Sarah Palin is McCain's Choice for VP

[quote name='mykevermin']More or less. Staying in the middle east or leaving ten minutes ago, none of that, as big as it is, will really change the size, structure, and direction of the Navy.[/QUOTE]
Actually...

The neocons have this notion that wars between the US and other major powers are over, that the military should be geared for asymmetric warfare against rogue states and terrorists. They think that boots on the ground are more important and that expensive equipment such as ships and fighters are unnecessary. This is what Rumsfeld and Cheney are all about. They don't believe in significant air or sea power, they're not going to spend the money on the Air Force or the Navy.

On the other hand, Bill Clinton basically gave them whatever they wanted. So if you're in favor of big Navy and Air Force programs, you might just need to vote Democrat.
 
In the words of a better internet smart-ass than I:

"Jesus tap-dancing Christ. If McCain wanted a former beauty queen with no experience and a criminal investigation on her record, I don’t know why he didn’t just pick his own wife."
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']People keep saying VP debateS, but I think there is only one of those. I hope I'm wrong as I really expect Biden to own her.[/QUOTE]

Yeah and most people dont really change their votes because a VP didnt do well in a debate. John Kerry didnt lose because Dick Cheney owned John Edwards in a debate
 
Scary that she could be President if McCain does not exceed the average American male life expectancy. Biden could at least competently serve out the remainder of a term.
 
[quote name='62t']Yeah and most people dont really change their votes because a VP didnt do well in a debate. John Kerry didnt lose because Dick Cheney owned John Edwards in a debate[/QUOTE]

True, but again it could be different for true swing voters who are still on the fence this time given:

a) McCain is 72, so you have someone with no experience in national, much less international, matters an old fart's heartbeat away from the oval office.

b) Obama is black and there are still a ton of racist nut jobs out there.

Point being, for people truly on the fence, they pay more attention to the VPs than in the past.

Won't matter at all for people firmly in Obama or McCain's camps of course.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True, but again it could be different for true swing voters who are still on the fence this time given:

a) McCain is 72, so you have someone with no experience in national, much less international, matters an old fart's heartbeat away from the oval office.

b) Obama is black and there are still a ton of racist nut jobs out there.

Point being, for people truly on the fence, they pay more attention to the VPs than in the past.

Won't matter at all for people firmly in Obama or McCain's camps of course.[/quote]

Well, that's what's interesting here, isn't it? You've got Biden on the far left, and Palin on the far right. One's old, one's young. Obama and McCain picked their polar opposites in terms of experience and age here. But one thing McCain's got here is that she is a wild card.
 
I don't know that I'd put Biden on the far left.....I don't think he's consitently that liberal to get that designation.

I don't think he's any further to the left than Obama, where as Palin seems to be a good bit further to the right than McCain--in effort to find someone to sure up his support among evangelicals etc.

But she's definitely a wild card there's no way to know what to expect from someone who's only political experience is in frickin' Alaska. A completely isolated state with a tiny population--tied with DC with fewest electoral votes at 3. There's no telling how she'll do under the biggest interntational spotlight in politics.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't know that I'd put Biden on the far left.....I don't think he's consitently that liberal to get that designation.

I don't think he's any further to the left than Obama, where as Palin seems to be a good bit further to the right than McCain--in effort to find someone to sure up his support among evangelicals etc.

But she's definitely a wild card there's no way to know what to expect from someone who's only political experience is in frickin' Alaska. A completely isolated state with a tiny population--tied with DC with fewest electoral votes at 3. There's no telling how she'll do under the biggest interntational spotlight in politics.[/quote]

Well...Biden has said some things. Some out there things that put him in that light.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Well...Biden has said some things. Some out there things that put him in that light.[/QUOTE]

Everyone says some crazy shit from time to time.

His overall actions, voting record etc. don't cast him in that light. And actions speak louder than words.

I mean, you could call him conservative since he said that you have to have a slight indian accent to shop at a 7/11 or Duncan Donunts. That's not a far left comment. :D

People say stupid shit. I certainly say more than my fair share!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's just absurd. The size, scope, and power of government, especially the power of the executive branch, should make you far more frightened of government than Obama's health care plan.[/quote]
I certainly am disgusted and frightened by the empowering of the executive branch, which are not Republican core ideals, and never have been. To attribute such loathsome regression in the government to one particular parties goals is just silly. It's far more complicated than that, with far more to implicate than just the unpopular party of the day. And I think you know that.

