• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Thread of Republican's Turn at Conventions (Palin VP - READ OP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
JayDubya said:
Puerto Rico regularly votes to not become a state, so clearly there are people out there that don't fancy the notion of becoming a state, so why is it surprising that in one of the most recently formed states in the union, made well after our 1800s secession hub-bub, there are some folks that agree with those voters in Puerto Rico?

Just to put a little more nuance into the PR situation: While they vote to NOT become a state, they more resoundingly vote AGAINST independence, unlike what is being claimed of the Alaska group. Puerto Ricans simply want their status quo, which is different from outright independence.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
JayDubya said:
Considering the AIP is a conservative third party that almost mirrors the Republican party and considering that it's primary goal is a simple revote due to skepticism that the vote to become a state was handled properly, yawn.

Alaska's governor in 1990 was elected as a member of the AIP, then later switched to the Republican party.

I'm not entirely sure what's so sinister about this. For a simple analog, look to the Scottish National Party, although they're certainly more left-wing, the notions are similar, and member's beliefs range from more local authority to total independence. Puerto Rico regularly votes to not become a state, so clearly there are people out there that don't fancy the notion of becoming a state, so why is it surprising that in one of the most recently formed states in the union, made well after our 1800s secession hub-bub, there are some folks that agree with those voters in Puerto Rico?

Of course, I'm a total stranger to Alaskan politics, but hey.

The Scottish National Party's goal is and always has been complete fiscal and legal independence from the UK. The only moderating position of late has been the choice of membership in the EU for a devolved and independent Nation.

But that aside Jay, why in the name of all things holy are you defending this person? Do you believe she is qualified to be your president and the leader of the free world?
 

sangreal

Member
VanMardigan said:
Just to put a little more nuance into the PR situation: While they vote to NOT become a state, they more resoundingly vote AGAINST independence, unlike what is being claimed of the Alaska group. Puerto Ricans simply want their status quo, which is different from outright independence.

To be clear, the AIP does not believe that Alaska is a State. They want a vote that offers the option for Alaska to become a state, or remain a Territory, etc.
 
Stoney Mason said:
There is no doubt that there is tons of moral hypocrisy on the part of the GOP on a regular basis. I just think fixating on a baby and a teen that drinks alcohol is to sort of fall into the same hypocrisy as the republicans do. I mean there is definitely a point to be made here but I think it has more to do with the fact that regular people have regular struggles and their morals and christians values (and patriotism) shouldn't be assaulted by Republicans or Democrats.

I'll get off my soapbox now.
It's not really about the moral hypocrisy though (I see no reason to concede drinking and sex as moral issues in the first place either). It's about the hypocrisy of using your family for political positioning but at the same time wanting it off limits. It's about plainly stupid politics.
 
Cheney Waits Until the Last Minute to Buy 9/11 Gifts

Read the whole thing,very funny. A tidbit:

"Sometimes, in all the hustle and bustle of the season, it's easy to forget the true meaning of Sept. 11," Cheney said. "Sept. 11 is not about fancy 9/11 parades, or big 9/11 office parties. In fact, it's not even just about two buildings crumbling to the ground and leaving thousands of innocent people dead."

"No," Cheney continued. "No, 9/11 is about the warm feeling you get when you help an elderly woman cross the street and then whisper to her that the terrorists can strike at any moment. 9/11 is about the satisfaction of telling people to do things and then them doing it—not because they want to, but because they are afraid to do otherwise. 9/11 is about removing Saddam Hussein from power. But most of all, 9/11 is about love."

The thing is that you can actually see Cheney saying that to the old lady if it would have bought Bush a vote in 2004. :lol
 
OuterWorldVoice said:
But that aside Jay, why in the name of all things holy are you defending this person? Do you believe she is qualified to be your president and the leader of the free world?


I like JayDub (and Gaborn) but is there really any question that they would defend a right leaning politician more than a left leaning one despite libertarian viewpoints...


Of course if Gaborn and JayDub have a record of defending the dogpile that occurred on Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama then I will gladly admit they are refreshingly consistent. I was out of Poli-GAF for a long time so they may indeed have that record.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Stoney Mason said:
I like JayDub (and Gaborn) but is there really any question that they would defend a right leaning politician more than a left leaning one despite libertarian viewpoints...


