Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:41 am Post subject: Sarah Palin Resigns | |
|
She's stepping down as Alaska Governor at the end of the month.
Made this long rambling almost incoherent speech on a Friday before a three day weekend and that prior to a Monday and Tuesday when Michael Jackson will shove her off the front pages making this one of the biggest "News Dump" days ever. The speech really said nothing at all about why but Alaskan reporter and contributor to Brad Blog, Shannyn Moore, has found locals who are talking about a major embezzlement indictment coming up soon for her. None of this has been confirmed by any investigative agency so take it with a grain of salt for now, but it's breaking rather quickly. According to those local sources, much of the materials used to build her new house came from the same vendors and contractors that were used to build the huge Wasilla Sports Complex in her home town which was built at the same time as her house. The blurb said the materials include the wood, windows and "other materials. Again, there is no confirmation as to this being the cause for the resignation... I include it because it IS part of the story coming out. |
|
Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 773
Location: CA
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:57 am Post subject: | |
| I think it may be family reasons. After all, who will take care of her grandson while Bristol finishes her education? | |
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 445
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:13 pm Post subject: | |
|
Ironically enough as I view this right below was a banner ad for her PAC...go figure.
I lean to the right but this women was well...um...embarrasing. She never said she can see Russia from her house. However stringing up a degree by going to nearly eight or so schools is a bit odd. I can see two, three..maybe four but not eight. Naming a child "Trig"? That...that's just odd...that's like Frank Zappa odd Alaska is different in that the allocation of resources is largely based on oil. The oil dividend is given out to people to compensate them. I'm not saying that someone from Alaska is too detached to actually run or become president. However palin just didn't make sense. It was the identity concept that probably caused her to get picked...dems try the black vote...hillary isn't the vp...ok fine grab a women governer... |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: | |||
I think anyone with any brains ever thought she said that. Just like Al Gore never claimed to have "invented" the Internet. That's just political spin as practiced by all politicians and parties. But she did say enough and make enough inferences so as to cause one to seriously question her cognitive processes in relation to her capacity to be the most powerful person in the world. I think her selection by the GOP was more along the lines of trying to present a picture of someone that was of the "common" people, someone you wouldn't mind "having a beer with". Someone who, if elected. would be little more than a good little puppet who would go go along quietly, doing the dirty work and taking the flak for those behind the curtain, who were actually running the country. For that, you need someone with a rather limited vision and a less than perfect grasp of the realities of politics who will do anything to be the center of attention and create some kind of "legacy" for themselves. After all that scenario worked fine for them from 2000-2008 as we're finding out more and more every time Dick Cheney opens his mouth. They simply failed to understand how the selection of this person, a person who is perhaps TOO common and whose "family values".... lord, I hate that term... were so out of sync with the image the party was trying to project would affect them and to what extent. The Republicans CREATED Sarah Palin... they coached her, dressed her, packaged and marketed her like a box of chocolates... and now she was refusing to go back in the box. The only thing the Republicans really have going for them right now is the radical fringe that they will always be able to depend on for whatever they need... be it organizing "tea Parties" or actually inciting mobs to violence... represented by Limbaugh, O'reilly, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, etc,... and the religious fundamentalists upon which they maintain at best a tenuous hold and that only on the extreme right fringes also. The simple fact is that the majority of honest, hard working Americans do NOT fit in that little fringe designated pigeon hole and, as a majority are becoming weary of those that do and who demand... and get... all the attention from our corporate press. Hence, Obama's win by a bigger majority than Bush got in either of his victories even though he touted both of those victories as some kind of overwhelming "mandate" or as he put it, "political capitol to burn". Remember that Mr. Bush... and the right wing talking heads... inferred that his meager "victories" indicated that some kind of overwhelming majority favored his policies even though in the first election, MORE than half of those voting actually voted AGAINST him and in the second... against possibly one of the least popular candidates ever fielded by the Democrats... he barely eked out a majority of the popular vote. The fringe Republicans either didn't care that they did NOT have a mandate to run roughshod over the country for the next eight years or they were simply too stupid to see it and to foresee the backlash they would be creating as they did so. Either way, the results... in both 2006 and ultimately in 2008... was the soundest drubbing and the loudest rebuke they had suffered in decades. What was/is their answer to an election that saw many moderate Republicans... if not actually moved to vote across party