Palin Discussion [split]

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-09-02 07:06pm

Aratech wrote:Google Private Eye Agency?

Search Google for anything on the subject.

Aratech · Post by **Aratech** » 2008-09-02 07:15pm

SirNitram wrote:
Aratech wrote:Google Private Eye Agency?
Search Google for anything on the subject.

Ah, so he was being sarcastic, my apologies.

Still, I would have hoped that the men wanting to run this country of mine would do better background checks. This does not bode well for us should this man and his trophy Veep get into power.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2008-09-02 07:17pm

Aratech wrote:Still, I would have hoped that the men wanting to run this country of mine would do better background checks. This does not bode well for us should this man and his trophy Veep get into power.

Palin only met with McCain twice.

Last night, I believe it was on the Charlie Rose show (PBS), a commentator humorously pointed out that he knew someone who had to sit through 3 interviews just to get a job at Ruby Tuesday's (family restaurant chain).

Aratech · Post by **Aratech** » 2008-09-02 07:20pm

FSTargetDrone wrote:
Aratech wrote:Still, I would have hoped that the men wanting to run this country of mine would do better background checks. This does not bode well for us should this man and his trophy Veep get into power.
Palin only met with McCain twice. Last night, I believe it was on the Charlie Rose show (PBS), a commentator humorously pointed out that he knew someone who had to sit through 3 interviews just to get a job at Ruby Tuesday's (family restaurant chain).

Dude, I had multiple interviews for a freaking McDonald's job. My then to be manager commented upon the fact that I was the only one to come dressed in anything other than street clothes (slacks and a button down shirt) and addressed her as "ma'am."

Wonder if this means I now have what it takes to be the second in command of the country?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2008-09-03 12:08am

More on Palin's church:

Seth Colter Walls/ Huffington Post

After several months of scrutinizing Barack Obama's former place of worship, reporters are now taking a close look at Alaskan churches frequented by presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

As the Huffington Post reported earlier Tuesday, Palin addressed a gathering at the Wasilla Assembly of God, asking them to pray for oil pipeline development and "God's will" in Iraq. Meanwhile, the Boston Herald and Newsweek have both identified Wasilla Bible Church as the Alaska Governor's most recent church. And it was at that Bible Church where a recent guest described a Palestinian attack on Israeli citizens as part of God's judgment coming to pass on Earth -- an analysis likely troubling both to Jews, as well as to mainstream foreign policy analysts.

Describing a trip by his son to Jerusalem, Jews for Jesus founder David Brickner described the a July Palestinian bulldozer attack against Israeli civilians as part of God's "judgment."

That speech, from August 17, is posted on the church's website, along with all other recent addresses delivered to the congregation.

In a talk entitled "The Jerusalem Dilemma," Brickner also went on to describe all of the problems in the Middle East as related to Jerusalem. "But what we see in Israel, the conflict that is spilled through the Middle East, really which is all about Jerusalem, is an ongoing reflection of the fact that there is judgment," Brickner told Palin's church, adding: "Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It's very real. When Isaac [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment -- you can't miss it."

Listen to Brickner here.

Brickner's analysis tracks with various other strains of evangelist Christian eschatology, but finds decidedly less favor in foreign policy circles. With Gov. Palin's views on foreign policy mostly unknown, and the McCain campaign thus far ill disposed to the idea of making her available to the national press, it's unclear how much stock she personally puts in Brickner's theory. An email to the McCain campaign asking for clarification was not immediately returned.

I wonder if the SCLM (so-called liberal media) are going to run this nonstop like they did Rev. Wright.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-09-03 12:19am

Oh good grief.

Well, there had been rumours about it being tied to the CUFI, but it's rare they praise the present murders of Jews. Usually they just wank to Hitler and the Crusades.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2008-09-03 01:25am

Why the hell is Carly Fiorina working for the McCain campaign? I thought she became a pariah for her epic mismanagement of Hewlett Packard. But then, I suppose the Republican party is trying to go with their old strategy of using people with long records of messing things up badly.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-09-03 01:33am

sketerpot wrote:Why the hell is Carly Fiorina working for the McCain campaign? I thought she became a pariah for her epic mismanagement of Hewlett Packard. But then, I suppose the Republican party is trying to go with their old strategy of using people with long records of messing things up badly.

You assume competency a requirement? Hillary Rosen was in Clinton's campaign. The 'Music piracy is a dire threat' Rosen.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2008-09-03 08:55am

Palin's church talk

Jesus will give us a pipeline, Iraq war is a mission from god, god will give you the gift of prophecy....

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-09-03 02:18pm

Ender wrote:Palin's church talk

Jesus will give us a pipeline, Iraq war is a mission from god, god will give you the gift of prophecy....

...

Can these retarded bozos stop talking about 'holy war' in Iraq? Fucking hell...

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-09-03 07:05pm

Yet more.. It's like a parade of errors. Link

Gov. Sarah Palin is already facing ethical questions over her firing of the Alaska public safety commissioner, and now she faces questions over the firing of a longtime local police chief.

After taking over as Mayor of the small town of Wasilla, Palin fired the longtime local police chief. The former police chief, Irl Stambaugh says he was fired because he stepped on the toes of Palin's campaign contributors, including bar owners and the National Rifle Association.

Stambaugh's lawyer, William Jermain, says the chief tried to move up the closing hours of local bars from 5 a.m. to two a.m. after a spurt of drunk driving accidents and arrests.

"His crackdown on that practice by the bars was not appreciated by her and that was one reason she terminated Irl," said Jermain.

In his 1997 lawsuit, Stambaugh also alleged that his stand on restricting concealed weapons upset the NRA.

"Mayor Palin has stated on several occasions that the National Rifle Association encouraged her to fire Chief Stambaugh because of his stance against the concealed weapons legislation," the lawsuit claimed.

Palin says she was up against entrenched insiders when she was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996.

"We had a lot of people that were kind of dead wood," said Colleen Sullivan Leonard, a staff member in Palin's office. "We needed people with new energy and a new vision."

A federal judge later ruled the mayor, under city law, had the right to fire the police chief for any reason she wanted.

Palin is now facing similar allegations in the state capitol, that politics played a role in her firing of the Alaska public safety commissioner, Walter Monegan.

"It has every possibility of giving the Governor an ethical black eye in an area where she's touted herself as being particularly strong," said Alaskan State Senator Hollis French, a Democrat.

At issue is whether Palin fired the public safety commissioner because he refused to fire a state trooper who was the Governor's brother-in-law and going through an ugly divorce with the Governor's sister.

The Governor has denied any wrongdoing or involvement in the matter, but Senator French, who is leading the investigation has his doubts.

"The Governor first issued a blanket denial," said Sen. French, "and now she's had to back down and that's a problem."

Monday, Palin called for the Alaskan Personnel Board to conduct a formal investigation into Monegan's dismissal "to put these matters to rest".

"The idea that there had been no contact and no pressure doesn't stand up," said Sen. French. "Her credibility I think was damaged in that blanket denial."

The McCain campaign says it's clear that some insiders don't like the fact that Palin has been bucking the status quo to implement change.

Strictly speaking, probably no legal issues(The chief was apparently considered an At Will employee), but jeez. Another investigation? She'll lawyer up just like Troopergate and insist the investigative panel be replaced with her own appointees, I suspect.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2008-09-04 10:55am

Every time you hear Palin say something having to do with religion it sounds very honest. I almost think she really believes that stuff. For example that praying for a pipeline will honestly do something good. She is not just pandering to moron masses with low IQs. She really believes it.
This means that she is probably really, really stupid. She comes off as even dumber than George W. Bush plus a good load of naivity. Either that or she´s a really good liar but i suspect the former. Scary.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2008-09-04 11:40am

Yes, she really does believe that stuff. Why do you doubt it?

You know, not everyone who is religious is a moron. If you were raised in an environment where everyone was highly religious and thus you were indoctrinated thoroughly from an early age you certainly could be intelligent and religious at the same time. Doesn't mean I think she's a genius, either, but my initial impression is that she's smarter than the current guy in the Oval Office.

Futhermore, I will at least give her credit for trying to live in accordance with her beliefs. I don't agree with her beliefs, but that's a different question altogether.

As examples, she did not abort her child with Down's syndrome, which is in accordance with her "pro-life" stance. From what little I can see her family is determined to raise that child and give him the best life possible. And I can't argue with that, really.

When her daughter turned up pregnant she did NOT call her a whore and kick her out of the house as all too many people still do, she is, apparently, supporting her in having and raising the kid. This is in accordance with what I think are true "Christian" principles - you may not be happy the teen is pregnant, but you deal with it and continue to love and support your family.

I have a number of serious ideological disagreements with the woman. I don't want her in charge of the country. But she's hardly the stupid bimbo people here are trying to cast her as being.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-09-04 11:49am

salm wrote:Every time you hear Palin say something having to do with religion it sounds very honest. I almost think she really believes that stuff. For example that praying for a pipeline will honestly do something good. She is not just pandering to moron masses with low IQs. She really believes it.
This means that she is probably really, really stupid. She comes off as even dumber than George W. Bush plus a good load of naivity. Either that or she´s a really good liar but i suspect the former. Scary.

