This is getting sillier and sillier. To take it a step further, if this exact same thing had happened with Obama in Chicago, the Trooper would have simply dissapeared. No scandal at all.
That's not taking it a step further. In fact, I don't even know what kind of logic fallacy that is, since I've never seen anything like it.
In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.
So true. I actually learned quite a bit about McCain's military record from this, and it wasn't pretty. So, for me the first half was at least interesting.
That's pretty funny. There may or may not be something to this but some of the assumptions in the article are not reasonable to anyone who has actually lived in a small town or actually built their own house or helped friends build a house.
I might have misread this story, but I think the important question is - did the Palins receive compensation in the form of a house for political favors rendered. Now, if these guys are friends, and they just stopped by a few times to help Todd put up roofing or something like that, then it's no big deal. It may still give the impression of potential favoritism, and they should have known better, but that doesn't make it illegal.
I should add, however; if you have some control over contract decisions, it is vital to prevent even the appearance of moral hazard. If I got to decide which construction company built a road (just making something up), I would not so much as accept tickets to a ball game or a single dinner out from any of those lobbying for the contract.
The thing that gives me pause about the story is that she did away with permitting laws, so there's no way to know who was involved in building it, other than the lien that was put against it for materials. That's what smells fishy about it.
This is getting sillier and sillier. To take it a step further, if this exact same thing had happened with Obama in Chicago, the Trooper would have simply dissapeared. No scandal at all.
That's not taking it a step further. In fact, I don't even know what kind of logic fallacy that is, since I've never seen anything like it.
Precisely.
A bipartisan political hack job? The cognitive dissonance around her gives me vertigo.
Bipartisan? What, is that some sort of objective scientific word? Are you sure you and I are talking about the Sarah Palin that shook up the REPUBLICAN party up there making no small number of REPUBLICAN enemies?
It is one of the things I like about her a lot.
I really do see her as SOMEWHAT of a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Of course, if that movie had ened the way such adventures do in real life, Mr. Smith would have gone to prison in the end. I sincerely hope that does not happen to Sarah.
The thing that gives me pause about the story is that she did away with permitting laws...
I think you just nailed one of the tangible reasons why we disagree on the two tickets. That is, the issues. You see, the fact that she would do that is one of the reasons I like this lady a lot.
Slightly related, when my family got a building permit to build our home out by fairwood in 1967, the permit cost $7.50. I believe permits now cost "over twice as much". It is raw, unadulterated governmental shakedown today. Apparently things are not that way in Alaska.
The thing that gives me pause about the story is that she did away with permitting laws...
I think you just nailed one of the tangible reasons why we disagree on the two tickets. That is, the issues. You see, the fact that she would do that is one of the reasons I like this lady a lot.
Slightly related, when my family got a building permit to build our home out by fairwood in 1967, the permit cost $7.50. I believe permits now cost "over twice as much". It is raw, unadulterated governmental shakedown today. Apparently things are not that way in Alaska.
I like that.
That's because you are ignoring what Chuck actually said. He never stated he had a problem with reducing the red tape involved on building one's own land. Rather, he was pointing out that she effectively covered her tracks through a legislative move that causes people like you to be so giddy you stop asking questions.
Uh, no. I do not buy anything hook line and sinker. I merely listen and if truth shows itself I consider and validate. I, like many people, have had his perfect military record shoved down my throat enough times, that I essentially accepted it without question. Just a little digging around makes it clear that he was a terrible pilot, and some of the most cynical statements in that article are actually direct quotes from his biography.
The rest of the sordid allegations about his life are not terribly interesting to me, but do match up fairly well with how horribly he treated his first wife while cheating with his second.
That's because you are ignoring what Chuck actually said. He never stated he had a problem with reducing the red tape involved on building one's own land. Rather, he was pointing out that she effectively covered her tracks through a legislative move that causes people like you to be so giddy you stop asking questions.
The absence of tracks does not mean tracks were covered. And the law she changed applies to all, not just her. That is a good thing.
Uh, no. I do not buy anything hook line and sinker. I merely listen and if truth shows itself I consider and validate. I, like many people, have had his perfect military record shoved down my throat enough times, that I essentially accepted it without question. Just a little digging around makes it clear that he was a terrible pilot, and some of the most cynical statements in that article are actually direct quotes from his biography.
The rest of the sordid allegations about his life are not terribly interesting to me, but do match up fairly well with how horribly he treated his first wife while cheating with his second.
Interesting, but I never thought he was a good pilot or a particularly stellar member of the military. I also don't think he is very bright. He did do some heroic stuff in the prison camp though. But the main problem I have with this is rooted in one of my favorite quotes: With age comes wisdom... IOW, most older men of wisdom gained that wisdom over time. This means that they may not have had all that much in their teens, twenties or even forties. But dragging stuff up from 50 years ago is irrelevant. I want to know what someone has done in the last five, ten, fifteen and twenty years, in steadily decreasing importance, by age. And then I want to see if they changed course when they failed.
I don't want to know if someone failed. I want to know what they learned from their failures.