As far as the Obama health plan, I'm still trying to understand it's specifics, as I can find them...

The last 8 years have taught me that the genuine fascist steps this government, again particularly the executive branch, has taken is far more frightening than McCarthy-era fears of "SOCIALISM!!!"
Click to expand...
The last 8 years have taught me the same thing. The difference being that you attribute it to Republicans. I attribute it to neo-cons. And they aren't the same thing. There are fascistic elements in both parties, with just different paths to the same goal. Socialism, to me, is fascism. It just happens to be the flavor of fascism that's highly preferable to more people than conservative fascism.

The fact that you are legally being wiretapped, and that you may be detained indefinitely, with no charges being brought up against you, no legal recourse, no need for a body of proof - the double murder of habeas corpus and miranda - should put to rest any sort of "I'm scared of the government getting too large so I guess I'll vote Republican" arguments you have to offer.
Click to expand...
I don't make any such arguments. Again, the difference between you and I are that you seriously believe that the those are all inherent "Republican" goals that Democrats are free from and fight against. I don't.

You love to list all things evil that the government is responsible for and attribute it to one particular party, which makes you a perfect AM radio talk show call-in candidate. I just don't buy that is the case. It just so happens that one is an easy scape-goat having 8 years of power in the executive branch.

You may as well say "I support responsible government spending, so I vote Republican." ;)
Click to expand...
I probably won't vote Republican this year. Although I'm undecided.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Check this out: http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=26179

The Hillary feminists all going McCain... seriously, there's hardly any dissent, wade through that thread.

I'm no longer certain Obama will be our next president.[/QUOTE]

You know ... I have to question some of that. To a degree, the PUMA's exist. But we all know how common guerrilla marketing is; there's no doubt that political action committees and "grass roots" net organizations engage in the same practice. I can't prove it, but I suspect some of those posters are coming from the same place Rush did when he was backing Hillary -- that is, conniving BS-ville.
 
[quote name='trq']You know ... I have to question some of that. To a degree, the PUMA's exist. But we all know how common guerrilla marketing is; there's no doubt that political action committees and "grass roots" net organizations engage in the same practice. I can't prove it, but I suspect some of those posters are coming from the same place Rush did when he was backing Hillary -- that is, conniving BS-ville.[/QUOTE]

It's possible... it'd be interesting to look at posting history of them to see if the change to McCain was recent (Palin announcement), but it seems they no longer allow unregistered users to view the forum, and I'm not going to register. They sure closed their doors quickly...
 
[quote name='trq']You know ... I have to question some of that. To a degree, the PUMA's exist. But we all know how common guerrilla marketing is; there's no doubt that political action committees and "grass roots" net organizations engage in the same practice. I can't prove it, but I suspect some of those posters are coming from the same place Rush did when he was backing Hillary -- that is, conniving BS-ville.[/QUOTE]

I just can't fathom most feminists voting for McCain. Much less now that his VP is strongly pro life and her sole experience is a bit of time as a mayor in small town and less than 2 years as a governor in a very anti-gay state.

Just trying to reconcile that is enough to make my head explode from the resounding cognitive dissonance.

But I'm sure there are some wackos out there that will vote against their principles just to put a woman in white house as VP.

Just like they're are wackos that will vote agains their principles just because they won't vote for a black man, or conversely some blacks who will vote for Obama because he's black but may not like his ideas much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"True Feminist"?

What exactly is a "True Feminist?"

When I think of an example of a feminist, one of the people I think of is Dr. Laura. And she's pro-life. I think she's kind of a fruit, but I think she's done an immense of amount of good for women-kind too.

Are you saying that "True" feminism can't contain pro-life philosophy?
 
I don't want to get into that debate, but to me most feminists (maybe true was a poor choice of words, original post edited) are pro choice, pro lesbian rights, and generally are quite liberal.

There are of course exceptions to the rule, especially with abortion.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't want to get into that debate, but to me most feminists (maybe true was a poor choice of words, original post edited) are pro choice, pro lesbian rights, and generally are quite liberal.

There are of course exceptions to the rule, especially with abortion.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how sexual orientation is or can be a feminist issue, but fair enough.
 
