Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Silver Bullet on October 03, 2009, 11:37:58 AM
-
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Rogue-American-Sarah-Palin/dp/0061939897/ref=pd_ts_zgc_b_books_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&pf_rd_p=475709271&pf_rd_s=right-3&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=283155&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0FHRJMD5NQGRWGNAK69F (http://www.amazon.com/Going-Rogue-American-Sarah-Palin/dp/0061939897/ref=pd_ts_zgc_b_books_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&pf_rd_p=475709271&pf_rd_s=right-3&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=283155&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0FHRJMD5NQGRWGNAK69F)
Number one on Amazon's list, due to presales, I believe.
This is great. It's going to annoy commies for months. =D
-
Oh, dear! I'm sure all the fashionable Marxists are having huge tummy hurtums over this.
-
Oh, dear! I'm sure all the fashionable Marxists northeastern/squish conservatives are having huge tummy hurtums over this.
Cue howls by David Frum and David Brooks...
-
Northeastern conservatives are why we can't have nice things.
-
Northeastern conservatives... hmmmm.... let me turn that over in my mind a bit...
Nope. It don't make no sense.
-
Northeastern conservatives Liberal Republicans are why we can't have nice things.
Maybe this will make more sense.
-
I forgot to put "scare quotes" around "conservatives" in my first post.
-
I pre-ordered mine two weeks ago. I hope she makes a million bucks. Good for her.
TC`
-
I pre-ordered mine two weeks ago. I hope she makes a million bucks. Good for her.
TC`
I'd rather she moved on to make $400,000 per year. =D
-
I'd rather she moved on to make $400,000 per year.
I'd be interested to see her second time on the campaign trail. My fear is that by 2010 the media will have successfully Qualye-ized her.
-
I'd be interested to see her second time on the campaign trail. My fear is that by 2010 the media will have successfully Qualye-ized her.
They already have marginialzied her.
-
I'd be interested to see her second time on the campaign trail. My fear is that by 2010 the media will have successfully Qualye-ized her.
Well, I'm not exactly sure about her qualifications either. And I've still got concerns/questions about her bowing out as the governor of Alaska.
My gut instinct and general assesment of human nature makes me think that she bowed out more to cash in and do the book/punditry/speaking route than to "save Alaska the trouble of all the malicious ethics investigations" etc.
My take on the "Palin Effect" is that it's more of a symptom of how absolutely hungry people are for another "great communicator", Obama himself is another symptom of it. I wish Fred Thompson had gubanatorial/executive branch bonafides.
-
Well, I'm not exactly sure about her qualifications either.
Well, she's no community organizer with a stint as an ACORN attorney, that's for sure.
-
Well, she's no community organizer with a stint as an ACORN attorney, that's for sure.
Did you just do a "but but but obama!" comeback? Is it not reasonable to think both of them are lightweights?
-
I have my doubts for her being ready for the job of potus myself but she's a much better option than I've seen (with the exception of Duncan Hunter imo) in a while. She's no great communicator either. Maybe the speaking and book tours will help with that.
-
I would have thought being Governor of a State was a pretty good qualification for being President. It is better than being Senator for 2 years or 30.
What other "qualifications" would you be looking for? What qualifications did say Ronald Reagan have? Very few Presidents have had foreign policy experience. Most Presidents have been former governors.
IMO, I think far too many conservatives got caught up in all the anti-Palin hype drummed up by the media. IMO, being a governor is a better qualification than anything Hillary or Obama brought to the table. I wouldn't call myself a Palin fanboy, but some of the misgivings about her IMO are misplaced.
-
I agree that the mainstream media's concern over Palin's "qualifications" are a smokescreen. And she indeed would have been better than Obama, of that I have no doubt.
However, her resignation as governor does give me pause. I think it does call her determination into question. I think that's a huge thing. It's like saying a Naval officer was "qualified" to captain his ship, but he resigned mid tour, so now he's going to ask for an even bigger command?
Someone who's a good policy wonk like a Bobby Jindal, with Palin's folksy charm, and Fred Thompson's delivery and air of gravitas is what the GOP needs. We've got our Carter in office now. We need our Reagan on deck, badly...
-
What policy-wonkism is Jindal particularly known for? Educate me, please.
-
I agree that the mainstream media's concern over Palin's "qualifications" are a smokescreen. And she indeed would have been better than Obama, of that I have no doubt.
However, her resignation as governor does give me pause. I think it does call her determination into question. I think that's a huge thing. It's like saying a Naval officer was "qualified" to captain his ship, but he resigned mid tour, so now he's going to ask for an even bigger command?
