|
Sarah Palin (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| T.A.S.D. |
| It saddens me that misguided libtards like R!ch, dj Rann and kabelicious put all their imagined problems with America into an unknown media-inflated messiah for resolve. Ha ha, kind of like religion. It must be painstaking to live a daily life of one of you leftards; one filled with pessimism, doom-and-gloom, blame America first, and morphologically turning into a DNC lemming by the hour! An Osama administration will be truly abysmal! Al-Barrack Hussein Osama is a socialist! Newsflash: The metastasis of socialism is COMMUNISM! And please spare me any GW slurs. What I can't understand about you libtards is that GW's gotta be the biggest Democrat in recent history (one of you guys) and you hate him. HA! Maybe with some hard work, worldly experiences, maturity and personal responsibility you'll come to realize government is never the answer. You are. |
|
|
| R!CH |
| if anyone had an ounce of faith in the intelligence of a mccain supporter, TASD, you have surely squandered it here with your vacuous posts. you make hysterical claims which you have not been able to substantiate and use recycled ad hominem in place of meaningful thought. i must say, as far as arguments go, you provide the best one for why anyone shouldn't align themselves with mccain and his supporters. |
|
|
| bigperf |
it saddens me that although t.a.s.d. has been a member since tax day 2006, there have only been 11 posts total on TA with most of them coming on this thread....
way to contribute...total republican! :gsmile: |
|
|
| R!CH |
| well if it's any consolation, he's probably just an alt |
|
|
| bigperf |
of course...so why be so afraid to be who he/she/it really is... dont know t.a.s.d. but using an alt. might be considered by some to be cowardly.
we dont have to agree, but at least rich and the other 99% that post dont need and alt username to express/discuss on TA. |
|
|
| T.A.S.D. |
Ha ha. R!ch and the like longingly starves for my attention with scorched responses where they respond so dutifully out of some kind of threatened defensiveness. R!ch constantly contradicts himself and continues to showcase his utter confusion. He blasphemes: "..able to see the forest through the trees in policy making." HA HA HA. Name me one policy he made to prove this! "..most capable of building a consensus in national and international politics." HAhahah. Based on what experience? And by saying he would invade Pakistan or meet with rouge dictators under no preconditions or by denying that Iran is any threat? "..ability to think critacally based on his experience in legal reasoning." Hahaha. Because he's another lawyer? "..he writes his own speeches." No he does not! "..if someone wants to commit suicide, do drugs, terminate a pregnancy, it is their inaleinable right." HAHAHA It is? "..that is precisely why the founding fathers emphasized the separation of church and state." Uhhh, precisely? Precisely the victimless crimes and unwanted pregnancies you speak of are the genesis for the separation? C'mon R!ch. You can't be serious. (in my best McEnroe impression).
Please say no more. You libtards surely are entertaining if anything more than malinformed, inexperienced and closed minded. Now I don't know R!ch if you're beyond reach or help at this point but you do say (somehow) that you're in favor of less government yet you support Al-Barrack Hussein Osama, the extreme socialist. Please explain how so. I am enjoying how Al-Barrack is currently being unmasked to reveal the true charlaton he really is--another empty suit. Again, government is never the answer. You, personal responsiblity and accountablity are!
R!ch will not have any answers (never does) to my unassailable commentary of facts, therefore they're irrefutable. |
|
|
| R!CH |
| since you're unable to take yourself - or anyone else - seriously, i won't bother to take you seriously either. i have the time to discuss real issues, but no time to address your sophomoric barrage of ad hominem and straw man arguments. i mean there are actually points you hit on that i would love to address, but i'm not naive enough to think that will actually change anything about your demeanor. what i will do however is continue to articulate my views with others who articulate theirs, which is something you have to this point been unable to manage in spite of all the time you've wasted typing out your empty remarks. remarks that no one on this forum takes seriously. so continue to indulge in your self-importance because even though no one takes your banter seriously, it is still an amusing look into the distorted mind of a republican. :) |
|
|
| CND |
How do you all wring your hands and type at the same time?
