Face it, she's a hypocritical bitch, just like nearly every Republican female in this country (that I would arguably extend to nearly all "conservative" gays, blacks, latinos, et al.):

“Our house is full, help us build a new home,” proclaims the Web site for Covenant House Alaska, a program that helps younger people, including teenage mothers. The Alaska legislature decided to allocate $5 million in building funds, but Gov. Sarah Palin cut that to $3.9 million with a line-item veto in June.

The reduction was one of many she made to the state capital budget, lowering it by millions of dollars and affecting everything from the Port of Anchorage to libraries. But Covenant House Alaska serves teen moms, and given Governor Palin’s opposition to abortion rights — and more to the point, her recent announcement that her own 17-year old is pregnant — this particular cut in funding has drawn attention... (read more)

It's nice when you only fuck over other people's kids while you're busy publicly embracing your own and its baby daddy.

Why does Walnuts look like he's trying to clamp back a prairie-dogging turd?

ptah13 wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

Face it, she's a hypocritical bitch, just like nearly every Republican female in this country (that I would arguably extend to nearly all "conservative" gays, blacks, latinos, et al.):

Hypocritical: when a conservative is chided for "partisan politics" but comments like this are A-OK?

I bet the lefties here consider this message board as "fair and balanced", too.  Now I finally understand why lefties fail to see media like MSNBC and The New York Times as being biased... Sorry but it seems like unless you are left of center, then you are biased in the eyes of liberals.

Maybe you should look up the definition of hypocritical, ptah.  There's nothing inconsistent about pALEPHx's stance on this.

On the other hand, portraying yourself as anti-earmark when you were the mayor of a small town with $1000/person in earmarks and then governor of the state with the most income from earmarks of any state in the Union is a bit hypocritical.

ptah13 wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

Face it, she's a hypocritical bitch, just like nearly every Republican female in this country (that I would arguably extend to nearly all "conservative" gays, blacks, latinos, et al.):

Hypocritical: when a conservative is chided for "partisan politics" but comments like this are A-OK?

I bet the lefties here consider this message board as "fair and balanced", too.  Now I finally understand why lefties fail to see media like MSNBC and The New York Times as being biased... Sorry but it seems like unless you are left of center, then you are biased in the eyes of liberals.

Nice try, RNC poster-boy wannabe.  MSNBC and The New York Times are, on their best days, centrist-to-barely-perceptibly-left-of-center in their editorial stances.  Face it.  They are corporate-owned, and will not bite the hand that feeds them.  For you, on the other hand, anything to the left of Fred Thompson is a goddamn pinko librul who hates 'Murca and wants the turrurists to win.

Seriously.

You'd probably shit your pants if you met an actual, dyed-in-the-wool liberal or [gasp] a socialist.  The best this country can come up with these days is someone who actually thinks beyond his own selfishness and far enough ahead to see where the sleazy policies being touted by conservatives are leading this country, to the detriment of its original ideals, who then has to apologetically explain the difference between progressivism and liberalism.

ptah13 wrote:

Nothing at all. I was talking about ME being chastised (awhile back) for being "partisan" and told "there are places to post such things".  My comment was NOBODY who posts anything anti-republican, no matter how vitriolic, would ever get told "take it to drudge".

While you're sure to get plenty of pushback if you post partisan things, the people who told you that you were being partisan and the person who told you to take it to drudge were different people and gave different reasons.  Some people don't want to see this place turn into a repeat of the 2004 elections.

tojo2000 wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Nothing at all. I was talking about ME being chastised (awhile back) for being "partisan" and told "there are places to post such things".  My comment was NOBODY who posts anything anti-republican, no matter how vitriolic, would ever get told "take it to drudge".

While you're sure to get plenty of pushback if you post partisan things, the people who told you that you were being partisan and the person who told you to take it to drudge were different people and gave different reasons.  Some people don't want to see this place turn into a repeat of the 2004 elections.

Me either (on the repeating 2004 crap). But really, do you think it is right that one side of the coin can say whatever while the other side shuts the hell up and goes along to get along?

Oh, and here was the comment that was made. Notice that both "partisan" and "take it somewhere else" are in the same post (by one person, not two):

Please also think hard before posting other thoughts like that. Partisan bicker isn't entertaining and there are, as you know, plenty of other places for it.

You see, I'm not "bickering" about anything partisan here. I'm bickering about hypocrisy and censorship. I don't start any political threads, either. I just comment on them.