And feminists aren't necessarily economically liberal... that's a crass, borderline sexist generalization. Socially liberal only in the sense that they reject a woman's traditional role in family.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I certainly am disgusted and frightened by the empowering of the executive branch, which are not Republican core ideals, and never have been.[/QUOTE]

That's like saying "family values" aren't Republican core ideals because they weren't in the 1860 party platform under which Lincoln was elected. Like it or not, platforms evolve, and the Republicans, since at least 2000 (and, frankly, at least 1995 in reality), have been "Texas"-style Republicans.

[quote name='thrustbucket']To attribute such loathsome regression in the government to one particular parties goals is just silly. It's far more complicated than that, with far more to implicate than just the unpopular party of the day. And I think you know that.

I don't make any such arguments. Again, the difference between you and I are that you seriously believe that the those are all inherent "Republican" goals that Democrats are free from and fight against. I don't.

You love to list all things evil that the government is responsible for and attribute it to one particular party, which makes you a perfect AM radio talk show call-in candidate. I just don't buy that is the case. It just so happens that one is an easy scape-goat having 8 years of power in the executive branch.[/QUOTE]

Sorry dude -- we had habeus corpus under Clinton. We didn't have secret torture prisons under Carter. If these are things that matter to you, you need to accept that they *didn't* come around under Democrats; that the people who did them were Republicans, and elected by Republicans, and they made NO secrets of what their rule (and I do mean "rule") was going to be like.

From the Texas Republican Party Platform of 2000:

You believe in checks and balances?

"Congress should be urged to exercise its authority under Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution, and should withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights."

They don't.

You believe in individual rights, like privacy?

"The party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy....We publicly rebuke judges Chief Justice Murphy and John Anderson, who ruled that the 100 year-old Texas sodomy law is unconstitutional, and ask that all members of the Republican Party of Texas oppose their re-election."

They don't.

And on . . . and on . . . and on.

Regardless of whatever big government, philandering, waffling, kick-back taking Democrats may be guilty of, it's NOT the laundry list of crimes from the past ten-plus years.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']trq's new sig: :rofl::rofl::rofl:[/QUOTE]

I figured since JolietJake and everyone else were getting sexy new political sigs, I should too. :)
 
I sort of agree with your first example, as it seems to me that "checks and balances" today more and more means "let's never stop debating the issue, so nothing ever solidifies". But only where certain things like the bill of rights is concerned. The inherent danger of any Democracy is indefinite lag time for justice and governing.

But I get your point. You don't like Republicans, especially Texas style republicans. Fine. But I know people that consider themselves Republicans, that don't believe in or endorse your "laundry list of crimes". I guess they are the Pat Buchanan Republicans, lost and confused.

It makes myself kind of sick to always feel like I am coming close to defending Republicans here, and I am not, because like most of you, they sicken me. But from my point of view, I feel like if this were the 1940's, I am standing in a crowd constantly demonizing the evils of Hitler while deifying Stalin with the logic that "at least it's not Hitler". It's confusing, frustrating, and depressing.
 
Reality's Fringe;4796267 said:
.....Who?

You know, I'm honestly wondering if McCain's line of thinking in this was "Hmmm, Obama's black, so he must appeal to black people. How can I appeal to a minority as a rich white guy?....I GOT IT, SOME CHICK!"
Click to expand...

As a guy who barely follows politics, this was EXACTLY my thought when I saw this.
 
[quote name='ananag112']Hmm...McCain really respects women[/QUOTE]

I'm not too sure what your point / the video's point is... that he's sexist? What someone says to McCain doesn't say of McCain...
 
Regarding the Hillary forum and the "PUMAs" acceptance of McCain - if you think, for a moment, that this isn't part of a Republican campaign scheme, you're a fool and a mark.

To use internet parlance, I call shenanigans.

It's simply too clean. WAY too clean. That all the talk was branding the "maverick," nothing talked about policies, everything centered around simply voting for a woman - and, most clearly, NOT A SINGLE PERSON BROUGHT UP PLAIN'S PRO-LIFE STANCE?!?!?!?!?!

If you buy into this as something other than poorly scuplted viral marketing for the GOP (and, look, you're smarter than the press, so if they believe it, that doesn't mean you have to), I really feel bad for you. There are better examples of viral marketing out there that were less obvious than this, and were still found out.

C'mon, you're grown ups thinking that an entire of cadre of women would immediately and unquestionably flock to a candidate whose views stand in the face of everything they believe in, just because she's a woman? Please. Have some sense.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Regarding the Hillary forum and the "PUMAs" acceptance of McCain - if you think, for a moment, that this isn't part of a Republican campaign scheme, you're a fool and a mark.