And regarding his overall record, I am not impressed, frankly. But that is because I am one of those that sees McCain as a Rino. But when choosing someone for which to vote in an election, I compare their record with the record of those against whom they are running, not against Jesus. When I put McCain's dismal record up against Obama, McCain wins hands down. He has some serious problems, but he is WAY ahead of Obama.
Interesting, but I never thought he was a good pilot or a particularly stellar member of the military. I also don't think he is very bright. He did do some heroic stuff in the prison camp though. But the main problem I have with this is rooted in one of my favorite quotes: With age comes wisdom... IOW, most older men of wisdom gained that wisdom over time. This means that they may not have had all that much in their teens, twenties or even forties. But dragging stuff up from 50 years ago is irrelevant. I want to know what someone has done in the last five, ten, fifteen and twenty years, in steadily decreasing importance, by age. And then I want to see if they changed course when they failed.
I don't want to know if someone failed. I want to know what they learned from their failures.
Ah, sweet irony. From two successive posts, you contradict yourself. To reiterate, you do not care what someone has done 50 years ago, only what they have done in the last 5, 10, 15, and 20 years. Yet, you have tried so hard to tie Obama to the Weather Unground and events 40 years old.
So, in which case were you wrong Robroy? Do ties to Ayers not matter, because during the last 20 years he's been a respected member of his community, or does McCain's destruction of government property through appalling negligence count even though it was 50 years ago?
Besides, you missed the entire point of the article. They didn't seek to discredit him through 40 year old actions. The goal was to point out that he never really changed since then. I agree that criminal negligence 50 years ago should be waved off, but the argument that he is dangerous and that his past is related to his current is at least worth entertaining. Just as worth entertaining as Obama's ties to ACORN, Biden's damaging plagarism, or Palin several cases of abuse of power.
Interesting, but I never thought he was a good pilot or a particularly stellar member of the military. I also don't think he is very bright. He did do some heroic stuff in the prison camp though. But the main problem I have with this is rooted in one of my favorite quotes: With age comes wisdom... IOW, most older men of wisdom gained that wisdom over time. This means that they may not have had all that much in their teens, twenties or even forties. But dragging stuff up from 50 years ago is irrelevant. I want to know what someone has done in the last five, ten, fifteen and twenty years, in steadily decreasing importance, by age. And then I want to see if they changed course when they failed.
I don't want to know if someone failed. I want to know what they learned from their failures.
Ah, sweet irony. From two successive posts, you contradict yourself. To reiterate, you do not care what someone has done 50 years ago, only what they have done in the last 5, 10, 15, and 20 years. Yet, you have tried so hard to tie Obama to the Weather Unground and events 40 years old.
You are either reading comprehension impaired or not reading my post. The 40 year old events are merely a backdrop, just as McCain's military time is a backdrop. What matters is what grows from it. Look at the statements of the last five to ten years regarding those 40 and 50 year old events. Who has learned what from them. How have actions and statements and principles changed.
So, in which case were you wrong Robroy? Do ties to Ayers not matter, because during the last 20 years he's been a respected member of his community, or does McCain's destruction of government property through appalling negligence count even though it was 50 years ago?
I do not consider Ayers to be a respected member of the community any more than I consider the abortionist next door to be a respected member of the community. Regarding McCains destruction of property. A) it was an accident and it has not happened since. In fact, he has not even had the opportunity to do it.
Besides, you missed the entire point of the article. They didn't seek to discredit him through 40 year old actions. The goal was to point out that he never really changed since then. I agree that criminal negligence 50 years ago should be waved off, but the argument that he is dangerous and that his past is related to his current is at least worth entertaining. Just as worth entertaining as Obama's ties to ACORN, Biden's damaging plagarism, or Palin several cases of abuse of power.
I'm really sorry but that is just silly. Of course he is dangerous to us. The more power a man has, the more dangerous he is. Obama though, is more dangerous. I base this on the methods he used to get to power, the actual accomplishments he has done, and what he himself has done and stood for. They go against my core principles. McCain does too, but nowhere NEAR as much. I was never a fan of McCain and still am not. I would consider it VERY good for our country (but bad for his wife) if he died in office after being elected. Not that I would wish that on anyone. It is merely a statement of raw opinion concerning the welfare of our nation and the constitution that protects it.
RCC, just to be clear here, I had so little respect for McCain that I was not going to vote in this election. But I educated myself on his opponent and eventually realized that, as bad as McCain could be, it pales in comparison to Obama. And I am not even talking about ethics. I am talking about raw socialism, government control, facism and cowtowing to the UN and other nations.
Which would almost certainly lead to a serious shooting war.
I think the risk would be there no matter which one of them wins, but it would be greater with Obama. Much greater. Either that or he would completely capitualte to enemies, which I consider even worse.
Crashing 3 planes is not an accident. But yes, this is contextual as a backdrop. Using your own standard, I see this:
A) Lousy pilot. Irrelevant today unless he tries to fly AF1. Arrogant. Kinda goes with the territory (pilot AND politician). No big deal.
