ParanoiA

Oh certainly. I think if you're going to complain about earmarks, yet be arguably forced to to engage in them for the interim or screw your constituency, then you ought to be straight forward about your interim engagement. Otherwise, it's misrepresentation, which is what she did at the very least. Well I'm glad you had a pleasant experience. I've only lived here about 5 years now, but it's been interesting. I do take the fountains for granted, although I walk downtown a lot. I think they're trying to revitalize it, so it will likely be congested next time you make it through. He hasn't been mayor but a couple of years I think. He was auditor before that. We think he's pretty cool, and I like him for his principled style. He's fighting with the council right now over his wife being a full-time volunteer. She's a bit, in the way. And with all the issues on the table, he's still fighting this thing front and center. So, it has its drawbacks.

Palin I thought this was interesting: Well that certainly challenges any of Palin's notions of being against earmarks. But then, Dr Paul was guilty of this as well. I found his explanation hard to accept. I imagine Palin's would be similar. Something about earmarks being a crappy corruptive deal, while at the same time screwing your constituency if you don't use them. A damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. I guess that's like campaign finance reform - it's only good if everybody has to comply. Otherwise, a candidate must indulge in uncomfortable exercises until the laws reflect their conscience. I don't know how I feel about that. But it is what it is. The interesting twist, I think, is that it says something about her executive talent. She got the same money for her 10,000 folks as Idaho got for 200,000. Hmm... Oh, and the bit about the plane was just 'plane' stupid. So the ebay sale fell through...so what? She said she put it on ebay and she drives herself to work. I have to admit, I'd probably use that one too. The plane sold - when's the last time a politician sold a private jet to save the state money? She drives herself to work. Freakin cool. Reminds me of our mayor here in Kansas City. He dismissed his security detail and the city limo. He drives himself to work in a beat up toyota corolla, or something like that. They laughed at him in the local paper - the Star - and criticized his decision. I thought, shit man, why are we giving this guy crap for saving us money and doing it by starting with his own sacrifices? Weird.

Just ran across this and thought I'd add it for balance: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/05/top-7-myths-lies-and-untruths-about-sarah-palin/

You're not free to express yourself by trespassing and using other people's property to do it. Just like you can't put a sign in my yard, or a burning cross. I'm sure you wouldn't care much to find I postered your house overnight with pro Palin "hope" messages. I'm sorry he's too poor to buy advertising space like the rest of us. He sells this stuff, so where's the money going? Do I get to advertise for Dr Paul for free also? Also, if that was true, then they would have arrested anyone who "said" this stuff. Like, uh, Obama himself. Or the thousands of people at their convention. Or any number of the anti-protestors protesting the DNC protesters. Come to think of it, if they were arresting protestors of the DNC, then wouldn't they be targeting anti-democrats? Why would they stifle speech that compliments the DNC? Maybe it's because it didn't have anything to do with freedom of expression after all? That maybe, just maybe, they are enforcing the law - objectively? Sounds to me like they got scooped up with the rest of the protestors by the police who were probably beaten over the head about security and threatened by who knows how many shiney shoe politicians scared shitless the convention was going to get crazy. It doesn't make it ok, it was already ok and lawful to arrest people for hanging posters and those who are complicit. As always, the police reserve the right to enforce law sensitive to realities on the street. Tomorrow, they might start jailing folks for littering if a controversial fast food trash convention comes into town.

I don't know about that. I don't have an issue with public space on public property. But I think that property definitely has value and belongs to the whole of the public. I would think it should be regarded, by default, exactly the same way by law as any private property. A citizen does not have the right to alter someone else's property without their permission. Since the property belongs to everyone, and not just some dude and a paint can, then I don't see how he earns the right to alter any of it. I don't care if he sprays gold on it, or decorates it in million dollar bills - it's altering property without permission or reverance to its owners. However, I also don't see why our public representatives or whoever is specifically responsible for the maintenance and decor of the property can't designate the public space for "free for all" artistic alteration. Of course, that ruins the fun of graffiti art. They want to be "rebels" so it's no fun when the "adults" spoil it with permission. I have far more of an issue with painting a mural on the side of my store or business and thinking this should be "ok" because some teen steem artist is revered by the local teenage population. When I can come to their house and paint a giant tit on the front of it and they're cool with it, then maybe we talk. I suspect not, since they are an "artist" and I'm not and I would likely be painting over their revered art. But hey, since when did inequality ever stop anyone?

