Need help? Check out our Support site, then

Palin don't want a hockey mom running our great country

  1. hi again letters reply to my forum

  2. hi again elizabeth... im sorry but i cant find your forum and i have to go now. nice chatting with you!

  3. hi again elizabeth... im sorry but i cant find your forum and i have to go now. nice chatting with you!

  4. yeah its nice your my best and first friend on this website

  5. @letters-Dan Quayle...the original Mr. Potatoe!

    "She couldn't name 1 newspaper she had read when asked"
    Not so odd, I don't read newspapers either.

    "She couldn't identify what the Bush doctrine was"
    Which version, there are several? The fact that you don't know the context surrounding her answer leads me to believe you did not actually see it.

    "She doubts the validity of man as a contributor to global warming"
    Dead wrong. What Palin actually said was "I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming..." (first interview with Charles Gibson) and "I'm not one to attribute every...activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet." and "We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change..."(Palin/Biden debate).
    This is a scientific argument rather than a political one, but I can give a limited synopsis for the sake of brevity. Climatology falls somewhat under the umbrella of Geology, i.e. a study of the earth's dynamic systems. The climate cycle of the earth is not based upon a rotation of years, decades, or even centuries. Instead, it revolves around an axis comprised of tens of thousands of years. Studying exposed layers of rock strata really gives us the only true glimpse into this climatic cycle. Even then, trying to narrow down anything into increments as geologically minute as even a thousand years is virtually impossible. Since current metereological records only go back about 100 years, they are pretty much worthless when it comes to trying to determine the next warming or cooling phase of the cycle. One geological cycle that can be followed, however, is that of the ice ages, since they occur in spans of approximately every ten thousand years. Warming trends, especially as concerns the melting of the ice caps, can trigger an ice age, and we are about 4,000 years overdue according to what geologic strata tells us has been the norm throughout the millenias. Therefore it is not beyond reason to suggest that we are actually involved in a normal warming trend (as regards the epochal climatic cycle of the earth)that could presage an already tardy ice-age. That our disgusting pollution and carbon footprint is contributing to warming is a good probability, but as of yet, I believe, not wholly proven. Anyway, Palin didn't say what you accused her of.
    For the record, here was Biden's response: "Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade...If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting." Hmmm...

    "She abused her power of governor to fire, and try to fire people."
    As Governor, that is her power, like it or not. She claimed the man was stalking her and threatened her and her family. Until you can prove otherwise, you don't have much of an argument here.

    "She said she didn't know what the vice-president did and she looked forward to going into the senate and 'making some good policy changes'"
    This is an interesting argument. I think first we have to look not only at what both Palin and Biden said, but also at the moderator's loaded question:
    Gwen: "Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?"

    Palin:"Our founding fathers were very wise in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation."

    Biden:"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that. And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the President of the United States of America, give that President his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit."

    This one definitely goes to Palin. Her answer is only controversial, Biden's is completely ignorant. He is right only in that the role of the vice-president is defined in Article I, but sorry Joe, whattaya know, Article I of the Constitution covers the LEGISLATIVE branch, not the Executive. That is Article II. The Legislative Article defines the duties of the Vice President as such:

    "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States." That's all.

    Biden should buy a pocket copy! The Constitution says nothing about "supporting the President." It states "exercising the office of President" i.e. in case of death or incapacitance of the President. What the Constitution does "explicitly" state is "The Vice President of the United states shall be President of the Senate..." Since the Constitution no further defines the Vice President's power in the Senate, we have to do what is always done in these instances...MAKE SOMETHING UP!

    Just kidding. Actually, we have to look for two things, one is precedence, such as in George Washington setting a precedental, Presidential two term limit. Unfortunately, the actions of Vice Presidents are not as well documented, so we hit a road block there. The second is to examine the writings of the founding fathers and see if they offer any insight into the matter in question. The best I was able to find is from Hamilton's Federalist No. 68:
    "The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner as the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done in the House of Representitives. in respect to the latter." This respect of the President by the House that Hamilton references he talks about more specifically in Federalist 73 (way too long to quote). Basically it is in reference to veto power, and the responsibility of the President to stop any attempt at an intermixing of the Legislative and Executive branches. So Hamilton argues that the Vice-President holds this same check against the Senate. In order to make the reasoning behind this a little clearer, it is vital to dispel the common myth that Senators have constituents or represent "THE PEOPLE." They are the representatives of the State's interest only in Congress. The House represents the citizens. Checks and balances, remember?

    So in my opinion, the Vice-President does have some influence in the Senate beyond what has been commonly practiced in the last few administrations. Add to that the fact that Biden's pat answer to an obviously planted question was designed to do nothing more than tie Palin to Cheney was WRONG and...PALIN WINS.

    For anyone wondering about her elequence or lack thereof, here is a full transcript of the Palin/Biden debate:

    Sorry this is so long but I kind of got caught up in the moment...

  6. you left a looooooooong note dude

  7. LOL yeah, sorry!

  8. tattered- this is getting tiresome...

    -re: Palin not being able to name a single newspaper she read, your answer was: "not so odd, I don't read newspapers either". I wasn't concerned with your reading of newspapers or not. I was referring to Palin, who within a 10 second time space said she read all sorts of newspapers, but in the same breath couldn't name one. Here's a link for you to watch if you so care:

    -re: the Bush doctrine, the context is this. Charlie Gibson flat out asked her what it was in her understanding. She couldn't come up a coherent/sensible answer. I take umbrage Your answer, is the one that suggests you did not see her response. It is a black and white question that she failed to answer:

    -re: global warming, im sorry that you wasted so much type giving me an explanation of climate change. My comment was in reference to sarah palin, not geology. What i said was she doubts the validity of global warming. To simply cite her direct quotes does not discount my claim. There are inferences between statements, and the general idea behind sarah palin's quotes is that she does not consider man to be the significant factor behind global warming- if she believes it exists at all. When she starts talking about "cyclical" climate change, the message is clear: she doesn't believe, or chooses not to admit out of deference to her party, that global warming is caused by man. We can play semantics all day over her exact words, but there is a directed meaning behind her statements.

    -re: abusing her power as governor: The governor is in place to manage the state, not fire people she dislikes. While this may be within her constitutional power, it raises doubts as to her integrity as a leader. The legislative inquiry into her actions found that she abused her power: Again this is a matter of semantics. That report does say she acted within her constitutional limits, but it doesn't mean it was right. Lots of wall street bankers, and mortgage lenders acted within their rights, but it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do; so the argument that "it is her power, like it or not" is rather uncompelling

    re: the senate. again, we can play semantics, or we can look at what she said. Here she asks for someone to tell her "what the VP does" A month later, when she thinks she knows what the VP does she says, quote " THE VP IS IN CHARGE OF THE SENATE" and that they can "get in there with the senators and make some good policy changes"... i apologize that these quotes might be inconvenient and difficult to justify without shifting the topic

    I offer the following as an example of sarah palin's "eloquence":

    "That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it’s got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade — we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation"

    i don't have a female friend who wasn't disgusted by the comment that Palin is a "role model" to women in america

    I don't know what else to tell you. sarah palin is an embarrassment, not because of who she is, but because she believes she is qualified to be the vice president, and ultimately run the nation.

    The joke is on her it seems, much like the 7 minutes she spent on a prank call the other day with a Canadian radio station, thinking that the french president decided to call her and shoot the breeze.....

  9. like you, i got caught up in the moment and overlooked the following typos: (well theres a bunch but here are the major ones)

    the second paragraph should read "I take umbrage at your assertion that I "did not see it" aka, don't know what im talking about..."

    the third paragraph should read "what I said was she doubts the validity of man as a contributor to global warming"

  10. @ kevin
    Tiresome or not, it is necessary for people to see both sides of an issue and make a judgment for themselves. I would like to say that I enjoy this discourse with you and it has shown me different sides to issues that I would not necessarily consider otherwise. I have read a few of your blogs, and you might find out that we are not so different on a lot of things.

    Sarah Palin is fast becoming a moot point since the election is tomorrow. I apoligize if you were offended by the context comment, it was not my intent. Her answer "In what respect.." does not seem outlandish to me since there are several definitions of the Bush doctrine, as I am sure you well know.
    Since she is about to become a non-issue, debating the bias of the Alaskan legislative inquiry or the legitimacy of Palin's claim that the man in question was threatening her and her family seems irrelevant at this point.

    RE: Global warming...This is important as an issue because it extends beyond Palin. Climate change is a cyclical event measured in staggering time periods. That is a scientific fact. To disregard someone's opinion on that simply because they state that man is not the ONLY contributor to global warming is extremely one-sided. "There are inferences between statements, and the general idea behind sarah palin's quotes is that she does not consider man to be the significant factor behind global warming- if she believes it exists at all." How could you possibly know this? Are you psychic? You are attributing something to her that she did not say, the inference is yours, not hers. I believe as Palin does, that climate cycles and man are both responsible for global warming. Does that make me as nutty as her?

    RE: The Senate...I am curious as to why you did not address Biden's staggering lack of basic knowledge about the Constitution. As his statement from the debate proves, he himself does not know the role of the Vice President, or even which branch of government the office falls under. So how is he qualified to assume this office? This is not semantics, but a United States Senator showing complete ignorance about the United States Constitution as well as an office he is about to occupy. Inexcusable.
    If you respond to no other part of this post, please respond to my concern about Biden.

    The point here is not really about Palin, but objectivity. People are easily led, and I believe you know that. Most of them will take at face value what they are told, especially when they have been spoon-fed these same opinions by the media. Palin may not be qualified, and I have never said that she is, but she is an individual and deserves better treatment than that which progressives have given her, which amounts to a muck-raking. Just because an opinion is different does not mean it is any less valid, or deserve any less consideration. People, myself included, have valid concerns about the progressive agenda, and these concerns will be voiced in this forum as that agenda unfolds over the next four years. I look forward to the responses of a self-described "agent of social change." (Haha I am beginning to believe that you are a lobbyist!)

    I have refrained from nit-picking Obama, his qualifications, statements he has made, etc. He has gaffed often, and misrepresented himself often. Once he assumes office, however, I guarantee that this self-imposed censure will end.

    Again I apologise for offending you. I strongly believe in discourse without rancor.



  11. stop leaving long notes it takes up space

  12. Stop breathing you take up oxygen

  13. "i strongly believe in discourse without rancor"

    i agree & have appreciated discussing the issues w/you.

    at this point, im just going to have to agree to disagree...

  14. I don't mind that she has a pregnant daughter or a drug dealing son. As long she has a strong head on her shoulder's who cares? It's funny because I was just thinking about how every one is criticising Obama's family. Dose it matter that he has 7 half siblings? He obviously turned out alright so who cares? Most Americana's are so stupid with stuff like that. The image of a perfect American family has been dead for over a decade it seems. probably longer. So really, who cares a person's family looks like? As long as the person in question is what you want to see then it doesn't matter. oh well I can't vote, I'd vote for Obama if I could though.

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic