Nixon Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 13, 2009 -> 08:20 PM) But she's a fighter! A barracuda! She's a Maverick. She marches to the beat of her own drum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 She's credited with a "Cap and Trade" Op-Ed piece in today's Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9071302852.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) She's credited with a "Cap and Trade" Op-Ed piece in today's Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9071302852.html Writing Op-Eds in the Washington Post should deflect attention from her and her family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) She's credited with a "Cap and Trade" Op-Ed piece in today's Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9071302852.html I read the piece. It might have been useful if she had bothered to share one shred of evidence to back up her claims about the unemployment that would supposedly result from this plan. She didn't even try - just laid out her personal beliefs, with no backing whatsoever. And then she claims the $4.2B in the bill for unemployment as a sign of her truthiness - except of course that money is for education and training, which, duh, will be needed for ANY transition to new technologies. She makes it sound like a reparations fund. Sort of funny that she opens the article by opining about the media (which she is using) paying attention to fluff and not weighty economic matters, then she fails entirely to make any sort of substantive economic argument. Go. Away. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 13, 2009 -> 07:20 PM) But she's a fighter! A barracuda! I actually think this is very important. She portrayed herself as such...the bulldog, the hockey mom, etc. And to quit goes against everything she said she was. I have no problem with a politician announcing they won't run for re-election, I might wonder why, but in that case, they fulfilled their "contract" and are moving on with his/her life. She has every right to quit for any reason she wants. But that doesn't mean that I can't question the reasons why and to challenge her on it if given the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 08:51 AM) She has every right to quit for any reason she wants. But that doesn't mean that I can't question the reasons why and to challenge her on it if given the chance. That also doesn't mean you can't judge her if her actions after quitting stand in stark contrast to the reasons given for her quitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 One thing she will have by quitting, is the power to chose what she does. Writing an op-ed piece while playing with the grand-kids is far different than leading a state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) That also doesn't mean you can't judge her if her actions after quitting stand in stark contrast to the reasons given for her quitting. Well, I can't...but the people of Alaska sure as s*** can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 09:16 AM) Well, I can't...but the people of Alaska sure as s*** can. You'll get you chance to judge her in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 11:21 AM) You'll get you chance to judge her in 2012. Oh...I will...harshly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QWEN IFILL: But I just wanted to ask you, do you support capping carbon emissions? PALIN: I do. I do. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 09:18 PM) Link *facepalm* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 15, 2009 Author Share Posted July 15, 2009 a while ago I was talking about cap and trade and northsox said it had never worked, but, with SO2 I was under the impression that it worked rather well... and I don't believe I'm wrong. One thing wrong with our system is states with senators that they don't vote out, like WV, become a huge obstacle in moving the country forward. And I hate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 01:02 AM) a while ago I was talking about cap and trade and northsox said it had never worked, but, with SO2 I was under the impression that it worked rather well... and I don't believe I'm wrong. One thing wrong with our system is states with senators that they don't vote out, like WV, become a huge obstacle in moving the country forward. And I hate them. Wait, what? I said it had never worked? I don't think I'd say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 02:02 AM) a while ago I was talking about cap and trade and northsox said it had never worked, but, with SO2 I was under the impression that it worked rather well... and I don't believe I'm wrong. One thing wrong with our system is states with senators that they don't vote out, like WV, become a huge obstacle in moving the country forward. And I hate them. Like Teddy Kennedy? Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 15, 2009 Author Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) Like Teddy Kennedy? Agreed. I can't imagine he's that big of an obstacle right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 15, 2009 Author Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 01:04 PM) Wait, what? I said it had never worked? I don't think I'd say that. /drunk post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 10:59 AM) I can't imagine he's that big of an obstacle right now. He also shouldn't be in the Senate. Same for all these people elected in the 70's/80's and are still there. There's gotta be some sort of limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 15, 2009 Author Share Posted July 15, 2009 That's absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 08:10 AM) He also shouldn't be in the Senate. Same for all these people elected in the 70's/80's and are still there. There's gotta be some sort of limit. As long as Seniority is so bloody important in the Senate, it makes more sense to have a well-preserved corpse/Strom Thurmond in a Senate Seat than it does to replace him with a rookie. Especially if the elder is a guy in the majority party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 "Like Oliver North, Robert Bork, and Clarence Thomas, [Palin] is known not for her ideas but as a martyr, a symbol of the culture-war crimes of the left. To become a symbol of this stature Ms. Palin has had to do the opposite of most public figures. Where others learn to take hostility in stride, she and her fans have developed the thinnest of skins. They find offense in the most harmless remarks and diabolical calculation in the inflections of the anchorman's voice. They take insults out of context to make them seem even more insulting. They pay close attention to voices that are ordinarily ignored, relishing every blogger's sneer, every celebrity's slight, every crazy Internet rumor," LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 04:07 PM) LINK The problem is, they want to discuss her every "blunder" ad naseum. That has nothing to do with "having a thick skin". If people would STFU about everything Sarah Palin, she'd just simply go away, but it seems no one on either side wants to do that, so the drip gas gets added to every damn word that's uttered, and BOOM, it just keeps going and going. It's nauseating, on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 04:29 PM) The problem is, they want to discuss her every "blunder" ad naseum. Isn't that what the MSM does to everyone at the level? She was a VP candidate for crying out loud...not the chick from Jon and Kate plus 8 (Which I guess would be Kate ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 02:29 PM) The problem is, they want to discuss her every "blunder" ad naseum. That has nothing to do with "having a thick skin". If people would STFU about everything Sarah Palin, she'd just simply go away, but it seems no one on either side wants to do that, so the drip gas gets added to every damn word that's uttered, and BOOM, it just keeps going and going. It's nauseating, on both sides. She's currently a strong contender in national polls for the 2012 Republican nomination and has said or done nothing that would indicate she won't be running. She's writing Op-ed pieces in the Washington Post, she's going on national media regularly. She's not simply going away. She doesn't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 04:29 PM) The problem is, they want to discuss her every "blunder" ad naseum. That has nothing to do with "having a thick skin". If people would STFU about everything Sarah Palin, she'd just simply go away, but it seems no one on either side wants to do that, so the drip gas gets added to every damn word that's uttered, and BOOM, it just keeps going and going. It's nauseating, on both sides. I was reading a Time article where one of her aides/friends/advisors was saying she actually started digging on the Internet to read the dirt about her, reading liberal blogs etc. No politician actually does that or they'd go crazy. Could you imagine if Bush did that when he was president and then started whining about everything instead of brushing it off or ignoring it like he did (and like Obama does now)? He wouldn't have been able to function if he did that. Edited July 15, 2009 by lostfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts