Sara Palin

**barryh66** · 09-12-2008, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Jana Lewis

I honestly cannot believe that people are falling for her!

I guess being "HOT" allows people to lose all their bearings!

Obama has riding good looks and celebritism to a Presidential bid. We as a country fall for the cult of personality, look at the issues and make an in formed decision and for god sake VOTE!

P.S. She could hit me with that hockey stick

**hcjilson** · 09-12-2008, 10:14 AM

Dr K
I have not read the book. I did hear a review on NPR, and have read two others. They were clear enough to convince me to read the book. If you choose to believe them inaccurate, or Woodward for that matter, that is your business, but it sounds as if the ax you are grinding is not getting any sharper.

**drk** · 09-12-2008, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by hcjilson

Dr K
I did hear a review on NPR, and have read two others. They were clear enough to convince me to read the book.

They convinced you to BUY the book.

Woodward...book...NPR...money.

**Steve Machol** · 09-12-2008, 11:53 AM

No offense but that's a silly argument. If I read a movie review on Rottentomatos.com and I like the concept of the movie and the reviews seem good, this means I am under the evil influence of RottenTomatos?

Be serious. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not you buy a book? The cover? ;)

**Uncle Fester** · 09-12-2008, 12:33 PM

Great guest on NPR last night stating that Terrorism will always be around but State sponsored terrorism will result in regime change.

Regarding the election I think the legacy of any President is Supreme Court nominees. As a progressive liberal you know where I stand.:)

Regarding Palin- Now that she's in Alaska for her sons wedding (oopps) send off anyone see last nights news where it looks like she had AR.

**Spexvet** · 09-12-2008, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by drk

I refuse to cartoonishly characterize the president, Harry. That's sadly simplistic and unworthy of serious discussion.

How does Bob Woodward carry any weight with you, other than he's the "god of investigative reporters"? He's not impartial. Even if he were, who appointed him judge? You, apparently?

Dragon, it HAS TO BE MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to the world what our response to Iran is. That loudmouth pretender in Iran has to be given his response. To NOT do so is the height of irresponsiblity.

The US made-for-the-world-media response to that self-aggrandizing bullcrap is necessary to stabilize what Ahmedinejad (?) destabilitzes. Can't you see that? The markets? Israel? The nacent Iraq government? The factions in Iran that want him out?

If the US doesn't respond, Israel will, and they don't speak at all...they simply carry F16 sticks and use them. That, my friends, will be the beginning of the end.

Talking, negotiating, is the ONLY way that we, as a species, will survive. And why would it be harmful to talk, if there's someone to talk to? It doesn't cost money, like bombs that will need to be replaced using tax dollars, and it doesn't cost human lives. My Mommy taught me to use my words, and no to hit others. If we treated the Iranians as we wish to be treated, maybe everybody would be happy. It's a starting point, if it doesn't work, there's always war. :(

**rinselberg** · 09-12-2008, 12:58 PM

Spexvet..

We have been talking to the Iranians on a regular basis about the situation in Iraq. The fact that we've been talking with the Iranians is known to al Qaida, which only the other day released a video in which they "ragged" on Iran for cooperating with the U.S. ..!

Are you suggesting that we restore full diplomatic relations with Iran?

Are you suggesting that we should send the U.S. Secretary of State to Tehran to talk with the Iranians before we have any expectation that Iran will halt its uranium enrichment program, in line with the requirements of the U.N. and the international community including the EU, Russia and China?

I think you're "preaching to the choir" with that last post!

**carlos83eye** · 09-12-2008, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by OPTIDONN

I quess I just have strange taste in women. But it I had a chance to hit dat I would!:bbg:

I second that hit....and I'd do it for my country

While leavine the room, i'd take her kawa's while i'm at it........

......born to be bad

**hcjilson** · 09-12-2008, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by drk

They convinced you to BUY the book.

Woodward...book...NPR...money.

Actually, I've found most NPR listeners use libraries too! The Sandwich Library is one of the finest small town libraries in the country.Last year our librarian was named Librarian of the Year by the NY Times. It's a wonderful resource and if you are patient (able to wait a few days) you have access to the BPL. If you didn't go to school in Boston you probably wouldn't know that means the Boston Public Library. (another facility with no small reputation)

**Spexvet** · 09-13-2008, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by rinselberg

...Are you suggesting that we should send the U.S. Secretary of State to Tehran to talk with the Iranians before we have any expectation that Iran will halt its uranium enrichment program, in line with the requirements of the U.N. and the international community including the EU, Russia and China?
...