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-09-04 01:18:37)

'Sorry, should have clarified. Pale's comment, in no way, offends me. It's censorship of one point of view while encouraging the exact opposite that bothers me. But not enough to leave (sorry folks!).

I might also note that I once left a message board that was as far right as this board is left because the admins were so hypocritical. Again, it's not nearly that deep here and I'm not trying to fuck with the admin, to whom I have a good degree of respect, just making an off-hand comment (with my stick, through the bars).'

Don't you dare fucking leave.  I will hunt you down and preform the Blood Eagle upon you and yours if ya do.

So there.

tojo2000 wrote:

Maybe I'm the one who took it wrong but I took that as applying not only to you, especially considering that the guy who said it usually doesn't like to get involved in the political shit-slinging fun.

Fair enough. Maybe I'm just paranoid. There is a good chance of that.

It's the persistent bat attacks that make me this way. Thank god for my flyswatter.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Don't you dare fucking leave.  I will hunt you down and preform the Blood Eagle upon you and yours if ya do.

So there.

OK, I'd never heard of that one.  That's more fucked up than breaking on the wheel.

Old Northern European habits die hard... heh.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

That is one massively unhappy dude.

I'm sure he's wishing true love had waited.

I had hoped my remark would be like nudging an epileptic with your foot when he's already on the floor, and it worked suitably to evince more public airing and accountability for one's political stance. I was also quite careful about including "nearly all" when I wrote it, because I fully expected some to cast themselves as the "victim" in that generalization, when it was not specifically designed to capture every closet neocon on HS.

Female Republicans have always baffled me because I've been raised to appreciate a stronger version of womanhood, one that has control of her own body and doesn't let her husband make all her decisions for her. This sort of gross paternalism exists for blacks, gays, and other minorities who try to get under the Family Values revival tent. It's a counterproductive and possibly self-loathing place to be on the political spectrum, if you are not well served by your party's interests.

Conversely, I'm not trying to paint contemporary Democrats as having the best track record on getting stuff done, but look who they've managed to nominate for president. Win or lose, that's going to have some mileage on it (beyond white guilt) for years, possibly decades. That McCain has decided to dilute the specialness of Obama's candidacy, with stunt casting for his veep, is crass by most people's measure of the term.

pALEPHx wrote:

Face it, she's a hypocritical bitch, just like nearly every Republican female in this country (that I would arguably extend to nearly all "conservative" gays, blacks, latinos, et al.):

“Our house is full, help us build a new home,” proclaims the Web site for Covenant House Alaska, a program that helps younger people, including teenage mothers. The Alaska legislature decided to allocate $5 million in building funds, but Gov. Sarah Palin cut that to $3.9 million with a line-item veto in June.

The reduction was one of many she made to the state capital budget, lowering it by millions of dollars and affecting everything from the Port of Anchorage to libraries. But Covenant House Alaska serves teen moms, and given Governor Palin’s opposition to abortion rights — and more to the point, her recent announcement that her own 17-year old is pregnant — this particular cut in funding has drawn attention... (read more)

Typical bullshit reporting.  In 2006 Covenant House Alaska received just shy of 1.2 million dollars.  In 2007 they received just over 1.3 million dollars.  Now, in 2008 Palin signs on for in increase from 1.3 million to 3.9 million and she is chracterized as "cutting" funding to them.  Yes, the state legislature proposed an increase to $5 million.  She agreed to a smaller increase (an increase that tripled the funding!) .  Every time a Republican reduces a proposed increase it's reported as a cut even though it's still an increase.  Legislatures just love sending up increases for sympathetic causes that they know full well the executive branch will reduce (and get attacked over for "cutting" something that is still an increase).  It's nothing but a political game.  A game that reporters love to play along with.

Even if she really had reduced funding - hell, even if she had completely ended funding - that doesn't make here a "hypocrite".  Look up the word.  If she advocated the government supporting her kid while vetoing any program supporting other peoples' kids THAT would be hypocrisy. 

It's nice when you only fuck over other people's kids while you're busy publicly embracing your own and its baby daddy.

If somebody wants to "fuck over my kids" by giving them $3.9 million they are welcome to do so.

