DescentBB

I think this is it, this is the way to get back to what our government should be. Tonight she'll be speaking at the National Tea Party convention at 7:00 PM GMT, and is otally donating her speaking fee to the cause.

Well, if she EVER gets elected, GOD FORBID, she'd better bring her hubby along because a boatload of newly released emails has shown us her HUSBAND was really the leader of the governor's mansion/household. That's not naming all the graft she was responsible for while she was Gov. too. Talk about buying a President, she'd be an easy shoe-in!

Nice exaggeration TC.

GO SARA!!! She has my vote before the her campaign even starts

I couldn't help thinking while watching Palin give her speech, that I was watching the birth of a brand new political party being born. While some like Limbaugh think a third party would be bad for conservatism, I think a viable third party is exactly what we need. The idea that a strongly based conservative party would only fracture the Rebublican party and give a advantage to the Democrats is one I don't buy. Independents, republicans tired of their officials saying one thing but playing the same song as the democrats and the more centrist democrats may in fact flock to the Tea party movement if only to shake the status quo up.

I hope at the very least the other two major parties start noticing what the people want, emblematic in what is going on with the Tea party movement. While others here may disagree, a third party can only do this country good. Time to shake things up a bit.

Palin 2012

We already have a third party…and a forth…and a fifth…

You may be right Woody and the most viable one to try and stimulate growth in would be the Libertarian party. Seems they at least have some establishment and most of the ideals,as far as i know, all sound American . But Palin??? Na I like to be objective but what America needs is somebody a lot more savvy than her. Why Palin?

What this country needs is……….












Better voters.

flip wrote:You may be right Woody and the most viable one to try and stimulate growth in would be the Libertarian party. Seems they at least have some establishment and most of the ideals,as far as i know, all sound American . But Palin??? Na I like to be objective but what America needs is somebody a lot more savvy than her. Why Palin?

http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_Palin.htm


So now I ask you - why not?

$100,000 speaker fee thats why. She says its going to \"the cause\", ......

...this is her cause!!!!

Two other scheduled speakers, Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., have dropped out after a House ethics committee review urged them to do so, citing questions over how proceeds would be used. The event organizer is a for-profit company

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02 ... fee-cause/

Shes an opportunist, and good for her, but all these people are doing is cashing in on your frustration. And they don't even try and hide it from you.....

Lol, are you talking about the Tea Party Movement…or the last presidential election.

I believe Obama was pretty clear about what his cause was. To become president....he did. Mission accomplished for those who gave him money,

I suppose this for profit tea party thing is also clear about what their cause is....I just don't get why people are still donating!!

His cause was to become president? Humm, and I assumed that was only the means to an end, not the end in itself…but you have convinced me.

Gooberman wrote:... but all these people are doing is cashing in on your frustration. And they don't even try and hide it from you.....

That describes any or all of the current congress and whitehouse occupants.

flip wrote:the most viable one to try and stimulate growth in would be the Libertarian party.

Except that they're only slightly less nuts than the Tea Party (which has become the home of many nutty conspiracy theorists.)

Hence, the common expression "I'm a small 'l' libertarian". Real libertarians don't want to affiliate with the party that bears their name.

Got that right…the local party here is full of loonies.

Gooberman wrote:$100,000 speaker fee thats why. She says its going to "the cause", ......

...this is her cause!!!!

Two other scheduled speakers, Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., have dropped out after a House ethics committee review urged them to do so, citing questions over how proceeds would be used. The event organizer is a for-profit company

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02 ... fee-cause/

Shes an opportunist, and good for her, but all these people are doing is cashing in on your frustration. And they don't even try and hide it from you.....

Guess again - what utter non-sence, and from you. Very dissapointed.

Gooberman wrote:I believe Obama was pretty clear about what his cause was. To become president....he did. Mission accomplished for those who gave him money,

I suppose this for profit tea party thing is also clear about what their cause is....I just don't get why people are still donating!!