Someone who's a good policy wonk like a Bobby Jindal, with Palin's folksy charm, and Fred Thompson's delivery and air of gravitas is what the GOP needs. We've got our Carter in office now. We need our Reagan on deck, badly...
For me, the import of her resignation is undetermined- it could signify good or ill.
First of all, I think she was thrust into the national spotlight prematurely. I would much rather she have completed her governorship first.
However, since then, she has been enemy number 1 of the left. She has been under constant attack that has not only cost her state, it has also cost her family and their personal wealth. (The left aren't satisfied with defeating you, they want to DESTROY their political opponents, including personal life and finances.)
As a result, though I would prefer she have finished as governor, she at once prevented the left from filing frivilous claims against her and afforded herself a means to recoup the losses they have imposed (and, hopefully, then some).
It could also have been purely for personal gain. I tend to lean towards the former explanation, though.
Is she the perfect candidate? Not at all.
Would I prefer she have more experience? Most definitely.
Is she one of the better options? Undoubtedly (as you mentioned, Jindal is another good option).
Does she absolutely infuriate and frighten the left? Here's a BIG yes. For that reason, I am of the opinion she is a good choice for president.
-
IIRC, the primary reason she resigned was that the frivolous lawsuits ruined her & her family.
If she would have kept on as Gov, she would have been millions of dollars in legal debt, likely more than $10million.
That might not be a big deal to the Teddy Kennedys of the world, but if you didn't inherit hundreds of millions of dollars, a debt of $10million with nothing good to show of it (business, land, something) is daunting.
-
My gut instinct and general assesment of human nature makes me think that she bowed out more to cash in and do the book/punditry/speaking route than to "save Alaska the trouble of all the malicious ethics investigations" etc.
I hope that's why she resigned. We need her out rallying the troops around the country, not herding moose in Alaska. Maybe she's not destined for high national office, but she can do a lot of good for the movement, nationally.
-
If she didn't have a chance of going the distance in 2012, the Democrats, media and certain Republicans wouldn't be working so hard at taking her down. I can't think of another potential candidate, Democrat or Republican, from the last two years who continues to be under attack.
-
If she didn't have a chance of going the distance in 2012, the Democrats, media and certain Republicans wouldn't be working so hard at taking her down. I can't think of another potential candidate, Democrat or Republican, from the last two years who continues to be under attack.
Well, I know an Ohioan who is still grinding an axe against Ron Paul...
-
Someone who's a good policy wonk like a Bobby Jindal, with Palin's folksy charm, and Fred Thompson's delivery and air of gravitas is what the GOP needs. We've got our Carter in office now. We need our Reagan on deck, badly...
True. But We haven't seen him or her yet, and I don't think we'll see them in 2012 either. The Republican party needs to decide what who it is and what it wants. The economic and civil freedoms brought to us by previous Republican administrations are starting to clash with an increasingly theocratic agenda. I'm almost old enough to remember when "intellectual" wasn't a dirty word.
-
The economic and civil freedoms brought to us by previous Republican administrations are starting to clash with an increasingly theocratic agenda.
Thank you for identifying yourself as part of the problem. Please provide your personal information, so that we scary religious people may more efficiently oppress you.
-
Thank you for identifying yourself as part of the problem. Please provide your personal information, so that we scary religious people may more efficiently oppress you.
There is no oppression.
There shall also be no criticism.
-
Well, there's nothing like theocracy. I can tell you that.
-
True. But We haven't seen him or her yet, and I don't think we'll see them in 2012 either. The Republican party needs to decide what who it is and what it wants. The economic and civil freedoms brought to us by previous Republican administrations are starting to clash with an increasingly theocratic agenda. I'm almost old enough to remember when "intellectual" wasn't a dirty word.
theocratic agenda?
please elaborate
-
Please don't elaborate. We've heard it all before. Why not just call us all racists, like the left does? It would make about as much sense.
-
If she didn't have a chance of going the distance in 2012, the Democrats, media and certain Republicans wouldn't be working so hard at taking her down. I can't think of another potential candidate, Democrat or Republican, from the last two years who continues to be under attack.
I'd say it's possible they just hate her and want to hurt her on a personal, irrational level. She represents everything they oppose, just like a conservative black man would.
-
She represents everything they oppose, just like a conservative black man would.
How many gut-punch stories have you read recently about Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Michael Steele or Colin Powell?
-
Plenty of liberals hate Clarence Thomas. Alan Keyes, on the other hand, has rendered himself so completely politically irrelevant, it'd be difficult to find liberals commenting on him at all.
-
How many gut-punch stories have you read recently about Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Michael Steele or Colin Powell?
