Starrfall on 30/8/2008 at 04:31
Quote Posted by heretic
But keep on going, as Obama seems to have flourished despite similar attacks. Which is probably akin to what Flower was getting at.
I don't think people are attacking her so much as pointing out the McCain campaign's gigantic hypocrisy in harping on experience for weeks and then coming up with a half-term governor of a state with fewer people than many cities who also happens to have about as much foreign policy experience as you or I.
The_Raven on 30/8/2008 at 04:40
Quote Posted by heretic
Have you seen her?
Wouldn't you?
Librarians are so naughty; when you get them going, they'll start putting books away without any consideration to the proper Dewey decimal order. It's so hot. :ebil:
heretic on 30/8/2008 at 04:45
Quote Posted by Starrfall
I don't think people are attacking her so much as pointing out the McCain campaign's gigantic hypocrisy in harping on experience for weeks and then coming up with a half-term governor of a state with fewer people than many cities who also happens to have about as much foreign policy experience as you or I.
That's quite valid, and hypocrisy deserves all of the ire it brings.
I was specifically addressing some of the comments that make her sound like a character off of Northern Exposure. As charming as that would be I highly doubt that's the case. I will stop short of defending her as the VP pick though..it goes without saying, that took everyone by surprise as far as I can determine.
Starrfall on 30/8/2008 at 04:47
Well to be fair I thought SHE was the one talking about moose hunting and dogsledding ;)
Ghostly Apparition on 30/8/2008 at 05:29
Quote Posted by heretic
I wouldn't count on it, but yeah..he can use the Bobby Kennedy or Neil Kinnock quips that he nicked back when Palin was probably still developing her chops on the High School debate team.
Seriously..she may not add in to making an electable ticket at this time, but she is not exactly the lame duck that a lot of folks suggest that she is either, VP material or not.
But keep on going, as Obama seems to have flourished despite similar attacks. Which is probably akin to what Flower was getting at.
I'm quite sure she is probably a wonderful person, But the point of all this election business is to elect a team capable of governing a country of 300 million people. Not only that but with the economic problems the Bush administration is leaving and 2 wars plus a crisis in Georgia. I for one am absolutely not comfortable with a person of her extreme inexperience a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Btw: an electable ticket at this time is what we are talking about.
Obama has been through 19 months of a very grueling election process, she has a couple months to be ready. I just don't think she is.
My god, when you think about it, all the tripe the republicans threw at Hillary and now they think this political newcomer is ready to be VP.
Its pandering to the woman vote, pure and simple. Hillary has more experience in her pinky finger than this woman has.
demagogue on 30/8/2008 at 06:04
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Well to be fair I thought SHE was the one talking about moose hunting and dogsledding ;)
She does talk about hunting all the time; her love for the NRA, hunting, fishing (her career before politics), and all things po-dunk was a selling point. I don't think she's stupid or incompetent, though.
Quote Posted by GA
Its pandering to the woman vote, pure and simple.
That still doesn't explain why
her (as opposed to someone like KB Hutchinson). My thinking is ... she's best known for 3 things, and all of them fit into place at just the right time. Aside from military affairs, McCain's two passions in politics are anti-corruption (campaign finance, etc.) and cutting pork. And Palin's original claim to fame was exactly these two things. And the third thing is her being known for energy policy when gas prices are high.
I think on the first two things he felt some sort of ideological kinship and thought it would complement his whole "maverick"/clean up Washington campaign line (which he has to take if he's the incumbent party following a deeply unpopular president), in just the way that Obama's VP pick doesn't complement his line ("change" but he picks a long-term Senator) ... And her being female and the energy connection was a bonus, at the right place and time (also allows him to get the "pro-AK-drilling" in without him committing to it himself).
That was my impression in thinking he's doing this as much for himself running some Platonically ideal campaign because it's his turn rather than because he actually wants to run a nation of 300 million. If you want to win, you pick a VP that covers your vulnerabilities, the whole "complementary" thing. I see a little logic there, but I'm still wondering who she appeals to that would otherwise be turned away from McCain. For Obama, it's more clear.
ravoll on 30/8/2008 at 08:03
Don`t know if this has already been adressed in another thread or not.I only read a few.I Am an American citizen living in the BRD.Bundes Republik Deutschland.Is and always will be,with or without the Berlin wall.