Of course if Gaborn and JayDub have a record of defending the dogpile that occurred on Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama then I will gladly admit they are refreshingly consistent. I was out of Poli-GAF for a long time so they may indeed have that record.


Nope. Both consistently - almost universally - take the Republican side. However I like to imagine them crusading for the left on some right wing forum somewhere. But defending Palin? Come. On.
 
Son of Godzilla said:
It's not really about the moral hypocrisy though (I see no reason to concede drinking and sex as moral issues in the first place either). It's about the hypocrisy of using your family for political positioning but at the same time wanting it off limits. It's about plainly stupid politics.


Everybody does that Democrats and Republicans. Pushing your family as awesome when every family has skeletons in the closet isn't really unique to either party although once again I will freely admit that nobody trades on "family vales" and injecting "morals" into the political arena more than Republicans so they will always get more blowback when it goes wrong. Rightfully so. You live by the sword you die by the sword.
 
To some degree they are contrarians, as well. The Obama groupthink is really, really thick here so I can see them having a hard time not wanting to at least challenge its assumptions somewhat.

(for the record, I am a godless socialist first and obama fan second, so don't lump me into the obama cult here!)
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Fragamemnon said:
(for the record, I am a godless socialist first and obama fan second, so don't lump me into the obama cult here!)
I thought it was Godless Socialist first, Political Nihilist second....... unless.....
 

MThanded

I Was There! Official L Receiver 2/12/2016
ViperVisor said:
If Barack bumped into a guy who was in the 'Black Liberation' movement while he was at an Earth, Wind & Fire concert the talking point makes it to cable news.
This is so true
 

Barrett2

Member
Fragamemnon said:


Once again, the Onion delivers! :lol

Cheney-Waits-Jump-R.jpg
 
Hitokage said:
I thought it was Godless Socialist first, Political Nihilist second....... unless.....

The nihilism is mostly just for my own sick entertainment, which I am willing to set aside to keep fundie nuttery like Palin as far away from the White House as possible.
 
Stoney Mason said:
Everybody does that Democrats and Republicans. Pushing your family as awesome when every family has skeletons in the closet isn't really unique to either party although once again I will freely admit that nobody trades on "family vales" and injecting "morals" into the political arena more than Republicans so they will always get more blowback when it goes wrong. Rightfully so. You live by the sword you die by the sword.
People love to see political opponents exposed as hypocrites. Just how else would the hypocrisy of claiming the moral superiority for teaching sexual abstinence manifest itself except in that person being visited by the Ghost of Teen Pregnancy? Chickens coming home to roost, and all that.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Fragamemnon said:
The nihilism is mostly just for my own sick entertainment, which I am willing to set aside to keep fundie nuttery like Palin as far away from the White House as possible.
That's more than fair, although I personally didn't need Palin when Candidate McCain is enough.
 
Fragamemnon said:
To some degree they are contrarians, as well. The Obama groupthink is really, really thick here so I can see them having a hard time not wanting to at least challenge its assumptions somewhat.

(for the record, I am a godless socialist first and obama fan second, so don't lump me into the obama cult here!)

Agreed and they should. Personally I was disappointed that siamese dreamer was banned when I see liberals do the same thing on here with no real heavy repercussions imo. I wasn't an Obama guy early on either and still reject some of the more outlandish claims of some on here. But still I find it odd for people on either side to not reject foolishness when they see it on either side.
 

140.85

Cognitive Dissonance, Distilled
Stoney Mason said:
Where is smoking gun that Obama agreed with Rev Wright on everything he said?

Obama left his church 12 years ago? AIP was Palin's "spiritual mentor"? Palin has said that she can no more disown the AIP than she can her white grandmother?

Again, I ask, where's the beef?
 
Hitokage said:
That's more than fair, although I personally didn't need Palin when Candidate McCain is enough.

I cling to my bitterness over Hillary losing. It really wasn't until Palin got picked that I blew a gasket, considering she reminds me of every half-wit, white trash fundie mom I've seen in the 13 years I've lived in the South as an adult.
 
Poor Nate Walsh

COLUMBIA, SC—In a nationally televised speech Friday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama altered his vision of a unified America to exclude Dayton, OH loser Nate Walsh.

