Jesus fucking Christ.

Are you sure Gore is profiting?

normally i don't bother with edito columns, but this one says the obvious about sarah palin and her constituency.
enjoy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/op...12rich.html?em

Palin will end up sinking the Republican party if her name comes up in the 2010 primaries, maybe for good. By choosing her as the VP candidate in the 2008 elections, the GOP created a populist monster within their party, a lightning rod for emotional appeal but a liability for GOP policy and rational conservatives.

I leave the country for two weeks and don't read newspapers or watch the news and this happens...

Couldn't have left the country while Bush/Cheney were in office?

:lol:

sorry, but that was too good...

Maddow says it better than I ever could

You guys!!! I could never fully explain the pleasure I get from interacting with liberals.

Let me ask a question:

Would you rather be Palin or one of the suckers like the Democrats in Washington including Obama?


In the face of the worst financial crisis in the history of the known universe or how ever Obama described it, Goldman Sachs (investment bank) records record quarterly profits. Keep in mind we not talking just high profits, but record profits!!! Goldamn has been in business since about 1869. Oh, and their profits would have been higher accept for the dividend they had to pay on the $10 billion in Tarp funds they used. The Tarp funds, that they were discouraged from paying back.

Do you think Maddow will take some of her valuable time away from talking about Palin to focus on something a bit more relevant? Like how is it that Obama let this happen when unemployment is close to 10%. I bet not. I am also willing to bet people like Maddow, don't even know what is going on and how Americans are being played as they talk about how unsophisticated and dumb Palin is. Where is Levi Johnston, perhaps he can tell us what brand of toilet paper is in the Palin household.

Goldman's Profit Soars on Record Trading Results - WSJ.com

It's clear that all you've seen of Rachel Maddow is the clip posted above... She's been one of the Obama Administrations' sharpest (and best-informed) critics, and she's a liberal, so there's no question her criticism isn't from some knee-jerk Libaughesque reactionary position. And she has BLASTED him on his handling of the banks. BLASTED.

Also: this thread is called "Palin resigns", not "could we talk about something else please??".

You are kidding if you call Maddow a critic of the Obama administration. She is a bit disappointed but continually makes excuses for him and understands his "difficult situation."

The point of my post, after looking at the video clip and hearing how Maddow nailed the Palin resignation, is how unimportant her analysis was. Her analysis is speculation at best, while real issues go ignored. The irony is Palin gets more coverage on MSNBC than she gets on Fox, assuming you buy into Fox being the conservative voice, why would that be true? Like I have asked several times, why do liberals fear Palin?

yep, you've never seen her show. you really have zero idea what you're talking about

Wait, didn't the Goldman Sachs news just break today?

Wrong. I watch her show occationally. She is disappointed with "don't ask don't tell", lack of action on "torture", Slow action on Gitmo and mildly critical of a few other things. However, she is an Obama cheerleader and solidly in his camp.

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 PM ----------

Yes and no.

Paulson, Bush's Secretary of Treasury, was a former Goldman CEO. His original bailout plan focused on a small number of investment banks. Obama and Democrats came to the rescue and passed a plan that was "detailed" and a plan the met all of Obama's requirements, I think I recall he had 3. Then of course we know the rest of the story, about the financial crisis, and the on-going actions taken by our fear-less leaders in Washington to save institutions "too big to fail", etc., etc. all of this was happening while banks raised fees, interest rates, withdrew lines of credit, forclosed home in record numbers, merged with other institutions, paid banuses, execs flew in private jets, etc, etc, etc.

The industry consolidated, competition limited, government subsidized big firms, and we end up with "record" profits. Anyone paying attention saw this coming.
I think most people were focused on Palin. I admit she is a good looking woman, but she doesn't look that good.

Sisk, boom, ba, rah, rah, rah! :rolleyes:

SarahPAC - Sarah Palin's Official PAC

I love where this is all going

SarahPAC?

Omigod.

Palin is going to become the Cromwell-like figure that will save America, isn't she?