From Slate.com

"What's missing from the conservative reaction is still remarkable. Just 15 years ago, a different Republican vice president was ripping into the creators of Murphy Brown for flaunting a working woman who chose to become a single mother. This time around, there's no stigma, no shame, no sin attached to what Dan Quayle would once have mockingly called Bristol Palin's "lifestyle" choices. In fact, so cavalier are conservatives about Sarah Palin's wreck of a home life that they make the rest of us look stuffy and slow-witted by comparison. "I think a hard-working, well-organized C.E.O. type can handle it very well," said Phyllis Schlafly, of the Eagle Forum."

"Conservative women became a powerful tool for the party, and everyone was willing to overlook the cost to their personal lives. If a conservative Christian mother chose to pursue a full-time career in, say, landscape gardening or the law, she was abandoning her family. But if she chose public service, she was furthering the godly cause. No one discussed the sticky domestic details: Did she have a (gasp!) nanny? Did her husband really rule the roost anymore? Who said prayers with the kids every night? As long as she was seen now and again with her children, she could get away with any amount of power."

"The rest of the 30 percent of Americans who call themselves evangelical have started to slip in their morals and now actually poll worse than the rest of America on traditional measures of upstanding behavior—they are just as likely to live together and have kids out of wedlock, and their teenage daughters lose their virginities at an earlier age than the girls of most Americans. University of Virginia historian W. Bradford Wilcox blames this partly on class differences and particularly on a lingering "redneck" Appalachian strain in evangelical culture. (I'm a "fucking redneck," wrote Levi, the father of Bristol's baby, on his MySpace page, before it was taken down.)"

"Since the '70s, evangelicals and the coastal elites have effectively switched places. Evangelicals are now far more likely to get divorced, whereas couples with four years of college education have cut their divorce rates in half. An intact happy marriage that produces well-behaved children, it turns out, is becoming a luxury of the elites—bad news for the Obamas."

Zookeeper wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

Face it, she's a hypocritical bitch, just like nearly every Republican female in this country (that I would arguably extend to nearly all "conservative" gays, blacks, latinos, et al.):

“Our house is full, help us build a new home,” proclaims the Web site for Covenant House Alaska, a program that helps younger people, including teenage mothers. The Alaska legislature decided to allocate $5 million in building funds, but Gov. Sarah Palin cut that to $3.9 million with a line-item veto in June.

The reduction was one of many she made to the state capital budget, lowering it by millions of dollars and affecting everything from the Port of Anchorage to libraries. But Covenant House Alaska serves teen moms, and given Governor Palin’s opposition to abortion rights — and more to the point, her recent announcement that her own 17-year old is pregnant — this particular cut in funding has drawn attention... (read more)

Typical bullshit reporting.  In 2006 Covenant House Alaska received just shy of 1.2 million dollars.  In 2007 they received just over 1.3 million dollars.  Now, in 2008 Palin signs on for in increase from 1.3 million to 3.9 million and she is chracterized as "cutting" funding to them.  Yes, the state legislature proposed an increase to $5 million.  She agreed to a smaller increase (an increase that tripled the funding!) .  Every time a Republican reduces a proposed increase it's reported as a cut even though it's still an increase.  Legislatures just love sending up increases for sympathetic causes that they know full well the executive branch will reduce (and get attacked over for "cutting" something that is still an increase).  It's nothing but a political game.  A game that reporters love to play along with.

Even if she really had reduced funding - hell, even if she had completely ended funding - that doesn't make here a "hypocrite".  Look up the word.  If she advocated the government supporting her kid while vetoing any program supporting other peoples' kids THAT would be hypocrisy. 

It's nice when you only fuck over other people's kids while you're busy publicly embracing your own and its baby daddy.

If somebody wants to "fuck over my kids" by giving them $3.9 million they are welcome to do so.

Don't count on getting a reply to "the truth".

Obviously, if she were truly an exemplar of her breed, she'd never have gotten to this stage in the game. Do you think she's going to stand up to McCain, then? Go head to head on the issues? Fall out of lockstep with the flunky role he's pretty much handed to her? Yes, indeed, it's better to be the First Wife of the country, taking the helm of a nation at war in at least two places, and then pretty much ensuring whatever Hubby says, goes. I'm guessing McCain didn't want to put up with his own personal Cheney and made sure the balls were gone before he ever got into office. Which won't be happening anyway, but you can continue to hope audaciously.

pALEPHx wrote:

Obviously, if she were truly an exemplar of her breed, she'd never have gotten to this stage in the game. Do you think she's going to stand up to McCain, then? Go head to head on the issues? Fall out of lockstep with the flunky role he's pretty much handed to her? Yes, indeed, it's better to be the First Wife of the country, taking the helm of a nation at war in at least two places, and then pretty much ensuring whatever Hubby says, goes. I'm guessing McCain didn't want to put up with his own personal Cheney and made sure the balls were gone before he ever got into office. Which won't be happening anyway, but you can continue to hope audaciously.