Man, and keep layin on the BS. Obama made did make it clear as to what his cause was and it was way way more than that. Granted, in his defence he has only had 1 year in office. But ease up on the BS.

flip wrote: But Palin??? Na I like to be objective but what America needs is somebody a lot more savvy than her. Why Palin?

Savvy in what way? Savvy enough to articulate beliefs instead of base meaningless phrases like "Hope and change we can believe in" without saying what change entails? Obama gave us rhetoric that hid the fact he was clueless as to how a leader needs to lead. Now he can hide it no more.

Palin OTOH, speaks to us from a platform grounded in a reality we all can identify with (well most of us ).
She understands that one actually has to work to get ahead instead of being groomed and pampered for a position in life. I can identify more with how Palin got to where she is today, than someone like Obama who's silk lined cocoon insulates him from the life all of us on this board have to live in.

In Palin I see someone who won't fit quite so easily into the Washington mentality. Will the illicit lure of power at the very highest level subsume her into something other than what she is today? I dunno. Hopefully her family will keep her grounded in the reality you and I know.

The bigger question is, will Palin be effective. Depends. While not the gifted orator Obama is, none the less she communicates well and perhaps more importantly, she connects with the people. Where-as I get the feeling Obama is somewhat detached when he speaks, Palin has a certain passion that I and I suspect others, key into and make it seem like she really cares about her topic. Obama seems like he is shooting for a good grade on technique and is only a step above the guy in the clear eyes ad on TV.

In short I see a spark in Palin. Hopefully it is not extinguished by a unrelenting assault by such notables as Letterman or the SNL crowd. Time will tell.

Will Robinson wrote:That describes any or all of the current congress and whitehouse occupants.

I agree. The best I can relate it to you is when you first saw water in vending machines. I was absolutely shocked at first, who would spend $1 for water when the drinking fountain is right there? Over time the idea sunk in and didn't seem so bad, people like to carry things with them. One only wants to drink so much at a fountain, etc.

For profit movements (and note that was a fox news link saying even Michele Bachmann got spooked), are similar. Over time I suppose this won't shock me either. I imagine for profit movements are far more efficient then the old fashioned kind.

....and to be honest, it's oh so American. "This movement is brought to you by Honda, and the kind folks at Kodak -- do remember an angry mob isn't a photogenic mob. Para su seguridad, mantener las manos , brazos, pies, and piernas...."

Palin lost her glitter with me when she quit her governorship mid term. Granted, she was drowning in frivolous lawsuits brought by democrats trying to take her down by any means possible- but they won in the end by her own hand. She damaged her credibility as an executive by quitting when the going got tough.

A party from the fiscal conservative side of the Republicans free of the mediaeval rubbish of the other side would be a good contender actually. It could quite feasibly take enough voters from D and R to become dominant.

Well here's my thing with Palin. Although she and I hold the same beliefs, I don't think she's a strong enough debater to take control of a situation and then keep it. It's nothing personal against her beliefs, just against her lack of skill.

You may be right Lothar, I don't know. I'm an independent myself. I think they are all ambitious and self serving. As are most people, although these politician types seem to be the \"most\" ambitious.
I also think each party has it's loonies in it. You don't think Obama's idea of change, the way to go about it, and the quickness with which he wants to do it isn't extreme?
I'm not very well educated in the Libertarian party at all, but every libertarian I've met, we've shared the same core beliefs. 230 years ago, the people we hold in high esteem, were all considered trash, criminals and conspiracy theorists.
Those people would have rather died than to live under tyranny anymore. Every time I hear of a country gaining it's freedom, MANY people died in the process. People take their rights too damn lightly. Considering just how hard it was to get them, and knowing the hardest part was gonna be keeping them. Government=control. That's a known fact. Tell me anywhere in history, from a societies inception, where it did not eventually end up in tyranny. For me there are enough conspiracy theories out there that I question everything.

flip wrote:I'm not very well educated in the Libertarian party at all,

They, unfortunately, have some really strange positions.
places where I disagree with the Libertarian Party:

1 : They usually argue that all roads should be privatized.

This is just plain nuts. Anyone who controls the roads into town will have a deadlock over all business and most aspects of life. This is one area where we simply MUST have government ownership in order for democracy and capitalism to work.