C) Frequent abuse of power. Very relevant, because it doesn't seem to stop with his return from Hanoi. He's mostly played by the rules since the Keating incident, but it's hard to imagine that 50 years of abusing your last name and family contacts isn't part of your core being.
D) Womanizer. Relevant if you want to talk about moral issues and legislate morality. Otherwise, between him, his family, and his choice of deity.
Would it change my vote if I was on the fence? Not really.
And I think this sums up our disagreements perfectly. You think she's the messiah and I think that she's a joke.
That's giving her a lot of credit isn't it? I work in a fairly professional environment with well educated people. Of those qualified to be president (over 35, and US natives), people with essentially no executive experience, at least 95% would make better presidents than Palin.
You are either reading comprehension impaired or not reading my post. The 40 year old events are merely a backdrop, just as McCain's military time is a backdrop. What matters is what grows from it. Look at the statements of the last five to ten years regarding those 40 and 50 year old events. Who has learned what from them. How have actions and statements and principles changed.
I am reading your posts, but it's hard because they are self-contradictory.
But, I'll bite. Name one McCain "lesson learned". Just one. As far as I can tell, he has a superb survival instinct (both during airplane crashes and political crashes), but that appears to be inborn. So, please enlighten me what he has learned. I promise I will listen if you have something that is supported and documented. If you don't have any evidence, however, I will be forced to assume you are just stalling for time by making the "who has learned" argument.
I do not consider Ayers to be a respected member of the community any more than I consider the abortionist next door to be a respected member of the community. Regarding McCains destruction of property. A) it was an accident and it has not happened since. In fact, he has not even had the opportunity to do it.
I don't actually care what you consider. Ayers received a Citizen of the Year award from Chicago. Chicago is his community, and he was respected in that community later in his life. You are just dodging the original question I posed. Why is a past behavioral discretion for McCain waved off and not for Ayers. Yes, Ayers was a domestic terrorist; his crimes were the greater of the two, but he appears reformed and is now doing good work.
The ethics board that the McCain camp was trying to pawn off the Troopergate thing to is taking them up on the offer and have hired an prosecutor.
That's OK. Once she gets fined and found that she broke ethics laws by this board, she'll just claim once again that the report vindicated her, and that the fine she'll be getting is actually a dividend check that Alaska owes her.
This might sound naive, but how damaging do people really believe ACORN is? I'm hoping for a fair answer on this, based on these facts (please correct any if they are wrong as I truly am not particularly knowledgeable about ACORN).
1) Clearly, some voter registration errors, which look similar to voter fraud, have happened due to ACORN. This is very bad.
2) It's difficult to tell from the news just how widespread these errors are.
3) It's a positive thing anytime more people vote, even if they all disagree with me.
4) ACORN appears to be doing a valuable service in reaching people who might typically blow off their voting rights (responsibilities?).
5) ACORN receives some government funding.
My take, is that the typical ACORN member is probably someone who wants to see more "disadvantaged people" voting, and preferably voting democrat. I see nothing wrong with that (or else we must rise against churches which are pro-republican for equal treatment). What might be wrong is if they are not-so-secretly a working for the democrats while receiving nonpartisan government funding; however, this is not so different (except ACORN's explicit goal of driving out votes) than Bush's grants of government funding to faith based organizations.
My take (so far), is that the voter registration errors are likely due to incompetence rather than intentional fraud. I see it as loosely organized, and I imagine the following happening.
ACORN#1 : You registered to vote?
DUDE#1 : Don't know.
ACORN#1 : Let's get you registered then (helps dude fill out paperwork and mails it in for him)
...
ACORN#2 : You registered to vote?
DUDE#1 (same guy) : Don't know.
ACORN#2 : Let's...
So, the typical Palin republican* response - outrage - appears to be at least overblown, and probably hypocritical to me. But the typical democrat response of paying little heed to the question seems a little too much like a neocon or Palin style of move, which is definitely cynical and also a little hypocritical.
*new term I think I just invented, a Palin republican. This applies to those who claim they are independents; despite the fact that Palin is about as far right (even whackily so) as you can get and they are crazy for her because she/they hold identical positions on every policy question.
And I think this sums up our disagreements perfectly. You think she's the messiah and I think that she's a joke.
Well, I believe you think she's a joke, but I don't think she is the messiah. I do like the decisions she makes and that is one of the key things I look for in an actual leader.
I've been around politics enough to know that actual murderers can be "respected" members of their community. I have also seen "respected community members" receive awards for things I would throw them in jail for.
But it all goes with what I used to say back in the early ninteties regarding the Seattle political landscape: "I feel like a Jew in early 1930's Germany". It is even more true today. This November we will see if the whole nation has prepared itself to leave its constitutional roots.
I still think it won't. I just doubled my bets last night that McCain will win. But if I should be wrong, well, there is the warning of Revelation 18:4.
That's OK. Once she gets fined and found that she broke ethics laws by this board, she'll just claim once again that the report vindicated her, and that the fine she'll be getting is actually a dividend check that Alaska owes her.
She was already vindicated by the previous report. This will merely seal the deal, sans the headline grabbing personal opinion of a card carrying Palin enemy.
If there was a chance she would be fined and proven wrong, I doubt seriously if she would have done this. Of course, my opinion is coming from what I read WEEKS AGO about this. There is nothing there and she knows it. But by all means, lets really, REALLY pursue this. I think we should absolutely inundate the "undecideds" with this!
RCC, I have some friends in battleground states (CO and OH in this case) and what you suggested seems to hit the mark. One noted that he had 3 Obama campaigners and 2 ACORN workers visit him in one week. Another had several "get out the vote" people show up in one day (they didn't identify themselves as affiliated to a campaign or ACORN). That seems ripe for potential to have multiple voter registrations.
RCC, this Acorn thing is the biggest voter fraud scam to be uncovered in the history of politics. The number of states involved, the law enforcement agencies involved, the sheer volume of ALREADY UNCOVERED fraud is unprecedented by several magnitudes. It is a seriously big deal.
But I also must differ with you on a few things.
You put together this list:
1) Clearly, some voter registration errors, which look similar to voter fraud, have happened due to ACORN. This is very bad.
2) It's difficult to tell from the news just how widespread these errors are.
3) It's a positive thing anytime more people vote, even if they all disagree with me.
4) ACORN appears to be doing a valuable service in reaching people who might typically blow off their voting rights (responsibilities?).
5) ACORN receives some government funding.
Regarding number 1 and 5, I agree.
Regarding number 2, I strongly disagree. As someone who does not have TV, I get LOTS of information about this from various internet and print sources. It is HUGE and there is a plethora of information down to specific cases, number of fraudulent registrations, locations, names, etc. Again, it is massive.
Regarding number 3, I do NOT think it is a positive thing that more people vote. I think only informed voters should vote. Then, if their opinion is different than mine that is still a good thing. That audio of people "on the street" in Harlem should scare people on BOTH sides of this issue. Government is too important to be destroyed by people who vote with no knowledge of what they are voting for.
Regarding number 4, I also disagree. I WANT people who would blow off their "voting responsibilities" to not vote. It is not responsible to vote when you are not informed about the thing on which you are voting. The responsible thing to do is be an informed voter and then vote. The second most responsible thing to do is not vote. The least responsible thing to do is to vote uninformed. I don't want uninformed people taking part in decisions that affect me and the lives of my children. This is serious. Countries have gone to war over bad decisions by uneducated voters.
The only people I want to vote are those that are willing to put some effort into it - that understand the importance on themselves and future generations of the positions and qualifications of the various candidates and the consequences of the initiatives. Uninformed voters are the cancer that will (and already is) destroy this nation. In the long run it is inevitable of course. Democracy always collapses in the end, but it can be a positive thing for a while.
One thing. I would like to change the voting laws as follows: You can only vote if you actually paid federal taxes and those taxes exceeded any money you received directly from the government.
RCC, I have some friends in battleground states (CO and OH in this case) and what you suggested seems to hit the mark. One noted that he had 3 Obama campaigners and 2 ACORN workers visit him in one week. Another had several "get out the vote" people show up in one day (they didn't identify themselves as affiliated to a campaign or ACORN). That seems ripe for potential to have multiple voter registrations.
Thanks for the anecdote WestSide. I'm still curious to hear more, if anyone has actual information rather than just spouting partisan talking points. One thing I'll add, is that if ACORN were registering dead people, or the like I would be much more likely to buy the Robroy hypothesis that this is the greatest voter fraud in our nations history. As it stands, I am having a hard time seeing the connection between multiple registrations and multiple votes. If I registered twice, would the state send me two absentee ballots without even double checking that I had not made a mistake? If I filled out each ballot and mailed it in, would the state count them without performing this simple check
if(name1 == name2 && address1 == address2) then have humans confirm ballots are unique.
Robroy, you shot me down on the argument about how wide spread the registration problems are. I need to clarify what I meant. I know that there are ongoing investigations in several swing states, but I didn't mean "how many states". What I meant was how large is the problem in the states where we've seen discrepancies. If a state like Ohio has 1% of its registered voters as duplicates, then this is a huge problem. But if it's something like 50 guys who accidentally registered twice, I'm having a really hard time seeing why you are so upset. So, do you know the answer to that question?
But, I'll bite. Name one McCain "lesson learned". Just one.
He is now for drilling.
He's actually kind of wishy-washy on that issue. For? He was against as recently as July, and only became for with the Palin pick. It's terribly difficult to determine if he even believes in it, or if Palin is so dead set on getting that additional income for her state, that he just did a "fine, I wasn't that against it anyways, we'll agree for platform solidarity".
But assuming he's really gung-ho on that, it still doesn't strike me as a lessoned learned. Gas prices soared the entire time he's been against more drilling, and have dropped during the time he's been against. He certainly didn't learn the lesson 40 years ago, which is what we were originally talking about. I guess, I was hoping you could come up with an example that has some history to it so we could judge whether or not it was a real lessoned learned or just a platform angle to enthuse a base during the presidential election.
I've been around politics enough to know that actual murderers can be "respected" members of their community. I have also seen "respected community members" receive awards for things I would throw them in jail for.
Now you are just acting bitter. I pointed out he is respected, you didn't want to hear it, so you argued that being respected doesn't give a person moral high ground. Agreed. Bad people can be respected. People who are right on one thing and very wrong on another can also be respected. But the point still remains, in any community the "respected" members are in the thick of things, and to get things done you have to work with them. Past presidents have met with Yasser Arafat (to use your example) to attempt to reach peace in Israel, because he is a respected member of the Palestinian community.
If pictures were released of 8 year old Obama sneaking around with Ayers building bombs or something, then it is pertinent. Those links simply aren't there, and never will be. That the republican base is working this angle so hard, shows just how desperate they are.
I still think it won't. I just doubled my bets last night that McCain will win. But if I should be wrong, well, there is the warning of Revelation 18:4.
Uh...so you'll leave the country if Obama wins? Or maybe just create a smaller more polarized community within the larger American community? Neither is going to help this country move forward. What's happened is a weird shattering of opinion. Not too long ago, communities relied on each other, and people were exposed to many different opinions. Not too long after that, we had 3 TV networks and everyone still had to meet in the middle.
What's happened since, is the saddest aspect of the internet boom and the fractionalization of America in general. People have so much choice of news and who they spend time with, that they seek out those like them. It is gratifying to seek confirmation bias, and it's easier to form cognitive dissonance than it is to break from it as knew information becomes available. In short, even if I think you are deluded on a great many topics, it's vital that people like you remain (or become) a part of the national discourse rather than just hide out. Hiding out will only make the disconnect greater, as the right and left move further away from each other.
Now you are just acting bitter. I pointed out he is respected, you didn't want to hear it, so you argued that being respected doesn't give a person moral high ground. Agreed. Bad people can be respected. People who are right on one thing and very wrong on another can also be respected. But the point still remains, in any community the "respected" members are in the thick of things, and to get things done you have to work with them. Past presidents have met with Yasser Arafat (to use your example) to attempt to reach peace in Israel, because he is a respected member of the Palestinian community.
And in both cases, I strongly disagree with the things that are getting done. One reason I oppose Obama is because I believe his core values line up with Ayers, who's core values I strongly disagree with.
The problem is that I am so conservative regarding government involvement in the lives of the individual that I even left the Republican party two years ago. McCain is an embarrassment, but he would be better than Obama. Palin, to me, is the equivalent of Reagan II. If she were running for president, it would make the second time since 1972 that I actually voted FOR a candidate and not merely against the lesser of two evils.
If pictures were released of 8 year old Obama sneaking around with Ayers building bombs or something, then it is pertinent. Those links simply aren't there, and never will be. That the republican base is working this angle so hard, shows just how desperate they are.
I still think it won't. I just doubled my bets last night that McCain will win. But if I should be wrong, well, there is the warning of Revelation 18:4.
Uh...so you'll leave the country if Obama wins? Or maybe just create a smaller more polarized community within the larger American community? Neither is going to help this country move forward. What's happened is a weird shattering of opinion. Not too long ago, communities relied on each other, and people were exposed to many different opinions. Not too long after that, we had 3 TV networks and everyone still had to meet in the middle.
What's happened since, is the saddest aspect of the internet boom and the fractionalization of America in general. People have so much choice of news and who they spend time with, that they seek out those like them. It is gratifying to seek confirmation bias, and it's easier to form cognitive dissonance than it is to break from it as knew information becomes available. In short, even if I think you are deluded on a great many topics, it's vital that people like you remain (or become) a part of the national discourse rather than just hide out. Hiding out will only make the disconnect greater, as the right and left move further away from each other.
</soapbox>
You are talking to someone who removed tv from his home in 1997. I read both sides of the issue now. Television used to infuriate me when a reporter would give raw data in the story and then go on to interpret that data in a way I strongly disagreed with. Now, I am shocked when I read about compelling stories that actually matter to me, yet when I ask friends that watch CNN what they think about them they tell me that they don't know what I am talking about – but they did hear that Madonna is getting a divorce. I am a much happier person since I got rid of TV.
The fractionalization of America is actually a good thing. The swift boat vets would never have had a forum. Dan Rather would have gotten away with his forged documents. The MSM no longer has total control on the collective mindset. This is all good.
Robroy, you shot me down on the argument about how wide spread the registration problems are. I need to clarify what I meant. I know that there are ongoing investigations in several swing states, but I didn't mean "how many states". What I meant was how large is the problem in the states where we've seen discrepancies. If a state like Ohio has 1% of its registered voters as duplicates, then this is a huge problem. But if it's something like 50 guys who accidentally registered twice, I'm having a really hard time seeing why you are so upset. So, do you know the answer to that question?
In one state, workers stopped verifying a batch of 5,000 registrations turned in by Acorn when they had gotten through the first 2100 and ALL of them were fraudulent.
Comments
That's not taking it a step further. In fact, I don't even know what kind of logic fallacy that is, since I've never seen anything like it.
A bipartisan political hack job? The cognitive dissonance around her gives me vertigo.