Yes

**rinselberg** · 09-13-2008, 04:52 PM

Considering the last two posts on this thread from Spexvet:

I don't think the U.S. Secretary of State will meet face to face with Iranian representatives until there is a prior understanding that Iran will halt its uranium enrichment program, ratchet down its military support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, stop making hostile public statements towards Israel and demonstrate a more unequivocal commitment towards cooperating with the U.S. on combatting global terrorism and on improving the situation in Iraq.

It should be remarked that just recently, the U.S. sent ranking State Department official R. Nicholas Burns to Geneva to join the EU in meeting with Iranian representatives about Iran's nuclear program. But the Iranians were not cooperative. Iran is still lined up against the international community by its decision to continue moving forward with its uranium enrichment activities.

I don't think that you will see the U.S. Secretary of State meeting with Iranian representatives on any high profile public forum any time soon, regardless of whether McCain or Obama becomes President.

Until the Iranians have a change of heart and send the requisite diplomatic signals a priori, through lower level channels, a meeting with either the current or next U.S. Secretary of State just ain't happening.. barring a surprise write-in campaign that results in Spexvet becoming the next President..

**Spexvet** · 09-15-2008, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by rinselberg

I don't think the U.S. Secretary of State will meet face to face with Iranian representatives until there is a prior understanding that Iran will halt its uranium enrichment program, ratchet down its military support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, stop making hostile public statements towards Israel and demonstrate a more unequivocal commitment towards cooperating with the U.S. on combatting global terrorism and on improving the situation in Iraq.

Of course they won't, under the fools that are currently in power. But they should. How can you negotiate or influence someone without communicating with them? Oh wait - this is conservative repucanism. That means make a non-specific public statement to the world in general, and if the intended recipient does not obey, then The US will invade. :hammer:

Originally Posted by rinselberg

write-in campaign that results in Spexvet becoming the next President..

No, next King Of The World!

**hcjilson** · 09-15-2008, 08:49 AM

Spex,
I think Rinsie means that we should let the "diplomats" pave the way by establishing preconditions under which "real" discussions can begin. After all, the "diplomats" under this administration have done a remarkable job so far. Why not get some mileage from the overhead we pay to maintain the Department of State?

In a more serious vein, what can possibly be wrong with 2 individuals sitting down to hammer out differences? I think many of this country's foreign policy problems could be solved by facing them directly, with the leadership of both sides making the calls. I thought that's why we elected leaders.........to lead!

**DragonLensmanWV** · 09-15-2008, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by rinselberg

Considering the last two posts on this thread from Spexvet:

I don't think the U.S. Secretary of State will meet face to face with Iranian representatives until there is a prior understanding that Iran will halt its uranium enrichment program, ratchet down its military support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, stop making hostile public statements towards Israel and demonstrate a more unequivocal commitment towards cooperating with the U.S. on combatting global terrorism and on improving the situation in Iraq.

It should be remarked that just recently, the U.S. sent ranking State Department official R. Nicholas Burns to Geneva to join the EU in meeting with Iranian representatives about Iran's nuclear program. But the Iranians were not cooperative. Iran is still lined up against the international community by its decision to continue moving forward with its uranium enrichment activities.

I don't think that you will see the U.S. Secretary of State meeting with Iranian representatives on any high profile public forum any time soon, regardless of whether McCain or Obama becomes President.

Until the Iranians have a change of heart and send the requisite diplomatic signals a priori, through lower level channels, a meeting with either the current or next U.S. Secretary of State just ain't happening.. barring a surprise write-in campaign that results in Spexvet becoming the next President..

My question is : How seriously will the crazy, sexist Iranians take a female Secretary Of State, or a female Vice President for that matter?

**Robert Martellaro** · 09-15-2008, 01:15 PM

Check out what Cintra Wilson at Salon.com wrote about Govenor Palin. She writes like a female version of the late Hunter Thompson. Here are some of the less virulent comments...

