Post by: Ben on August 18, 2008, 05:22:07 AM
Post by: ilbob on August 18, 2008, 05:25:33 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 18, 2008, 05:36:12 AM
Post by: roo_ster on August 18, 2008, 05:38:19 AM
But, in summary:
Those "issues" she has have to do with taking on the machine-Republicans in Alaska.
From what I have read of it, the kerfluffle makes me more positively disposed towards her.
Post by: xavier fremboe on August 18, 2008, 05:55:47 AM
I seem to recall reading that she has some issues of her own to sort out that would make her a poor choice right now.
I thought it was something about allegedly getting a state trooper fired or something. I know Bill Kristol has been advocating her. I don't know much else about her.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 18, 2008, 06:56:37 AM
Post by: El Tejon on August 18, 2008, 06:57:22 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on August 18, 2008, 08:08:42 AM
Does she come with matching Alaskan State Troopers?
There's just something about a woman in uniform....
Post by: El Tejon on August 18, 2008, 09:27:28 AM
Post by: agricola on August 18, 2008, 09:41:47 AM
I seem to recall reading that she has some issues of her own to sort out that would make her a poor choice right now.
I thought it was something about allegedly getting a state trooper fired or something. I know Bill Kristol has been advocating her. I don't know much else about her.More info here: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=13862.0
Basically she is alleged to have wanted her ex-brother in law fired (after he tasered his 11-year old stepson, threatened her father and did some other stuff. He was suspended for five days) - (edit) and fired one of his bosses when he refused the change the punishment.
Post by: Ben on August 18, 2008, 10:16:38 AM
Post by: seeker_two on August 18, 2008, 12:06:20 PM
I seem to recall reading that she has some issues of her own to sort out that would make her a poor choice right now.
I thought it was something about allegedly getting a state trooper fired or something. I know Bill Kristol has been advocating her. I don't know much else about her.More info here: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=13862.0
Basically she is alleged to have wanted her ex-brother in law fired (after he tasered his 11-year old stepson, threatened her father and did some other stuff. He was suspended for five days) - (edit) and fired one of his bosses when he refused the change the punishment.
agricola is spot on....she wanted the book thrown at her ne'er-do-well BIL & his Sooper Trooper buddies let him skate.....
Actually, she just had a baby who has Down's Syndrome. This is probably what will take her out of politics overall, much less the VP race.....
Post by: Scout26 on August 18, 2008, 07:20:19 PM
Start making the Jindal/Palin 2012 stickers.........
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 18, 2008, 10:45:38 PM
Bogie,
Start making the Jindal/Palin 2012 stickers.........
Start making the Jindal/Palin 2012 stickers.........
Why not Palin/Jindal?
Post by: Jimmy Dean on August 21, 2008, 04:53:36 PM
Do I think he would do a good job?
Yeah
Do I think he will do a better job than any opponent?
Hell Yeah
Do I think he will do a better job than other reps?
Damn skippy
So why won't I vote for him?
BECAUSE WE NEED HIM HERE IN LOUISIANA VERY BADLY!!!
Post by: seeker_two on August 22, 2008, 12:25:08 AM
So why won't I vote for him?
BECAUSE WE NEED HIM HERE IN LOUISIANA VERY BADLY!!!
Jindal needs to be somewhere he can make a dent in gov't waste & corruption....and Lousiana is beyond hope.....
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 22, 2008, 12:30:16 AM
Post by: Finch on August 24, 2008, 06:42:51 PM
Bleh...more of the same...
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 24, 2008, 06:49:08 PM
Quote
"Jindal voted yes on making the PATRIOT Act permanent, voted in favor of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, supported a constitutional amendment banning flag burning, and the Real ID Act of 2005."
Sounds like a real modern-day Republican to me.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 25, 2008, 09:22:32 AM
Post by: agricola on August 26, 2008, 07:49:53 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 26, 2008, 07:53:49 AM
How long has Limbaugh been agitating for Palin to get on the ticket?
Limbaugh hasn't been agitating for anyone. He's been agitating against a few particularly left-leaning possibilities, though.
Post by: Archie on August 26, 2008, 07:37:12 PM
A 'proper' vice presidential nominee would get you to vote for Senator McCain, but taxes and Supreme Court Justices won't?
Senator McCain is not my first choice for President. I think he's number four or so. Still, he's way ahead of either Senators Obama or Clinton.
The next President will be either the Republican or Democrat nominee. That is the functional limit of choices. So who do you want, or more accurately, which do you not like the least?
Post by: taurusowner on August 26, 2008, 07:54:39 PM
Either order something that's on the menu or the libs will order for you. And you won't like what they do.
Post by: Antibubba on August 26, 2008, 11:08:50 PM
Post by: Ben on August 27, 2008, 06:00:04 AM
At this point I don't know which way I'll go until sometime in November. Part of me wants to slow the sinking and vote for McCain, part of me wants to "turn the switch", let Obama win and let the country go to hell in a handbasket for four years in hopes voters will swing well to the right the next time around. Either way, I figure it's my vote to do with as I wish.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 27, 2008, 06:04:56 AM
At this point I don't know which way I'll go until sometime in November. Part of me wants to slow the sinking and vote for McCain, part of me wants to "turn the switch", let Obama win and let the country go to hell in a handbasket for four years in hopes voters will swing well to the right the next time around. Either way, I figure it's my vote to do with as I wish.
Heller was 5-4. Obama will appoint hardcore lefties to the Supreme Court.
Obama will work with Pelosi and the rest to bring about national gun registration, a permanent AWB, and a national ban on concealed carry.
Think about it.
Post by: Ben on August 27, 2008, 06:38:59 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on August 27, 2008, 07:02:14 AM
Post by: Ben on August 27, 2008, 07:18:05 AM
Quote
If you think there will be some sunshine on the other side of an Obama Presidency, I think you are wrong.
Well, there was a lot of sunshine on the other side of the Carter Presidency....
Post by: Manedwolf on August 27, 2008, 08:41:14 AM
Quote
If you think there will be some sunshine on the other side of an Obama Presidency, I think you are wrong.
Well, there was a lot of sunshine on the other side of the Carter Presidency....
The world is a lot more dangerous now. Iran with a nuclear ICBM is not something I want Obama in office to not deal with.
Post by: HankB on August 27, 2008, 09:03:30 AM
At this point I don't know which way I'll go until sometime in November. Part of me wants to slow the sinking and vote for McCain, part of me wants to "turn the switch", let Obama win and let the country go to hell in a handbasket for four years in hopes voters will swing well to the right the next time around. Either way, I figure it's my vote to do with as I wish.
Heller was 5-4. Obama will appoint hardcore lefties to the Supreme Court.
ARE there any Reagans in the GOP?
Would the RINO-infested GOP ever tolerate another Reagan?
Would a GOP-dominated legislature operate as it did with Newt, or go back to being Democrat Lite as it was during the first six years of W's presidency?
McCain may - operative word, may - appoint moderate justices in the Anthony Kennedy mold. Not what we'd want, but McCain won't appoint anyone who'd would vote to overturn McCain-Feingold, and even another Anthony Kennedy would be a net gain if he replaced Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, or Breyer.
Barack Hussein Obama would nominate justices that make Ginsberg look like Ann Coulter. ( And if that was literal as well as political . . .
)That damage would not be easily repaired, and could last for decades.
Either way, we are so screwed . . .
Post by: Northwoods on August 27, 2008, 12:40:47 PM
ARE there any Reagans in the GOP?
Would the RINO-infested GOP ever tolerate another Reagan?
Would a GOP-dominated legislature operate as it did with Newt, or go back to being Democrat Lite as it was during the first six years of W's presidency?
One the first question, Bobby Jindal is looking rather promising. Time will tell though.Would the RINO-infested GOP ever tolerate another Reagan?
Would a GOP-dominated legislature operate as it did with Newt, or go back to being Democrat Lite as it was during the first six years of W's presidency?
On the second question, yes, but only if they think it will help their re-election chances/flow of campaign money.
On the third point, well, there's no telling. But one would think that the former would be more likely with a Reganesque POTUS.
Post by: Tallpine on August 27, 2008, 02:41:18 PM
Quote
we are so screwed
So true ...
