Just read she worked for a while with her husband as a commercial fisherman. Love the Deadliest Catch on Discovery. McCain has finally done something I like.

I qualified it as being my own experiences (and also by an acknowledgment that Eugene is not an ordinary place). It's 100% true, and my own PERSONAL reasons why I have a hard time accepting Democrats.

No idea, I'd have to delve into that 95% (and further back) to see.

I do wish that I had the option to vote for the McCain of 2000 instead of the McCain of 2008. I do think there's some degree of him doing what he thought to do to win the nomination. I don't have a great sense of how much.

Like your vote was ever in question.

Liberals don't think it's that simple either, but I wouldn't want to stop you from stereotyping them. You seem to enjoy doing that so much.

My big problem with liberals...Democrats in particular, whenever someone proposes a tax cut, the mantra in Washington becomes, "how are we going to pay for these tax cuts?"

What the reply should be is, "you need to justify to us (the people) why we shouldn't be keeping more of what we earn."

I saw this on another board, some positive aspects of the Palin selection if you're rooting for Obama:

-the gop have only 2 months to inform the american public of who she is
-she'll have an ethics investigation going on in the background (which I'm sure will quietly go away)
-she has no natural geographic support of importance
-her appeal to independent women will be hurt by her strong anti-choice stances
-she has literally no record on foreign policy - good luck at the debates
-she's spent less time in office than obama
-she and mccain don't know each other
-her pick reinforces 1) his age 2) he had to pick a woman 3) his desperation to make a splash
-this pick also reinforces how poor the gop is doing on national leaders - everyone else was passed over for a reason
-alaska's gop scandals will be brought out to a national audience

I was responding to a specific post, and a very, very common liberal rallying cry.

"We care about the poor more because we want to tax the rich", etc.

That's bs.

Conservatives don't hate poor people and want to blow rich people just because they think that the government can't be trusted with money. I totally respect a liberal argument that the government CAN be trusted, and that their policies work. But all I ever here is how conservatives are in bed with the rich, democrats are about the people, etc. It's not where the argument is.

All this is canceled by the fact that she's a hottie!!! woooo! :cool:

So what's the stupid nickname going to be - McPalin, or McCalin?

This pick is shocking, really. I can't believe it.

I have absolutely no idea how this will turn out, but I look forward to the SNL skits

So what do conservatives think can help alleviate or help those less fortunate?

The US is a capitalist society. Those that are on top have made their money by providing a good or service to a large amount of people. This applies from McDonald's to Walmart, actors to drug dealers. The point is that if the bottom economic rungs of society do better, the top will do better.

Do conservative see that?

what about PaCain?

:lol: Good one Vic.

I respect that opinion. I of course, think that Walmart with billions of dollars helps EVERYONE more than the government with billions of dollars, in a capitalist society.

THAT'S a good/fair debate though. Much different than what how the discussion usually goes. People (both sides) usually just argue in terms of an end result that everybody wants. It's extremely misleading. Democrats saying that they're "for working people" is the same as a Republican saying they're "anti-terror" (which a lot do).

That's actually a good comparison - how annoyed are you when a Republican goes off on a terrorism/defense rant, as if you're in favor of more 9/11s happening. Sure, their solution may be a little more "direct", but that doesn't mean they're the only one that cares about the end result.

So either Joe Biden, a two-time primary loser candidate from Delaware (Delaware!) that stole speeches, or I-don't-even-know-her-name from Alaska (Alaska!) with 2 years under her belt as governor is going to be the Vice President of the USA. Has the whole world gone insane?

McPain?

Apropos of nothing, they selected someone who fired a state officer because they wouldn't fire someone going through a messy divorce with a member of the governor's family? Are YOU SERIOUS???

Ugh.

This is admittedly taken out of context, but I'm sure it will come up over and over again.

Palin on her VP chances:

Agreed. That does piss me off.

Sure it bothers me, but I don't suggest that all conservatives think or say that.

I thought I read in here that this Pain person is hot. Pics?

Palin is her name...lol.

Pic:



on cover of Vogue in 2007.

I wonder if she'll be asked who'd she chose as VP if McCain croaks.