And aren't we supposed to be parsing partisanship from party interests? I don't see a problem with parties, I see a problem with partisanship. Or any other mentallity that undermines honest intellect and problem solving - mainly through the oversimplistic asthetically pleasing conclusion that we = good, they = bad. We = right, they = wrong. Even that's not what is actually all that bad, it's the competitive emotion that we allow to override our greater sensibility as a result of this group based bias. It's group-think basically. And neither side thinks they're guilty of it - and even more funny, no one claims to belong to either of them. Well, except for bascule. No one else I know in my personal or internet life will admit their full tilt partisanship. And guess who profits from this? Follow the money. The dems and pubs always have plenty of money to participate in the spot light, whether they're winning or losing. It's like a sporting event to these people. And the partisan sheeple play along with their heads full of fog. Another point for the executive prerequisite column. It could be argued that a state executive is in a position that potentially, depending on local government representation, requires working above partisanship in order to execute law. I guess, at this point, I'm curious as to what a congressman does that we could consider as experience toward an executive position. I suppose, management and people skills, running a staff - typical management stuff it would seem to me. But what does a congressman do that a state executive does not, that contributes directly to the skill set of executive office? How about to the national executive office? But that's disingenuous to his choices. Seriously, you're either for the war or against it, ultimately, by its nature. How can you work across party lines to "kind of" wage war as a compromise to the neo-cons, yet "kind of" not wage war as a compromise to the democrats? I realize you didn't specifically point out the war, but that seems to be the quintessential anti-bush catalyst for all things wrong with the current administration. Just about all of the things that divide us so much about Bush trace back to the war on terror and how it is waged. Again, an executive doesn't have the privilege to wait a generation for everyone to argue everything out, once and for all, they have to make a decision and those decisions are not always going to be conducive to bipartisan compromise. Nature of the beast kind of thing. That said, Bush was full of crap. I don't believe he ever intended to reach across party lines for anything except conservative ideas. That was salesmanship, just like we're seeing from Obama. As long as the democrats agreed with him, well sure, bipartisan politics all the way. McCain might be the only genuine bipartisan running - and I'm only giving him that much due to how strong he's selling the point, and the evidence provided by a republican base that can't stand him because of it.

Oh yes, yes. I remember that. Actually that was a damn good point by Stewart, I thought.

Well I did point that out in post #87 as well as the one you replied to. I know I'm a long winded prick, but I did say that I'm beginning to think Palin has the only qualified prerequisite really for the Presidency of the 4, as little experience as it may be. I'm currently mulling over how much credit to give legislators vs executives. Very true. She's actually the Bush #2 they want to make McCain, when you think about it. It's that same right wing religio angle.

I can't watch those at work, but I watched Gingrich last night - how did he get spanked? The only close thing was talking about Palin and how Obama doesn't have executive experience only for John to remind him that McCain doesn't either - and Gingrich agreed. What spanking are you talking about? Maybe you got it backward, cuz Gingrich was great last night at the RNC and I enjoyed the bit I caught on the daily show.

Certainly not, but understand the difference between efficacy and opposing agendas. Did Bush do a bad job because he's not any good at executing legislation, or did he do a bad job because you disagree with his ideology? I'm going to parse the difference since that's only logical. Seems to me, Bush has done a fabulous job of advancing his stated agenda, except for his humble foreign policy pledge and balanced budget. I don't think you get our country into the mess it is in - that republicans want it to be in - unless you know what you're doing in the executive. Well, honestly we have to include the legislature too, but I hope you get my point. I disagree with him on monetary policy, energy policy, foreign policy, same sex marriage, civil liberties..etc - but that doesn't have anything to do with executive talent. Can you really tell me that being president of a state doesn't lend some direct skills to being president of a union of states? I'm starting to wonder if Palin is the only qualified candidate for the presidency...she's the only one of the 4 who's had to make a decision and follow through on everything that comes up, no matter how uncomfortable or imperfect the choices may be. That's partly why I really can't comment on this stuff you keep posting. It's really juicy stuff, and I keep reading, but I also keep asking myself "So, what's her side of this? What was the context of this decision?" Too many times we throw up the conclusions - "Palin cuts funding in half for homeless shelter", without providing the context - "Palin opposes a 400% proposed increase in homeless shelter funding by countering with a 200% increase". I watched the democrats do that all throughout the 90's. Claiming the republicans were "cutting" the funding to 'X', when they were actually cutting the proposed increase in funding to 'X' - how one can increase spending and yet call it a cut is beyond me. But not "nationalists", er partisans - it's not beyond them.