Well, a few parts of it are.
So true. I actually learned quite a bit about McCain's military record from this, and it wasn't pretty. So, for me the first half was at least interesting.
What parts did you find funny Robroy?
The thing that gives me pause about the story is that she did away with permitting laws, so there's no way to know who was involved in building it, other than the lien that was put against it for materials. That's what smells fishy about it.
This one is pretty funny too: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st ... _dog_palin
It is one of the things I like about her a lot.
I really do see her as SOMEWHAT of a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Of course, if that movie had ened the way such adventures do in real life, Mr. Smith would have gone to prison in the end. I sincerely hope that does not happen to Sarah.
With friends like these...
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=3930
Slightly related, when my family got a building permit to build our home out by fairwood in 1967, the permit cost $7.50. I believe permits now cost "over twice as much". It is raw, unadulterated governmental shakedown today. Apparently things are not that way in Alaska.
I like that.
That's because you are ignoring what Chuck actually said. He never stated he had a problem with reducing the red tape involved on building one's own land. Rather, he was pointing out that she effectively covered her tracks through a legislative move that causes people like you to be so giddy you stop asking questions.
Uh, no. I do not buy anything hook line and sinker. I merely listen and if truth shows itself I consider and validate. I, like many people, have had his perfect military record shoved down my throat enough times, that I essentially accepted it without question. Just a little digging around makes it clear that he was a terrible pilot, and some of the most cynical statements in that article are actually direct quotes from his biography.
The rest of the sordid allegations about his life are not terribly interesting to me, but do match up fairly well with how horribly he treated his first wife while cheating with his second.
I don't want to know if someone failed. I want to know what they learned from their failures.
And regarding his overall record, I am not impressed, frankly. But that is because I am one of those that sees McCain as a Rino. But when choosing someone for which to vote in an election, I compare their record with the record of those against whom they are running, not against Jesus. When I put McCain's dismal record up against Obama, McCain wins hands down. He has some serious problems, but he is WAY ahead of Obama.
Palin is ahead of them all.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... k2ODEwZTE=
And finally the WSJ is connecting the dots in front of God and everybody:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394051071230749.html
Ah, sweet irony. From two successive posts, you contradict yourself. To reiterate, you do not care what someone has done 50 years ago, only what they have done in the last 5, 10, 15, and 20 years. Yet, you have tried so hard to tie Obama to the Weather Unground and events 40 years old.
So, in which case were you wrong Robroy? Do ties to Ayers not matter, because during the last 20 years he's been a respected member of his community, or does McCain's destruction of government property through appalling negligence count even though it was 50 years ago?
Besides, you missed the entire point of the article. They didn't seek to discredit him through 40 year old actions. The goal was to point out that he never really changed since then. I agree that criminal negligence 50 years ago should be waved off, but the argument that he is dangerous and that his past is related to his current is at least worth entertaining. Just as worth entertaining as Obama's ties to ACORN, Biden's damaging plagarism, or Palin several cases of abuse of power.
I'm really sorry but that is just silly. Of course he is dangerous to us. The more power a man has, the more dangerous he is. Obama though, is more dangerous. I base this on the methods he used to get to power, the actual accomplishments he has done, and what he himself has done and stood for. They go against my core principles. McCain does too, but nowhere NEAR as much. I was never a fan of McCain and still am not. I would consider it VERY good for our country (but bad for his wife) if he died in office after being elected. Not that I would wish that on anyone. It is merely a statement of raw opinion concerning the welfare of our nation and the constitution that protects it.
Palin pretty much agrees with me on everything.
Which would almost certainly lead to a serious shooting war.
I think the risk would be there no matter which one of them wins, but it would be greater with Obama. Much greater. Either that or he would completely capitualte to enemies, which I consider even worse.
And I think this sums up our disagreements perfectly. You think she's the messiah and I think that she's a joke.
A) Lousy pilot. Irrelevant today unless he tries to fly AF1.
C) Frequent abuse of power. Very relevant, because it doesn't seem to stop with his return from Hanoi. He's mostly played by the rules since the Keating incident, but it's hard to imagine that 50 years of abusing your last name and family contacts isn't part of your core being.
D) Womanizer. Relevant if you want to talk about moral issues and legislate morality. Otherwise, between him, his family, and his choice of deity.
Would it change my vote if I was on the fence? Not really.
That's giving her a lot of credit isn't it? I work in a fairly professional environment with well educated people. Of those qualified to be president (over 35, and US natives), people with essentially no executive experience, at least 95% would make better presidents than Palin.
I am reading your posts, but it's hard because they are self-contradictory.
But, I'll bite. Name one McCain "lesson learned". Just one. As far as I can tell, he has a superb survival instinct (both during airplane crashes and political crashes), but that appears to be inborn. So, please enlighten me what he has learned. I promise I will listen if you have something that is supported and documented. If you don't have any evidence, however, I will be forced to assume you are just stalling for time by making the "who has learned" argument.
