Governor Sarah Palin's Speech

**SgtRazor** · 09-04-08, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by TBeard

By claiming it's hypocritical of her to be an advocate of opposing the very programs that work toward cutting teen pregnancies when her own daughter is pregnant?

Ehh, doesn't make you a hypocrite.

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 09-04-08, 02:42 PM

I payed close attention last night and I didn't find her speech to be one full of divisiveness or fear based. While she does hit on the point that we live in a dangerous world, to deny this would be to reject reality.

To enumerate lessons learned from the deaths of nearly 3,000 people in 2 hours, after a period where this country did attempt to ignore the fact that we live in a dangerous world, namely the 90's, isn't a message of fear, it is reality. Their deaths were unnecessary in my mind.

Those who attempt to push this concept demonstrate that they learned nothing on 9-11. Worse yet, they would demonstrate that they would be willing to ignore those lessons, and shame me into not bringing it up or discussing it, in order to get their candidates back in power.

No doubt about it, her observations certainly vacuumed out the mystique and meringue from Obama's image, but they were spot on. Gov Palin is asking the tough questions about the substance under his style, but she has to. Who else is going to do it? The media? They put him on the map and have championed his rise all the way.

In my opinion, Sarah Palin has brought to the Republican Party what it has been missing. The ability to coherently and intelligently sell itself. The Republicans have made virtually no effort to market their ability and successes to the general public. They have taken an absolute beating at the hands of the Democratic Party in terms of saturation. The media has been complicit in this all the way. To have a fresh faced person with a record to back up her principals, who normal people can relate to, out front selling the reasons that their philosophy is superior is a huge threat.

Your initial vitriolic post was a far cry from the tone of your exit strategy one liner at the end of the last one. The attempt to link your post full of Daisy-chained logic, inuendo, and intellectual laziness to the greatness associated with the freedom to debate different concepts didn't get off the ground with me.

**astrod00d** · 09-04-08, 02:56 PM

TBeard, as a conservative Republican, I couldn't disagree with you more on almost everything you've said.

This quote from Gov. Palin pretty much sums up my view on the subject:
"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."

**DonVitoJr** · 09-04-08, 03:07 PM

HOLY FUCK the longest post EVER

**TBeard** · 09-04-08, 03:38 PM

"Your initial vitriolic post was a far cry from the tone of your exit strategy one liner at the end of the last one. The attempt to link your post full of Daisy-chained logic, inuendo, and intellectual laziness to the greatness associated with the freedom to debate different concepts didn't get off the ground with me."

Interesting. It was indeed a far cry, no doubt. I think Sarah Palin is a complete sham and the furthest thing in the world from the label they've invented for her, that the Republican party is in shambles, and demonstrating nothing new to America through their convention. I responded to a post concerning her convention speech last night with my opinion of her, her party, and what they represent. What I didn't do is make it a personal attack on you or anyone here.

And in an attempt to solidify and avoid that, despite our different beliefs and values, I appealed to what we CAN agree on. If it "didn't get off the ground with you," so be it. What does or doesn't "get off the ground" with you frankly doesn't concern me.

As for Daisy-chained logic, innuendo, and intellectual laziness, you're entitled to your opinion, as am I to mine. I don't consider it intellectually lazy to find fault in attempting to label Sarah Palin an anti-Washington reform candidate, when she's anything but.

But you do. Good for you!

- t

**trailhunter** · 09-04-08, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by astrod00d

TBeard, as a conservative Republican, I couldn't disagree with you more on almost everything you've said.

This quote from Gov. Palin pretty much sums up my view on the subject:
"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."

I am not going to put in a long drawn out deliberation with my input.

I will just put in 'Ditto'.

**Consultant** · 09-04-08, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by TBeard

As a Democrat, I completely agree! I'm with you! I absolutely LOVE this pick! I have a front-row seat to the ritualistic suicide of the Republican party!

It gets more comical every day. The odds (I'm not joking - you can actually bet on this) are up from 3% to 14% that she gets removed from the ticket!

She was all aboard the Ketchikan (bridge to nowhere) project (earmarked by another outstanding, and currently defending himself from Federal criminal prosecution Republican, Ted Stevens) until the investigations started in 2006. Then she opposed it, but still accepted the federal money and diverted it to other projects!

Way to fight corruption, Sarah! You go girl!

$254 Million in earmarks just last year! That makes the great state of Alaska the largest Federal earmark-per-capita state in the union. For your convenience, I'm attaching the State of Alaska Federal Appropriations request for '09. It's lengthy - 70 pages to be exact- but a GREAT little read.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2008154104.pdf

Your "Smoking hot in a 'naughty librarian' sort of way" (what a convincing reason to vote for her - once again proving the Republicans are the party of pre-pubescent boys everywhere) girl just LOVES federal money. That alone is interesting because John McCain actually, to his credit, doesn't earmark a single dime of Federal money because he considers the policy "shameful."

Oh there's more........She's also under an Alaskan State Legislature ETHICS investigation for firing the former state Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, because he refused to fire an Alaska state trooper involved in a divorce from her sister.

