Not Blaming Sarah Palin but.....

[Reboticon]

Originally Posted by awelliott

Isn't it obvious? Of course a left-wing wack job is going to be influenced by a right-wing politician/celebrity to gun down a left-of-center politician. Makes perfect sense! hgeez:

Are you saying he is left wing because one of his classmates from 3-5 years ago said that? His ramblings on myspace as well as most of his youtube favorites are right wing. The actual "reason" he gave on his page had to do with currency not being gold backed. Thats a Beck talking point and we both know it. He was also a registered independent. The guy was nuts. I don't think his political views go in a straight line or are even connectible, but so far there is just as much evidence he was right as he was left.

Originally Posted by 507phantom

i'm not terribly fond of her, she doesn't seem very smart, more interested in celebrity than anything else, but as much as the left hates her, i think that may be reason to like her more.

Statements like this are why. When the only positive thing you can think of about her is that the other side hates her, the idea of people following her is scary. Repubs won the house. Dems still have the Presidency and the Senate. The ONLY way forward progress is made is compromise. Obama has shown that he is willing to compromise (much to the chagrin of the left) which is why his approval rating hit above 50% for the first time since he was elected.

[awelliott]

Originally Posted by Reboticon

Are you saying he is left wing because one of his classmates from 3-5 years ago said that? His ramblings on myspace as well as most of his youtube favorites are right wing. The actual "reason" he gave on his page had to do with currency not being gold backed. Thats a Beck talking point and we both know it. He was also a registered independent. The guy was nuts. I don't think his political views go in a straight line or are even connectible, but so far there is just as much evidence he was right as he was left.

I wouldn't quibble with that - I was just trying to get a rise out of you. He is all over the place, but more recent classmates than you describe, one of them an admitted liberal, described him as very liberal. Two of his favorite books are "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf", he's an atheist, he's been arrested for vandalism, and he's a drug user (pot and hallucinogens). My point is that he doesn't exactly fit the profile of a TEA partier, does he?

The obvious truth is that the guy is a raving lunatic. However, don't you find it at least a bit curious as to why so many in the media were trying to link him to conservatives in general and Sarah Palin in particular, even before the carnage at the rally had been cleaned up?

But this is nothing new. I have footage somewhere of Dan Rather (a local Dallas reporter at the time) opining in the heat of the moment that President Kennedy's assassination had to be the work of a right-wing extremist. It turned out that Oswald was a devout communist who had renounced his US citizenship and moved to the USSR for a time. I believe the world is still awaiting his retraction.

After all, that's a main theme of this thread, is it not? I don't have time to page back through the thread, but didn't you express outrage over postings on a Palin or TEA Party website or facebook that said the death of the little girl was a good thing? It can't easily be proved one way or the other, but I'd bet my last dollar that the post was made by a troll. Yet you accepted it without question, and seemed disappointed that the moderator quickly scrubbed such tasteless comments. That's the sort of thing that scares me, because politicians, with the assistance of a completely irresponsible media, manipulate passion and promote hysteria to seize more control. You may have enough on the ball to realize that government cannot do a thing to stop murderous lunatics (well, we could return to involuntary institutionalism, and there was cause to do so in this case, but I digress), but many others cannot. The cardinal point is that every increase in government power results in a proportional decrease of individual rights. Never forget that.

Our government has seized more power to fight poverty, and the result has been an explosive increase in poverty, especially inter-generational poverty, coupled with the destruction of poor families (70% illegitimacy birthrate). They seized control over education, and student achievement has dramatically fallen ever since. They seized control of our retirement and health care, and we have a bankrupt Ponzi scheme in Social Security to go with a public health care system that has greatly exceeded cost estimates and is also bankrupt and threatens the solvency of our private health care system (and this administration's solution is to make even more of it public). All of these things were undertaken with the promise of ensuring our prosperity. Instead, our government has created a black hole of debt from which we'll likely never escape.

Originally Posted by Reboticon

Statements like this are why. When the only positive thing you can think of about her is that the other side hates her, the idea of people following her is scary. Repubs won the house. Dems still have the Presidency and the Senate. The ONLY way forward progress is made is compromise. Obama has shown that he is willing to compromise (much to the chagrin of the left) which is why his approval rating hit above 50% for the first time since he was elected.

Obama was an inflexible ideologue prior to what happened in November, and you know it. His initial ratings were in the stratosphere when he was elected, then only began to drop when voters began comparing his actions to his campaign promises and started having buyer's remorse. You also vastly overrate compromise. The way forward is to proceed with ideas that are true to our Constitution, and I've seen precious few of those over the last 20 years.

As for Palin, I can't answer for anybody else, but that's certainly not the only positive I can say about her. I admittedly am inclined to view any person favorably when those whom I oppose savage them with such vitriol. However, the enemies she attracts is not her only asset. For example, she's solidly conservative on most issues, though she does go populist from time-to-time. She also did an outstanding job as governor and previously as mayor. She overcame tremendous odds to prevail in both of those elections.

However, on the negative side, she resigned as governor. Much of the prosperity Alaska enjoyed during her term could arguably be attributed to inflated state oil receipts due to the rise of crude oil prices. I would have liked to see how she responded to keep her state prosperous when prices collapsed in 2008/2009. We'll never know, so she squandered an opportunity to demonstrate that she has what it takes to lead during bad times.

She admittedly doesn't seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer, but that matters little to me once I consider where the so-called "geniuses" have taken this country. For example, the media held up Al Gore as brilliant, and I don't see how anybody who takes a close look can reach a conclusion other than he's a blithering idiot.

But the most damning negative is her unbridled pursuit of celebrity. The antics of her dysfunctional daughter is bad enough, but when she signed to do a reality show and invited Kate Gosselin as a guest, that tore it for me. She's a great fund-raiser, and that's where she should remain.

[Reboticon]

Originally Posted by awelliott

The obvious truth is that the guy is a raving lunatic. However, don't you find it at least a bit curious as to why so many in the media were trying to link him to conservatives in general and Sarah Palin in particular, even before the carnage at the rally had been cleaned up?

Curious? No. I lean left on issues, I'm not blind. There were two reasons. The first is only acceptable for maybe the first day, and that reason is that it was a quite a series of coincidences. One of the people targeted on Palin's map gets shot, and it's the one person who was on video saying that her map could have deadly consequences. That is a pretty big coincidence, but nonetheless it does seem to be coincidence.

The second reason is trying to score political points, and after it became clear the guy wasn't a tea partier, it was just as abhorrent as when the guys on the right do it.

Originally Posted by awelliott

After all, that's a main theme of this thread, is it not? I don't have time to page back through the thread, but didn't you express outrage over postings on a Palin or TEA Party website or facebook that said the death of the little girl was a good thing? It can't easily be proved one way or the other, but I'd bet my last dollar that the post was made by a troll. Yet you accepted it without question, and seemed disappointed that the moderator quickly scrubbed such tasteless comments. That's the sort of thing that scares me, because politicians, with the assistance of a completely irresponsible media, manipulate passion and promote hysteria to seize more control..

No, you really misunderstood what happened. ANY comment against Palin was scrubbed within 3 minutes. As far as I know, the quote about the little girl deserving to die IS STILL POSTED. Judging by the parenthesis around certain parts of the phrase, it was probably made by a troll and the moderator too stupid to understand that it was satire slamming Palin, but to let a comment like that remain is possibly one of the most distasteful things I can imagine, and one of those things I would hope anyone on either side would say crosses the line and should be removed IMMEDIATELY (when there is proof they are immediately removing comments they understand to be against Palin)

I have no problem with her scrubbing her page, it's her page. I DO have a problem with anyone, left or right, thinking it's OK that a 9 year old girl is dead because she "probably would have grown up to support the other side."

Obviously, Palin herself doesn't scrub the comments, and she did not personally leave that comment up, but one of her closest aides did. Typically, you only see that kind of hate from her supporters. The rest of the right tends to avoid it, and if there are people on the left saying things like that (and I'm sure there are) but they lack the national platform that she has and fall under your typical garden variety crazy.

Originally Posted by awelliott

Our government has seized more power to fight poverty, and the result has been an explosive increase in poverty, especially inter-generational poverty, coupled with the destruction of poor families (70% illegitimacy birthrate). They seized control over education, and student achievement has dramatically fallen ever since. They seized control of our retirement and health care, and we have a bankrupt Ponzi scheme in Social Security to go with a public health care system that has greatly exceeded cost estimates and is also bankrupt and threatens the solvency of our private health care system (and this administration's solution is to make even more of it public). All of these things were undertaken with the promise of ensuring our prosperity. Instead, our government has created a black hole of debt from which we'll likely never escape.

I do not disagree that the system is broken, I just believe that the order in which the problems should be addressed is different, and that the shenanigans on wall street can not be let off the hook either.

Originally Posted by awelliott

Obama was an inflexible ideologue prior to what happened in November, and you know it. His initial ratings were in the stratosphere when he was elected, then only began to drop when voters began comparing his actions to his campaign promises and started having buyer's remorse.

Yeah, I will agree to this. Where we probably won't agree is that I see it as a sign of strength of character that he is willing to now break from his ideals to work with the other side.

Originally Posted by awelliott

You also vastly overrate compromise. The way forward is to proceed with ideas that are true to our Constitution, and I've seen precious few of those over the last 20 years.

I do disagree here. In my mind, it is ALWAYS better to get half of the pie than to get none of it. I don't like the idea of EITHER party controlling both houses of congress and the presidency. Checks and balances.

Originally Posted by awelliott

As for Palin, I can't answer for anybody else, but that's certainly not the only positive I can say about her. I admittedly am inclined to view any person favorably when those whom I oppose savage them with such vitriol. However, the enemies she attracts is not her only asset. For example, she's solidly conservative on most issues, though she does go populist from time-to-time. She also did an outstanding job as governor and previously as mayor. She overcame tremendous odds to prevail in both of those elections.