GIS for Palin:



:D

When people say "Americans like this" or "Liberals think this" or "Conservaties think this" they don't litterally mean that every single one, without exception, do.

I mean, we could all qualify our statements that way, every single time (and I try to remember to do that sometimes), but I think most people accept the reverse default. That unless someone specifically says "without exceptions", they're conceding that there's some exceptions.

Sterotypes are extremely helpful in informal discussions, and they're not meaningless. You can hardly say ANYTHING without grouping views of people together. "The Red Sox wanted Manny gone" - well maybe there was a few that didn't. "Democrats like the Biden pick" - well I'm sure there's a bunch that don't. Obama says "the people are ready for change" - well actually some aren't. "Republicans are pro-life" - many aren't. Yet all of those statements tell us something useful about a general truth regarding the consensus of those groups.

Obama' has McCain reactive now.

McCain says Obama has little experience, so he picks Joe Biden.

Obama says you're old, so he picks Paulin.

+1 Obama.

Hell, what the first thing people said about her, "she's hot."

First VP with cankles?

If McCain picked someone with experience, we'd certainly hear "more of the same, business as usual".

What are cankles?

You're forgetting about Nelson Rockefeller.

as if this vote was ever in any sort of doubt.

Do you really think she's going to have any influence on McCain's decisions? I'd have felt better with Lieberman.

I really think the Dems attacking a VP pick (last time I checked, the president runs the country, not the VP) over inexperience would really do them no good. They would just be asking for an aggressive attack that highlights Obama's inexperience.

Palin need to take her glasses off.

Not bad. What is she, late 30s, early 40s? That first big picture is the most flattering. Kind of a school teacher look going on.

Nonono, that gives the naughty school teacher look.

Basically fat ankles. When the calf kind of just merges into the foot without getting much skinnier, so it's more of a cankle than an ankle.

Finally some real substance in this thread.

Is it me or does it seem like McCain made this pick last night right after Obama's speech?

lol.

I'm kind of like her, I have no idea what a VP does day-to-day. (and the Constitution certainly doesn't define that role)

The President has an inner circle - VP, various cabinet members. I'm sure every administration is a little bit different in terms of who the president listens to, who has the most power, etc.

No, I don't think she'll have any influence over McCain's decisions. She's there to try to connect the administration to the people. Even during a McCain presidency, I think that's what she would do - be off doing her own thing, meeting with various important domestic people, probably a lot of support for charities and stuff.

How long will it take before someone Photoshops her head on a porn actress?

I can't fully see her ankles to comment about that accusation.

Watching the speech and she seems very amateurish in the start of her speech but Ill cut her some slack since she's probably blown away by her selection as well.

Bob Barr just announced a crippled gay guy as his VP.

The truth is shrouded in pantsuit! America thinks they are voting for a hottie, but I know there are cankles under there! These Republicans will stoop to anything.

So she's going to be McCain's "attack dog?"

....she's finding her groove now half way through.

She can attack me. But I'm not American and don't really know anything about the election, but she can still attack me for being a bad student.

oh crap, she says 'Nucular' too!

Define less fortunate first.

However:

1) The rich should be rewarded for what they create. They do a lot more than the government, bloated by waste and bureaucracy could. They provide jobs, tax revenue (the wealthy pay a large % of the US tax revenue), new products and services that benefit society. They also how to create new jobs and such through managing money.

2) The government already has a wealth of social programs. We have Medicaid/Medicare, welfare/disability/Social Security/food stamps, low-income housing and assistance in paying bills (heating/gas, ect.) and homeless shelters. We have educational programs all over.

3) The increase in charity from people (particularly the upper crust of income generators). They are more pro-active and demand results.

I don't think just taking money from a wealthier party, who has worked hard and created something, and giving it to the less fortunate works.

Theyre really going after the Hillary vote.

I kind of wonder how Hillary is feeling right now. I wonder if she is pissed as hell.

Having traveled a bit, our view of poverty in this country is rather jaded.

I thought they were going for the Tina Fey vote when I saw that banner.