Have been following the U.S. elections every time they come around for the last 18 years.It gets stupider every time.Candidates promising things that are soon forgotten,as soon as they are in office,Candidates backed by the weapons industrie ect.. and all the political mudslingen and bad mouthing that goes with elections.Now we have a black man asking for "change".
Obama claims to want some form of a social system in America.Does any one
understand what the price of a social system is.Here are a few things to think about, based what I deal with day to day.
1)There will be no overtime wages,but the overtime hours will still be worked:
A social system is strongly based upon the needs of the finacially weaker citizens.The logic here is ,if an employer can afford to pay time and a half to his workers, then he or she should be using that money to hire and pay someone that can`t find a job.This leads to the employies that he or she has
having to work longer hours for the same pay
2) Normal wages will be generally lower than they are now:
In a social system,
the employer and the employed both pay into the system 50/50.Thats health insurance, unemployment insurance,and retirement.Then comes income tax.The employee pays tax on his earnings while the employer pays tax on what he pays his employee.This generally leads to lower wages,and inadvertently contibutes to the unemployment rate because it is just to expensive to hire new people.
A little note on retirement:The money you pay for retirement is not for your retirement,it`s for the people that are currently retired.It may not and probably will not be there when you yourself retire.
3) The retirement ages rise : In Germanys social system, one of the rules for retirement at 65 is that you have worked for at least 40 years.If not then you will not recieve full benefits,if thereare any left to be recieved.
Because of the fact that people are indeed living longer and healthier,the Retirement age will most likely be raised to 67 here shortly.This also makes it difficult for a younger person just entering the job market to find employment,because the job place he needs is filled 2 years longer.
( A dark note on retirement:Pay into the system for 40 years,or until you´re 67 ,retire,draw your retirement for 2 to 3 years ,and then die.Get the picture? you will never get out what you paid in)
4) Socialized medicine sound good ? Think again:The already expensive medical system will be faced with having to treat people that have payed very little by comparison into the system itself.Therefore medical care must be kept cheap.The best and most effctive way to reduce cost is to reduce
the quality of care.Plain and simple.
I know that Americans don`t run to the doctor for every little fart that gets caught sideways.Unlike some people here.But the human mentality says "If I`ve payed for it ,I´m going to use it".This kind of thinking will drive medical cost way up,resulting in even lower quality.the only way to curb a drop in quality is to raise health insurance.this means you pay more for the same sorry care.:tsktsk:
I Know there is somebody out ther that does`nt believe me, or is thinking,"Its only these 4 little drawbacks", but it`s not.A social system cannot function
on these alone.Germany has since the early 50`s been living high on the hog within there system.In the last 10 years or so they have been struggling to keep there system upright.Our social insurance cost has been climbing steadily,while the benefits and wages sink.The revenue generated from the
payments into the system are`nt enough.They have had to find other by way of road tolls, ecological taxes and things the government don`t even tell us.I pay close to 500 Euros a month(about 630 Dollars) on social benefits and income tax.
All I have to say is if anyone asking for "change" gets in office,All you will have left is "change"
jay pettitt on 30/8/2008 at 09:30
It just ain't that one sided - otherwise you could use all those arguments against educating people. There is good reason (ie empirical evidence) to believe that investing in education, health and social infrastructures will produce increased productivity, wealth, health, improved quality of life and so on. There is no empirical evidence that I can find - and I have tried looking (the assumption is nearly always based on work by Keeney how identified a relation between wealth and health but not cause) - that supports the assumption that increased wealth causes improved health, productivity and so on. It would appear that little oft' repeated chestnut is a fallacy, yet it underpins a hell of a lot of conservative policy thinking; it certainly hasn't been seen working too well over the last 8 years. It is good health and good education which cause wealth, not the other way around.
I think a lot of people are aware that education and health costs, but are also aware how much not having those things costs - and they do the math. You're not frittering money away by spending it on health and education - you are making an investment that will pay returns. To say wages will go down ignores the economic growth that results from that investment.
SlyFoxx on 30/8/2008 at 13:05
I'll be here 11/5 to laugh at many of you.:D