Plenty of liberals hate Clarence Thomas. Alan Keyes, on the other hand, has rendered himself so completely politically irrelevant, it'd be difficult to find liberals commenting on him at all.
Partly this, partly white liberals aren't as likely to bash a black man, even if he's conservative.
-
Partly this, partly white liberals aren't as likely to bash a black man, even if he's conservative.
I distinctly remember the Anita Hill "hearings" and the firestorm surrounding her "testimony"
The anger and hatred (not to mention the flying spittle) coming from the liberal left reached a shrillness not seen since they had Nixon cornered during Watergate.
They went far beyond bashing, so no, white liberals will bash/trash/smash anyone or anything that gets in their way.
-
I distinctly remember the Anita Hill "hearings" and the firestorm surrounding her "testimony"
The anger and hatred (not to mention the flying spittle) coming from the liberal left reached a shrillness not seen since they had Nixon cornered during Watergate.
They went far beyond bashing, so no, white liberals will bash/trash/smash anyone or anything that gets in their way.
Yeah, but they still aren't as free to do it as they are to a white guy or gal.
-
Yeah, but they still aren't as free to do it as they are to a white guy or gal.
They generally just dismiss them as "Uncle Toms" or "House N-words". They only thing they don't do is call them racists.
-
Well, she's no community organizer with a stint as an ACORN attorney, that's for sure.
Did you just do a "but but but obama!" comeback? Is it not reasonable to think both of them are lightweights?
When someone is under discussion as a candidate for a political office in the future, with questions about their qualifications, it's reasonable to compare them to the current office holder, and his qualifications.
If both are found wanting . . . well, that's OK, and a good basis for discussion.
The sheer, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred directed at Palin from the Left tends to ameliorate what reservations I have about her; just as you can judge a man by the friends he keeps, you can also factor in the enemies they've made. Anyone who's hated by leftists from most of the press to Dave Letterman & Ariana Huffington must have some redeeming qualities.
Sadly, the people we'd really like to see holding an office will seldom be on the ballot, and the GOP (aka The Stupid Party) could - and probably will - offer up something worse than a Palin/Jindal ticket in 2012.
-
They generally just dismiss them as "Uncle Toms" or "House N-words". They only thing they don't do is call them racists.
Yes, I believe that was said about Condi Rice. The media and the left have been very hypocritical about that stuff.
-
theocratic agenda?
please elaborate.
Creation Science comes to mind first. When political and educational policies have to match religious beliefs, that isn't good for a free society. It certainly doesn't help America regain its image as a well of prosperity, creativity, and innovation.
Fistful, I pick Christianity because it is the dominant religion in this country. I have no love for Islamic mullahs or Jewish black hats (actually, I have less love for them than any). Religious belief trumpeted as public policy is bad for democracy.
-
Creation Science comes to mind first. When political and educational policies have to match religious beliefs, that isn't good for a free society. It certainly doesn't help America regain its image as a well of prosperity, creativity, and innovation.
Fistful, I pick Christianity because it is the dominant religion in this country. I have no love for Islamic mullahs or Jewish black hats (actually, I have less love for them than any). Religious belief trumpeted as public policy is bad for democracy.
Hey, I was right. That does make about as much sense as Jimmy Carter's recent ramblings.
-
Hey, I was right. That does make about as much sense as Jimmy Carter's recent ramblings.
How so?
-
You think it makes less sense than Carter? Maybe so.
-
So, are you going to actually present some form of counter-argument, or you're just going to state 'this made no sense, this made no sense'?
-
And every time someone comes up with a half-baked notion that they're being oppressed, are you going to say "There is no oppression"?
A counter-argument would require an argument. We've yet to see one. No connection has been established between the Republican Party and the attempts of a few activists to have science texts mention creationism as an alternative theory.
If you, MB, would like to explain how this is "an increasingly theocratic agenda" on the part of the Republican Party, please don't elaborate.
-
A theocratic argument is as big a red herring as a racist argument. Irrelevant in the scheme of things.
Being qualified for the job of president is also an irrelevant discussion. We've had a number of presidents at various spots on the political continuum who were unqualified yet they came out of it in a commendable manner. I would much rather read a make on the advisers Palin has gathered around herself. What is their background. What is their positions. Every president makes use of advisers. It is my premise the selection of advisers portends the nature of a candidate's governance.
-
Creation Science comes to mind first. When political and educational policies have to match religious beliefs, that isn't good for a free society. It certainly doesn't help America regain its image as a well of prosperity, creativity, and innovation.
Fistful, I pick Christianity because it is the dominant religion in this country. I have no love for Islamic mullahs or Jewish black hats (actually, I have less love for them than any). Religious belief trumpeted as public policy is bad for democracy.