I thought I listed this issue as an area where, I agree, that she has been critical of Obama. But in spite of the clip, I stand by my view as Maddow being an Obama cheerleader. She will need to do a bit more in my view before I would consider her objective. I can see why some already think she is. However, the problem especially with liberals, when assessing Obama is that with him - it just gets so ridiculously obvious his words and actions can not be reconciled - that it can not be ignored. Most objective and critical thinking people saw that in Obama a long time ago.

---------- Post added at 07:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------

She is not Ross Perot (I voted for him once), or John Heinz:eek:, or was that John Kerry.

Actually, the last few weeks Maddow has consistently gone after the Obama administration. Please don't act as if it's one segment. And not liking Obama because he's on the Democratic ticket, as conservatives and Republicans actually though, is hardly objective.

I understand your position, but you and I must have two different ideas of what constitutes a "cheerleader" and being in one's camp.

This I can accept. However, you should expect liberals to want to give other liberals the benefit of the doubt. This does not equate to cheerleading or sitting in the camp, per se. There is expectation, and then there is outcome. I don't know of many who are singing praises of Obama. I do know there were high expectations though.

Palin decided to leave office, due to the increasing number of keyboard commandos constantly questioning her policies and motives, would be my guess. :rolleyes:

You're probably right.

In which case you just proved our point. Anyone who runs away from the Governor's office because some people on the internet don't like her isn't fit to lead a kid to the bathroom.

this is the best thing to come of sarah palin's resignation: william shatner reading her speech as a poem on the conan o'brien show.

I tuned into MSNBC this morning, watching Morning Joe. The panel was simply giddy as they showed poll results indicating about 1/3 of the respondents indicating Palin is best suited to be a homemaker as her next move. They did not report on the polls shoing Pelosi has about 75% of respondents saying they don't trust her or that her approval ratings are consistently below 30%.

If liberals really think Palin is dumb, incompetent, unethical, a hypocrite, dishonest, racist, homophobic, intolerant, incoherent, a quitter, etc, etc, why aren't they celebrating Palin stepping down? Why do they continue their focus on her? Currently she is not a governor, she is not a candidate, she is not even employed - so what is the fascination from the left?

I don't think it's about "liberals" hating on her. I think people simply like train wrecks. Palin is competing for attention not with Pelosi, but with Kate Gosslin.

Speaking on behalf of the left (presumptuous, but there it is), I'm MORE than happy to see her fade into obscurity. I sincerely hope she has a great life. I have nothing more to say about her, and nothing much to add to this thread that's even remotely topical, beyond this meta-posting you're reading right now. I'll get interested in her again if and when she ever darkens the political stage again, but until then, she's an ex-governor and ex-VP-candidate, and that's all there is to it.

Don't confuse the MEDIA (which is still humping Michael Jackson's corpse, more than a month later) with THE LEFT. I know in Right-land they're one and the same, but that's not reality. She's in the news because her final speech was a few days ago. Doesn't mean anybody NOT on TV gives a good god damn. I certainly don't.

yeah ace...i just thought the william shatner performance was great. for what it's worth, seeing that was the first thought i'd given to sarah palin in days and days. i'm firmly in the "don't care what she does" camp. i think it'd be funny to watch the republicans commit collective suicide by promoting her for national office--but we're not there and i don't find speculating about sarah palin to be anywhere near as fun as speculating about--o i don't know--what color birds i will see out my window tomorrow morning, whether there will be cranes out there or not.

we're on page 8 and no longer talking about Palin resigning... not even remotely.

So? A thread goes way off topic, that sort of thing happens in normal conversation all the time. Forcing it back to the original topic of closing it and suggesting a new thread is started is the type of thing that drives users away.

Conversely people come here see a topic that is off topic to the OP and decide that it's just fine and acceptable to discuss whatever they want outside of the topic and thus drives users away. You see it your way, I see it mine.

But since you feel that it's "going to drive users away" if it's locked and you don't think that a new thread should be started...

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

sex debate has been split into it's own thread. please keep this on the resignation topic.

Move on.org ad:


For some reason liberals fear Palin. She is a person with no real political power, but the more they attack the stronger some conservatives are willing to stand with her, including me.

Which is why no one should take you seriously.

Here is the simple reasons "liberals" "hate" Sarah Palin: we don't. I have no more feelings for her than I have for any other celebrity. They are ultimately simply sources of entertainment for some. The problem we have is with the movement that sprung up around her. I cannot stand the people that support Sarah Palin because they're the kind that glorify and worship whatever they're told to glorify and worship. It should be enough that I offer Sarah Palin as an example of this phenomena, but some people are so clouded on the issue, I have to start bringing up names like Joe the Plumber. The problem is the ease with which celebrity can not only replace, but defeat openly any substance.

Liberals like myself know that it's just a matter of time before either Sarah Palin comes back, or we get a new version of Sarah Palin and the whole stupid dance begins again. It pisses me off that instead of the right finding it's greatest mind to fight for their principles, they go for an empty vessel the RNC can try to fill with a bunch of contradictory bullcrap.

Nixon was a smart motherfucker. Had I been alive when he was president, I would have hated him, why? Because he was damned capable and he was working for the other side. Sarah Palin isn't anything. She's not really smart, she's not a capable speaker, she doesn't know much about politics, and she tries to make up for it with this vapid sensibility. She doesn't matter one bit, I couldn't become any more angry at her as I could at a shovel. She's just a tool. The anger on the right is at the Palin followers. You people that were willing to follow an empty shirt because it happened to house something other than an old white man and ate up what she said even when it was contradictory or nonsensical. It's the shepple, the most dangerous force in the world.

The real reason for you not take me seriously would be because my views and influence could not have any impact on your life or the world. However, we both know that people who share my views are here. If I were you, and it is one of the reasons I take the time to understand liberals, is to try to understand people like me. We did win the Presidency in 2000 and 2004. We got our tax cuts. We got Saddam out. We have Democrats in Congress and Obama running scared on health care. We have Obama adopting most of Bush's foriegn policy initiatives. Do I need to go on?

She has no political power? Then why are people filling her PAC bank account? And she's strong? Wasn't strong enough to finish the job she was elected for she quit that because she "didn't want to be a lame duck?" That up there with all time dumb ass excuses I've ever heard.

That's not an anti-Palin ad. That's an ad attacking Congressional Republicans for acting liking Palin. It's capitalizing on anti-Palin sentiment, but the point isn't to attack her.

I guess, the Obama approach was better. Don't actually do your job, a senator, as you spend all you time running for President. Do you think that is a more honest approach? Personally I love honesty - hey guys I am not going to run for re-election, I am going to devote my time to other things, I am not going to pretend to be your governor, I am not going to waste tax money on defending my actions against frivolous ethics claims..., Palin is oh, so refreshing as a politician.

Liberals aren't afraid of Palin. At all. They're making fun of her because she's ridiculous. Surely you can see the difference.

If you say so. I suppose in a weird way it is a pro-Palin ad, any publicity is good publicity, right? Kind of like those anti-smoking ads that cigarette companies put on the air targeting young people - hey guys, don't smoke, don't smoke, smoke, don't smock...,

Or, the ad kinda gives Palin credibility - if Move on.org is against her, I am going to be for her.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

I would not make fun of people I think lack mental capacity, are unethical, and all her other deficiencies. I only make fun of people who think they are better than other people. I don't understand what liberals are doing regarding their attacks on Palin.

but from the looks of it, she does think that.

ace, I'm afraid of Sara Palin in exactly the way I worship and idolize Barack Obama. Precisely the same phenomenon at work in both cases: both attitudes are ascribed to me by the right, and that's the only place they exist.

I was and I am still afraid of Obama. I think he is a borderline socialist and he stated that government is the solution to our problems. I am not so much concerned about people idolizing Obama as I am concerned about the number of people who listen to his rhetoric and buy into it without asking some very basic questions regarding the inconsistencies. I am afraid of Nancy Pelosi, I think she is dishonest and obsessed with political power. I am afraid of Sotomayor, I think she has a hidden agenda. I think fear is normal, and if what you say is true concerning most liberals, I am even more confused concerning why some get so emotionally invested in taking her down.

Ask Loki.

