Ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (Official)

[Steve19]

Originally Posted by BrutuStrength

I think I clarified my reasoning quite clearly when I said:
"So regarding my choosing between the 2 options, I'd pick her because her ideas are better at a fundamental level than his are, and I believe she'll come along just fine."

So between picking someone that is articulate, but whom I believe will not reign in spending and will raise taxes, versus someone who is not having the easiest time handling interviews thus far, but is someone whom I believe has the intention to reign in spending and will not raise taxes, then I can overlook certain things. Just as many Obama supporters overlook parts of his past (previous drug use, crazy pastor affiliation, etc.).

If Obama's interviews and debates give you a stiffy, then by all means, vote for him. Frankly, I don't believe he is prepared to lead us as a nation (not in a positive sense). My vote will be for McCain, I think he's ready. The fact that his runningmate is inexperienced in the national spotlight is something that I am willing to accept because I think he is the better candidate by far.

Even comparing Palin to her direct counterpart, Biden, I would pick her because I have a fundamental disagreement with his views. Experience be damned. I'd rather take a chance on a relative unknown than vote for something that I know I won't like. Unlike some others, I think it's lunacy to vote for a candidate who's spent most of his career running for his next job.

This isn't about being articulate to me. Palin is just seriously misinformed. She mouths trite sayings and shouts the odds about how stupid everyone else is.

After watching two interviews with her, I'm thinking George Bush with a 1950s hairdo and halfway decent figure. In the end, choosing her may be the thing that swings my vote the other way.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by Steve19

This isn't about being articulate to me. Palin is just seriously misinformed. She mouths trite sayings and shouts the odds about how stupid everyone else is.

After watching two interviews with her, I'm thinking George Bush with a 1950s hairdo and halfway decent figure. In the end, choosing her may be the thing that swings my vote the other way.

I am not one, typically, to base my vote on who the running mate is, but with McCain's age and less than clean bill of health, it is my view that the Palin choice - and examination of her credentials - more important.

I was not a fan of George Bush the first, but when one thought of voting for the aged Regan, one at least had the sense that - while maybe disagreeing with him - he was competent for the job. Palin is not competent. There is time left, so she could "wow" me, but the chips are stacked against her for sure.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by AKAKBUCK

So, what happens when the rich all change their addresses and work from their laptops in the Turks And Caicos?

As for the super rich, they'll continue to earn interest on their tax free bonds and not pay taxes... or work.

Why does it have to be black or white? I am not arguing we should tax them out of America. I'm saying loopholes need to be examined and closed with that "found" money being applied to our horrid economic situation.

On the other, Tax the bonds then.

Originally Posted by Bucklion

Dude, valium. I was only saying that Obama is proposing many of the same budgetary things...I don't think he'll blalance ther budget either. Remember, both parties get about 90% of their money from the same places, and most of them are rich people.

I could care less about taxing the rich, because I'm nowhere [censored]ing close. I'm scraping to get by like everyone else...I've just never seen any benefits from all these wonderful programs the left likes that are supposedly going to make us normal folks have sweet smelling rose lives either. Raise the highest income brackets and cut some useless [censored]ing spending sounds good to me.

Sorry, BL, I didn't mean to come off as if I was attacking you. I agree that the dems are not necessarily knights in shining armor here, and at the end of the day, you and I share the same position, more or less, as articulated in your last sentence.

[CCI]

Just my 2 cents, vote for position, not people.

I just happened to be on campus today, around the OSU Medical Center. While waiting to be seen for my appt., I picked up a copy of The Lantern. LadyB and I got a kick out of this particular editorial...

Quote from The Lantern:

"Dear Lantern Editor,
Yesterday afternoon I was helping the Obama campaign to register students to vote at the numbers plaza. As I was placing one young woman's registration form into the envelope for the Board of Elections, she announced that she was planning to vote for Senator McCain. I asked her what issues were important to her in this election. She answered that she liked McCain because he was steadfast, that he really stuck to what he believed in. She then volunteered that she liked Sarah Palin too, because she was a real person with a family.
All 4 candidates on the presidental ticket are real people with families. As voters what we need to focus on is not their personalities but what their policies have been and are likely to be in the oval office, and on how those policies will affect our own very real (and much less affluent) families and the interest of our country as a whole. Please check and try to find out how their records in office match their campaign claims, McCain for instance, has indeed been steadfast in voting against women's reproductive rights and protecting the environment, but he has flip-flopped on the issue of legalizing the use of torture by our government, though eventually he voted to support the Bush Administration.
Watch the debates. Look at the websites of non-profit organizations you support. Inform yourselves before you vote! Young people have more at stake than any other voting group."