I lol'ed.
1. Creation Science seeks to be presented as an alternative, not to supersede atheistic humanism. I find the idea that having your beliefs presented as one of a number of (equally untestable, unprovable) options is theocratic oppression hilarious.
2. Atheistic humanism is every bit as much a religious as Judaism, Christianity etc. So when the state sez "You shall teach this and only this" they are in fact enforcing their chosen religion.
3. Per the bolded statement, you should be in favor of presenting alternatives to the state religion of secular humanism. I guess the fed.gov forcing religious beliefs on people is only bad when it's not your beliefs, eh?
4. Research indicates that while many people profess a cultural identification of Christianity, the majority hold actual worldviews most consistent with secular humanism. Guess the fed.gov indoctrinating kids in the state religion works out, eh?
5. Finally, the entire thing is a huge strawman/red herring as introducing Creationism into schools is not a plank of the Republican party.
-
Research indicates that while many people profess a cultural identification of Christianity, the majority hold actual worldviews most consistent with secular humanism.
This is assuming you hold a single definition of Christianity that is 'true'. To agree with this, I would have to essentially accept your religion.
-
This is assuming you hold a single definition of Christianity that is 'true'. To agree with this, I would have to essentially accept your religion.
:rolleyes:
One can define certain traits of a religion (or political group etc) without agreeing with it. For example, Christianity believes in absolute truth. Any sect claiming to be Christian that doesn't believe that is it's own thing, not Christianity.
-
Fistful, fiscal conservatives are always more righteous than we Religious conservatives. We are to sit in the back of the bus until our votes are needed. Don't speak out, keep that Jesus stuff to ourselves and it's our fault that the fiscal messiah Ron Paul was not elected.
-
:rolleyes:
One can define certain traits of a religion (or political group etc) without agreeing with it. For example, Christianity believes in absolute truth. Any sect claiming to be Christian that doesn't believe that is it's own thing, not Christianity.
Agreed, but then, on the other hand, there are people who argue that the more liberal, 'all-accepting' churches are 'not true Christians', and there even are people who claim Catholicism isn't real Christianity.
Additionally, the definition of what Christianity is from the POV of the religious person and from the POV of, say, a historian of religion may be different.
-
And every time someone comes up with a half-baked notion that they're being oppressed, are you going to say "There is no oppression"?
There is - as I always point out - plenty of oppression. If people are allowed to mock that notion by saying 'I'm being oppressed', then I'm allowed to make fun of THAT in turn.
-
There is - as I always point out - plenty of oppression. If people are allowed to mock that notion by saying 'I'm being oppressed', then I'm allowed to make fun of THAT in turn.
This makes no sense. I'll let you figure out why.
Gotta lotta candidates for the Carter Prize today.
-
You're all racists.
There. That's the end of the argument, per Democrat rules.
-
Gentlemen. We're straying from my original topic. Let's talk Palin and her book.
I'm planning to buy it to 1) get an inside perspective of what goes on in presidential elections; 2) support Sarah, who I think deserves our support, if nothing else for the way she sent the commies into a frenzy; and 3) to annoy my wife, who only reads books by left-leaners.
Only 2 of the above 3 are true, but a .667 batting average would be good enough to win both the American and National Leagues batting championships.
Wait, wait ... I don't want to talk baseball, either.
Sarah. Sa-rah. SARAH.
Thank you.
-
I agree with a comment on the last page. Who are her current advisers? It isn't a big deal as she is not yet running for office, but it will be important. I hope she keeps anyone connected with the McCain campaign far far away.
My only concern is she has a LOT of family obligations and I wouldn't be surprised if she stays in the background longer than people expect.
-
I hope to God they don't try to run Palin. Most middle of the roaders think she's a dolt. Talk about blowing your chances for a win. They need to run someone more libertarian leaning and further from the establishment if they expect to win.
-
I hope to God they don't try to run Palin. Most middle of the roaders think she's a dolt. Talk about blowing your chances for a win. They need to run someone more libertarian leaning and further from the establishment if they expect to win.
Further from the "establishment"?????
The establishment HATES her. How do you get further from the "establishment" than that?
(Wow, the snark is strong with me today, had to edit out my opinion of those "middle of the roaders")
-
I hope to God they don't try to run Palin. Most middle of the roaders think she's a dolt. Talk about blowing your chances for a win. They need to run someone more libertarian leaning and further from the establishment if they expect to win.
After 2008, you still think "middle of the roaders" can help us?
-
The middle-of-the-roaders can stay there and get run over by the Mack truck that's coming. What good have they done our country?
TC
-
Conversely, my disappointment with Palin lies in her not being nearly as radical as the media claimed.