2 : The Libertarians are officially pro-choice (Although Ron Paul was pro-life). Their statement: "we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Two of the very few areas where a government has a right and DUTY to intervene is in determining citizenship and defending it's citizens. No matter which side of the abortion debate you come down on, it is VERY MUCH the governments job to determine exactly WHEN a new citizen, with all the rights of a citizen, comes into existence. Too just ignore the issue is a foolish abrogation of responsibility

3 : Libertarians have argued that environmental protection to be handled strictly by people suing corporations AFTER they have polluted.

This stance is criminally negligent. It's often too late AFTER the fact to repair the damage that has been done. And corporations are usually too short sighted to worry about who is going to sue them next year if they can save money today. The modern environmental movement is crazy, but saying there shouldn't be any environmental laws is just as nutty.

But, despite how nutty they are, I find the Libertarians less nutty than the Republicans or Democrats.

Still wish I could find a party that was for rational libertarians.

kilarin wrote:Two of the very few areas where a government has a right and DUTY to intervene is in determining citizenship and defending it's citizens. No matter which side of the abortion debate you come down on, it is VERY MUCH the governments job to determine exactly WHEN a new citizen, with all the rights of a citizen, comes into existence. Too just ignore the issue is a foolish abrogation of responsibility

Is this your thinking or theirs I see a conflict with this statement.

kilarin wrote:The Libertarians are officially pro-choice (Although Ron Paul was pro-life). Their statement: "we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

I very much disagree with

it is VERY MUCH the governments job to determine exactly WHEN a new citizen, with all the rights of a citizen, comes into existence.

Insurrectionist wrote:Is this your thinking or theirs I see a conflict with this statement.

Sorry, bold text is Libertarian party position, with my answer below. I've edited it to make it clearer. Libertarian party says the government should ignore this issue. I say thats crazy. Citizenship, by its very nature, is a government issue.

So you're saying that Government are the only one allow to bring in new life into existence. So are you ok with the government saying who can have a baby and who can't? Where is the freedom in that? I for one think the government should not have a say in the reproductive rights of any one. If a person wants to have a baby let them. If a person wants to murder that unborn baby let burn in hell. Freedom is all about the individual choice of the people.

Insurrectionist wrote:So you're saying that Government are the only one allow to bring in new life into existence. So are you ok with the government saying who can have a baby and who can't? Where is the freedom in that? I for one think the government should not have a say in the reproductive rights of any one. If a person wants to have a baby let them. If a person wants to murder that unborn baby let burn in hell. Freedom is all about the individual choice of the people.

Sorry, I'm obviously not communicating well. I'm opposed to abortion. I believe it is the governments job to recognize who is a citizen of its country and who is not. This is, as you have pointed out, vulnerable to abuse. BUT, I don't see any logical way around that. The state can't function without knowing what qualifies someone as a citizen.

The issue of abortion is, from the governments perspective, a question of when do we become citizens, with the full constitutional rights of citizens. And the state obviously has a duty to protect its citizens from murder.

Either that, or they must come up with some bizarre half way citizenship like they did for black people. But I would be strongly opposed to any such move. A half-way citizen is a very troublesome concept.

Insurrectionist wrote:I for one think the government should not have a say in the reproductive rights of any one. If a person wants to have a baby let them.

In principle, I think there is some logic to saying that you shouldn't reproduce until you can prove you are financially capable of raising and caring for the child. But, while the idea has some merit on a purely theoretical level, experience shows that we do NOT want the government having that kind of power. They would do a LOUSY job at it, and it would, inevitably, become subject to abuse.

The constitution already determines when a person becomes a citizen.

1. At Birth (native)
2. At the end of the naturalization process (immigrant)

The main reason I wouldn't want to see Palin run in 2012 is the same reason I didn't vote for McCain: Net neutrality.
His Internet Freedom Act is a step in the wrong direction and one towards eliminating neutrality.
I haven't read where Palin stands, but it's a safe bet she's on the same side as he is.