Sarah Palin is a bit comical, like one of those cutthroat Texas cheerleader stage moms.

We must regard Sarah Palin as the Carmella Soprano of the GOP -- an enabling wife of organized crime, who sees, hears and speaks no evil of the boys in her old-boy network for whom she does this ideological lap dance.

The Republicans are, in effect, saying: We're not going to win this race on the basis of being the better candidates. Barack Obama is going to make you think. You don't like thinking. Here's an It Girl vice president who is easy on the eyes, you stodgy old white baby boomer. She's like a grown-up version of Mary Ann from "Gilligan's Island." She embodies the raw conviction that everything the republicans have ever done has been right. She'll make you feel better about yourself for voting for Bush. Twice.

**Spexvet** · 09-15-2008, 01:58 PM

Who has the rock-star image, now?

**labrat** · 09-15-2008, 05:43 PM

Come on people and wake up. How can anyone support Palin and McCain? Hasn't anyone noticed that they spend half their time saying that they stand up against their own party. You are not suppose to have to stand up against the party whose beliefs you are suppose to believe in. The Republican party was hijacked 8 years ago by the Neocons and McCain, who MANY Dems used to really respect, even though we some times did not agree with bought into all of Bush's BS. You can not argue about his voting record over the past eight years. It's a fact that he supported Bush 90% of the time and we all know for a fact that Bush has not been right 90% of the time.

I use to really like McCain and even though I am a liberal I liked and respected him for who he WAS before Bush and he should have won the republican primary going on to be president.

It's time to wake up and rescue this country. Our house is in shambles and eight more years of republican rule will leave us worse off. We can't fall for that 'you will be safer' or 'there hasn't been another attack' BS. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. We lost nearly 3000 people that day and we are no closer to making those resposible pay for it now than we were on the day after everything happened. Enough is enough. We are not just voting for the two highest positions in our government but the team that will run things. The team in change can't can to be the team for change! They haven't changed their policies in 8 years even after beign proven wrong on so many things. You can't blame the Dems for the past eight years. they have only controlled congress for not even the past two. Wake up and start being honest with yourself. Even if you are a fan of a baseball team you can disagree with what the coach does and want him fired. Just becuase it's 'your team' doesn't mean you have to agree with how they play the game. :idea:

**rep** · 09-17-2008, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by labrat

Come on people and wake up. How can anyone support Palin and McCain? Hasn't anyone noticed that they spend half their time saying that they stand up against their own party. You are not suppose to have to stand up against the party whose beliefs you are suppose to believe in. The Republican party was hijacked 8 years ago by the Neocons and McCain, who MANY Dems used to really respect, even though we some times did not agree with bought into all of Bush's BS. You can not argue about his voting record over the past eight years. It's a fact that he supported Bush 90% of the time and we all know for a fact that Bush has not been right 90% of the time.

:idea:

Actually you can argue quite well against this liberal half truth

You are correct he supported Bush's position 90% of the time - BUT FOR ONLY 22 PERCENT OF THE VOTES. The president is not a senator and does not vote and many of these votes the president had no position.

The source of this information was only a small sampling of 22 % of the votes. The study is here. http://blog1.thejtandbearshow.com/20...-the-time.aspx

http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com...5-of-time.html

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...oted_with.html

McCain has a lower percentage of voting the party line (81%) than Obamas 96% In fact he is among the lowest percentage of senators supporting republican causes and has been call by his own party a maverick. Palin's accomplshments agains her own party are very well documented.

Obama and Biden voted 40% and 52% of the time with Bush in the same study. By your own logic they should be responsible for 40 to 50 % of the problems you lay at the feet of Bush and the republicans.