That's going to be my standard response from now on whenever a right-winger insists that the world be consistent with his understanding of it rather than listening to anything anyone else says.

Do you have her number?

Socialism is a political and economic theory centered around the idea that means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned/regulated by the community. You can't think President Obama is borderline socialist if you don't know what socialism means.

Wow. You actually really DON'T read my posts, do you?

I mean, it SEEMED like you didn't, but... You actually have no idea what I'm referring to when I say "Ask Loki", do you?

I grant you, it was toward the end of the article I quoted, but still. Damn. I'm on ace's virtual ignore list. No god damn wonder.

Right, no argument here.


Wonder of wonders, Miracle of miracles, I agree with Will twice in one post!

You're right; knowing the definition of Socialism (as stated above) I cannot think of Mr. Obama as a borderline Socialist. The speed with which this Government, under his and his Party's control, is bringing means of Production (like car makers), Distribution (like car dealerships), and Exchange (like money supplies and banks) under the ownership/control of the State/community leads me to believe that Mr. Obama is a flaming, full-steam-ahead Socialist revolutionary. Even Hugo Chavez acknowledges this, congratulating Mr. Obama for having nationalized "nothing less than General Motors!" in the same TV broadcast in which he warned Fidel Castro to be careful of ending up on Obama's right.*

No, Mr. Obama isn't a "borderline" Socialist, he isn't a "borderline" anything. He's a Socialist, period, and his administration's actions in the economic arena over the past 6 months amply demonstrate this.

*Venezuela Chavez says Comrade Obama more left-wing | Reuters

I guess you don't understand the bailouts. Would you like to start a thread on it?

Your definition lacks precision. Based on the above definition capitalism would fall under your definition of socialism. The means of production, distribution and exchange under any economic system is owned/regulated by the community. Example: A corporation only exists based on community standards that allow it to exist. A corporation transacts business only based on community standards that allow it to transact business. Corporate ownership is grounded in members of a community. Consumers, employees (means of production) is the community. All other forms of business have similar characteristics. In the US, private property ownership only has value to the degree that the collective "community" allows for private ownership.

In my view socialism is a vague state between decentralized and centralized control of the means, distribution and exchange of production. In my view pure capitalism is total decentralization. Pure communism is total centralized control. I don't think any society can achieve pure states of either capitalism or communism. In my view a socialist lacks confidence in free market forces to create equilibrium. In my view Obama generally accepts free market concepts, but feels economic and social issues require more centralized control rather than less to create what is in his view, fairness.

So, you are correct - I don't know what "socialism" means to you. And as usual, rather than asking for elaboration, we throw around insults.

---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------


I am guilty of occasionally being obtuse. I don't read between the lines very well, and once we have established that I don't "get it", being cryptic doesn't help me. The reason I love my wife is that she goes real slow when....oh, never mind...let's just say she understands me.

---------- Post added at 10:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ----------

I am still giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. I need to see what he does under different economic conditions before I come to a firm conclusion.

Actually, socialism and so on aren't vague feelings or emotions that each can have their own definition of. Otherwise, it would actually be impossible to discuss politics.

Socialism, in its purest form, is the social ownership of the means of production. The community owns it not in some vague way, like "some members own it," or "based on community standards," but in very real and actual terms in which the means of production belong to the community as a whole. And not "some means," or for "some of the time."

How to get there is obviously a matter of debate, with the communists, in the traditional marxist sense, hoping to get there by making everything state property.

Socialism and capitalism themselves are not really related to centralization or decentralization. Adam Smith and others, for example, certainly envisioned a capitalism of small producers, and decentralization the norm. But anarchists also envisioned a socialism of decentralized communities. On the other hand, people like Hayek and Mises opposed any form of trust busting, de facto defending big corporation capitalism.

so yeah, you don't understand what socialism is. glad we cleared that up

You can't invent your own dictionary, your' "view" is entirely irrelevant. The definition I used was lifted from the dictionary on my desktop. It agrees with the several online dictionaries I know of and the several dictionaries on my book shelf. For good measure, I checked my encyclopedia and a few internet encyclopedias (not wiki) just to be sure. They're all in perfect agreement. They all disagree with you.