lines... NOT voting for the McCain/Palin ticket, thereby giving President Obama the clearest majority we've seen in years? Why they simply moved even farther to the right and ramped up the hateful rhetoric both in volume and in intensity, going through all manner of histrionics and over the top public hissy fits, melodramatic breast beating and wailing and gnashing of teeth seldom seen outside of a middle school drama club presentation o Dirty Work At The Crossroads. Sarah Palin was part of it. The Republicans have simply got to quit putting their emphasis on the right wing fringe, the KKK types and other white supremacy groups, the radical "militias" who look at anything that remotely smacks of law and order as government "interference" in their right to run things as they see fit. These people are fringe elements for a reason. Drop the "Joe the Plumber" types... also created out of whole cloth by the Republican packagrs... who will do or say anything for their 15 minutes of fame. Move away from the hateful, bigoted and even outright racist dirtbags who simply get off on big guns, power trips and blowing away people who don't look or think just like they do. That kind of stuff gets old after a while, that's all and it's old now but they keep right on doing it and they keep right on alienating voters by doing it as the repudiation of McCain/Palin by a clear majority shows us. But they don't understand any of this and instead keep marketing the old failed rhetoric in new packages. Such a package was Sarah Palin. And then... after helping to deliver one of the soundest drubbings the Republicans had suffered in a couple of decades... Palin refused to go away. She had been, for a while, one of the most famous people in the country and like a child star that can't get a job as an adult, she wasn't going to give it up. In her demand for attention I don't think she really realized to what extent she was inviting scrutiny... especially since she was rapidly falling out of favor with the party elite, who, up to that point had been protecting her from a lot of it but who now appeared to be fervently wishing that a tree would fall on her on one of her moose hunts. If... and it's still a very big IF at this point... her abrupt resignation... for which her speech indicates that she was NOT prepared even though she claimed it had been in the works for months... WAS due to impending indictments or charges of criminal misdeeds or whatever... she has nobody but herself to blame for it. |
|||
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 464
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:31 pm Post subject: | |
|
Maybe it was a recent trip, or trips, to Argentina...
Oh no, wait that was another Governor. 
|
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:01 am Post subject: | |
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 464
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:29 am Post subject: | |||
Ah... So now we all know, hadn't seen it on FoxNews yet so it must be true. 
|
|||
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 445
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:52 pm Post subject: | |
|
"Remember that Mr. Bush... and the right wing talking heads... inferred that his meager "victories" indicated that some kind of overwhelming majority favored his policies even though in the first election, MORE than half of those voting actually voted AGAINST him and in the second... against possibly one of the least popular candidates ever fielded by the Democrats... he barely eked out a majority of the popular vote."
Well the electoral college is what really matters. In 1912, 1916, 1948, 1960, 1992 and 1996 the president that won didn't win the popular vote. Heck wilson one time had a mere 40% and still won. As sad as it sounds someone can choose to lose complete sections of the country and still win. As for Kerry I don't like the guy but I think it was really his campaign managers that screwed up. He had some significant sections in his background that would sell but he never used them. Also it is hard say you are a war hero and then anti war hero. He was the one that brought down BCCI in the late 80's which if you ever want to read about a really shady bank that was it. It's one thing to rip off the general public..it's another to have dictators and terrorists as depositors! "Either way, the results... in both 2006 and ultimately in 2008... was the soundest drubbing and the loudest rebuke they had suffered in decades." Well they lost the majority in congress in 2006. Granted it wasn't fillibuster proof but still "What was/is their answer to an election that saw many moderate Republicans... if not actually moved to vote across party lines... NOT voting for the McCain/Palin ticket, thereby giving President Obama the clearest majority we've seen in years?" Obama won by 5%. it wasn't a landslide by any means. However what you said can ring true. It isn't a matter of who wants to be president but who wants to be president now? Many presidents come in with some problems but without a doubt Obama has far more in his plate than anyone since FDR. "The Republicans have simply got to quit putting their emphasis on the right wing fringe, the KKK types and other white supremacy groups, the radical "militias" who look at anything that remotely smacks of law and order as government "interference" in their right to run things as they see fit. These people are fringe elements for a reason." kkk types? Senator Byrd is the only one in government that was in the kkk and he's a democrat. He's repented about that hundreads of times. The only other one I can think of is david duke and he did some really shady stuff in running in Louisiana but he's switched parties time and again and no one would touch him with a ten foot pole now. In the past there has been some racist ads. in '88 there was the willy horton