It's not as if pandering and "genuine belief" are necessarily mutually exclusive. It just reaffirms the image that she's a hardcore fundie, and is probably one of the big reasons McCain picked her.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-09-04 11:56am

Broomstick wrote: You know, not everyone who is religious is a moron. If you were raised in an environment where everyone was highly religious and thus you were indoctrinated thoroughly from an early age you certainly could be intelligent and religious at the same time. Doesn't mean I think she's a genius, either, but my initial impression is that she's smarter than the current guy in the Oval Office.

Perhaps not stupid in everything, but people inclined to be religious have a tendency to shut their brains off on certain hot-button issues that conflict with their beliefs regardless of how otherwise intelligent seeming they might be.

When her daughter turned up pregnant she did NOT call her a whore and kick her out of the house as all too many people still do, she is, apparently, supporting her in having and raising the kid. This is in accordance with what I think are true "Christian" principles - you may not be happy the teen is pregnant, but you deal with it and continue to love and support your family.

I have to wonder how much of this was genuine concern for your daughter, and concern over her image because if she did kick her out, she'd have yet another scandal on her hands to deal with. Having grown up with fundie relatives I'm extremely skeptical regarding people's intent with this sort of thing.

I have a number of serious ideological disagreements with the woman. I don't want her in charge of the country. But she's hardly the stupid bimbo people here are trying to cast her as being.

We'll see. She hasn't really had the opportunity to fuck up royally yet.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2008-09-04 02:32pm

The Daily Show hits one out of the park with regards to talking heads whining over harshness of Sarah Palin's coverage:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index ... ender-card

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2008-09-04 06:30pm

I think Pollster's is jumping the gun on this one (wait until after the Pulpit Initiative on the 28th takes place) but so far here is the result of Palin being selected:

Kos link

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-09-04 07:05pm

You know, not everyone who is religious is a moron.

This is true.

If you were raised in an environment where everyone was highly religious and thus you were indoctrinated thoroughly from an early age you certainly could be intelligent and religious at the same time.

This is a matter of Potential vs realized intelligence. Intelligence is around 50% heritable. 50% genes, 50% environmental influence. While such a person might have very high potential intelligence, the environment mediated what they actually became and in the case of religious fundamentalists, I am sorry, but their intellect is substantially reduced.

Anyone who can fall for their bullshit that is creationism, or think that a sky fairy is going to intervene to build a pipe line, is either an idiot, or has a few screws loose in their heads.

she's smarter than the current guy in the Oval Office.

That is not very hard. I know ten year olds who are smarter than that man

Futhermore, I will at least give her credit for trying to live in accordance with her beliefs. I don't agree with her beliefs, but that's a different question altogether.

Oh yes, she is perfectly consistent in her insanity

As examples, she did not abort her child with Down's syndrome, which is in accordance with her "pro-life" stance. From what little I can see her family is determined to raise that child and give him the best life possible. And I can't argue with that, really.

I can.

First off, if she was not taking steps to avoid pregnancy while her body was scraping the bottom of the barrel for oocytes. She probably saw an OBGYN at some point who would have informed her of this risk. At her age, she has a 1 in 20 chance of having a down syndrome kid. That is very high risk.

Not only will cognitive and emotional development be slowed massively, but there are a litany of health problems and decreased life expectancy which contribute to a reduced quality of life plus astronomical medical costs.

It is all well and good for her to be raising the child now (though I WOULD have counseled abortion) but she never should have gotten pregnant in the first place.

And frankly, I have little confidence in her ability to deal with a disabled child. After all she decided to withhold information that would have definitely helped her oldest daughter avoid teen prengnancy, the shattering of her dreams, and a shotgun wedding that will probably lead to abuse and or divorce.

When her daughter turned up pregnant she did NOT call her a whore and kick her out of the house as all too many people still do, she is, apparently, supporting her in having and raising the kid. This is in accordance with what I think are true "Christian" principles - you may not be happy the teen is pregnant, but you deal with it and continue to love and support your family.

Making the best of a bad situation is not an excuse for not avoiding the easily avoidable situation in the first place

I have a number of serious ideological disagreements with the woman. I don't want her in charge of the country. But she's hardly the stupid bimbo people here are trying to cast her as being.