To use internet parlance, I call shenanigans.

It's simply too clean. WAY too clean. That all the talk was branding the "maverick," nothing talked about policies, everything centered around simply voting for a woman - and, most clearly, NOT A SINGLE PERSON BROUGHT UP PLAIN'S PRO-LIFE STANCE?!?!?!?!?!

If you buy into this as something other than poorly scuplted viral marketing for the GOP (and, look, you're smarter than the press, so if they believe it, that doesn't mean you have to), I really feel bad for you. There are better examples of viral marketing out there that were less obvious than this, and were still found out.

C'mon, you're grown ups thinking that an entire of cadre of women would immediately and unquestionably flock to a candidate whose views stand in the face of everything they believe in, just because she's a woman? Please. Have some sense.[/QUOTE]

You overestimate the GOP a bit.. check out their post counts and join dates. 100's of users spending 6+ months and 100,000's of posts... that's a bit much, that's beyond astroturfing.
 
im sure her being a "hockey mom" and "pta leader" will help pay off when dealing with foreign affairs. also, teaching creationism in school? what a novel idea.
 
I need to play some metal gear and forget about all this.
And the Hail Mary falls incomplete!!!
Not even all the christians and dumb women can help the repubs.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I'm not too sure what your point / the video's point is... that he's sexist? What someone says to McCain doesn't say of McCain...[/QUOTE]

I am not too sure either. MSNBC just pointed it out for some reason saying it is interesting that he picked a woman for the VP when he said this thing about Clinton. I don't really see the connection though. Thought I would post it anyway as its sort of interesting.
 
[quote name='dank']teaching creationism in school?[/QUOTE]

"teaching" is a strong word

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
Click to expand...

She's right.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I sort of agree with your first example, as it seems to me that "checks and balances" today more and more means "let's never stop debating the issue, so nothing ever solidifies". But only where certain things like the bill of rights is concerned. The inherent danger of any Democracy is indefinite lag time for justice and governing.

But I get your point. You don't like Republicans, especially Texas style republicans. Fine. But I know people that consider themselves Republicans, that don't believe in or endorse your "laundry list of crimes". I guess they are the Pat Buchanan Republicans, lost and confused.[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't think core Republican positions are good ideas usually, but I wouldn't say I don't like Republicans -- I don't know them all. ;)

But seriously: because he felt it would let him hold on to more of his money, my dad has voted Republican my entire life ... until 2004. I was a bit surprised by this, so I asked him why he made the switch, especially when Kerry wasn't exactly the epitome of charisma and I grew up in Jersey, which is pretty famous for its local democratic corruption. What he said amounted to, "I'd rather be proud of my country than have lower taxes." So I know that not all Republicans are Bushies who just love trampling on the Constitution.

But what I'm trying to draw the line between are the guys like my dad or Buchanan, who today *praised* Obama's speech as "magnificent," and ... I don't even know what to call it -- the people who just want to chalk Bush up as an anomaly, a rogue politico, rather than a product of the party that produced him, that's been in place for years, and is *still* taking once honorable guys like McCain and twisting them until they can't pander enough to the religious right and big business. And all this is important because the minute people absolve themselves of the responsibility of having voted for a man who did *exactly* what he said he was going to do and *completely* fucked up the country in the process, it's going to happen again.

[quote name='thrustbucket']It makes myself kind of sick to always feel like I am coming close to defending Republicans here, and I am not, because like most of you, they sicken me. But from my point of view, I feel like if this were the 1940's, I am standing in a crowd constantly demonizing the evils of Hitler while deifying Stalin with the logic that "at least it's not Hitler". It's confusing, frustrating, and depressing.[/QUOTE]

Well ... trying to work outside predefined lines can be tough, I know -- people can have difficulty understanding that condemning something doesn't necessarily imply support for something else -- but it's worth the effort, in my experience.

As for the Hitler/Stalin example, I'll just say that I take your point, but I hope you understand why it's an imperfect example.
 
[quote name='Koggit']"teaching" is a strong word

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.