thing..actually al gore brought that up against dukakis but it continued to float. Unfortuatly much of the government these days doesn't run under the concept of law and order. Examining the constitution you can find many things that are obviously out of sync if not outright illegal. If we followed law and order the patriot act wouldn't have ever been signed, congress hasn't made a declaration of war in over 60 years etc. I think Palin's political careear is over gone etc. This is like Gary Heart without a scandle (maybe there's embezzlements I'm not sure). For the life of me I have no clue who will run in 2012 for either side. Obviously many will think that obama will run for reelection but maybe he might pull a lbj and say no thanks. I can't picture biden running for office, I highly doubt hillary would make a run... The public generally won't feel effects of economic growth until the long run. So the very same things republicans said in the 80's and 90's are being said by the democrats now. Trickled down economics again..when hw bush was leaving office there was some signs of a economic recovery but it was way too small for the public to notice. Likewise that's probably what we are going to see with obama assuming things flatten and turn around a tad |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:20 pm Post subject: | |||
Somehow I just KNEW... I would have bet the farm... that when I mentioned the fact that Bush had lost the popular vote... which was intended to refute his claim of a "mandate"... that we were going to get a lecture on the electoral college. 
This was NOT a statement about whether Bush had won the elections or not and I'm quite aware of the electoral college, thank you. This was a statement about Mr. Bush and his handlers claiming that... if I understand the terms "mandate" and "polticial capital" correctly... the majority of Americans favored the policies that eventually led us to where we stand today... even though he received an actual MINORITY of the popular vote in 2000 and his "majority" in 2004, as stated in percentage points, was less than the accepted margin for error in most polling processes. Nobody claimed that Obama won by a landslide... nobody even inferred that... all I said was that he had won by a larger majority than Mr. Bush had received in the previous two elections and that pretty much any candidate had won in recent memory and that by the Republicans' own reason in 2000 and 2004, he had a larger "mandate" (the quotes are there to let you know that I don't think HE has a "mandate" either) than Mr. Bush had. Clear enough this time? This was meant to point out the huge differences between what the Republicans claimed in 2000 and 2004 when THEY squeaked two very narrow victories out... and what they're saying now in regard to a president who at least managed to exceed the margin for error. In other words... I was talking about the TOTAL hypocrisy being displayed.
Dovell... how do you mange to post so much information in a response that has nothing to do with the subject you're responding too? I don't NEED a history lesson. I can match you name for name in coming up with Racist southern Democrats over the years and Byrd ius nothing but a holdover from another era. My God, how old IS the man anyway? As a matter of fact, prior to the Johnson era, virtually all of the most famous racist redneck southern governors and senators of note WERE Democrats... Maddox and Wallace are just two that pop immediately to mind, but the Democrats were the bastion of everything I noted in that statement up until the civil rights legislation was passed during a Democratic administration and they abandoned the Democratic party for "betraying the principals of the Democratic party. After a few years of wandering in the Wilderness and screwing around as "Independents" and coming up with a few failed third parties, they found themselves attracted to the "new" Republican party which was in the midst of being taken over by a whole new breed of "conservatives" and today, we have an almost complete reversal of roles as regards the two major parties. When you dig back into ancient history or come up with some wrinkled old living fossil to try to tell me that the Democrats have had their share of racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, fundamentalist, anti-labor, numb nutted idiots, you're preaching to the choir. I grew up when the roles of the cores of both parties were reversed in many aspects. But twhat was then now is now and neither of the parties today are what they were yesterday. I was a Republican for almost 40 years until I realized that the Neoliberals of the 30s and 40s had evolved into the Neoconservatives of today and that they had basically usurped the Republican party, largely by playing up to the same groups I listed in the paragraph above. I spurned the Democrats early on for just those philosophies and now I spurn the Republicans for EXACTLY the same reasons. Simple as that. So whenever I mention something that a Republican is doing... it's not really necessary to point out that some Democrat has done the same thing simply because it has no bearing whatsoever on what the Republican is doing. It's neither cause nor effect and is therefore irrelevant to it altogether. As an aside... I also mention the malfeasance of Democrats on these boards as often as I can find stories to post on it and you know, there's a funny thing about that. So far, not ONCE... when I have listed a story on a Democrat somehow being a crook or a twit... has anyone jumped up and started giving me examples of Republicans "doing it too" as if it was some kind of justification for what the Democrat has done. Not once has anyone decided I needed some kind of history lesson showing that Republicans are just as bad, if not worse, than the Democrats. It is ALWAYS exactly the opposite... I wonder why that is.
