % pay cut for the patrol officers. While at the same time the city manager gave out 20% pay hikes to department heads. That would not happen in a union shop. In a way I am glad it happened as it upset the guys enough to want to do something about it. So hopefully we will have a union in about 6 months. I have seen employers do some messed up things in non union shops that they would never get away with in a union shop. Are unions good for the company yes and no. They do cost more but you get better quality workers. Its like with AR's you get what you pay for. If you pay cops 10 bucks an hour you will get a crappy cop. If you pay them $25 bucks an hour you will attract better applicants. Its fairly simple.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 17:31

Your views not popular on here? Really? I think you would be lucky to find ONE single person on here that agrees with all your views.

C4

Like I said Grant I could care less what people on this site think of my views about politics.
Pat

M4arc

01-11-09, 17:33

Belitting like Grants comments to me about being out to lunch or needing my head examined. I know my views on some issues are not going to be popular here but what about equal treatment. Many posters here get away with a lot while those with unpopular views get slammed with demerit points. I have nothing personally against Grant or any poster here. I do disagree with a fair amount of their politics outside of the gun issue. I will admit I get worked up more about this issue than most because I am a cop in Alaska and Palin had not been a friend to cops here. But that is another story.
Pat

Nobody here is going to get slammed because they have a different view. It's how they express their views by way of pissing contest that get them slammed and earn them infractions. Period.

If you can show me where you or anyone else was given an infraction or a time out because they had a different view or belief then I will fix it but I'm betting that you can't.

I'm sure if you dug deep enough you'd find out that even I don't agree with some of the non-gun issues facing this country but I have ways of adding my input without pissing everyone off and alienating myself.

As for you and Grant you guys are giving and receiving so as far as I’m concerned you’re both Even-Steven. Let’s move this forward in a more mature, manor without the petty attacks.

Alaskapopo

01-11-09, 17:37

I am going to bow out of this thread now. Its obvious that this thread only has the potential for problems. Later. For my part in the name calling and up professionalism. I appoligize.
Pat

M4arc

01-11-09, 17:46

I am going to bow out of this thread now. Its obvious that this thread only has the potential for problems. Later. For my part in the name calling and up professionalism. I appoligize.
Pat

Okay guys now that he's bowed out of the thread I just want to say that I love Palin! She's hot and she's a hockey mom! What else is there? :D

I'll admit that I have a thing for hockey moms...:p

12oreo

01-11-09, 18:07

Okay guys now that he's bowed out of the thread I just want to say that I love Palin! She's hot and she's a hockey mom! What else is there? :D

I'll admit that I have a thing for hockey moms...:p

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I visit this site everyday and prior to yesterday have only posted to primarily find out why my Bushmaster is having problems. But to witness the way that Palin was treated by the media and the liberals was at a minimum, disgusting. Hopefully some responsible journalism school will use this as a case study.

DrMark

01-11-09, 18:12

Okay guys now that he's bowed out of the thread I just want to say that I love Palin! She's hot and she's a hockey mom! What else is there? :D

What else is there?!?

Why, pictures, of course!

http://i553.photobucket.com/albums/jj368/DrMark43/palin.jpg

Heavy Metal

01-11-09, 18:17

M4arc

01-11-09, 18:17

What else is there?!?

Why, pictures, of course!

http://i553.photobucket.com/albums/jj368/DrMark43/palin.jpg

<whistle>

HOLLA! ;)

M4arc

01-11-09, 18:18

I bet Grant voted for Strickland in the past. Personally, I think you are projecting. I bet you are a dyed-in-the-wool Yelloow-dog democrat.

Dude, please. I just got these two calmed down.

mattjmcd

01-11-09, 18:27

Is that the face of evil, or what?!?!:D

El Mac

01-11-09, 22:18

But I will not knowing vote for a evil person.
pat

But you did. Go figure.

R.P.

01-11-09, 22:36

ToddG

01-11-09, 22:38

responsible journalism school

http://lr2.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/oxymoron.jpg

R.P.