I don't know, if done correctly they can corner McCain into a difficult position. If he says that Palin is qualified to be President, then it's going to be awfully hard to criticize Obama's inexperience.

Yeah, that was hilarious.

I'm sure she's at least a tiny bit conflicted.

That can kind of work both ways, ie - How can Obama's campaign criticize her inexperience? However, Obama has been in the public eye for so much longer that I think there is the illusion of much more experience than her. I think it was a mistake to put someone in the race with less experience than Obama. It undoes their strongest Obama attack to some degree.

I think she looks alright. I wonder if she spits or swallows though...

well apparently she's great for the religious right so that's great for the McCain camp.

She's a governor. Bill Clinton used that on his political resume too. Obama has ZERO executive experience, so if his people try to play the inexperience card on her...blammo it comes back to bite them big time.

But do you see the jobs of the Presidency and Vice Presidency different? I guess it depends on how one will see these roles.

I hate that logic.

"There are people who shit stinks worse, so be happy."

None of those people live in America, you can't make that comparison.

Ya, I think Obama ultamitely wins that back and forth because he's more experienced than her.

Still, it's funny to think that just a few pages back, people were arguging over whether experience mattered at all, and now everyone has to backtrack and sort out their opinions on that based on these developments.

They are, but the Obama camp will make much of the fact that she's a "heartbeat away from the presidency".

She has enough experience to be VP

Again, so did Bush. Experience is overrated. Its all about good decision making.

McCain's skin cancer issues certainly make her experience an issue to consider.

the GOP vice-presidential nominee is as experienced as the Democratic presidential nominee but also has executive decision-making that Obama lacks. Her tough stance on reform of long corrupt practices could give her a very clear advantage over practiced cronyists Obama and Biden.

I do think one's evaluation of the roles could be a factor, but I'm talking more about public perception than the practical meaning. I think some people are going to go from "What do we really know about Obama?" who has been nationally known for 4 years to "Who the hell is this woman?" She has no experience and they didn't even know who she was at all. I just think it undermines that doubt they had created about Obama. It shifts the unknown to her, at least to some degree.

I think going with a ticket of total experience would've reinforced McCain's strength. Just my opinion.

That's true, she's actually the only one on either ticket with executive experience.

Not sure whether that matters in a practical sense, or whether people will even pick up on that distinction.

LOL, The Republican talking head said Palin wont be the 'attack dog' because this elections isnt about attacks....um, have you seen the ads thus far, not taking into account who's responsible for the ad? That was as disingenuous a statement as Ive heard all week from either side.

I can when a lot of the people I speak of would absolutely LOVE to trade places with an American "poor" person because, for them, it would be a major step up in their standard of living.

Isn't the point of the VP to pick someone who is qualified to be president in the event that something happens to the president?

Therefore to be qualified to be vice-president, you have be qualified to be president, right?

The point is that the VP choice can potentially take away one of McCain's best attacks. That doesn't mean someone's opinion of whether or not experience matters has changed.

What does domestic economic policy have to do with how people live in 3rd world countries?

Tiny Fey lol.

As I posted a post a page ago, how do you define "poor"?

I guess you could say a lot of people are looking at Obama the same way, yeah the guy makes pretty speeches...but what has he done? If it weren't a major concern, I don't think the race would be as close as it is.

I normally agree with most of your posts...which is why I usually dont feel overly compelled to post the same comment...but I actually disagree with this for the following reasons.

Obama/Biden can try that tact, but in reality, this is a woman with more executive experience than the other 3 candidates combined.

Couple that with (whether valid or otherwise) having less (or nearly zero) baggage issues to defend and I think it's a road that Dems would be better served to stay away from.

But I would agree that Dems would be well served to argue that if Palin is capable of being President, then so is Obama. But really...is that a compelling outcome to even bother broaching the subject over? IMHO, nope.

Why would I use economic conditions outside of the US as a reference point?

Why wouldn't you?

Take it easy, dude. You're not her press secretary.

The point is that either they are both qualified to be president or neither are qualified to be president. If they are both qualified to be president then why vote for McCain or anybody else with "Washington experience?"

I can see that. However, say some president dies two years into a term. With two years of of being the vice president, I think one certainly has enough experience to step into the presidency role.