|
|||
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 445
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: | |
|
The other thing I was just thinking of isn't so much of obamas background but simply his age.
Looking at some of the ages of presidents over the years I think we're going to see at most the next ones in office being 55 years old. I can't picture (age wise) someone 60+ getting in. |
|
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 6045
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:22 am Post subject: NOT TRUE | |
|
BULLWINKLE DEAD ???????
NOOOOoooo , no it can't be . NOOOOoooo -NOT TRUE NOOOOoooooo... As soon as I saw that article/pictures of her in Runners World I knew it was game on ready or not . Not that I am complaing but her attire wasn't an accident nor was the choice of Runners World Magazine . Love see some demographics on that magazine and runners in general . |
|
Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 269
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:12 pm Post subject: | |
|
Some oddball, random quotes from her about her resignation. Somehow, in her world, sticking it out would have made her a quitter?
When she made her announcement she was resigning because staying would have made her a quitter? "That's the quitters way out. It would be apathetic to just kind of hunker down and go with the flow. We're fishermen. We know that only dead fish go with the flow." Ack. Ok, this one was something about basketball.... "A good point guard, here's what she does: She drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her head up because she needs to keep her eyes on the basket and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can win. That's exactly what I'm doing." It's probably a good thing for the country that the republican ticket missed. She has held two state wide positions now in Alaska. First, as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation, from which she resigned, and now as Governor of Alaska. She is two for two. |
|
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 445
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:00 pm Post subject: | |
|
On MSNBC's Morning Joe. Joe was pressed a bit because it seems that he knows more than he gave on...
He implied that it might be that palin will get a late night tv show. I'm assuming she gets something on fox news late at night maybe 11 or midnight. |
|
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1700
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:33 pm Post subject: | |
|
She's a good little GOPer... doing exactly what the GOP tells her to do. That's MHO, anyway. The GOP wants rid of her.
SHE is, afterall, the major reason Obama won the election. Think about it. P.S. Ain't it peculiar that certain subjects, such as Palin and Sanford don't find their way to other 'neighborly' sites? LOL Too hot to handle? Too truthful or just too damned dirty? I think it's too real. No argument or defense. And the pigs squeal quietly.
|
|
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 445
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:27 pm Post subject: | |||
there has been some polling information that confirms that. Basically it showed popularity of the presidential canidates and vp's...palin skyrocketed...then crashed when she started to open her mouth....and when she fell that brought mccain down with her I don't think anyone on the left really cared who the vp was but most knew it wasn't going to be hillary. |
|||
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1700
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:09 pm Post subject: | |||
Absolute BULLSEYE. With Hillary out of the running, I was most certainly one of those undecideds carefully looking at the McCain ticket. But a couple of weeks after her name surfaced, and she began to disgustingly puppet for the GOP, she totally lost me. Actually, the choice angered me. As a female, I felt patronized - and turned completely away from the McCain ticket. I've always said I vote for the person, not the party. Though to hear some - I'm just a monkey faced blabbering dem. At any rate, I feel quite confident that the 5% victory was 'caused' by Palin, visa ve McCain. They caused their own political death. That's why I find Republican crying quite ironic. And tells me the GOP is terribly out of touch with the American public. |
|||
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:11 am Post subject: | |
|
We rolled further along the road to a corporate dictatorship in the eight years from 2000 to 2008 than we had gone in the preceding fifty years combined. We will NOT return to the country we had 50-60 years ago until we start undoing some of the wrongs that have been done during that time and I don't know if you've noticed this or not but neither of the major parties is interested in doing that.
