Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Churchill]

But I don't support Bob Barr, so I'm taking my write in ballot, taking careful precautions not to accidentally mark anywhere that may look like an actual vote for anyone on the ticket, and write "Ron Paul" in black sharpie.

My ballot will be tossed out, by I never sacrificed my integrity.

[Deftscythe]

That's not what the commander of the Alaskan national guard said. Sorry, but I'll go with him not you.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,4238012.story
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_122860.html

[Krandor]

Honestly I know jack shit about Bob Barr's beliefs/ideals (his mustache does kick ass though).

I've voted for Ralph Nader previously, but I don't really see the 2 party system actually evolving into something that gives a 3rd party a snowball's chance in hell of making a difference while I'm alive (unless you want to talk about Al Gore getting fucked over by it in 2000).

[Kuya]

I think it's incredibly petty bullshit on the Republicans and FOX news regard, but so much of this election year has been driven by the most petty and minor of points that I think you're going to see the Republicans grasping onto this and using it against Obama's campaign up until the election.

I was merely tossing it out here for people who have been saying that Republicans are hypocrites and that Democrats are apparently shining moral beacons of truth. Both parties are full of raging dipshits/hypocrites/<insert label of your choice>, and it annoys me that everyone assumes that everything in politics comes down to pure Black and Whites. This likely stems from my extreme dislike for my father (Look daddy issues), who is convinced of literally the exact opposite of what most of this forum community displays, which is that Republicans are looking out for the country while democrats want to destroy it. Both parties are rife with corruption and more issues then you could fit into a 2 disc Screamo album, pretending like one is better then the other is just ridiculous. Individual candidates can be fine, but the parties on a whole are both steaming piles of dogcrap.

And yes, I'm well aware that my comments about voting for Mccain are one big contradiction, sue me.



Yes, I made alot of edits.

I'm not going to try to convince you that Republicans are more inclined to make hay out of anything and appeal to the most irrational of human qualities, but yes, both parties employ petty tactics, kind of like using the fact that McCain sort of cheated on his wife against him. I find that pretty irrelevant.

[Churchill]

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff


These are all I've read from that list, as someone noted in the comments, it's not just Palin who may be trying to ban these. There's a central theme to a lot of the books posted above...

[archibaldcrane]

http://megorious.com/lit/books-sarah-palin-tried-to-ban

it's actually a hell of a good reading list, lol.

Day No Pigs Would Die?

My dad read that to me when I was 9 years old.

Jesus christ.

[Kuya]

Charity!

That's impossible; the same people who believe that the government should stay (impractically) out of everything also believe that greed is an intricate part of human nature, therefore charities would certainly not work.

You should have said Jesus.

[Beckwin]

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d8...ster/Flags.jpg

^those are the "trashed" flags. they're fucking rolled up and in trash bags for transporting purposes

Damon Jones, spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee, released a statement saying McCain should applaud the fact that thousands of American flags were “proudly waved” at their convention.

“But instead his supporters wrongfully took leftover bundles of our flags from the stadium to play out a cheap political stunt calling into question our patriotism,” he said.

Obama has faced attacks on his patriotism since the beginning of the Democratic primary race and has set up a Web site specifically designed to fight such charges.

The McCain campaign has denied questioning Obama’s patriotism, and even released a statement Friday calling Obama’s most recent comments on the matter “hysterical.”

Obama said Friday that Republicans are trying to make the election a personality contest, and that “what they’re really saying is ‘we’re going to try to scare people about Barack. So we’re going to say that you know, ‘Maybe he’s got Muslim connections or we’re going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals or he’s not patriotic.’”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09...merican-flags/


good job trolling by the republicans though, especially right after Freddie/Fannie got bought by the government due to the housing crisis brought about by their deregulation ^_^

[Beckwin]

also I think Barack isn't the Messiah, but he might literally be Negrodamus.

[Kuya]

Assuming that list of books is real; i wonder if she wanted to ban Lysistrata because of its somewhat misogynistic theme or because...

[archibaldcrane]

Honestly I know jack shit about Bob Barr's beliefs/ideals (his mustache does kick ass though).

I've voted for Ralph Nader previously, but I don't really see the 2 party system actually evolving into something that gives a 3rd party a snowball's chance in hell of making a difference while I'm alive (unless you want to talk about Al Gore getting fucked over by it in 2000).

Ross Perot?