Somebody lock this thread please. Not because of content but because of the offensive writing style.
I try to follow this thread but continue to get lost. Not because I don’t have the capacity to follow such insights but because I lost my desire to.
Filling large bricks of paragraphs with supposition and cliché only caters to those who are to lazy to think things out. Stating principals clearly and concisely is much more impressive. Convince me and everybody you are right. Coagulating your arguments is not only a boring but cheap way to convince. Constipated reasoning.
Be concise and make your points.
I agree with Dave T . . . this thread has given me a headache too. |
|
|
| R!CH |
| quote: | Originally posted by CND
How do you all wring your hands and type at the same time?
Somebody lock this thread please. Not because of content but because of the offensive writing style.
I try to follow this thread but continue to get lost. Not because I don’t have the capacity to follow such insights but because I lost my desire to.
Filling large bricks of paragraphs with supposition and cliché only caters to those who are to lazy to think things out. Stating principals clearly and concisely is much more impressive. Convince me and everybody you are right. Coagulating your arguments is not only a boring but cheap way to convince. Constipated reasoning.
Be concise and make your points.
I agree with Dave T . . . this thread has given me a headache too. |
can you be more vague? i don't think anything i said in response to you was offensive. i actually took the time to state my principles there. as for my posts to tasd, i'm just having fun with the guy because there's no point in getting baited into an argument with someone who makes personal attacks and asks endless questions rather than defining his own position. also he's just an alt account whose purpose here is to agitate headaches. |
|
|
| R!CH |
back on topic...
McCain's lipstick attacks on Obama smudge campaign
Dan Janison | [email protected]
September 11, 2008
"Now it's getting really dirty," gasped the lead in one city paper.
"Now it's getting really stupid," might have been closer to the mark.
Barack Obama the other day equated John McCain's claim to represent change with putting lipstick on a pig - or wrapping old fish in a piece of paper and relabeling it.
Obama's statement was utterly conventional.
But in an audacious bid for victim status, the McCain campaign put lipstick on Obama's statement and dressed it up to resemble some outrageous slap at Sarah Palin.
The purported connection: Palin had said lipstick was the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull.
Sorry, but this makes the McCain camp sound whiny, politically correct, even knee-jerk-liberal. You know, feeling out the pea of sexism under many mattresses. You know, like the party that practices gender politics.
One Democratic operative acknowledged privately yesterday that this is just the kind of response his camp would have concocted if the positions were reversed.
Remember the key election rule: It's only OK when your side does it.
Of course, McCain himself used "lipstick on a pig" to describe the Hillary Clinton health plan. What if McCain had called Clinton a barracuda or a pit bull, back when he was asked by a supporter, "How do we beat the bitch ." In the cynicism of campaigns, the present context erases even the recent past.
Race, age, sex, experience - all are now in play at once. When Gov. David A. Paterson said this week he detected "overtones of potential racial coding" in the presidential campaign, the GOP decried it as an unjust "accusation of racism." The roles in the lipstick issue are reversed.
This becomes a gall contest.
Democrats are nervous, with reason. Their man has slipped in the polls. The partisans worry that the Rove-ian attacks will throw them off their game again, as in 2004 and 2000. The feared progression: Dukakis-Gore-Kerry-Obama. They fret: What is Obama doing to avoid this same fate? They ask: Will Obama take the initiative and go on the attack?
Fear stalks the GOP, too. Shielding Palin through victim status - she's under attack, a martyr to reform, a noble outsider - looks increasingly like a tactical pre-emptive strike. After a convention where the name Dick Cheney went largely unspoken, the only non-senator on either ticket, the governor of Alaska, became instantly important.
McCain is a Senate insider and his party has held the White House for eight years, most of them with a GOP Congress. So the pressure on Palin as a new public front is huge. And the myth of the reform-mom-warrior-giver-of-life change-agent is already showing wear. Consider:
As your run-of-the-mill New York legislator might do, Palin supplemented her $125,000 salary in her first 18 months in office by charging a travel per diem for 312 nights she spent at home, in Wasilla. She drew $16,951, with the rationale that her work station was in Juneau.
