Sarah Palin Resigns as Governor
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
No not because she had an affair, but because she's focusing full time on a Presidential run in 2012. She's burned her ships. There's something you need to understand about a woman like Sarah. When a woman like her gets attacked, she doesn't cower in hurt. She gets motivated. You can't win giving a person like this negative energy. They only convert it to motivation and the more you attack, the more you support them.
Happy Fourth of July!
Tim
I couldn't disagree more and I can't wait for the chance to see it. Obama is as big of a joke as this country has ever seen.
From bowing down to the saudi king, to declaring that we are "Not a Christian nation", to disarming our military, to not not doing ANYTHING about north korea etc.
This guy is more of a national security risk then Bin Laden because he is killing our country from the inside.
Jeff
Isn't that why I showed up to the thread for? I put my 2 cents in and backed what I believed in.
My responses can't be deemed off-topic because this thread took a turn from its original subject long ago.
I got my beliefs(independent of any party) and you have yours(right wing). Let's leave it at that.
I don't want to sidetrack from my morals and standards. I feel like we're arguing about nothing now.
You're a valued member of this RE community and I hope that someday we can conduct some meaningful business.
Good Night
Tim Wrote:
"You know, some of us actually believe in our ideology because we choose to and have come to it from our own developments of our worldview"
__________________________________________________
The problem with ideology, like religion is that it lacks self doubt. There is no moment of "Wait a minute, maybe I'm wrong. Lets examine"
Ideology, like religion is dismissive of all who disagree. Kind of "My way, or the highway" History show that in the end, ideology loose and pragmatism wins. That's why the power of the Catholic church as apolitical force has disappeared,that's why Nazism failed, That's why communism crumbled. That's why Muslim theocracies will fail and that's why we are witnessing the decline of pure capitalism.
Religion failed because you cannot fool all the people all the time, Communism failed because people are not equal. They may deserve equal rights and equal opportunities, but we are not equal. Some smart, some stupid, some beautiful and some ugly. Capitalism will fail because people don't live in a vacuum. We are a society. We need the support of each other. We can argue on what level of support and what extend, but we cannot deny that we depend on each other to survive.
Pragmatism, flexibility, adoption - This is the only way to survive as scoiety.
... But, then may be I'm wrtong.... :wink:
Eddie,
"History show that in the end, ideology loose and pragmatism wins...Pragmatism, flexibility, adoption - This is the only way to survive as scoiety."
Sounds like an ideology - strikingly similar to early 20th century eugenicists....
Seems to me that you are either trying to blatantly insult Eddie and/or his assertion by making stuff up or you just don't understanding what eugenics is.
So, please enlighten us...
All this talk of adaptation and Darwin never entered your minds?
I'm not insulting him at all. What he proposes in his ideology are foundational elements of social evolution and they're proposed as a means of progressing human society. I'm not suggesting at all that he follows the same strategy as the darker eugenicists did, but it's the same ideology.
It is an ideology.
Hopefully it was the latter...
bush appointed him as a circuit judge, it was crist who put him in the supreme court.
and yes, i agree that there are some in both parties that aren't inline with party beliefs.
I can't say all of what I'm really thinking but suffice it to say:
a.) Palin sucks at life, will never win
b.) Obama sucks at life, will not be re-elected
c.) At least we have plenty of time to invest and make loads via REI in this unstable crappy economy, since we all know Obama can't/won't fix it.
*edited to change "now" to "know"
Early 20th Century Eugenicists included the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw (with whom Eddie has a great deal in common philosophically), John Maynard Keyes, and Winston Churchill. You're looking for some sort of insult that just isn't there. Well....maybe with Keyes but if Eddie voted for Obama over McCain, he assisted in voting Keyes policies into our federal government.
Calling someone a eugenicist is not a compliment to most people.
It is amusing to follow how my words being interpreted. I would not get into the Keynesian approach vs. Milton Friedman theory simply because this is not the place to write an essay. I'm just going to say that in my view, the Keynesian intervention (past and present) has more realistic approach. The Milton Friedman's economics is academic in nature and doesn't work in the real world... pretty much like communism - great on paper - bad for society.
My argument in favor of practicing non-ideological method is that it allows correcting mistakes of the past and preventing mistakes of the futures without any ideological constraint. From ideology point of view, we only have to consider narrow aspects of solutions. If you wish to call it also an ideology by itself, knock yourself out. I would disagree of course.