Her Foreign Relations experience is "Governor of state that borders two foreign countries (Canada and Russia)"
This is her "foreign relations" experience? ARE THEY SERIOUS? BEING NEXT TO CANADA?
I live in Seattle. By their rationale, I should be the Ambassador to Canada in their administration!!!
Alaska's also close to the North Pole - does she know Santa Claus

Oh there's even more.....she and her husband are members of the AIP, which believes the US Constitution "should be re-written to conform to Biblical law." Yeah thanks Sarah, but I think our founding fathers did a pretty good job separating church and state so that we wouldn't EVER live under a religious Theocracy.
You see, Sarah, we actually heed the 1st Amendment down here in the lower 48.

And to top it all off........little miss Christian family values, no sex-ed in schools, kids should only learn about abstinence, use the government to push my religious beliefs on everyone else........has an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter.
God forbid we teach our kids anything about making smart decisions about sex and birth control!!! Teenagers would be fornicating on lawns everywhere!
Oh I forgot, simply telling kids not to have sex will prevent them from having sex. Yes, Praise God Almighty, I see now that it works. I have seen the light!

Yes indeed - a GREAT pick! I absolutely LOVE it! The Republican party has quite literally gone completely insane.

What exactly is the Republican Party's message anyway? I thought it was Experience. Now it appears to be Reform, or maybe Change? Nice work ripping that one off! They trash and walk all over John McCain 8 years ago, belittling his service to his country. They do it again to John Kerry and Max Cleland 4 years ago. Now they spend the 1st night of their convention trying to convince us that they now honor his service to his country? Or anyone else's for that matter?

"COUNTRY FIRST" MY ASS!!!!

And what's with the tributes to Reagan and HW Bush? Why aren't W and Dick there? Where's the representation for the last 8 years? What are they embarrassed about?

I'm not buying one piece of the junk they're peddling out of their Larry Craig-sponsored airport bathroom stall!!

- t

I read "As a democrat" and skimmed to see how much you typed - assumed it was full of hater-ade and it looks like I'm right.

"Larry Craig-sponsored airport bathroom stall"

You sir, give morons everywhere a bad name.

**SapiensErus** · 09-04-08, 04:14 PM

I watched the DNC on CSPAN, and the RNC, yep, I am a Dem true and blue, but I watch all of 'em. Hell I am the kinda guy that leaves one of my TVs on Cspan all day while I watch Star Trek reruns on the other.

In any case, I liked her speech, even though I totally disagree with her policy. She speaks well.

The one problem I had, and each speaker carried this out as well, was the claim that "Obama will raise taxes for Americans." He will, for the wealthiest 2%, but the rest of us, the "poorest" 98%, will recieve tax cuts. How about that, tax cuts. Further, no American will be paying any more taxes in total than they were in the 90's.

I hear repeatedly that "McCain will cut taxes and Obama will raise them," which is untrue. Here is where Obama stands on the tax issues:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes...acts_FINAL.pdf

Some factcheck.org data, not specific to the convention, but about Obama's tax plans. I have heard over and over again people making utterly false claims in these and other forums and in the media as well the RNC:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...tion_spin.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2..._misleads.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...d_pattern.html

And a tidbit on the tax situation from the AARP:
http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/dc/a..._tax_plan.html

Another issue that bothered me about the whole sh-bang last night, was when Giuliani brought up the 128 "present" votes by Obama. So what, EVERY legislator and senator votes "present" or is totally unavailable when votes occur on many issues. WHat was not mentioned, was the total number of votes he has and a comparison of missed votes next to McCain.

The 110th congress has putforward 442 items for voting in the 1st session, and 196 votes in the 2nd session for a total of 638 opportunities to vote.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/leg...sers/votes.htm

Obama has missed 290 votes in the current congress, putting him at a failure to vote on ~45%
http://obama.senate.gov/votes/

McCain has missed 405 votes in the current congress, putting him at a failure to vote on ~63%
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/

If you dig down in the previous sessions and compare to many other politicians, Obama is simply average in his rate of voting. I hate it when people point the finger yet not extending the concession that their own has done the same or worse.

Honestly, there are so many items they accused Obama of that are simply untrue, or par for the course for every other politician (McCain and Palin included).

Rest assured, I will bring more up later.

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

And dont jump down my throat about factcheck.org, there is as much dirt debunked and supported for other politicians and candidates on all sides of the political spectrum. Obama is not immune to their scrutiny either. It is a great source and I recommend we all look into it. Here is an olive branch in thr form of factcheck nailing Obama just for you assurance:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ing_obama.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...s_remarks.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2..._bloopers.html

**w4jchosen** · 09-04-08, 04:18 PM

Now, now don't jump on T's back. He has his right to say what is on his mind and his opinion and I would agree that he didn't address anyone at TTP directly. The opposing side is allowed their opinion as well.

One thing T, going back to the AIP issue would you please state your reference when you originally addressed Ms. Palin's being a member of that group. I know I rebutted it, but I am curious . I would like to see where you got this from.

**TBeard** · 09-04-08, 04:49 PM

Chosen,

It's been all over the pol blogs lately, and to be honest I don't remember which one. The source seems to originally be this ABCnews article though...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...s-of-frin.html

...where AIP vice-chair George Clark claimed her as an official member, even though she was registered as a Republican.

Her coziness and the fact that her husband was a member concerns me greatly. This isn't a "country first" organization by a long shot.