She hired a lobbyist to pursue those dreaded earmarks for Wasilla and promoted the bridge to nowhere when she was running for governor. Every pol knows that one person's pork is another's vital project.
There are several cases of her involvement in murky firings involving personal matters.
She said of subsequently indicted U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens: "I have great respect for the senator, and he needs to be heard across America. His voice, his experience, his passion, needs to be heard ... so Alaska can contribute more."
Viewed soberly, Palin emerges as an unexotic member of our political class. That - and the question of how Obama responds - form the ungroomed reality behind the lipstick affair. |
|
|
| revitalizedbeat |
| quote: | Originally posted by CND
How do you all wring your hands and type at the same time?
Somebody lock this thread please. Not because of content but because of the offensive writing style.
I try to follow this thread but continue to get lost. Not because I don’t have the capacity to follow such insights but because I lost my desire to.
Filling large bricks of paragraphs with supposition and cliché only caters to those who are to lazy to think things out. Stating principals clearly and concisely is much more impressive. Convince me and everybody you are right. Coagulating your arguments is not only a boring but cheap way to convince. Constipated reasoning.
Be concise and make your points.
I agree with Dave T . . . this thread has given me a headache too. |
this thread was for the animals that palin kills. if your head hurts wear glasses. so shut up! |
|
|
| R!CH |
here's a very profound take on america's fascination with sarah palin by one of my favorite columnists. basically it describes how the symbolism of this woman embodies a modernized version of reagan's nostalgic antebellum southern mythology, which appeals greatly to a nation that feels defeated on all fronts. it really reframes the nature of the dialogue imo...
Sarah Palin's Myth of America
Sarah Palin has arrived in our midst with the force of a rocket-propelled grenade. She has boosted John McCain's candidacy and overwhelmed the presidential process in a way that no vice-presidential pick has since Thomas Eagleton did the precise opposite — sinking his sponsor, George McGovern, in 1972. Obviously, something beyond politics is happening here. We don't really know Palin as a politician yet, whether she is wise or foolhardy, substantive or empty. Our fascination with her — and it is a nonpartisan phenomenon — is driven by something more primal. The Palin surge illuminates the mythic power of the Republican Party's message since the advent of Ronald Reagan.
To start with the obvious, she's attractive. Her husband ("And two decades and five children later, he's still my guy...") is a hunk. They have a gorgeous family, made more touching and credible by the challenges their children face. Her voice is more distinctive than her looks: that flat, northern twang that screams, I'm just like you! Actually, the real message is: I'm just like you want to be, a brilliantly spectacular...average American. The Palins win elections and snowmobile races in a state that represents the last, lingering hint of that most basic Huckleberry Finn fantasy — lighting out for the territories. She quoted Westbrook Pegler, the F.D.R.-era conservative columnist, in her acceptance speech: "We grow good people in our small towns..." And then added, "I grew up with those people. They're the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food and run our factories and fight our wars. They love their country in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America."
Except that's not really true. We haven't been a nation of small towns for nearly a century. It is the suburbanites and city dwellers who do the fighting and hourly-wage work now, and the corporations who grow our food. But Palin's embrace of small-town values is where her hold on the national imagination begins. She embodies the most basic American myth — Jefferson's yeoman farmer, the fantasia of rural righteousness — updated in a crucial way: now Mom works too. Palin's story stands with one foot squarely in the nostalgia for small-town America and the other in the new middle-class reality. She brings home the bacon, raises the kids — with a significant assist from Mr. Mom — hunts moose and looks great in the process. I can't imagine a more powerful, or current, American Dream.