You need to drop this nonsensical "my view of the world is the correct view for me" thing. Facts are objectively verifiable. Disagreement with that statement isn't opinion, it's error.

The value of Pi has a precise definition. Socialism is a concept that is subject to interpretation. People do have problems discussing politics because many common terms have imprecise definitions.

So, what is the difference between socialism and communism?

"Decentralized communities?" Can you give an example of what you mean in the context of socialism?

That definition has no meaning in the practical sense of determining when socialism exist and when it does not. Can you give an example of "socialism" and the opposite of "socialism?

This does not disagree with me.

Socialism Definition | Definition of Socialism at Dictionary.com

I know what you think about me personally. Perhaps, a more in dept look at some of these concepts would help us communicate better. I generally do more than regurgitate what I read, in some cases I put some thought into complicated matters and concepts. Thousands of books have been written on these concepts, great minds have given these concepts thought - and you dismiss what I present based on a few internet encyclopedia references. O.k., I now better understand the level of discourse. Thanks

My god.

How can we be back on this? Obama a socialist? You're kidding me.

You mean to say that Obama is a socialist merely for employing a socialist technique during a crisis?

Newsflash! Virtually every economy on the planet employs socialist techniques!

News update! America remains today one of the most capitalist nations on the planet!

This just in! There is no such thing as a purely capitalist economy. There never has been, and there never will be.

...and now, will Obama continue to carry the nation down the road to communism? Or will the capitalist virtue save us all from oblivion? Your capital at stake...story at 11!

* * * * *

There is virtually no left-wing political power in America that isn't strongly tempered by centrist foundations.

There's never been a purely socialist government or economic system; all economies are mixed. NHS is a good example of a socialist program existing in a mixed economy. NHS is paid for collectively and is run by the DoH, which is answerable to Parliament, which is ultimately answerable to the people via elections.

As for the opposite.... I suppose it would be some kind of conservative libertarianism, but that's too vague to really make any kind of sense. I know people like to boil down political positions to some sort of spectrum illustration, but it's not that simple.
You know that you remind me of my uncle?! How could you know that? :paranoid:
President Obama is a socialist in the same way that he's a capitalist. He's both of those things. I'm both of those things, and you're both of those things, too.

You support having a publicly funded and run military, right? That's "socialist". You support a publicly funded and run fire response service, right? That's "socialist". You support the CDC, right? "Socialist".

Calling Barack Obama a socialist isn't the same thing as doing research and coming to the conclusion that he has made some socialist decisions. It's fear mongering; because there are a lot of very ignorant people in the US that equate socialism with totalitarianism or fascism, calling someone a socialist, even if partially true, isn't intended to say that "this individual occasionally sees the benefit in an economic system we already commonly use".

Socialism: a System of economic organization in which means of production are owned by, or under the control of, the State (Edited to add: or another organization or collective with a monopoly on the legitimated use of force). Some interpretations (anarcho-Socialism for instance) posit that such ownership/control would be exercised by worker's Unions or other collective organizations. In either case, Socialism is usually viewed as a transitional stage between Capitalism and Communism, although some theorists regard Socialism as the fullest possible implimentation of Collectivist principles and ideology which may be achieved at "society's" current stage of development.

Got any more snide intellectually-elitist comments, or would you prefer to debate the issue?

I understand the bailouts just fine. The Federal Gov't, in exchange for partial ownership of (and control over) the Corporations in question, "loaned" them (or outright gave them) incredible sums of stolen/printed money in order to keep them afloat. As a result, the Federal Gov't now owns shares of (ie State ownership of means of production) a significant number of banks, General Motors, Chrysler, etc. As a result, we see the Obama Regime throwing out CEOs, breaking contract law in the matter of pension funds and stock priority, forcing various degrees and types of product-modification (especially for car-makers) onto the Corporations in question, etc.

State ownership (share-holdership) + State control (see above) = Socialism, by Socialists' own definition.

Yes. If he were a Capitalist, he would employ Capitalist methods.

Which proves nothing except that "virtually every economy on the planet" is operating from the same baseline of barely-functional immorality; some simply happen to be slightly "less bad" than others.

"Healthiest patient in the Ebola Ward" is hardly something to aspire to.

You're two-thirds right here. There is not now, nor has their ever been, a lassaize faire economy. Whether or not one will exist in the future is yet to be seen.

You like honesty and Palin? There's a contradiction of all contradictions. She been honest just about as many times as Putin has "reared his ugly head" and invaded Alaskan air space.

I'll agree with her not pretending to be anyone's Governor any longer.

so, the fact that the US Government now has a stake in, what, 0.02% of the nation's corporations now equals "ZOMG SOCIALISM!"?

More like "The guy we didn't want to be president got elected ZOMG SOCIALISM!"

was it Socialism when GWB signed off on the first bailouts?

Originally the words were used interchangeably. But in the communist manifesto Marx talked about various forms of socialism (utopian socialism, i.e. anarchism, etc), and carved communism as a distinct form. Later Marxists started talking about the statist phase as socialism, with the end stage being communism proper.


Proudhon and others were anarchists who were completely against the state, but were socialists. They believed that communal property would come not through taking over the state, but through abolishing the state and private property. People would organize themselves in associations and local communities in a radical form of direct democracy. It is about as decentralized as it gets, but still all about social ownership of the means of production.

You're exaggerating and misrepresenting. The "partial ownership" you describe isn't ownership at all, but a small amount of influence for an insane amount of money. The CEO I'm assuming you're referring to, Rick Wagoner, resigned. It was not a "throwing out" of a CEO, but a request. He resigned before the money even reached GM. Why do you think it is you have to distort the truth in order to make your case?

It might be a more useful distinction to draw to say that Socialism is an economic theory, and Communism is a political theory that evolved from certain implementations of Socialism. Socialism is liberal (in the sense that it broadens individual say over government--while you're contributing everything you can and taking what you need, you're also an equal stakeholder and voice in decisionmaking and policy-setting) and Communism is conservative (in the sense that governmental control is consolidated in the hands of a very few individuals--in some cases just one individual).

That's actually just a hint of what those terms actually mean. What similarity they have to the same words when used by, say, Glenn Beck, I'm entirely unclear.

It's worth noting that the definition of Socialism doesn't mention anywhere that it's evil or scorn-worthy or un-Amurkin. That tone is added entirely by, say, Glenn Beck.

Are you really saying Social Democracies such as Sweden and Canada are barely functional and immoral? Wow. Your world view comes off as very blinkered.


A laissez faire economy, in my opinion, would be an unmitigated disaster.

I'm not sure you understand. If Obama didn't believe in capitalism, you'd have seen far more "change" than what you've already seen. Not believing in capitalism means not believing wealth belongs in the hands of individuals. He wouldn't be so keen on personally selling books he's authored and investing in bonds and securities.

How does tempering one's economy to ensure citizens aren't taken advantage of, harmed, or otherwise mistreated by market forces come off as being a barely functional immorality? America has the wealthiest economy in human history. If it weren't officially a mixed economy, as it had definitely become in the 20th century, I doubt it would have achieved what it has achieved over the past 100 years. Certainly better than what the amorality of laissez-faire would have achieved.

I don't know what you're talking about. A mixed economy has far-reaching stabilizing factors that work to prevent the unrest or destabilization that would happen otherwise. One merely has to look at 19th century America to realize how important socialist aspects of our economies are to the wider public.

A purely capitalist or lassiez-faire economy is about as feasible as a purely communist economy, and we all know how attempts at those fared.

Oh hey! Canada's banking system is SOCIALIST! It's a DISASTER! :rolleyes:

Bank Profits 2008: How the "Big Six" churned out record earnings

It almost was. (Read: 19th-century America.)

Your point was that I did not know what the term meant. I said the definition lacked precision. Your examples illustrate my point. Some terms or concepts can be precisly defined like Pi, other can not be like socialism.


Yes, I think there are many legitimate roles for government.

I did not actually call Obama a socialist. I said he is a "borderline socialist", and I meant that in a pejorative manner not in a objective measurable manner, because I do not like the tone he is setting with his economic policy.