On Sarah Palin
"I find it unbelievable that anyone would seriously consider this woman ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency-especially with a 72-year old person as the potential leader of the free world and especially at this point in time with the international situation and our economic crises."

On McCain and Obama's Tax Stances

"Think ahead for your future. Why should a person be taxed higher just because they are successful and earn higher salaries? Why should they be taxed so the money can be given to those who would rather take government hand outs than work for a living?"

"Yes, because clearly the 7%+ Ohioans who are not working are choosing not to. Do some basic research and lean about those with disabilities, those who could not afford a higher education, and those who are spending months job-hunting to no avail. Jee, why should the rich help those people? Perhaps because not everyone is as self-absorbed as you and they understand the concept of community."

[daddyphatsacs]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

II was not a fan of George Bush the first, but when one thought of voting for the aged Regan, one at least had the sense that - while maybe disagreeing with him - he was competent for the job. Palin is not competent. There is time left, so she could "wow" me, but the chips are stacked against her for sure.

Agreed.

I don't think that it helps McCain to have his running mate become the butt of the late night tv jokes. It is not doing a good job of swaying the moderate voter. That is what they are fighting for, that middle 10-15 percent of votes. What's most sad is that they can almost use her quotes word for word when they parody her. I feel like I'm watching "W" if he was a chick, and pulled onto the national stage when governor of Texas for a year or two. The kind of thought haunts my dreams at night.

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by CCI

Just my 2 cents, vote for position, not people.

I just happened to be on campus today, around the OSU Medical Center. While waiting to be seen for my appt., I picked up a copy of The Lantern. LadyB and I got a kick out of this particular editorial...

Quote from The Lantern:

"Dear Lantern Editor,
Yesterday afternoon I was helping the Obama campaign to register students to vote at the numbers plaza. As I was placing one young woman's registration form into the envelope for the Board of Elections, she announced that she was planning to vote for Senator McCain. I asked her what issues were important to her in this election. She answered that she liked McCain because he was steadfast, that he really stuck to what he believed in. She then volunteered that she liked Sarah Palin too, because she was a real person with a family.
All 4 candidates on the presidental ticket are real people with families. As voters what we need to focus on is not their personalities but what their policies have been and are likely to be in the oval office, and on how those policies will affect our own very real (and much less affluent) families and the interest of our country as a whole. Please check and try to find out how their records in office match their campaign claims, McCain for instance, has indeed been steadfast in voting against women's reproductive rights and protecting the environment, but he has flip-flopped on the issue of legalizing the use of torture by our government, though eventually he voted to support the Bush Administration.
Watch the debates. Look at the websites of non-profit organizations you support. Inform yourselves before you vote! Young people have more at stake than any other voting group."

On Sarah Palin
"I find it unbelievable that anyone would seriously consider this woman ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency-especially with a 72-year old person as the potential leader of the free world and especially at this point in time with the international situation and our economic crises."

On McCain and Obama's Tax Stances

"Think ahead for your future. Why should a person be taxed higher just because they are successful and earn higher salaries? Why should they be taxed so the money can be given to those who would rather take government hand outs than work for a living?"

"Yes, because clearly the 7%+ Ohioans who are not working are choosing not to. Do some basic research and lean about those with disabilities, those who could not afford a higher education, and those who are spending months job-hunting to no avail. Jee, why should the rich help those people? Perhaps because not everyone is as self-absorbed as you and they understand the concept of community."

This may shock some folks who know how I feel about Palin, but you know, there are also those who intend to vote for the Obama - Biden ticket for stupid reasons.

I agree that the idea of voting for McCain - Palin because they are "real people with families" is fatuous (what, you think the Dem ticket are robots?) but it's pretty silly to suggest that everyone with a brain intends to vote Democrat this fall. The Lantern, though, is written by teenaged idealists, so I guess we could see this one coming a mile away ...

Finally, there is a litmus test that is pretty easy to apply. Those who make sarcastic comments along the lines of, "not everyone is as self-absorbed as you ..." can really only be made by the self-absorbed themselves.

I should know.

[Gatorubet]

I want to legalize drugs and collect taxes on the massive lost revenue. Legalization would go a long way in eliminating the economic and societal costs of failed drug enforcement. No more war on drugs costs and no more thugs killing for drug turf.

We put the huge tax revenue into increased crime fighting and local education and - not least - vo-tech schools for those not college material.