Post by: Balog on August 27, 2008, 02:47:13 PM
At this point I don't know which way I'll go until sometime in November. Part of me wants to slow the sinking and vote for McCain, part of me wants to "turn the switch", let Obama win and let the country go to hell in a handbasket for four years in hopes voters will swing well to the right the next time around. Either way, I figure it's my vote to do with as I wish.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 27, 2008, 08:04:24 PM
At this point I don't know which way I'll go until sometime in November. Part of me wants to slow the sinking and vote for McCain, part of me wants to "turn the switch", let Obama win and let the country go to hell in a handbasket for four years in hopes voters will swing well to the right the next time around. Either way, I figure it's my vote to do with as I wish.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
America is being incredibly stupid right now, like a bratty kid screaming that they want to eat only candy.
While it's tempting to let them eat the candy so they become violently ill, thus learning a lesson, in this case, the candy could poison and kill them.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 28, 2008, 02:50:08 AM
Jeez, the favored nominees--Romney, whats-his-face from Pennsylvania--how boring can these guys get? Dull and duller.
Romney has two good points; 1. He knows economics,
2. He's more conservative, and McCain *seems* willing to listen some...
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 01:47:59 PM
It's like going to a restaurant and ordering something that isn't on the menu. It doesn't really matter what you truly want. You're either going to get something that's on the menu, or nothing. In the case of the Presidential election, you're either going to get McCain or Obama. Asking for Ron Paul or anyone else voids your request. Either pick the one you like best(or hate least) or don't pick at all. But the illusion that asking for something not offered will get you anywhere is absurd.
Either order something that's on the menu or the libs will order for you. And you won't like what they do.
Either order something that's on the menu or the libs will order for you. And you won't like what they do.
This argument was torn apart in 1996.
Post by: 2swap on August 28, 2008, 01:59:46 PM
It's like going to a restaurant and ordering something that isn't on the menu. It doesn't really matter what you truly want. You're either going to get something that's on the menu, or nothing. In the case of the Presidential election, you're either going to get McCain or Obama. Asking for Ron Paul or anyone else voids your request. Either pick the one you like best(or hate least) or don't pick at all. But the illusion that asking for something not offered will get you anywhere is absurd.
Either order something that's on the menu or the libs will order for you. And you won't like what they do.
Either order something that's on the menu or the libs will order for you. And you won't like what they do.
You bring this argument without turning it into a flaming speech about why we need Instant Runoff Voting? I would have thought that American fans of 'other' candidates would campaign for that...
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 03:39:08 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 03:47:51 PM
two for one that article displays perfectly the "nothing is better than me not getting my way " mindset. folks who buy into to that don't see anything wrong with that thankfully they couldn't muster 10% at gunpoint and likely a tiny fraction of that
"nothing is better than me not getting my way"?
Doesn't that mean WANTING to not get your way?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 04:07:20 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 04:16:37 PM
I just don't think it's a good idea in general to let one party think they 'own' your vote just because the other guys are worse.
They need to be aware that if they push out someone who's REALLY bad, you might just say 'screw it' and sit one out or make a protest vote.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 04:26:21 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 04:29:15 PM
you know if mccain runs with lieberman and wins that would send the message to both sides
Which message is that?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 04:30:58 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 04:39:25 PM
that folks ain't happy
How would McCain running with Liberman and winning send the message that folks aren't happy with McCain?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 05:00:17 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 05:31:08 PM
that folks ain't happy with what the 2 party system sends down the pipe. mccain is old enough to tell the r's to take a hike and the d's ditched lieberman. we could use another menu choice too bad the libs seem unable to be it
McCain is the product of the 2-party system.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 05:33:34 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 05:36:04 PM
hes always been like a red headed stepchild. and should lieberman be his pick that will be moreso than ever. and a win is better than some "moral statement " loss
Maybe.
But the only thing McCain-Lieberman winning would mean to the GOP leadership will be 'Look, we can even run an actual Democrat for office and the voters will STILL go for it!'
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 28, 2008, 05:37:01 PM
It's like going to a restaurant and ordering something that isn't on the menu. It doesn't really matter what you truly want. You're either going to get something that's on the menu, or nothing. In the case of the Presidential election, you're either going to get McCain or Obama. Asking for Ron Paul or anyone else voids your request. Either pick the one you like best(or hate least) or don't pick at all. But the illusion that asking for something not offered will get you anywhere is absurd.
Either order something that's on the menu or the libs will order for you. And you won't like what they do.
Either order something that's on the menu or the libs will order for you. And you won't like what they do.