Who was it that created Homeland Security? The largest increase in government, at all levels, from fed to local. Doesn't sound like someone who believes in less government.

You live in fear, that's a choice. A bad one.

She stepped down as governor. Was that the right thing for her to do or not?

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------

If we started on an individual level perhaps getting to corporations later, in some cases the government is taxing 30%-40% of a persons earned income taking into consideration all forms of taxes. The government can take your real estate through eminent domain. The government can control your wages, where you work, when you work, if you work. The government can take your children if they feel you are inadequate. The government can control what you eat. In my county, they even tell us when we can wash our cars. so, how you come up with "0.2% stake", would prove to be interesting. the government is in every aspect of our lives.

---------- Post added at 02:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 PM ----------

Isn't there a difference between having fears and "living in fear". I am getting tired of people pretending they don't have normal emotions and normal emotional responses to issues. Are you actually suggesting that you have no fears?

I was simply responding to someone's claim that the GM bailout was a sign that the Government was interested in owning every corporation in the country as part of a grand Socialist agenda.

Everything else you mentioned (taxes, eminent domain, etc., etc.) is in no way unique to Democrats or Obama, so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with it

It's his usual point, I think. "Obama = Bad".

None of those things weren't equally true in prior administrations, but you didn't hear ace or like-thinkers bitching about it when their guy was behind the big desk.

The best thing she could do is simply come forward and say "My lies and unethical behavior have been huge negative to the people of Alaska, therefore I resign."

coincidentally, that's also the last thing she would do

In all fairness that's the last thing any politician would do.

Obama is something that is recent, the fact that government is too intrusive in our lives has been a major concern of my for about 20 years. I have had that concern regardless of the political party controlling Washington, I was a Libertarian for many of the past 20 years. At least with the Republicans there was some pretense that they supported less government, Obama/Pelosi/Reid just take it over the top.

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------

I thought my question was simple.

"She stepped down as governor. Was that the right thing for her to do or not?"

---------- Post added at 07:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------

Really?

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to Step Down - washingtonpost.com

I don't know about you, but I respect a person who is honest and isn't just going through the motions. If you want politicians to fake it while their heart and mind is somewhere else, I guess you get what you deserve - fake politicians.

That's as simply of an answer as you're going to get from me. If you want you want yes or no answers to complex questions you should watch courtroom dramas on your TV.



Yep, really. In anticipation of your next question- yes, that includes dems and Obama.

Using a broader view of the question, I am not clear on your expectations for a politician. If a politician knows that they can not give their full professional attention to the job they were elected to do for whatever the issue is (within reason - I am not saying a person should resign because of something like a short-term illness), do you expect them to resign or continue?

Personally I don't expect much of politicians. I think by the time they're elected to any office of any importance they've likely sold out to the point they're not worthy of the position they've been elected. Yes, that includes Obama. He's done stuff I'm not thrilled with and he's not taken action on issues he promised he would. Do I prefer his policies over that of Bush, Cheney, McCain or Palin? Without a doubt.

I don't really see what this has to do with the thread.

Let me ask you a question. You seem to think it's the right thing for Palin to step down and I think you're saying, in your opinion, Hutchison's doing the right thing by stepping down to take a shot at another office, right? So if McCain/Palin had won would you be complaining that neither stepped down from their offices during the race? Or is it really basically as Rat said- Obama=bad?

sorry ,just got in, has anyone got any light to shed on the divorce rumors? I'm getting nothing but battles between political spokespeople (who are as trustworthy as gov' sanford around a colombian set of curves) and bloggers/media outlets...

I think it was the right thing for Palin to step down for a number of reasons, one being her stepping down is in the best interest of the state.

I think it is honorable for Hutchinson to step down to devote her full energy to running for governor without any pretense, it is refreshing.

if McCain/Palin had won my view of them on this issue, in particular McCain would be the same compared to Obama/Biden. Seems like McCain has been running for President for about 20 years. Generally I have a problem with incumbent senators who run for president complaining about issues that they can have a direct impact on. I rarely support a sitting senator for president.