According to Obama, the 32-year-old Walsh, who has lived with his parents intermittently since receiving his associate's degree in 2001 and still does not have a credit card in his own name, no longer figures into the senator's long-term plan of rallying Americans from all walks of life around a common, higher purpose.

"People of South Carolina, people of the world, this is our time, this is our moment," Obama said before 72,000 supporters at the University of South Carolina's Williams-Brice Stadium. "That is, unless you live in apartment 3L at 1254 Holden St., you watched Money Train on TBS last night at 3 a.m., and your name is Nate Walsh."
 

Gaborn

Member
Stoney Mason said:
I like JayDub (and Gaborn) but is there really any question that they would defend a right leaning politician more than a left leaning one despite libertarian viewpoints...


Of course if Gaborn and JayDub have a record of defending the dogpile that occurred on Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama then I will gladly admit they are refreshingly consistent. I was out of Poli-GAF for a long time so they may indeed have that record.

Well I did several times mention the perceived sexism of some people against Hillary Clinton at the time (including several people that referred to her as a "bitch"), so I guess that's more or less a defense of her. Beyond that I'm not even sure why I have to defend my views particularly, I'm not going to get down and smear either side either, whether questioning Trig's birth mother, endorsing rumors of Hillary's lesbianism, supporting the crazies that think Obama is a Muslim, agreeing with the nutjobs that think Vince Foster was secretly murdered by Clinton or anything much else.

I'm also not going to ignore when a politician does something I find reprehensible, whether Obama with the FISA vote, Bush with the PATRIOT act and... just about every other aspect of his government... Clinton with Kosovo, DADT and DOMA, Hillary with "HillaryCare," Cheney's repeated lies and misstatements about Iraq, McCain's support for McCain-Feingold and war mongering on Iraq, etc.

I'm not going to vote for either party, but considering the amount of criticism the Republicans get it makes more sense for me to stress my opposition to much of the Democrats agenda here because it's simply more productive than piling on the Republicans.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
140.85 said:
Obama left his church 12 years ago? AIP was Palin's "spiritual mentor"? Palin has said that she can no more disown the AIP than she can her white grandmother?

Again, I ask, where's the beef?

Yeah, it's not like there was some major secession movement some 130 years ago that turned into an all out war where millions and millions of US citizens died... oh wait yeah there was.
 
140.85 said:
Obama left his church 12 years ago? AIP was Palin's "spiritual mentor"? Palin has said that she can no more disown the AIP than she can her white grandmother?

Again, I ask, where's the beef?


Personally joining a political organization that has certain express goals is far worse to me than going to a church but that's a personal opinion. I always felt the questions needed to be asked of Obama and had a right to be asked. Same with Palin. Now it's Palin turn. What's the problem?
 

syllogism

Member
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
 
Gaborn said:
Beyond that I'm not even sure why I have to defend my views particularly

You don't. It was a casual observation but someone who sees fault generally speaking when one side is attacked on what are considered baseless grounds but not seeing it on the other side is a warning sign for hypocrisy imo. Once again not aimed at you per se. I wasn't in Poli-GAF for months so as I said, it was mainly just a casual observation from limited data.
 
David Frum writing at AEI

...Sarah Palin was the answer to his problem. The party right likes her fierce pro-life convictions. (She is the mother of five. Her youngest has Down syndrome.) The right approves of her support for opening more of Alaska to oil drilling and her broad libertarian approach to public policy.

At the same time, she qualifies as a maverick because of her battles with Alaska's notoriously corrupt local Republican organization--and her very unusual background. She was a local basketball champion and a second-place finisher in the 1984 Miss Alaska pageant. Her husband is a production operator for BP Oil, a member of the Steelworkers union and a champion snowmobiler of part-Eskimo background.

Most significantly of all, Ms. Palin reaches out to those working-class women who supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy--and who may not be reconciled to Barack Obama. In her statement yesterday in Ohio, she thanked Hillary Clinton for putting 18 million cracks in the hardest of all glass ceilings --and then pointedly argued that a vote for Mr. McCain was the surest way to smash that ceiling once and for all.

In politics as in life, however, you cannot have everything.