She's right.[/quote]

right about what? where would this debate come up? in biology class? teaching a religious idea in a biology class? young kids arent going to bring this up in debate. its ppl who want to push there religious doctrine on kids who will be doing this. teachers.

where it would come up in debate by students is in a college setting in a class about religion. where ppl can make up their own minds, and probably have.

does not belong in a setting with young impressionable kids. they should not have to taught any religion in public school. creationism is a religious idea. not biology. seperation of church and state was a founding idea, but not if this religious right wants to make the us a nation of god, not reason.
 
[quote name='Koggit']You overestimate the GOP a bit.. check out their post counts and join dates. 100's of users spending 6+ months and 100,000's of posts... that's a bit much, that's beyond astroturfing.[/QUOTE]

Not to overstate my opinion on this, but I know a thing or two about guerrilla marketing, and if movie studios and game companies can flood message boards with dozens of users, three or four months ahead of time, resulting in tens of thousands of posts -- and they can and do -- political entities can beat that by 150%, easy.

[quote name='Koggit']She's right.[/QUOTE]

Well, to the degree that we allow Robert Browning poems to be part of the "debate" in physics, or the conjugation of Spanish verbs to take up gym class time, sure. Otherwise, I think it's perfectly valid to say to a student who has brought up philosophy/theology/creative writing in your science class, "This isn't the time or place."
 
her PTA experience and hockey mom experience should combat well against's Obama's community organizing skills.


Damn, I feel so sorry for Charlie Chris (gov of FL), he's probably thinking - "I married this bitch for nothing."
 
Skepticism is much more crucial to shaping a scientific mind than any scientific "knowledge" could ever be.

People of faith needs to be skeptical of their beliefs and people of science need to be skeptical of what we call fact. Creationism and other religious believes are great stepping stones into this discussion, because nearly all kids have a strong myopic belief (usually that of their parents). They either believe there is a god or there isn't. They either believe we were created or we weren't. They need to be taught, and science class is the setting, that faith is detrimental to progression regardless of what that faith may be, when trying to determine fact. They need to be taught that some people believe this, other people believe that, but regardless of beliefs it's important that conclusions be reached based on evidence, not predetermined and considered confirmed by a lack of evidence.

To say questions won't arise is complete bullshit. If you're like me and your parents told you God crated Adam and Eve from which we've descended, when your teacher tells you we've slowly changed over the years from single-celled organisms to fish to mammals to humans you're going to immediately wonder, like I did as a child, where Adam and Eve factors in. Were Adam and Eve single-celled organisms? Is the book wrong? What's going on?

The point is questions will arise and it's absolutely ridiculous to bar teachers from discussing it when it's the perfect opportunity to explain the importance of an open mind and skepticism, whether that message is being picked up by science-based kids who need to think critically about their science or to faith-based kids who need to think critically about their religion.

[quote name='trq']Not to overstate my opinion on this, but I know a thing or two about guerrilla marketing, and if movie studios and game companies can flood message boards with dozens of users, three or four months ahead of time, resulting in tens of thousands of posts -- and they can and do -- political entities can beat that by 150%, easy.[/QUOTE]

Oh come on now, this is just ridiculous... those same users campaigned hardcore for Hillary and sold Hillary merchandise (bumper stickers, etc) and you're going to call them GOP plants?

Whatever... believe whatever the hell you want.

It's kind of ironic that my post focuses on praising the virtue of skepticism followed by exasperation at conspiracy theorist level skepticism... but oh well.
 
So...will Obama challenge Palin to a hockey shootout? They both play basketball (she at least played), but can Obama play hockey?

I think the comment about the creationism debate was if the question was brought up in a classroom, it shouldn't be ignored. Sticking the curriculum in any subject isn't necessarily learning.
 
Haven't read through this entire thread, but, to me, this is extremely evocative of Bush's selection of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court a few years back. And we all know how well that one ended.

What a bad selection. The more I think about it, the more I think it could have been the mistake that ensures Obama the White House.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Haven't read through this entire thread, but, to me, this is extremely evocative of Bush's selection of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court a few years back. And we all know how well that one ended.[/QUOTE]

How so? Surely you don't mean that both are women? If he had nominated Cindy McCain as VP, yes, I would agree with you. Or maybe a name that was seriously mentioned, one of his advisers, Carly Fiorina. But how the hell does Palin fit in the cronyism mold? You obviously don't know enough about her or are just making a blind partisan attack.
 
From http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/palin-scrubs-her-own-wikipedia.php

Sarah Palin scrubs her own wikipedia page!