Rep

**LilKim** · 09-17-2008, 11:28 AM

I think it's interesting to note that we never really heard anyone complaining about candidates being grilled with tough questions on sit-down interviews earlier in the race, yet since Palin's interview with Gibson, and McCain being fielded some tough questions by the women on "The View", people are crying "foul". Those who question the credentials and personal life of Palin, her supporters are calling them "diggers" and "mud-slingers", etc, yet those same people were eerily silent when outlandish accusations were leveled at Obama earlier in the primaries. His middle name of "Hussein" being such an issue, his supposed ties with Islam (implying him being in league with terrorists), spending a few years of his childhood outside the US, the hoopla about his not wearing a flag lapel pin or not consistently placing his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. All stupid, irrelevant things, and yet those who believed in that junk about Obama are getting bent out of shape when similar topics are addressed about Palin. Hypocritical, and utterly pointless. And yet, the majority of Americans are going to vote with their gut or their lust (obviously McCain isn't an object of desire!). Remember the main reason why Bush was elected in 2000? Because people felt he was a guy you could sit down and have a beer or smoke a joint with. Good thing we all vote with objectivity and intelligence in this country! lol :bbg:

**DragonLensmanWV** · 09-18-2008, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by LilKim

I think it's interesting to note that we never really heard anyone complaining about candidates being grilled with tough questions on sit-down interviews earlier in the race, yet since Palin's interview with Gibson, and McCain being fielded some tough questions by the women on "The View", people are crying "foul". Those who question the credentials and personal life of Palin, her supporters are calling them "diggers" and "mud-slingers", etc, yet those same people were eerily silent when outlandish accusations were leveled at Obama earlier in the primaries. His middle name of "Hussein" being such an issue, his supposed ties with Islam (implying him being in league with terrorists), spending a few years of his childhood outside the US, the hoopla about his not wearing a flag lapel pin or not consistently placing his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. All stupid, irrelevant things, and yet those who believed in that junk about Obama are getting bent out of shape when similar topics are addressed about Palin. Hypocritical, and utterly pointless. And yet, the majority of Americans are going to vote with their gut or their lust (obviously McCain isn't an object of desire!). Remember the main reason why Bush was elected in 2000? Because people felt he was a guy you could sit down and have a beer or smoke a joint with. Good thing we all vote with objectivity and intelligence in this country! lol :bbg:

Not to worry, Katie Couric is going to follow her around for a couple of days so she can ask her some appropriately creampuff questions. "How do you think being a hockey mom prepares you for dealing with terrorists?" "What color outfit will you be wearing next week?"

**Steve Machol** · 09-18-2008, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by LilKim

I think it's interesting to note that we never really heard anyone complaining about candidates being grilled with tough questions on sit-down interviews earlier in the race, yet since Palin's interview with Gibson, and McCain being fielded some tough questions by the women on "The View", people are crying "foul".

Can you spell 'hypocrisy'?

"In what way Charlie?"

**Scott** · 09-18-2008, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by LilKim

Remember the main reason why Bush was elected in 2000? Because people felt he was a guy you could sit down and have a beer or smoke a joint with.

Cool, so if we elect Obama, we can all snort cocaine with him!;)

**Steve Machol** · 09-18-2008, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Scott

Cool, so if we elect Obama, we can all snort cocaine with him!;)

Given that George W Bush also was a cocaine user as well as an alcoholic I find that ironic, but not altogether surprising. :)

**LilKim** · 09-18-2008, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by DragonLensmanWV

Not to worry, Katie Couric is going to follow her around for a couple of days so she can ask her some appropriately creampuff questions. "How do you think being a hockey mom prepares you for dealing with terrorists?" "What color outfit will you be wearing next week?"

Yes, even the "town hall" Q&A she and McCain held the other day, people asked her some serious and genuine answers, and all she could do was stick to her script and her vague "I can do it" rhetoric. No specifics, nothing of substance.

**Jeep-Power** · 09-18-2008, 06:02 PM

Well, to keep it on topic...

maybe it had already been discussed elsewhere on this site, (or previously in this tread-- I didn't read the whole thing ;) )

I have had atleast 50% of my daily customers coming in and asking if anyone else has asked to see a frame like Mrs. Palins. :hammer::hammer::hammer:

I laugh, and tell them no, but I have had ALOT of folks asking me the same question they are... :p

Soooo... what's the scoop on her frames, just so that I'm prepared for the next customer. What frame is she wearing??

Before we answer... it seems to me I have seen her with atleast 5 different frames on, so it doesn't seem to be a straight cut answer...:hammer::hammer::hammer:

One guy told me today she is wearing a Kawasaki??

The thing that intersts me the most is that no one is talking about her qualifications, abilities, views, etc as a VP Canidate. They are more concerned with how she looks and what she is wearing... DUH.

EDIT-- well, alittle more searching turned up this thread: http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31456