Cool read. Thanks for the link. Looks like partisanship is a great example of this poison, that's one of the first things to jump out at me. Well, any kind of thinking that relies on "us vs them" really. Any kind of thinking that degenerates one to focus on the competition over the means and principles you're fighting over. I agree, it makes it easy to excuse bad behavior to achieve stated ends.

You don't think that's a relevant discussion? Honestly, I think has potential for pure bs, but at the same time, I can't deny the point made by a man I cannot freaking stand, Guiliani, that an executive doesn't have the choice of not making a decision, which Obama, McCain and Biden have all enjoyed. I think of it similar to my company. We have beaurocracy (however that word is spelled) that rivals government here. We have teired management, and a first line manager may look equivalent to a 5th line manager to an uncritical mind that latches on to "management" and assumes that's close enough. But, a first line hardly has the resemblance of the skills necessary to be CEO - whereas the 5th line definitely does. So, two questions: Does a governorship, a state president, provide a closer national presidential prerequisite than a congressional seat? And, does that matter? I haven't thought too much about it in the past, but now that I think about it, I'm thinking a mayoral position is more executive which carries a different kind of weight. For one, there are no equals in your territory. As a senator, you feel a little more on your own I guess, there's only two of you, but you're still not entirely on your own here. I think that's particularly important when comparing state representatives (like my guy Dr Paul). An executive has to bear the brunt of opinion as top dog, with no one else to spread the load. An executive doesn't get to not vote, or not show up or be present. The executive must make a decision and move forward. Whether that's half asleep at 3 in the morning, or wide awake in the afternoon, they must be ready to make decisions in a crisis. Executives have more experience and practice with that concept in general, even if the toughest decisions were about where to build the new city park. Does any of this really matter for the presidency? I'm not sure. I think it does. But then, we've obviously had great presidents that didn't come from governor or other executive type positions. So it can't matter too much. But then, I can hardly deny the direct skill set experience being attained in a position of executive power. Of course, I realize governors provide a mixed bag of results as presidents - but then, we weren't looking for the best governor to be president at the time, obviously. Whatever the case, I don't think it's a silly conversation. Well maybe it is, but tell me why. So far, it would seem to be fairly worthwhile even if both sides are being duplicitous about it. If she got a largley Quaker education and lifestyle she'd have next to 0 percent chance. I get your point, it just sounds silly to compare education but not cultures. Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, Sarah Palin taught her daughter about sex-ed at home? Condoms and all? After all, Sarah said she rejected support in schools - she rejected the government doing the teaching - she didn't reject the notion of it being taught. I know I've taught my kids already. My wife and I were taught all about safe sex, condoms, other contraceptives - yet I still got her pregnant at 17. Well, by the posts I've read here, that's evidence that sex-ed doesn't work. Not proof - just evidence. Well let's not act like we don't know where this comes from. The democrats have invested in defeat because of the injustice of the war. Right or wrong, the left has demonstrated the need to philosophically audit our choices and cast judgement. I like this. The war was wrong. And subtending this, we have seen the democrats consistently judge america as wrong in virtually every international issue that pops up, to the point it looks childish and naive. Like actually arguing in favor of a religious fanatic possessing nukes while simultaneously disparaging GWB has a religious warmonger. Hello?? Anybody in there? The pop culture left has enhanced all of this with a hate america kind of attitude. The resultant of harsh philosophical judgement of past behavior. Again, though, it's all about the bad, nothing we do is good, yadda yadda yadda. Well america smells this particular bullshit, even though they're surrounded in it. Yeah, we're not perfect, and neither is the rest of the world. We have plenty to be proud of, and a bright future, but not if you're just going to wallow in the mud and never look up to see it. So, the republicans have capitalized off the democratic obsession with judging america harshly. We need to judge ourselves honestly, not loathe ourselves. That's where the democrats went wrong. People are afriad to say "I'm proud of my country". Sad. Particularly when it's the result of a fraction of bad behavior over the mounds of good behavior ignored. And I've done a terrible disservice here, because I haven't mentioned the anti-capitalist attitude sinking deeper and deeper into the democratic mantra, into the basement of its ideology. It's codified in their mission statement. The republicans have picked up on this as well. These are two issues that flash in my mind when I hear the republicans talk about patriotism and being proud. It's about countering the anti-capitalist attitude and harsh judgement of american policy. Capitalism is our foundation and our international power is extremely strong. They don't like those two things being called into question. So, the republicans seem to want to label things evil or good and procede without conscience. The democrats appear to question themselves for every enemy that pops up - oh my, what have I done to make this person mad, and what can I do to make them like me again? The rest of us have the sift through this muck and cherry pick which of you are sane enough to realize that you can't boil complexity down to simplicity and you can't presume to live up to other's expectations - and I don't know which is worse.