The problem we are facing as a nation is not intervention or no intervention. I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy (Any liberal who states otherwise, is simply lying) and if I thought that tea parties are the solution I would join them in a minute. The problem is not so much the amount of taxes but their appropriation. I'm going to slaughter some sacred cows here. The fundamental issue is the structure of our governing bodies. Al Franken recently encapsulated the issue by saying: "I am not going to Washington to be the 60th democratic senator. I'm going to Washington to be the second senator from Minnesota" and although I applaud his "spirit of independence", Senators and congressmen like Al Franken, put the interest of individual states ahead of the interest of the nation.
That's why we have pork barrels, that's why we have bridges to nowhere and that's why we build submarines that the navy doesn't need. It is being built just because the powerful senator form State X thinks it is important. It provides jobs to his /her constituents or worse, a contract to his /her major contributor. This is beyond the unnecessary wars and the welfare programs or even the various bailouts. For years,our tax dollars are being robbed by politicians for their own political survival and purpose.
Now going back to original post. Sarah Palin or not Sarah Palin. Again, I don't have problem with people who hold opposing views to mine, but I do reject people who don't have the intellectual capacity or honesty, or are too shallow to argue their views. People who are speaking in a language of vague and empty slogans and who cannot conduct a simple journalistic interview without embarrassing themselve.
I'm pretty sure that Sarah Palin doesn't hold any opposing viewpoints to you. To have an opposing viewpoint, you have to have an opinion...and to have an opinion, it helps to be knowledgeable about that which is being opined.
Luckily, now that she has resigned, she has three years to memorize her opinions... :)
Of course, I think Sarah Palin is best left to stand watch over Russia from her Alaskan perch, in the case that "Putin decides to rear his ugly head."
Her national defense is invaluable to this country.
Sarah Palin's resignation do focus on larger things got me to wondering about whether or not Obama should have resigned and let someone else who was interested in being Senator maybe....I don't know....serve Illinois? I looked up Obama's voting record in chronological order and found that throughout 2005 and 2006, Obama participated in his duties as a Senator at every opportunity save for one day, 4.19.05. Then as we get into 2007 he starts dropping off the map and "not voting"...as we get into 2008 good grief, the guy must have forgotten where the Senate was. Maybe he got lost in the other 7 of those 57 states he said there were.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
Yet he "finished" the term, even though he didn't show up for half of it. And for all that time he didn't show up...he collected your tax dollars in his paycheck for not working AND (and this is the best part) he get's the Senator pension. That's full pay for life of your tax money for not showing up for nearly half of his term, yet he "finished" his term long enough to take the money.
And people try to make up speculation about Sarah Palin being unethical.... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
What does Sarah Palin being unethical have to do with Obama not doing his job as senator?
Whenever someone attacks your ideology, instead of logically discussing it, all you do is blast Obama, which makes no sense. Except it probably makes you feel better.
If Obama is unethical, okay. If he's the anti-Christ, okay. But, what does that have to do with Sarah Palin, the topic of this thread!?!?
You are clearly just trying to deflect, and any time someone says something that hurts you or your sensibilities, instead of addressing it, you start attacking Obama, as if that has anything to do with it.
That would be like if you said something bad about Ron Paul and I said, "Well, Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict." It might be true, but it's not relevant, and has nothing to do with the comment at hand.
I understand that it hurts to have to recognize that some people you look up to and respect (George Bush, Sarah Palin) have their flaws, but attacking Obama to deflect the reality really doesn't make much sense in context.
Oh yeah...this is somebody who should SURELY be our next President:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8016906&page=1
A quote from Palin (bottom of first page):
"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out"
Department of Law?!?! Wow, she is a parody of herself...if she really plans to run, I hope she at least plans to spend the next three years learning all the things the rest of us learned in middle school...
Well, I was wrong on one thing that I am willing to concede. Sarah never officially announced she's gearing up for a presidential run. That was some early speculation I read into in an AP report. We shall see.
I figure if you want to make an assertion, you will. I certainly didn't assert it for you. I'm just leaving it open-ended and will let you decide what you want to assert or not assert.
If so, are you willing to concede that any politician who believes there is a "Department of Law" probably isn't qualified to be President?