Ms. Palin's experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall. She served two terms on the city council of Wasilla, Alaska, population 9,000. She served two terms as mayor. In November, 2006, she was elected governor of the state, a job she has held for a little more than 18 months. She has zero foreign policy experience, and no record on national security issues.

All this would matter less, but for this fact: The day that John McCain announced his selection of Sarah Palin was his birthday. His 72nd birthday. Seventy-two is not as old as it used to be, but Mr. McCain had a bout with melanoma seven years ago, and his experience in prison camp has uncertain implications for his future health.

If anything were to happen to a President McCain, the destiny of the free world would be placed in the hands of a woman who until recently was a small-town mayor.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
Ok, fuck you, Sarah Palin.

Whatever differences Candidate McCain may still have with Bush, Palin fills in the gaps. :mad:
 

lil smoke

Banned
OuterWorldVoice said:
But defending Palin? Come. On.
I've been reading some GOP sites this AM, and just :lol at all the Palin defense force out there. This politics game, is just a silly game. Regardless of the issue, people just back whomever is on their side, and shit on everything and everyone else. If someone just like Palin were Obama's running mate, they would have eaten her alive, but nope. The more Palin is scrutinized, the more support she gets from her side.

I wonder if people actually stop and think about who/what they are actually arguing for/against. Looks like it's more about supporting whatever your side thinks is cool at the moment, without any rational whatsoever. Pretty dumb and childish.
 

Kildace

Member
besada said:
For me, personally, this is the most damning stuff I've seen. Book banners can fuck right off.

I'd really like to hear JayDubya and Gaborn chime in on this. Isn't this the complete opposite of what libertarians stand for?
 
Kildace said:
I'd really like to hear JayDubya and Gaborn chime in on this. Isn't this the complete opposite of what liberitarians stand for?

I don't expect them to change their stance. It's not like this is new; it's been floating around since the second day.
 

Gaborn

Member
lil smoke said:
I've been reading some GOP sites this AM, and just :lol at all the Palin defense force out there. This politics game, is just a silly game. Regardless of the issue, people just back whomever is on their side, and shit on everything and everyone else. If someone just like Palin were Obama's running mate, they would have eaten her alive, but nope. The more Palin is scrutinized, the more support she gets from her side.

I wonder if people actually stop and think about who/what they are actually arguing for/against. Looks like it's more about supporting whatever your side thinks is cool at the moment, without any rational whatsoever. Pretty dumb and childish.

and, conversely Democrats would be defending her.

Kildace - I don't support book banning, yet another reason to not vote Republican!
 

besada

Banned
Kildace said:
I'd really like to hear JayDubya and Gaborn chime in on this. Isn't this the complete opposite of what liberitarians stand for?

I predict condemnation of publicly funded libraries.
 

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
besada said:
For me, personally, this is the most damning stuff I've seen. Book banners can fuck right off.
Cue 140.85 defending this piece of news in 3...2....1....

Gaborn said:
and, conversely Democrats would be defending her.
Thankfully Obama displayed better judgment in his VP pick.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Gaborn said:
and, conversely Democrats would be defending her.

Kildace - I don't support book banning, yet another reason to not vote Republican!

And conversely, Obama has better judgment than to pick someone as unqualified as Palin.
 
besada said:
As good a reason as any to laugh at libertarians.

And why it will never be a mainstream position. Rigid fixation on ideology with no leeway. But people are free to cherish their ideals in a free society.
 

Crayon Shinchan

Aquafina Fanboy
Gaborn said:
and, conversely Democrats would be defending her.

Wrong. If McCain had picked Biden and Obama had picked Palin, I would without a doubt be questioning Obama's judgement and probably align myself with a red ticket.

The magnitude of this fuck up is greater than any of Obama's merits... but then again, Obama isn't a senile old man that makes rush job decisions... which is why we love him.
 

Gaborn

Member
reilo said:
And conversely, Obama has better judgment than to pick someone as unqualified as Palin.

Biden is certainly very qualified to be the VP. Of course, he's had 36 years in washington to prepare to change it!
 

Tamanon

Banned
It's funny that when Biden came out, there was a ton of talk about what he brings to government and what policies he brings. When Palin was introduced it started at who they thought she might bring and then suddenly the floodgates opened.

And this is AFTER people laughed at the Obama camp for not having a huge oppo pile on her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom