Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Beckwin]

can we talk about lipstick again? all this legitimate talk is really makin' my conservapenis soft

[ZarakiKujata]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-administ.html

dum dum dum might need to rename this thread..

[Neosutra]

Just wow.

[aurik]

Has Sarah announced her future VP nominee yet?

[Kuya]

What's infuriating is that, by nationalizing these companies; they still get away practically unharmed by this, and you can bet your sweet ass that after all of this they will still be asking for "HALP GOVERNMENT INTERVENING IN FREE MARKETS, STOP THEM!" when they don't want to be regulated or held accountable for their shady practices. The tax payers, the middle class, once again has to take it in strides.

[geno]

I found this link to a pretty funny comic that explains this whole subprime debacle in simplified form on another forum:

http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?d...uth=true&pli=1

Now obviously, this is primarily for entertainment as the real situation is a bit more complicated, but its actually pretty funny.

[Aerin]

Just wow.

Just sounds like she's preparing for the future to me. So when McCain is incapacitated for w/e reason it won't matter! In her mind she was already president!

Bush/Cheney... I mean McCain/Palin 08!

[Beckwin]

The government should be running Fannie and Freddie now, not just owning it because F and F fucked up. Honestly government run "competitive" companies (agencies technically I guess) could do good to keep the market honest, and it would be up to the market to pressure the government to be competitive when it comes to service.

[Kuya]

What? This essentially sets a precedent that the government will pull you out if you fuck up too much, not only that but now the tax payers have to carry the burden of the speculators' fuck up. This is not at all a good idea; the government has no idea of the kind of deals and the convoluted mess these companies have made.

You want honest? You want more regulations, which is what we needed to avoid this mess, but i guess Washington having Wall Street as its biggest contributor kind of gets in the way of that. By the way, don't assume the Democrats aren't involved in this disaster too; loads of them supported deregulation.

[Beckwin]

I'm saying if the government has to bail a company out, the government should take the company over. Bailing out to prevent a problem for the people is a sad reality now, but the problems for the executives should have consequences.

[Beckwin]

Article by Wick Allison, National Review publisher and former William F. Buckley surrogate:

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod....A3EF81822D9F8E

THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and what it means to me.
In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher.
Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results.
Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.
But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.
Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.
This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.
Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.
Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.
“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

bingo.

[Kuya]

Paleo-conservatives or libertarians, are definitely not the same as neo-conservatives. It's just the stance that some of them have on social issues that aggravates me, especially when they claim freedom through economic means but turn around and call for unnecessarily restricting the freedoms of people through social means. I just hate that.

[Beckwin]

agree with you there. I'm not a big fan of paleoconservatism/libertarianism, but I at least find it to be a bit more decent/respectable, especially in a couple areas. I'm curious to see demo11/pohibaba/etc respond to the Wick article.

[Kirin]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-administ.html

dum dum dum might need to rename this thread..

Funny, Obama even introduced Biden as the future president of America. And theres been more than one instance of Obama slipping and calling Biden the president. But people jump on this?

[Kuya]

I don't know if you noticed, but the overwhelming majority of the people who post here are American liberals. Now if you meant to say that they were being unfair, then you may have a point, but what i think they're alluding to is the fact that people pay more attention to Palin than they do McCain. In essence, what they're getting at is that McCain is irrelevant, and he's supposed to be, potentially, the president.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

agree with you there. I'm not a big fan of paleoconservatism/libertarianism, but I at least find it to be a bit more decent/respectable, especially in a couple areas. I'm curious to see demo11/pohibaba/etc respond to the Wick article.

Makes sense to me.

One thing I notice is that it seems every conservative's vote for Obama seems to be predicted on the war in Iraq and getting troops out. Not trying to make a point, just an observation.

[geno]

Funny, Obama even introduced Biden as the future president of America. And theres been more than one instance of Obama slipping and calling Biden the president. But people jump on this?

I agree, I thought this was a pretty stupid thing to pick at with any serious concern. It was just a slip up. But it was still funny (unlike the Obama ones because... well the context that surrounds Palin's massive rise to stardom just isn't there with Biden.)

[ZarakiKujata]

Also, the fact at Biden as President if something happens to Obama doesn't scare as many people as Palin as President should something happen to McCain, a large reason why I think Obama picked him in the first place.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Also, the fact at Biden as President if something happens to Obama doesn't scare as many people as Palin as President should something happen to McCain, a large reason why I think Obama picked him in the first place.

I'd agree, but it has been the case since before he picked her.

Edit: I've always wanted to ask someone that bitches about Bush not being conservative what the hell they thought "compassionate conservatism" meant. Didn't Bush use that back in '00?

[Kuya]

If there's one thing that any adherent to the US's constitution hates the most is interventionism; the founding fathers very poignantly rejected interventionism, they certainly never wanted an empire. So it would make sense that these kinds of conservatives and other thinkers would side with the US liberals on the matter, potentially, above all else.

Though i wouldn't exactly count on a Democrat to be a non interventionist.