By S. L. - August 29, 2008, 6:32PM

NPR just had a story about a flurry of mostly-positive edits that occurred to Sarah Palin's wikipedia page, 45 minutes before her VP candidacy was leaked--including edits that removed/downplayed references to the brother-in-law scandal. The author of those edits? An anonymous user with the handle "YoungTrig." Trig--I'm sure just coincidentally--is the name of Palin's infant son.

The NPR story noted that editing your own page on wikipedia is considered a "no-no," according to their terms of use.

Audio of the NPR story here.

Hmm. I guess we can expect the kind of wonderful transparency and honesty from the McCain/Palin administration that we have seen for the past eight years.
Click to expand...
I'm amazed that someone in the McCain camp knows how to get on the internet.
 
Palin is a superb choice and has quite an impressive background. As much I disliked Bush and what his party did, this sealed the deal and I'll definitely be voting for her and McCain this fall. Obama is just too unqualified and is treating the Presidency as if it's some sort of high school Prom King position reserved to the most popular kid. And those of you complaining about Palin's experience are hypocrites considering Obama, who's on top of his party's ticket, has far less experience and accomplishments than she does.

Let's see, Palin is currently a very, very popular (80-90% approval rating and has numerous accomplishments) Governor and has been:
-The head of the Alaskan National Guard
-Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska
-City Council
-City Manager
-The President of the Alaskan Council of Mayors
-Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (exposed corruption in her OWN party)

Compared to Obama, who has been what? A state senator and a newly elected U.S senator 4 years ago (who spent most of the time running for President the moment he got elected instead of doing actual productive work)

With these in mind, Palin actually has far more governing and management experience than McCain, Obama, and Biden. There's a reason why Governors are considered to be far more qualified than Senators to be U.S President.
 
Palin is ridiculous, I just saw a video of her (News) where she was saying that she felt the US was ready for a woman president, however she won't support her because she's on the left. She admitted that she felt guilty for knowing that she was not going to vote for Hilary. I find it amazing that any of Hilary supporters would give Palin their 18 million votes, while knowing full well that she wouldn't even give their candidate her one vote, even when she knew how important it was to women. The fact is, this woman is loyal to her party and not her values. What ever position the GOP needs her to be in, that's position she'll confirm and contort to.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']Palin is ridiculous, I just saw a video of her (News) where she was saying that she felt the US was ready for a woman president, however she won't support her because she's on the left. She admitted that she felt guilty for knowing that she was not going to vote for Hilary. I find it amazing that any of Hilary supporters would give Palin their 18 million votes, while knowing full well that she wouldn't even give their candidate her one vote, even when she knew how important it was to women. The fact is, this woman is loyal to her party and not her values. What ever position the GOP needs her to be in, that's position she'll confirm and contort to.[/QUOTE]

You make no sense... saying she'd like a woman to be president but can't vote for Hillary because she's too leftist is staying loyal to her values. What would be completely wrong is if she said "I don't think the democratic platform is good for America but I will vote for Hillary anyway because she's a woman"...

You're very, very confused.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Oh come on now, this is just ridiculous... those same users campaigned hardcore for Hillary and sold Hillary merchandise (bumper stickers, etc) and you're going to call them GOP plants?

Whatever... believe whatever the hell you want.

It's kind of ironic that my post focuses on praising the virtue of skepticism followed by exasperation at conspiracy theorist level skepticism... but oh well.[/QUOTE]

Good job on the reading comprehension.

Not to overstate my opinion on this, but I know a thing or two about guerrilla marketing...
Click to expand...

Yeah. Let me try this again: I'm not saying it definitely IS the case, but your argument that it ISN'T because the scale is too great is uninformed. I have some experience in this area as a freelancer, and the numbers I mentioned above are correct -- at one point, there was a profile on the IGN message boards that had managed to rack up 45,000 posts over the course of about four and a half months, because multiple marketers used the account. Now if you're going to sit there and suggest that the same kind of people who hire people to do, say, this http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93465286 haven't thought of flooding the message boards of political rivals with volunteers parroting a simple message, you're uncharacteristically naive. Some are the real deal, I'm sure. But *NO* dissenting opinions? That's fishy.
 
"Not to overstate my opinion on this, but I know a thing or two about..." usually means "Trust me, I'm an expert on..." Kind of like how "No offense, but..." means "I know this statement is really offensive, but..." or "Not to be a dick, but..." means "Prepare for me to be a dick: ..."

Sorry for misunderstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top