This argument was torn apart in 1996.
Post by: taurusowner on August 28, 2008, 06:34:07 PM
Post by: agricola on August 29, 2008, 03:08:20 AM
Post by: agricola on August 29, 2008, 03:17:19 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 29, 2008, 03:28:26 AM
How was the argument torn apart in 96? Did someone other than a Republican or Democrat win?
By the author explaining why people who vote for other candidates are not stupid or insane.
Post by: agricola on August 29, 2008, 03:47:49 AM
Post by: wacki on August 29, 2008, 04:35:04 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2008, 05:00:35 AM
Post by: Umber on August 29, 2008, 05:06:58 AM
PLEASE.
Umber
Post by: agricola on August 29, 2008, 05:29:03 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 29, 2008, 05:31:09 AM
Post by: agricola on August 29, 2008, 05:35:41 AM
Post by: Umber on August 29, 2008, 05:38:44 AM
Thank you God!!!!
HOO-FREAKIN-RAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I feel like I just dodged a bullet somehow.
Umber
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 29, 2008, 06:02:13 AM
Can it turn the disinfranchised Hillary supporters, especially of the curvy members of our society?
Post by: Ben on August 29, 2008, 07:42:39 AM
Post by: seeker_two on August 29, 2008, 08:39:48 AM
President Palin has a nice ring to it.....
Post by: neviander on August 29, 2008, 11:11:08 AM
Quote
This argument was torn apart in 1996.
Concerning the link that took me to; What a pathetic equation.You cannot equate a philosophical perspective within a political context to something tangible, like bullets. You can measure the bullet, irrefutably. If it's out of spec, well, it's a different bullet, but as long as the powder pushes it out the barrel, a heart shot will kill the deer, whether it be a .270, 30-06, or 12 ga. slug; to choose nothing over what you wanted is selfish, either round will put meat on the table. The number of variables one has to consider when choosing what round they need to take down a deer, compared with which values they believe a political candidate will: destroy, protect, or ignore are WORLDS apart.
As far as Obama and McCain go, I would say McCain's heart shot would be a lot more effective than Obama waltzing up to the deer, trying to convince it to die...for the greater good. While the 3rd and 4th party candidates are either asleep in their tent, or lost in the woods.
I believe the Palin VP announcement is a HUGE shot in the arm for the McCain campaign.
This really is a referendum on Obama. The fact that the next president may appoint up to 3 supreme court justices, I believe, should weigh heavy on all of our hearts.
Rant Over
Hey, to all fellow THR members....first post here on APS.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 29, 2008, 11:13:06 AM
Fox confirm its Palin.
Forget I said anything.
YAY!!!!
Post by: Scout26 on August 29, 2008, 11:18:16 AM
The fact that the next president may appoint up to 3 supreme court justices, I believe, should weigh heavy on all of our hearts.
Something to keep in mind when voting for congress. Remember that the Senate has to give it's advice and consent on SC judges. We got Roberts and Alieto with an (R) controlled senate. We got Kennedy and O'Conner with a (D) controlled senate.
Post by: neviander on August 29, 2008, 11:29:51 AM
Quote
Something to keep in mind when voting for congress. Remember that the Senate has to give it's advice and consent on SC judges. We got Roberts and Alieto with an (R) controlled senate. We got Kennedy and O'Conner with a (D) controlled senate.
True, true.
Post by: Northwoods on August 29, 2008, 11:51:38 AM
The fact that the next president may appoint up to 3 supreme court justices, I believe, should weigh heavy on all of our hearts.
Something to keep in mind when voting for congress. Remember that the Senate has to give it's advice and consent on SC judges. We got Roberts and Alieto with an (R) controlled senate. We got Kennedy and O'Conner with a (D) controlled senate.
Post by: Scout26 on August 29, 2008, 11:57:59 AM
The fact that the next president may appoint up to 3 supreme court justices, I believe, should weigh heavy on all of our hearts.
Something to keep in mind when voting for congress. Remember that the Senate has to give it's advice and consent on SC judges. We got Roberts and Alieto with an (R) controlled senate. We got Kennedy and O'Conner with a (D) controlled senate.