Nearly 50 years ago, in The Burden of Southern History, the historian C. Vann Woodward argued that the South was profoundly different from the rest of America because it was the only part of the country that had lost a war: "Southern history, unlike American...includes not only an overwhelming military defeat but long decades of defeat in the provinces of economic, social and political life." Woodward believed that this heritage led Southerners to be more obsessed with the past than other Americans were — at its worst, in popular works like Gone With the Wind, there was a gagging nostalgia for a courtly antebellum South that never really existed.
During the past 50 years, the rest of the country has caught up to the South in the nostalgia department. We lost a war in Vietnam; Iraq hasn't gone so well either. And there are two other developments that have cut into the sense of American perfection. The middle class has begun to lose altitude — there isn't the certainty anymore that our children will live better than we do. More important, the patina of cultural homogeneity that camouflaged 1950s suburbia has vanished. We have become more obviously multiracial. There are lifestyle choices that were nearly unimaginable in 1960 — the widespread use of the birth control pill, the legalization of abortion, the feminist and gay-rights revolutions, the breakdown of the two-parent family. With the advent of television, these changes became inescapable. They intruded upon the most traditional families in the smallest towns. The political impact was a conservative reaction of enormous vehemence.
Enter Reagan. His vision of the future was the past. He offered the temporal pleasures of tax cuts and an unambiguous anticommunism, but his real tug was on the heartstrings — it was "Morning in America." The Republican Party of Wall Street faded before the power of nostalgia for Main Street...at least a Main Street that existed before America began losing wars, became ostentatiously sexy and casually interracial. In his presidential debate with Jimmy Carter, Reagan talked about an America that existed "when I was young and when this country didn't even know it had a racial problem." The blinding whiteness and fervent religiosity of the party he created are an enduring testament to the power of the myth of an America that existed before we had all these problems. The power of Sarah Palin is that she is the latest, freshest iteration of that myth.
The Republican Party's subliminal message seems stronger than ever this year because of the nature of the Democratic nominee for President. Barack Obama could not exist in the small-town America that Reagan fantasized. He's the product of what used to be called miscegenation, a scenario that may still be more terrifying than a teen daughter's pregnancy in many American households. Furthermore, he has thrived in the culture and economy that displaced Main Street America — an economy where people no longer work in factories or make things with their hands, but where lawyers and traders prosper unduly. (Of course, this is the economy the Republican Party has promoted — but facts are powerless in the face of a potent mythology.) Obama is the precise opposite of Mountain Man Todd Palin: an entirely urban creature. He lives within the hilarious conundrum of being both too "cosmopolitan" and intellectual for Republican tastes — at least as Rudy Giuliani described it — while also being the sort of fellow suspected of getting ahead by affirmative action.
The Democrats have no myth to counter this powerful Republican fantasy. They had to spend their convention on the biographical defensive: Barack Obama really is "one of us," speaker after speaker insisted. Really. Democrats do have the facts in their favor. Polls show that Americans agree with them on the issues. The Bush Administration has been a disaster on many fronts. The McCain campaign has provided only the sketchiest policy proposals; it has spent most of its time trying to divert the national conversation away from matters of substance. But Americans like stories more than issues. Policy proposals are useful in the theater of presidential politics only inasmuch as they illuminate character: far more people are aware of the fact that Palin put the state jet on eBay than know that she imposed a windfall-profits tax on oil companies as governor and was a porkaholic as mayor of Wasilla.
So Obama faces an uphill struggle between now and Nov. 4. He has no personal anecdotes to match Palin's mooseburgers. His story of a boy whose father came from Kenya and mother from Kansas takes place in an America not yet mythologized, a country that is struggling to be born — a multiracial country whose greatest cultural and economic strength is its diversity. It is the country where our children already live and that our parents will never really know, a country with a much greater potential for justice and creativity — and perhaps even prosperity — than the sepia-tinted version of Main Street America. But that vision is not sellable right now to a critical mass of Americans. They live in a place, not unlike C. Vann Woodward's South, where myths are more potent than the hope of getting past the dour realities they face each day.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/a...=rss-topstories |
|
|
|
|