Successive Republican administrations since 1980 AND... (this ought yo make certain people's heads explode) the Clinton administration... did nothing but exacerbate the already deteriorating conditions for the lower and middle classes and in 2000, with margins of victory you could have shoved through a keyhole, the Republicans decided it was time to take the gloves off and that the time was ripe for they and their corporate masters to start taking on a major scale. And they took and they took and they took laying waste to the economy like Sherman did the South in his infamous march to the sea. And now, it's time for the Democrats... in the whole sordid mess up to their damned necks all along... to let us know that they don't give diddly squat either because they're leagued with the same damned corporations and private interests that the Republicans are and have been all along. It doesn't matter... health care, big bank bailouts, corporate crime, corrupt politicians, graft, favoritism, pork, tainted goods from thug run dictatorships, corporations owning all of the major information outlets and using them to suppress the outlets they can't control... nobody who benefits from such a system WANTS to do anything to change that system and our politicians definitely benefit from it. |
|
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 445
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:21 pm Post subject: | |
|
What gets to me sometimes is these people that still cling to the aspect that only one party gets it. Some get misinformation and treat it as if it were real.
One guy told me the other day he thought clinton was good because of this whole surplus that he supposedly had and claimed that we haven't had one prior since andrew jackson...unfortuatly that's incorrect. Much of the budgets had social security and medicare off the books...with those on it nullified much of that claim. Then there's some that don't...really...get it because they simply didn't seen it. The 90's might have been good for some if they simply watched friends and seinfeld and went to starbucks. Much of the midwest was gutted in terms of manufacturing (chainsaw al of sunbeam) Then there's some I've talked to that imply we can give a blank check to the military but only question actions if they involve war. That really doesn't make sense. When actions become preceived as being good or bad soley because of who is in power that leads to bad policy...always. |
|
Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 269
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:15 pm Post subject: | |||
Why do people still claim they were "off the books"? They weren't off the books at all. What he did, if people would bother to look, is use the surplus from the two to pay down debt. It was a horrible idea, as there should never, ever be anything labled a "surplus", it was our money dammit. That money shouild have never been touched. We knew back then both were facing future crisis. But, they were not "off the books". What Clinton also did was raise taxes more than any spending increases. He just played the percentage game. He is also culpible in my book for our current financial crisis. Gramm and his cronies deserve a great deal, probably the lionshare of the credit, but Clinton didn't help himself any with folks like Larry Summers help craft our Wall Street GDP take-over. |
|||
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:58 pm Post subject: | |
|
Calapso is right.
Clinton will forever be on my public enemies list if for nothing else than NAFTA. If you had to point to the one corporate/government rip off that has been the biggest contributor to the economic downfall of this country, it's that one. This opened the door for GM and Chrysler... just two examples out of literally hundreds ... to move all of their assets that were worth diddly squat... not to mention billions in infrastructure improvements and thousands of jobs... to flipping Mexico and then come begging to the American taxpayer for help with what was left in this country on the basis of what our failure to pay for their mistakes would do to American workers. Any American corporation who chose to take their business elsewhere so as to exploit the abundance of virtual slave labor in emerging countries... NOT in order to pass on the lower costs to the consumer in the form of affordable prices but solely to pad the direct return to the company big shots and institutional shareholders... should have been arbitrarily barred from any of the bailout funds. If we had anything remotely resembling honest government in this country for the last 30 years, that would have been the case. We didn't and it wasn't. Those of you who always seem to feel the necessity for trying to "explain" why X does this by telling us how Y did that some time in the prehistoric past... bloviate all you want to but as far as I'm concerned we were sold out, and that is always going to be the bottom line for me as far as Clinton is concerned. |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:58 am Post subject: | |
|
|
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1700
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:58 am Post subject: | |
That's^ more fact than fiction.
|
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:03 am Post subject: | |
|
Most of what he does is more fact than fiction.
|
|