If you're at the bottom of the barrel in the United States, or if you're facing injustices here, that's where you are, that's what you're fighting against.

A pre-civil rights African American was still better off than a lot of African blacks. So he should just shut up and accept the injustices because there's someone worse off somewhere?

Should we care less about poverty because our poor people are relatively well off?

I'm not the one who did, SFL Cat did. However, that wasn't my question. My question was how do you define poor?

+1

I'd also argue that Palin, in her first & only speech as VP nominee, has already complimented her Presidential nominee in more ways than Biden has all week.

At least if you draw a distinction between saying "Obama is about change and will right that wrong" vs. "McCain has demonstrated his willingness to put his country first".

These are, of course, simplified versions...but it is the ultimate message that I come away with.

In the end, the vice presidential nominees do not have that much impact on the general election.

In 1988, everyone thought that GHWB blew the election when he picked Dan Quayle. Ultimately, the Democratic VP, Lloyd Bentsen, ended up casting a shadow over Michael Dukakis because Bentsen was perceived as being more qualified than Dukakis.

I guess if I had to quantify it would be 2 parent/2 kid household:

700-rent/mortgage
300-food
800-car
200-medical
300-utilities
200 gas
--------------
2500-month
x 12
---------------
30000--aprox.
---------------
anything less than 35,000/yr-40000 would probably be poor.

Go ahead and attack. I know when I'm being set up.

On the job training.

If a person doesn't get the necessities to continue to stay alive, then that person would be my first priority, regardless of nationality.

And, I'll admit I do get a little riled when I go to the Supermarket late at night and the lady in front of me in line is paying for her groceries with food stamps while talking on a cell phone that costs $150 more than the one I use.

Good call. If I remember correctly, Ferraro didn't have a lot of experience, and had policy views that spoke to the Democratic base as Palin's do to the GOP's base.

this doesnt vibe with other facets in your party's platform...

nor your leader's voting records in regards to what I would consider to fall under the umbrella in your quote above.

It's funny that with the Palin pick, the two major avenues the McCain has been attacking Obama on for the past quarter ("experience" and "celebrity") are basically totally neutered right now. I wonder what their major themes will now be during the run-up.

Not sure what part of the country you live in, but the car seems a bit high and rent seems way low. I doubt a poor 2 person family would have 2 car payments, so probably closer to $200-$400 a month. But rent, I haven't seen below $1000 a month for a small apartment since I moved from the South a long time ago. So I guess it all balances out! :)

Even with Palin on the ticket, I wonder how many PUMAs are going to go with McCain, especially with that now established as the anti-Choice ticket very solidly. Are so many Clinton supporters really going to vote against their own issues? I'm trying to remember if that's really happened before. Bucc?

First off smart choise by the Repubs. As for attracting Hilary's voters I say not likely for one big reason. She is a huge antiabortionist so I doubt that will atract them and expect the Dems to remind people of this often. I think Hilary should feel like she has fucked herself by subtley getting her base to turn on Obama before which really is why the Repubs choose a woman IMHO. now if McCain wins in four years you got a guaranteed VP weho will kill Hilary. So she pretty much can kiss her chance asd Pres. 20012 goodbye baby..............Oh, despite the fact the mom is hot the older daughter has some serious guns already but not sure how old she is.

Why have two kids when your making $30,000 in combined salary? What does $800 in car mean? Is that car payments?

Anyways, as I posted in a previous post:

1) The rich should be rewarded for what they create. They do a lot more than the government, bloated by waste and bureaucracy could. They provide jobs, tax revenue (the wealthy pay a large % of the US tax revenue), new products and services that benefit society. They also how to create new jobs and such through managing money.

2) The government already has a wealth of social programs. We have Medicaid/Medicare, welfare/disability/Social Security/food stamps, low-income housing and assistance in paying bills (heating/gas, ect.) and homeless shelters. We have educational programs all over.

3) The increase in charity from people (particularly the upper crust of income generators). They are more pro-active and demand results.

I don't think just taking money from a wealthier party, who has worked hard and created something, and giving it to the less fortunate works.