Elect me!

[Tresselbeliever]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

I want to legalize drugs and collect taxes on the massive lost revenue. Legalization would go a long way in eliminating the economic and societal costs of failed drug enforcement. No more war on drugs costs and no more thugs killing for drug turf.

We put the huge tax revenue into increased crime fighting and local education and - not least - vo-tech schools for those not college material.


Elect me!

i do miss late night conversations with the college roommates when we were all tugged in bed on topics like this. The long term health effects of these drugs would decrease productivity and increase health care costs. Also, the drug money just makes drug cartels more powerful, which is hardly what you want socially. now can we talk about the plausibility of non-aging organism!

[jwinslow]

Originally Posted by Tresselbeliever

i do miss late night conversations with the college roommates when we were all tugged in bed on topics like this

[billmac91]

Originally Posted by Tresselbeliever

i do miss late night conversations with the college roommates when we were all tugged in bed on topics like this. The long term health effects of these drugs would decrease productivity and increase health care costs. Also, the drug money just makes drug cartels more powerful, which is hardly what you want socially. now can we talk about the plausibility of non-aging organism!

If it is legalized, wouldn't drug cartels become obsolete to a large degree? Legit question.

Haven't really thought all of this through, but I could see legalizing certain drugs and keeping others illegal. I guess it opens pandora's box. I'd hate to live in a country where drugs like heroin and and Meth are accepted.

This is getting of-topic, but I don't think legalizing drugs would increase addiction by a substantial amount either. People are going to migrate one way or the other based on other factors. Drugs don't need to be illegal to know they are bad...

[Tresselbeliever]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

haha don't worry, making fun of q[censored]s is often the topic of conversation too.

If it is legalized, wouldn't drug cartels become obsolete to a large degree? Legit question.

The business of drug cartels isn't to make drugs. The business of drug cartels is to make money through illegal means because these guys have no ability to stand out as legal enterprises.

[billmac91]

Originally Posted by Tresselbeliever

haha don't worry, making fun of q[censored]s is often the topic of conversation too.



The business of drug cartels isn't to make drugs. The business of drug cartels is to make money through illegal means because these guys have no ability to stand out as legal enterprises.

and if it is legalized, what leg do they have to stand on?

[generaladm]

I think the best course of action would be to de-criminalize recreational drugs (weed, opium, hash, maybe halucinogens), and make the penalties for trafficking hard drugs (coke, heroin, meth, crack, etc.) so severe that one conviction could put a person away for half their life. Recreational drugs are just as harmless (or more so) than alcohol, why not treat them the same? There would still be penalties for driving, working, etc., under the influence, it would just make it safer to obtain them, which people will do anyway. Most recreational drugs are less dangerous and harmful than the prescription drugs that docs hand out like candy. Hard drugs, on the other hand, destroy lives. If there were a commitment to treatment programs for addicts, teamed with the strictest punishment for traffickers (even death, they're basically commiting murder, [censored] em), there would be a better chance for success in the "war on drugs". People will always smoke weed because...people have always smoked weed. If all drugs are considered illegal, there's nothing to deter someone from buying some crank to go with their weed. If you could get weed at a licensed vendor, but getting crank involves going to the ghetto, and gets you 10 years in the state pen if you're caught, how many people do you think would pass on the crank?

[Bucklion]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Why does it have to be black or white? I am not arguing we should tax them out of America. I'm saying loopholes need to be examined and closed with that "found" money being applied to our horrid economic situation.

On the other, Tax the bonds then.



Sorry, BL, I didn't mean to come off as if I was attacking you. I agree that the dems are not necessarily knights in shining armor here, and at the end of the day, you and I share the same position, more or less, as articulated in your last sentence.

It's OK, just wanted to point out I'm not living on the riviera with cars and women and [censored]...you know, like ekeen.

[AKAKBUCK]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Why does it have to be black or white? I am not arguing we should tax them out of America. I'm saying loopholes need to be examined and closed with that "found" money being applied to our horrid economic situation.

On the other, Tax the bonds then.

Which loopholes are those, really?

You're not saying we should tax them out of America? Okay, fine... Are we taxing corporations out of America?

I personally love Obama's statement, "I'll stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas."

What the [censored] are you talking about, Barack? They are shipping jobs overseas precisely for the tax breaks in most cases, and there is nothing you can do about that. "Cheap" labor is only part of the picture... Overtaxing the biggest contributors to the system has already driven them offshore... individuals will be next.