And with that can I ask why we think it's a good idea for kids to grow up perfectly? Don't we learn that immune systems that are never tested aren't as strong as the ones that are? Don't we see that theme throughout science? I'm not thinking kids should be raised without spanking, hardships, and etc. I'm thinking they need a careful balance of adversity and care. I'm not sure that kids shouldn't experience these emotions that we find so uncomfortable - like being shunned and so forth. It's also why I'm not sure it's bad for kids to be raised in a house where they have to do more to help out - like taking care of siblings, house cleaning, and etc even at the expense of their social time. After all, family is about putting each other first, cooperating for survival.

Are you familiar with the slippery slope fallacy? Well... ostensibly not... hello Bill O'Reilly... if we let gays marry we have to let people fück their donkeys too... You seriously posted that? Pssst...this one is really obvious dude...if we let ONE gay couple marry, then we must let the rest of them do it too - not a hideous non-sequitor like donkey sex. Which, by the way, is a cool idea. But yeah. Try to keep the apples with the apples and the oranges with the oranges please.

Right you don't look to her daughter for evidence because that's anecdotal and meaningless for legitimate analysis. The studies documenting the shortcomings of abstinence-only programs is the way to analyze. And I have no doubt that will prove true.

Chants of USA? Country First? I understand the nationalistic phobia, but that's ridiculous. We can't cheer for our freaking country? No pride? Nothing? This explains why Chris Collinsworth had to ask Kobe Bryant a second time if he was sure he should be saying things like "I'm proud of my country". I think it's more about watching large groups of people catalyze each other. It's actually fascinating and scary at the same time. When you can feel the intensity - it seems like anybody could say about anything and the crowd would just respond. Like "Kill the queer" and they'll all go after some poor little blonde haired dude in the back. When you add this group dynamic to ideology that you're uncomfortable with - the result is the queezy feeling they're out of control bigots whipped into a frenzy of nationalistic madness. No. Chanting USA is about pride - go team! Country First is about putting the country before yourself. Stressing the importance of abandoning party politics. They're trying to pimp the message that they are above party loyalty, and are about national loyalty. I don't believe it - but that's what they're selling. And, it's a great thing to sell. National loyalty is great. Party loyalty is pathetic.

No it doesn't. Her daughter is not relevant to her mother's policies. If I taught my kid not to hate black people and then he grows up hating black people then was it wrong for me to teach him not to hate black people? Her daughter isn't relevant in the least. It doesn't provide "a way" without being unscientifically, illogically directed. If you want to open up the dialoge to talk about her policies, then pull your facts and figures and do it. You managed some really great stuff up there on her religio angle and it's definitely got me on my guard, shaking my head at her. So, do it the same way. Really, it's the only genuine way. This Bristol thing is just a cheap shot. It's so tempting that I can't hardly blame anyone for going there, seriously. The contrast between Palin's policies and her own daughter's behavior is just juicy. It's "the preacher's dirty daughter" syndrome. I get it. And every parent has a duty to speak out here. I take this personally because to disparage Palin over this is to disparage all parents over this. We all go through it. And we all freaking hate it when some childless dweeb starts judging our parenting skills based on the actions of our teenagers. So why are we letting these twits get away with doing it to Palin? Nevermind that teenager's behavior before they entered the phase of "brain damage" we call puberty. Nevermind the rest of their children's exemplory behavior, before and after the same phase of brain damage. Nevermind what subsequent actions that teenager has taken as a result of their parent's advise. In the case of Palin's daughter, Bristol could have done drugs, had an orgy with the football team, racy photos in a strip bar...etc - but she got...pregnant. And she's having it and marrying the father. Wow...what a real...uh..bad? thing... Yeah...

I'm just pissy about pop culture crap that celebrates breaking the law - even by an itsy bitsy bit - like the gang culture, drug culture, etc. Another one of those annoying principles that requires the individual not to promote violation of law particularly when that same individual spends so much time accusing others of that very thing. In other words, I'm sure GWB probably thinks his reasons of "skirting the law" were of high "caliber". But that's no excuse is it? I'm sure his supporters would say that you'd have to be stupid to "paint over" GWB's telecom shinanigans. But that's no excuse is it?

Well of course not Pangloss, those are stupid and totally not cool. And the point you're missing is that no one else needs to do this except this one dude, since it's really cool stuff that other people should think is cool too.