SHe may not be a stupid bimbo, per se, but she is delusional, willfully ignorant, and irresponsible.

Pulp Hero · Post by **Pulp Hero** » 2008-09-04 07:05pm

This person is close to having access to nuclear weapons.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2008-09-04 07:09pm

Pulp Hero wrote:This person is close to having access to nuclear weapons.

You know that's a shop, don't you?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-09-04 07:11pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:
Pulp Hero wrote:This person is close to having access to nuclear weapons.
You know that's a shop, don't you?

I was about to say.... I hope that is a shop. Though not an inaccurate one knowing what I know of my home state... the weather is to nice though and outside China Hot Springs there are no outside pools.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2008-09-04 08:02pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
As examples, she did not abort her child with Down's syndrome, which is in accordance with her "pro-life" stance. From what little I can see her family is determined to raise that child and give him the best life possible. And I can't argue with that, really.
I can.

First off, if she was not taking steps to avoid pregnancy while her body was scraping the bottom of the barrel for oocytes. She probably saw an OBGYN at some point who would have informed her of this risk. At her age, she has a 1 in 20 chance of having a down syndrome kid. That is very high risk.

I am started to get REALLY pissed off at the biological ignorance displayed by that sort of statment.

Past 35, oral birth control becomes more and more problematic. While some women can continue to tolerate the Pill through menopause many can NOT. We have no way of knowing which category she fell into.

By her 40's a woman's cycles are becoming irregular. This also complicates birth control.

No birth control method is ever 100% effective.

Therefore you are out of line for assuming she was "doing nothing" to avoid pregnancy.

Or maybe I'm just touchy about this because I am a "late baby", a result of birth control failure in a mother past the age of 35. As it happens, I turned out OK. Skippy. Most such conceptions lead to a normal child even if the risk of problems is higher.

Not only will cognitive and emotional development be slowed massively, but there are a litany of health problems and decreased life expectancy which contribute to a reduced quality of life plus astronomical medical costs.

She is opposed to abortion. It is just as wrong to force a woman to have an abortion as it is to force her to carry an unwanted baby. Pro-choice means I support her choice for her pregnancy, whether or not I agree with her.

Yes, Downs syndrome carries some nasty baggage, but that hardly means it's not a worthwhile life for those who live it, particularly with modern medicine and family support. The degree of impairment is highly variable and it's really too soon to tell how adversely this baby is affected. Chris Burke as an example, is a highly functional person with Down's syndrome and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear that at the moment he's earning a higher salary than I am.

People with disabilities consistently rate their "quality of life" higher than outside observers do. While I would not wish Down's syndrome on anyone, once that person is here I try to be optimistic that they will be one of the lucky ones until proven otherwise.

It is all well and good for her to be raising the child now (though I WOULD have counseled abortion) but she never should have gotten pregnant in the first place.

Again, you out of line here - NO birth control is 100% effective. Given that she's not popping them out every 12-18 months it is a pretty good assumption that she is using SOME form of birth control. It is more likely that she had a birth control failure than a deliberate pregnancy.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2008-09-04 08:21pm

Aside from the vast, vast gulf between my own politics and the frankly insane world view of Palin, I still have a bit of a problem with the handling of the daughter's pregnancy by Palin. Bristol Palin is now famous, country-wide, perhaps world-wide, for being pregnant.

Now everyone paying even the most cursory attention to the US presidential race knows her private business.

It's a personal parenting choice, to be sure, but the moment I find out my 17 year-old child is pregnant, the last thing I am going to do is run for the vice presidency. I'm 44 years old, I'm young and have a long political life ahead of me. This can wait.

It was apparently an open secret in Alaska that the girl was pregnant, but I seriously doubt the story would have had the legs it now has if Palin had just continued to stay governor.

I'm not a parent. But if it were me, well, "Thanks a lot Senator McCain, I'm deeply flattered and honored you would choose me, but I don't think it's a good idea at this time."

I also have my doubts about this supposed desire to get married on the part of Bristol Palin and the boyfriend. I wish them the best, but I don't expect it to last. And I wouldn't be surprised if the boyfriend backs out, somehow. I can't imagine he's all gung-ho about tying the knot and settling down.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-09-04 08:54pm

Past 35, oral birth control becomes more and more problematic. While some women can continue to tolerate the Pill through menopause many can NOT. We have no way of knowing which category she fell into.

By her 40's a woman's cycles are becoming irregular. This also complicates birth control.

No birth control method is ever 100% effective.

Therefore you are out of line for assuming she was "doing nothing" to avoid pregnancy.

Or maybe I'm just touchy about this because I am a "late baby", a result of birth control failure in a mother past the age of 35. As it happens, I turned out OK. Skippy. Most such conceptions lead to a normal child even if the risk of problems is higher.

I am well aware of the problems with hormonal birth control when you start becoming advanced in years. Did I specify a method? No. I did not.

There are these things, they are composed of latex, called condoms they come in both male and female varieties. If other forms of birth control are problematic, they have been shown to be very very effective at reducing the risk of pregnancy if used correctly, and wouldnt you know it, unlike some methods of hormonal birth control, they dont prevent implantation which alleviates some of her abortion anxiety.

I will get back to the 100% effectiveness bit in a second.

It is perfectly OK to be a bit touchy on the subject of reproduction. I am not going to get angry at you over this, as it is... inherently contentions and open to a lot of discussion. My thing is though, people in high risk categories for a wide variety of birth defects, should not be having kids, for the sake of said children.

It is bad for the kid, bad for the parents, bad for the societal pocketbook. Even in the odd case where Downs Syndrome is mild (which is usually caused by a separate genetic mechanism by the way, only part of a chromosome is copied three times instead of the whole thing)

There is the very real possibility that I am abnormally risk averse, comes with being in a high risk sexual category perhaps. Who knows?

Look, if it were just birth control, I would not be so fast to judge. If she has medical problems with hormonal birth control, and does not want to get her tubes tied and is allergic to latex, whatever. it was unfortunate. But if a pattern of behavior can be established that points to the idea that she is an irresponsible person, then there are no excuses.

Look at what she did when she had the kid... her water broke, she gave her speech anyway. Then flew back to alaska, and drove back to wasilla, when she was having a baby significantly prematurely. If she did prenatal testing and knew the kid was going to have downs, then that is an extra layer of irresponsible behavior. If she did not, it is still bad because she is in a high risk category and thus should have.

She, in all likelyhood, denied her daughter information about sex which contributed to her being pregnant. Moreover, she is a vindictive bitch.

When you put all this into perspective, the fact that she is raising the child, ceases to be the one, shining beacon of decency, and starts to make me feel sorry for a kid for whom I already have much pity.

She is opposed to abortion. It is just as wrong to force a woman to have an abortion as it is to force her to carry an unwanted baby. Pro-choice means I support her choice for her pregnancy, whether or not I agree with her.

I have always said there is a difference between supporting someone's decision, and taking a neutral stance on it before they make it. There is a reason I said that I would counsel it. Not that I would want to strap her down and force it upon her.

Yes, Downs syndrome carries some nasty baggage, but that hardly means it's not a worthwhile life for those who live it, particularly with modern medicine and family support.

Support this one will be at least somewhat deprived of during the min 4 years of moms vice presidency if she wins...

The degree of impairment is highly variable and it's really too soon to tell how adversely this baby is affected. Chris Burke as an example, is a highly functional person with Down's syndrome and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear that at the moment he's earning a higher salary than I am.

I have known a lot of people with Downs, and none of them have ever approached his level of functionality. The condition is highly variable, and with modern medicine, the average life expectancy is around 50 now. But still, we live in a society where we can, one way or another, control our reproduction. Is it responsible to knowingly put yourself in a position where the risk to your child becomes that high? Where they have a 5% chance of having a debilitating disorder? Bear in mind, I am a utilitarian and that determines my answer, which is no. (as utilitarianism forces me to maximize utility, not just...not...minimize it)

People with disabilities consistently rate their "quality of life" higher than outside observers do. While I would not wish Down's syndrome on anyone, once that person is here I try to be optimistic that they will be one of the lucky ones until proven otherwise.

Self reports are interesting that way. I hate to sound trite, but there are all manner of biases that could go into that which might nullify the results.

I do prefer to be optimistic when a person is here. On the other hand, when it comes to the decisions that led to that person being here.... they often times end up being... unfortunate.

It is more likely that she had a birth control failure than a deliberate pregnancy.

I will wait to hear back on that. I would love to think it was a failure of birth control (it would restore some of my faith in humanity) but seeing as the chances are good that she opposes reproductive decision making.... I will partially abdicate my position and withhold judgement

Aratech · Post by **Aratech** » 2008-09-04 09:24pm

Sriad wrote:The Daily Show hits one out of the park with regards to talking heads whining over harshness of Sarah Palin's coverage:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index ... ender-card

Ouch... that's going to hurt. I can just see the temples throbbing from the McSame camp.

*forwards link to friends and relatives*