I don't actually care what you consider. Ayers received a Citizen of the Year award from Chicago. Chicago is his community, and he was respected in that community later in his life. You are just dodging the original question I posed. Why is a past behavioral discretion for McCain waved off and not for Ayers. Yes, Ayers was a domestic terrorist; his crimes were the greater of the two, but he appears reformed and is now doing good work.
http://donklephant.com/2008/10/13/more- ... oopergate/
The ethics board that the McCain camp was trying to pawn off the Troopergate thing to is taking them up on the offer and have hired an prosecutor.
That's OK. Once she gets fined and found that she broke ethics laws by this board, she'll just claim once again that the report vindicated her, and that the fine she'll be getting is actually a dividend check that Alaska owes her.
That is quite funny Chuck. Though, you know what's not funny. That bizarre elephant/donkey logo that site uses. Creepy!
1) Clearly, some voter registration errors, which look similar to voter fraud, have happened due to ACORN. This is very bad.
2) It's difficult to tell from the news just how widespread these errors are.
3) It's a positive thing anytime more people vote, even if they all disagree with me.
4) ACORN appears to be doing a valuable service in reaching people who might typically blow off their voting rights (responsibilities?).
5) ACORN receives some government funding.
My take, is that the typical ACORN member is probably someone who wants to see more "disadvantaged people" voting, and preferably voting democrat. I see nothing wrong with that (or else we must rise against churches which are pro-republican for equal treatment). What might be wrong is if they are not-so-secretly a working for the democrats while receiving nonpartisan government funding; however, this is not so different (except ACORN's explicit goal of driving out votes) than Bush's grants of government funding to faith based organizations.
My take (so far), is that the voter registration errors are likely due to incompetence rather than intentional fraud. I see it as loosely organized, and I imagine the following happening.
ACORN#1 : You registered to vote?
DUDE#1 : Don't know.
ACORN#1 : Let's get you registered then (helps dude fill out paperwork and mails it in for him)
...
ACORN#2 : You registered to vote?
DUDE#1 (same guy) : Don't know.
ACORN#2 : Let's...
So, the typical Palin republican* response - outrage - appears to be at least overblown, and probably hypocritical to me. But the typical democrat response of paying little heed to the question seems a little too much like a neocon or Palin style of move, which is definitely cynical and also a little hypocritical.
*new term I think I just invented, a Palin republican. This applies to those who claim they are independents; despite the fact that Palin is about as far right (even whackily so) as you can get and they are crazy for her because she/they hold identical positions on every policy question.
So?
I've been around politics enough to know that actual murderers can be "respected" members of their community. I have also seen "respected community members" receive awards for things I would throw them in jail for.
But it all goes with what I used to say back in the early ninteties regarding the Seattle political landscape: "I feel like a Jew in early 1930's Germany". It is even more true today. This November we will see if the whole nation has prepared itself to leave its constitutional roots.
I still think it won't. I just doubled my bets last night that McCain will win. But if I should be wrong, well, there is the warning of Revelation 18:4.
She was already vindicated by the previous report. This will merely seal the deal, sans the headline grabbing personal opinion of a card carrying Palin enemy.
If there was a chance she would be fined and proven wrong, I doubt seriously if she would have done this. Of course, my opinion is coming from what I read WEEKS AGO about this. There is nothing there and she knows it. But by all means, lets really, REALLY pursue this. I think we should absolutely inundate the "undecideds" with this!
But I also must differ with you on a few things.
You put together this list:
1) Clearly, some voter registration errors, which look similar to voter fraud, have happened due to ACORN. This is very bad.
2) It's difficult to tell from the news just how widespread these errors are.
3) It's a positive thing anytime more people vote, even if they all disagree with me.
4) ACORN appears to be doing a valuable service in reaching people who might typically blow off their voting rights (responsibilities?).
5) ACORN receives some government funding.
Regarding number 1 and 5, I agree.
Regarding number 2, I strongly disagree. As someone who does not have TV, I get LOTS of information about this from various internet and print sources. It is HUGE and there is a plethora of information down to specific cases, number of fraudulent registrations, locations, names, etc. Again, it is massive.
Regarding number 3, I do NOT think it is a positive thing that more people vote. I think only informed voters should vote. Then, if their opinion is different than mine that is still a good thing. That audio of people "on the street" in Harlem should scare people on BOTH sides of this issue. Government is too important to be destroyed by people who vote with no knowledge of what they are voting for.
Regarding number 4, I also disagree. I WANT people who would blow off their "voting responsibilities" to not vote. It is not responsible to vote when you are not informed about the thing on which you are voting. The responsible thing to do is be an informed voter and then vote. The second most responsible thing to do is not vote. The least responsible thing to do is to vote uninformed. I don't want uninformed people taking part in decisions that affect me and the lives of my children. This is serious. Countries have gone to war over bad decisions by uneducated voters.
The only people I want to vote are those that are willing to put some effort into it - that understand the importance on themselves and future generations of the positions and qualifications of the various candidates and the consequences of the initiatives. Uninformed voters are the cancer that will (and already is) destroy this nation. In the long run it is inevitable of course. Democracy always collapses in the end, but it can be a positive thing for a while.