Sigh. Why does everyone forget how good of a chance Perot had in '92. I don't understand. People act like he never existed. He was even or leading in polls (vs. Clinton and George H.W. Bush) as late as July 16th, when he inexplicably dropped out. Even still when he rejoined the election late in the game, he still received 19% of the popular vote.

At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).

A viable third-party candidate existed in most of your lifetimes (I don't know if any people under 16 post here...)

[Churchill]

Had he not dropped, good chance he woulda won.

Scott Barnes, a private investigator and security consultant who had testified to that effect and supported Perot's story would later, in 1997, reveal that he had tricked Perot into believing that it was true, but it was a hoax he created with others outside any political campaign. Barnes was a Perot supporter, and believed if it were revealed Republicans were involved in dirty tricks, it would harm Bush's candidacy.

Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home in his absence on the ballot

Third party can't make a difference.

[Krandor]

I'm not going to try to convince you that Republicans are more inclined to make hay out of anything and appeal to the most irrational of human qualities, but yes, both parties employ petty tactics, kind of like using the fact that McCain sort of cheated on his wife against him. I find that pretty irrelevant.

It's likely backlash from my Father being a hardcore Conservative (see prior daddy issues comment), but I do agree that the Republican party is more inclined to being douche bags, and let's face it, anyone not covered with blinders at this point can't really feel otherwise after comparing the shape of the country when Clinton was in charge vs. Bush.

Blah Blah 9/11 Blah Blah War on Terror

But, both parties are terrible thru and thru, you just have to hope you can find a non turd among all the piles of shit.

Ross Perot is insane, I cannot and will not ever take that man seriously, and while I know independents have played major roles in past presidental campaigns, times have changed alot since even 1992. Clinton was a very polarizing President for alot of people.

[Demosthenes11]

That's impossible; the same people who believe that the government should stay (impractically) out of everything also believe that greed is an intricate part of human nature, therefore charities would certainly not work.

You should have said Jesus.

Republicans give a lot more to charity than democrats. You can look that stat up too. Charities have a way of getting the money to the issue a little better than government. And maybe you just felt like ignoring the bit of my post earlier about the government, you seem to think I am advocating the government keeps its hands off completely

[Deejay]

Isn't putting money into charity = tax write offs?

No shit republicans put a lot into charities

[Demosthenes11]

You can make that assumption all you want, but it's pretty irrelevent

[archibaldcrane]

I don't think you quite understand how tax write-offs work.

[Demetrius*]

I was merely tossing it out here for people who have been saying that Republicans are hypocrites and that Democrats are apparently shining moral beacons of truth. Both parties are full of raging dipshits/hypocrites/<insert label of your choice>, and it annoys me that everyone assumes that everything in politics comes down to pure Black and Whites. This likely stems from my extreme dislike for my father (Look daddy issues), who is convinced of literally the exact opposite of what most of this forum community displays, which is that Republicans are looking out for the country while democrats want to destroy it. Both parties are rife with corruption and more issues then you could fit into a 2 disc Screamo album, pretending like one is better then the other is just ridiculous. Individual candidates can be fine, but the parties on a whole are both steaming piles of dogcrap.

amen. the extremes on both sides of the parties make them look absolutely retarded. I can't stand either of them. Its a big reason why i'm very hesitant about Obama, with the most liberal voting record in the senate in 2007. I just don't believe that an extreme on either side is any good(as bush has certainly shown), no matter how charismatic the package.
McCain leaning far enough left to actually piss off the republicans was a great sign to me, even though i think Palin is just part of the extremist bat shit crazy group.
Whichever extreme you go with, you're still going to be pissing off the other 50% of the nation. It just makes no sense to me.

[Beckwin]

Republicans give a lot more to charity than democrats. You can look that stat up too. Charities have a way of getting the money to the issue a little better than government. And maybe you just felt like ignoring the bit of my post earlier about the government, you seem to think I am advocating the government keeps its hands off completely

aren't many charities poorly rated on how much of each dollar they actually get to people? not to mention many of them serve in foreign countries, which does jack and squat for domestic problems, even though it's still a good thing. Sending money to starving Africans isn't terrible, but it doesn't help poor mentally unstable homeless veterans here, or single mothers, or the guy who got laid off when his job got shipped overseas and is struggling to find work in a weak job market.

[Deejay]

You can make that assumption all you want, but it's pretty irrelevent

It's relevant when you're trying to argue that Republicans put more money into charities out of the "goodness of their hearts." They don't do it for the greater cause, they do it to save money. To imply that the government should stay out of our lives because charities used by wealthy/cheap Republicans "is better"...... is effing laughable.