01-11-09, 22:59

Obama's politics on the gun issue may be screwed up but he is basically a good man with the best of intentions for this country and that is why I voted for him.
Pat[/QUOTE]

Wow, you know he is a gun grabber and you still voted for him? I hope in four year's time if all "assault weapons" are melted down and made into park benches and only criminals have them you can still sleep well at night.

I guess your idea of good intentions for this country is big government, unfettered abortions on demand, unconstitutional disarmament of the populace and a weaker national defense.

R.P.

01-11-09, 23:05

[QUOTE=M4arc;286278]<whistle>

HOLLA! ;)[/QUOte

Her looks sure don't hurt nothing as far as I'm concerned.

St.Michael

01-12-09, 14:08

Well, I just wish she would have won so we could finally have a good looking women up in office. :D

No really though.

12oreo

01-12-09, 15:05

http://lr2.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/oxymoron.jpg

That's about the size of it. Maybe there is one in a military school somewhere.

C4IGrant

01-13-09, 08:41

What else is there?!?

Why, pictures, of course!

http://i553.photobucket.com/albums/jj368/DrMark43/palin.jpg

Damn pearls in a flight suit. That is HOT!

C4

Sam

01-13-09, 11:57

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/lights_0011.jpg

No flightsuit or pearls here but I took the picture myself. :)

Norva

01-13-09, 13:12

Grant yes it screws the company that is what its designed to do. Companies also routinely screw employees. Grant I have worked for union shops and we the workers had the say not the union bosses. Not sure where you are getting that idea. Right now I am in a non union department and I working hard to change that. The administration recently changed the way raises are given out to patrol officers equally between a 2.5 to 7.5 % pay cut for the patrol officers. While at the same time the city manager gave out 20% pay hikes to department heads. That would not happen in a union shop. In a way I am glad it happened as it upset the guys enough to want to do something about it. So hopefully we will have a union in about 6 months. I have seen employers do some messed up things in non union shops that they would never get away with in a union shop. Are unions good for the company yes and no. They do cost more but you get better quality workers. Its like with AR's you get what you pay for. If you pay cops 10 bucks an hour you will get a crappy cop. If you pay them $25 bucks an hour you will attract better applicants. Its fairly simple.
Pat

I work in a union and i see a lot of lazy people getting away with BS. It protects a lot of lazy people that don't want to work. It has its pros and cons. I see a lot of hard workers getting snubbed by the union reps. Unions sometimes give people that they can not be touched and makes them lazy. Thats not all workers but i see it a lot

sjc3081

01-13-09, 13:40

Palin 2012

St.Michael

01-13-09, 13:48

Palin 2012

++++++1111111111111111

Sam

01-13-09, 14:02

Palin 2012

I bet your post made alaskapopo's head explode.

akviper

02-10-09, 16:56

El Mac

02-10-09, 17:48

...but I wanted folks to know that not all Alaska peace officers dislike Palin.

Not by a long shot! ;)

Alaskapopo

02-11-09, 00:23

No offense to Pat, but Branchflower is a Tony Knowles (Former democratic governor) stooge and always has been. He was handpicked by the democrats to smear Palin during the most critical time of the election. He is highly political and would be my last choice for any independent investigator. The fact that he accepted the job tells you something about his ethics.

The Wooten "Troopergate" thing had been going on for two years but the "investigation" timing seemed a bit odd. Why rush it through and release the conclusion without interviewing the witnesses? Why was it timed to occur during the last few months of the election with a release at the end of October?

The Democratic party in Alaska was actively doing anything it could to damage Palin's chances as VP. They succeeded.

I'm sorry I missed this thread last month but I wanted folks to know that not all Alaska peace officers dislike Palin.

With all due respect you are the only other cop I have met in Alaska to support our govenor. Most did not vote for Obama but none of them voted for her that I know. Most I have talked to simply did not vote in the presidental race or did a write in candidate.

What I liked about Knowles was his support of restoring our retirement system to defined benefit pension plan instead of the current 401K. Those of us on Tier 3 and higher are ok but its getting very hard to attract and retain people with the current Tier 4. I am sure your agency is hurting because of this as well. Remember we have the republicans (in Alaska) to thank for this mess. Palin is against that and is no friend to law enforcement. I am sending you a PM to discuss this further so this thread does not become heated again.
Pat