Thanks for the anecdote WestSide. I'm still curious to hear more, if anyone has actual information rather than just spouting partisan talking points. One thing I'll add, is that if ACORN were registering dead people, or the like I would be much more likely to buy the Robroy hypothesis that this is the greatest voter fraud in our nations history. As it stands, I am having a hard time seeing the connection between multiple registrations and multiple votes. If I registered twice, would the state send me two absentee ballots without even double checking that I had not made a mistake? If I filled out each ballot and mailed it in, would the state count them without performing this simple check
if(name1 == name2 && address1 == address2) then have humans confirm ballots are unique.
Robroy, you shot me down on the argument about how wide spread the registration problems are. I need to clarify what I meant. I know that there are ongoing investigations in several swing states, but I didn't mean "how many states". What I meant was how large is the problem in the states where we've seen discrepancies. If a state like Ohio has 1% of its registered voters as duplicates, then this is a huge problem. But if it's something like 50 guys who accidentally registered twice, I'm having a really hard time seeing why you are so upset. So, do you know the answer to that question?
He's actually kind of wishy-washy on that issue. For? He was against as recently as July, and only became for with the Palin pick. It's terribly difficult to determine if he even believes in it, or if Palin is so dead set on getting that additional income for her state, that he just did a "fine, I wasn't that against it anyways, we'll agree for platform solidarity".
But assuming he's really gung-ho on that, it still doesn't strike me as a lessoned learned. Gas prices soared the entire time he's been against more drilling, and have dropped during the time he's been against. He certainly didn't learn the lesson 40 years ago, which is what we were originally talking about. I guess, I was hoping you could come up with an example that has some history to it so we could judge whether or not it was a real lessoned learned or just a platform angle to enthuse a base during the presidential election.
Now you are just acting bitter. I pointed out he is respected, you didn't want to hear it, so you argued that being respected doesn't give a person moral high ground. Agreed. Bad people can be respected. People who are right on one thing and very wrong on another can also be respected. But the point still remains, in any community the "respected" members are in the thick of things, and to get things done you have to work with them. Past presidents have met with Yasser Arafat (to use your example) to attempt to reach peace in Israel, because he is a respected member of the Palestinian community.
If pictures were released of 8 year old Obama sneaking around with Ayers building bombs or something, then it is pertinent. Those links simply aren't there, and never will be. That the republican base is working this angle so hard, shows just how desperate they are.
Uh...so you'll leave the country if Obama wins? Or maybe just create a smaller more polarized community within the larger American community? Neither is going to help this country move forward. What's happened is a weird shattering of opinion. Not too long ago, communities relied on each other, and people were exposed to many different opinions. Not too long after that, we had 3 TV networks and everyone still had to meet in the middle.
What's happened since, is the saddest aspect of the internet boom and the fractionalization of America in general. People have so much choice of news and who they spend time with, that they seek out those like them. It is gratifying to seek confirmation bias, and it's easier to form cognitive dissonance than it is to break from it as knew information becomes available. In short, even if I think you are deluded on a great many topics, it's vital that people like you remain (or become) a part of the national discourse rather than just hide out. Hiding out will only make the disconnect greater, as the right and left move further away from each other.
</soapbox>
The problem is that I am so conservative regarding government involvement in the lives of the individual that I even left the Republican party two years ago. McCain is an embarrassment, but he would be better than Obama. Palin, to me, is the equivalent of Reagan II. If she were running for president, it would make the second time since 1972 that I actually voted FOR a candidate and not merely against the lesser of two evils.
If pictures were released of 8 year old Obama sneaking around with Ayers building bombs or something, then it is pertinent. Those links simply aren't there, and never will be. That the republican base is working this angle so hard, shows just how desperate they are. You are talking to someone who removed tv from his home in 1997. I read both sides of the issue now. Television used to infuriate me when a reporter would give raw data in the story and then go on to interpret that data in a way I strongly disagreed with. Now, I am shocked when I read about compelling stories that actually matter to me, yet when I ask friends that watch CNN what they think about them they tell me that they don't know what I am talking about – but they did hear that Madonna is getting a divorce. I am a much happier person since I got rid of TV.
The fractionalization of America is actually a good thing. The swift boat vets would never have had a forum. Dan Rather would have gotten away with his forged documents. The MSM no longer has total control on the collective mindset. This is all good.
http://www.palestra.net/videos/play/17193
http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9172343
http://www.kxmc.com/News/Nation/284460.asp
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/15/vo ... e-ballots/
Although this is beyond Ohio, here is a google "acorn fraud map":http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=116419175653178554819.000458d1fc4a61e0c0d7b&ll=38.891033,-96.152344&spn=47.290654,74.882813&z=3&source=embed
In one state, workers stopped verifying a batch of 5,000 registrations turned in by Acorn when they had gotten through the first 2100 and ALL of them were fraudulent.
This is all starting to be noticed:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/po ... 133634.htm
http://newmediajournal.us/staff/william ... 152008.htm
And I do take this every bit as seriously as is discussed here:
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/ ... s_a_p.html