However, on the negative side, she resigned as governor. Much of the prosperity Alaska enjoyed during her term could arguably be attributed to inflated state oil receipts due to the rise of crude oil prices. I would have liked to see how she responded to keep her state prosperous when prices collapsed in 2008/2009. We'll never know, so she squandered an opportunity to demonstrate that she has what it takes to lead during bad times.

She admittedly doesn't seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer, but that matters little to me once I consider where the so-called "geniuses" have taken this country. For example, the media held up Al Gore as brilliant, and I don't see how anybody who takes a close look can reach a conclusion other than he's a blithering idiot.

But the most damning negative is her unbridled pursuit of celebrity. The antics of her dysfunctional daughter is bad enough, but when she signed to do a reality show and invited Kate Gosselin as a guest, that tore it for me. She's a great fund-raiser, and that's where she should remain.

Thank you for a fair and honest assessment of her. I dislike her because of who she is, but my fear and disdain for her stem from people who believe she should have be commander and chief. Yeah I bought into the hope and change we didn't see, but I still prefer that to the idea of another president who just starts random wars (which from her rhetoric is one of her MOs)

As for Gore, I'm from TN. His home state. The one he lost in 2000 which would have given him the presidency. We know what kind of a snake he is. He actually gets me almost as wound up as Palin does.

[awelliott]

Originally Posted by Reboticon

No, you really misunderstood what happened. ANY comment against Palin was scrubbed within 3 minutes. As far as I know, the quote about the little girl deserving to die IS STILL POSTED. Judging by the parenthesis around certain parts of the phrase, it was probably made by a troll and the moderator too stupid to understand that it was satire slamming Palin, but to let a comment like that remain is possibly one of the most distasteful things I can imagine, and one of those things I would hope anyone on either side would say crosses the line and should be removed IMMEDIATELY (when there is proof they are immediately removing comments they understand to be against Palin)

I have no problem with her scrubbing her page, it's her page. I DO have a problem with anyone, left or right, thinking it's OK that a 9 year old girl is dead because she "probably would have grown up to support the other side."

Obviously, Palin herself doesn't scrub the comments, and she did not personally leave that comment up, but one of her closest aides did. Typically, you only see that kind of hate from her supporters. The rest of the right tends to avoid it, and if there are people on the left saying things like that (and I'm sure there are) but they lack the national platform that she has and fall under your typical garden variety crazy.

If a comment to that effect was intentionally left up, then it is more reprehensible than the comment itself. But seriously, if it's true, do you really believe it was intentional? After all, the staffer's boss is someone who may have national political aspirations. I'm not at all convinced that it's her "supporters" who spout that kind of hate, and I would disagree vehemently that TEA Party members, by and large, do so. But we're free to disagree on that issue.

Originally Posted by Reboticon

I do not disagree that the system is broken, I just believe that the order in which the problems should be addressed is different, and that the shenanigans on wall street can not be let off the hook either.

No argument there, though I don't place as high a priority on it as you do. One thing to note is that it shares a common cause: government involvement in areas in which it has no business. But we're going to fix it with even more government regulation. Yeah, sure...hgeez:

Originally Posted by Reboticon

Yeah, I will agree to this. Where we probably won't agree is that I see it as a sign of strength of character that he is willing to now break from his ideals to work with the other side.

I see it as a sign of political expediency (with 2012 in mind), and a cheap attempt to replicate Clinton's triangulation after the disasterous (for him) 1994 election. I honestly can't think of a single thing he has done that exhibits strength of character.

Originally Posted by Reboticon

I do disagree here. In my mind, it is ALWAYS better to get half of the pie than to get none of it. I don't like the idea of EITHER party controlling both houses of congress and the presidency. Checks and balances.

We absolutely disagree. When you compromise between a good and a bad idea, the result is never as good as it should be. The problem is that the parties are probably more polarized than they have ever been. It used to be that conservatism/liberalism didn't cut so clearly across party lines. For example, JFK would be considered as a pretty solid conservative in today's world. That has been changing for nearly 40 years and has gotten to the point where is no such thing as a conservative Democrat at the national level. An unfortunately consequence is that our politics which were once more idea-centered are now more party-centered. Ironically, Giffords was one of the few Democrats who did trend toward the center on a number of issues.
[/QUOTE]

[kotetu]

She's still alive Tony.

Checks and balances no longer work. Congress is supposed to check and balance the President, but they tend to try to be his arm instead of his restraints, when they come from the same party. The Senate is supposed to represent the States, checking the power of the federal government in general by using the 10th amendment wisely, but since the 17th amendment they are just an expansion of the house. The Supreme Court routinely rejects cases and doesn't rule on unconstitutional laws. Hell, the Presidents have been using "signing statements" to disregard sections of laws they themselves have signed.

We need a return to fundamentals. We need to trim the fat and get back to a true Constitutional Republic, and that's why I'm with Rorschach. Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.