But that's ridiculous. This isn't her bank account this is her children. Yes, parents can teach terrifically, but they have to be heard. All it takes is one teenager that ignores the condom given out in class and you'd just as quickly turn on Senator Joe Blow challenge his judgement of explicit sex-ed classes with distributed contraceptives if his daughter gets pregnant? I sure hope you don't, because that's anecdotal junk of the kind I shouldn't have to point out on a science site. One example of a teenager not listening to their parents isn't indicative of a single freaking thing....well, except that they are homo sapiens. And what's this "can't handle their own family". Just what is she supposed to "handle" here? Look...Newflash: We parents don't actually follow our teenagers around at arm's length. No, really, we don't. There's such a thing as "freewill". And as responsible parents, we have a duty to teach and raise our children and then we have to balance their freedom and restrictions as they grow up and let them out into the world. When we do that, we know they are going to screw up. Let that soak in a minute. I repeat, we know they are going to screw up. It's very important that you realize that to expect a teenager not to screw up, is to expect for world peace as prescribed by the proverbial naive miss america. If you expect a teenager to mirror their parents, then I must get your bank account number so we can do business. Yes, Palin's daughter is a human child. This human child is not controlled and overprotected by her mother, but rather is directed and advised and then...hold on to your hats...left on her own. WTF? Yes, really. They let her out on her own. I know, it's crazy isn't it? Letting a teenager out on their own, to make mistakes on their own? Really trippy shit going on here. This might be the first you have heard of it, but I'm actually quite privvy to this technique. It's actually quite common, weird as it may sound to those of you raised in perfect families that weren't given the same respect and freedom that Palin gave her daughter.

No, no, no. It's perfectly fine to paint all over other people's property when it's a political message of altruism. Kind of like how it's ok to rob people when you give the rewards to poor people. I know that if bascule woke up to find his bike spray painted pink with Obey Giant graffiti, he would understand that he forfeited his property rights since it's a really good political message.

I don't know, a quick review of that page and that guy sounds like a religio nut case himself. I kept waiting for the 9/11 truther fodder to make an appearance. Palin's Rebirth? Fascist mythology? Move over Alex Jones... Interesting in that the only two to answer the questionnaire were a couple of republicans and none of the democrats apparently had the balls to answer, or were ignored by the agenda of those tracking their answers. I had to laugh each time this dude trashes her over her answers while my eyes scan over the continuous line next to each democrat: No Response. I guess her best answer should have the same. Just like the other republicans, democrats and independents. And I liked about half of Palin's answers. I'm offended by eminent domain and her support of it, as well as the notion that gambling and so forth should be restricted or regulated by the state in any way. Those are part of the liberties she says she wants to prevent the infringement of. "Under God" in the pledge is also stupid and not worth the attention of state government. And I'd like her to explain how the founding fathers relate to the pledge. I also don't care for her interference with unions. Yes, they are answerable to us, as they are a service we pay for. I pay dues to be a member of the union and if I have issues with them, I'll take it up with them. I don't see how government earns a "say" with the quality of service I receive from my union. I like her stand on defending individual liberty with respect to state sponsored education - screw what the state wants, I say parents have the final say on what their minor child is exposed to. Parents raise the kids, not the government. I also like her answer on hate-crime. If hate naturally figures in to a crime, then factor it in with the pre-negotiated punishment. But to "expand" hate-crime law sounds very, very suspicious. Sounds like we're trying to add prejudice into the legal code. This is all stuff I pretty much knew she stood for, and while I disagree with her position on abortion, she certainly walks the walk. I don't think she has the experience to be president. I like her, personally, and I am impressed with the level of her achievements and the nature of her principles - taking down other corrupt republicans and proving her pro-life position is good enough for herself. She's on her way, and another few years would make her more viable in my mind, but I can't ignore her lack of experience. I think she can easily handle the big business side, the fiscal responsibilities, the social issues - but I'm not sure about international politics. Again, though, I personally like her. She's the only one in the race I actually like, not that it matters though. I wish the best for her, but I can't vote for her.

Well if he's being honest about his previous knowledge of her daughter's pregnancy before picking her, then I'm pretty much convinced that's her role. The whole pregnancy thing is ridiculous anyway, the girl is 17, not 12. She's one year from 18 and she's pretty enough to reasonably infer a fairly intense front of male seduction. I think her story is typical enough to be dismissed even if it was our business in the first place. Of course, I'm biased since my wife was 17 when I got her pregnant and I've got a great family out of the deal - 19 years later and we're still happy.

And she should prove such merit at the beginning of class...

Such a great premise to this thread, and Sisyphus has just pretty much nailed it. I really like this part. Nicely said.