I'd still rather have a couple of Scalia's, Thomas', Roberts' or Aleito's, then a pair of Kennedy's or O'Conner's.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on August 29, 2008, 09:32:10 PM
Post by: BigStick on August 31, 2008, 12:10:40 PM
The choice of Palin as VP actually got me a little excited because of the possibility that she might be McCain's successor and hopefully have a positive influence on McCain's decisions in the mean time. I think Palin may change the mind's of some of the conservatives who have vowed to never vote for McCain. However, I doubt she will pick up many votes from the Hillary crowd. Palin is a pro-life conservative. Why would a Hillary supporter want to support her? I suppose there are some moderates in the Hillary crowd who might like her.
Post by: KBHeiner7 on August 31, 2008, 06:45:40 PM
Jeez, the favored nominees--Romney, whats-his-face from Pennsylvania--how boring can these guys get? Dull and duller.
Romney has two good points; 1. He knows economics,
2. He's more conservative, and McCain *seems* willing to listen some...
He also wants out of the UN.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 31, 2008, 06:52:25 PM
Jeez, the favored nominees--Romney, whats-his-face from Pennsylvania--how boring can these guys get? Dull and duller.
Romney has two good points; 1. He knows economics,
2. He's more conservative, and McCain *seems* willing to listen some...
He also wants out of the UN.
Can you prove this statement? I'm not arguing, but it's hard for me to associate Romney with anti-UN stuff.
Post by: onebigelf on September 01, 2008, 04:34:44 AM
At this point I don't know which way I'll go until sometime in November. Part of me wants to slow the sinking and vote for McCain, part of me wants to "turn the switch", let Obama win and let the country go to hell in a handbasket for four years in hopes voters will swing well to the right the next time around. Either way, I figure it's my vote to do with as I wish.
Heller was 5-4. Obama will appoint hardcore lefties to the Supreme Court.
ARE there any Reagans in the GOP?
Would the RINO-infested GOP ever tolerate another Reagan?
Would a GOP-dominated legislature operate as it did with Newt, or go back to being Democrat Lite as it was during the first six years of W's presidency?
McCain may - operative word, may - appoint moderate justices in the Anthony Kennedy mold. Not what we'd want, but McCain won't appoint anyone who'd would vote to overturn McCain-Feingold, and even another Anthony Kennedy would be a net gain if he replaced Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, or Breyer.
Barack Hussein Obama would nominate justices that make Ginsberg look like Ann Coulter. ( And if that was literal as well as political . . .
)That damage would not be easily repaired, and could last for decades.
Either way, we are so screwed . . .
Get involved. Find out where and when your local Republican Executive Committee meets and go. Join. You'll probably find that many or most of the committee are pretty conservative. If they aren't then your voice needs to be heard even more. I joined my committee. I work for conservative candidates and find that my schedule doesn't permit me to donate time for the RINO's. We have 3 conservative candidates running for County Commission in November with good chances to win. It would be our first conservative, fiscally responsible commission majority in my lifetime. And my Republican US representative (who got an A-, not bad) now takes my calls. Get involved.
John
Post by: oldfart on September 01, 2008, 09:11:02 AM
Enter Sarah Palin.
She isn't running for President... yet! But she's just about what we need as a President and in a few years, after learning her way around D.C. she may very well be ready for the job. First though, she has to survive this election. If the McCain/Palin ticket dies on the vine she will slide into the same oblivion that all other losing Vice Presidential candidates have found and we will have lost a chance to pull America out of its nose-dive.
So I intend to vote for Palin and "Ol' Whazzizname" as an investment in the future of America. I urge others to do the same.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 01, 2008, 06:48:39 PM
Quote
Would the RINO-infested GOP ever tolerate another Reagan?
Always remember a lot of the GOP leadership fought hard against the real Reagan. And against Goldwater.
Post by: KBHeiner7 on September 01, 2008, 06:59:28 PM
Jeez, the favored nominees--Romney, whats-his-face from Pennsylvania--how boring can these guys get? Dull and duller.
Romney has two good points; 1. He knows economics,
2. He's more conservative, and McCain *seems* willing to listen some...
He also wants out of the UN.
Can you prove this statement? I'm not arguing, but it's hard for me to associate Romney with anti-UN stuff.
http://www.reliablepolitics.com/2007/10/romney-un-failure.html
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 02, 2008, 03:07:47 AM
But the sentiment is indeed admirable.