Why is it a safe bet Isaac?

spidey wrote:The constitution already determines when a person becomes a citizen. 1. At Birth (native)

But this only applies to those born of non-native parents. You are a citizen if your parents are both citizens, no matter where you are born. And "born" has become a rather nebulous term. We count c-sections as birth, but if a doctor opens everything up for in the womb surgery, that's not being "born" (because the umbilical wasn't cut?)

At 22 weeks, it is possible (but highly unlikely) for a premature child to survive. But it seems very odd to count a child as a citizen at 22 weeks because they were cut from the womb, but any kid who decides to stay in the oven until well done is NOT a citizen. If a doctor kills the kid IN the womb at 22 weeks, its just a medical procedure. If he lifted the kid OUT of the womb and then killed them, it would be manslaughter or murder.

When defining persons who can "become" citizens, an arbitrary line of "birth" makes SOME sense. But it doesn't make much sense at all when applied to anyone conceived of parents who are already citizens.

Ah. It's a safe bet to me.
Unless I missed where she confirms her position, I have to assume her views are closer to McCain's and farther from Obama's; she should be against net neutrality.

Isaac wrote:Ah. It's a safe bet to me.
Unless I missed where she confirms her position, I have to assume her views are closer to McCain's and farther from Obama's; she should be against net neutrality.

Aww come on, we have two wars going and a third staring us in the face, the economy is in the crapper and we are worried about net neutrality in the presidency.

Cuda68 wrote:

Isaac wrote:Ah. It's a safe bet to me.
Unless I missed where she confirms her position, I have to assume her views are closer to McCain's and farther from Obama's; she should be against net neutrality.

Aww come on, we have two wars going and a third staring us in the face, the economy is in the crapper and we are worried about net neutrality in the presidency.

I don't think the president has much control in the economy or controlling terrorist. In fact, trying to control either can cause more harm than good. Net neutrality is something a president does have real control over; it's the issue I'm concerned about the most. And once it's gone it could be decades before it's restored.

I'm not concerned much with citizenship. To me it's an issue of when something possesses life. Before that point it's the potential or prospect of being a living being. That's why I'm not opposed to the morning after pill or condoms. At the point somethings heart starts beating on it's own, is when it possesses it's own life. No one here has any authority over the life of another human being. They should have stopped it initially or face the consequences. That's why nobody has any heart anymore, it's too easy to run.

After some time looking into it, it looks as if Palin is just trying to ride the wave that the Tea Party is tsunamiiing(?). It's leading a lot of people to believe that the movement is just a reorganization of Republicans, as opposed to a non-partisan mission.

Regarding net neutrality, I googled it a bit and agree with Isaac that neutrality is the way to go. However, just because McCain authored a bill opposing it does not mean that Palin is in lock step with him. Fact is I could find no real position statement by her one way or the other. Might make a good question to present to her.

Silver I disagree. Palin has said any number of times she will support anyone seeking office, democrat or republican, that is for conservative values. Right now the tea party has not come forth with a slate of candidates for this falls election and as such the tea party is not anything more than a voice for disaffected voters. It may change as time rolls on. The republican party may wake up and understand that it either embraces conservative values or lose membership to a potential new party that will adopt conservatism. Interesting times ahead.

woodchip, can you give me actual Palin quotes that have any SUBSTANCE or POLICY IDEAS? Everything out of her mouth sounds like lame platitudes or gobbledygook! I've never heard her come out with any succinct concrete ideas to solve our nation's problems.

She even had to consult crib notes during and after her speech, written on the palm of her hand no less, to remind herself of a couple of SIMPLE talking points. She also had the gall to criticize Obama's use of the teleprompter while resorting to her own low-tech handprompter!

http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2010/ ... -notes.htm

She has the words \"Energy\", \"Tax Cuts\" and \"Lift American Spirits\" written on her palm while she crossed out the words \"Budget cuts\", one or two word platitudes to feed to her delusional base! I guess she didn't want to discuss WHAT things should be in her proposed Budget Cuts! That would have been too hard for her pea brain!

.