But...but...they're SOULMATES!

Fnordian slip at the convention?

Sarah Palin is not weak. She began treading her own path very early on, and refused to buckle under to the Republican establishment in Alaska almost from the beginning. I had a lot of dealings with people in the upper levels of the Republican party in AK and, while I wouldn't vote for her, she's a ballsy woman.

I found myself wondering the same thing: if McCain was so eager to bring in experience, why didn't he choose Kay Bailey Hutchison? It would have made sense and certainly would have fired up the Religious Right, but I suspect too she would have turned off more of the undecided, unideological middle Americans. In that sense, Palin makes a lot of sense, especially if we let go of the experience factor.

Taint wrote:

I found myself wondering the same thing: if McCain was so eager to bring in experience, why didn't he choose Kay Bailey Hutchison? It would have made sense and certainly would have fired up the Religious Right, but I suspect too she would have turned off more of the undecided, unideological middle Americans. In that sense, Palin makes a lot of sense, especially if we let go of the experience factor.

I don't think he went for experience at all. I think he feels he has experience covered at his end.

First, she bucks the system, the Republican system, that is. She furthers his "maverick" claim.

Second, she has this "clean up politics" cred. Now McCain can use this to claim that it is HE, and not Obama, that is the agent for change. Yeah, he's not going to get all the "hope for change" mindless drones to flip, but those in the middle that think DC is pretty fucked up now can look to McCain and say, "wait, they aren't just another Bush incarnation, they are going to shake things up in Washington."  "Whistle Blower and The Maverick". It could be a 70's drama about 2 guys wearing jeans and plaid that are private eyes solving crimes for hot chicks with bad perms.

Third, let's face it, McCain isn't as "pretty" as Obama. The RILF goes a long way towards getting the vote of folks that actually think about, "I just can't imagine looking at McCain for 4 years" in their voting consideration. Let's face it, RILF is a lot more appealing to the eyes than Biden, Obama, Hillary or either of the Bush girls for that matter.

Last, but not least, even though the shit is fucked up in her own family, she still claims to adhere to the whole fundie platform. All you have to do is make the claim. You have to realize, 1/2 the fundies out there came to god after a teenage pregnancy, drug addiction, etc. They don't care if your situation is jacked-up (look at all the fucking up their own pastors do) as long as you claim to be down with Hey-zeus.

Taint wrote:

. . .  she's a ballsy woman

Not my cup of tea, so to speak, but I will look at her differently from now on.

ptah13 wrote:

. . . she bucks the system

Putting two and two together, I am unfortunately left conjuring up an image of a transgendered cow(boy).

Ptah, you may be right, if somewhat one-sided, in your analysis.  On the other hand, selecting her neutralizes McCain's central theme leading up to the convention.  While I believe that it is a dead end for the Democrats to raise the experience issue, it is no longer a strong one for the Republicans.  Palin brings some life to the ticket.  Before her selection, McCain reminded me of Danny DeVito as the Penguin, flapping his arms and squawking. 

I don't know enough about Palin to know if the "whistle-blower" image will hold up.  It may, and will defer to Taint who is better informed about her than I.  Some of her gloss comes off if she is proven to have tried to ban books while Mayor of Lilliputia or went after her former brother-in-law as is under investigation.  Whether those stories would be enough to damage her image, even if they go against her, I am not so sure.  But what they have with her is an image and not a whole lot more.

McCain's "maverick" tag is recently aquired, and only because he was humilited in getting exposed for his efforts to intervene with FHLBB regulators to stop the investigation into Lincoln Savings, the savings and loan run by his personal friend, John Keating.  McCain and his family had taken nearly ten vacations to the Caribbean at Keating's expense.  McCain received large campaign contributions from Keating, and his wife and her family were investors in some Keating real estate ventures.  Hardly the stufff of a "maverick."  Talk about born again.  Since then he has veered around in all directions (just try to follow the various themes and teams in his campaign) and his very unpredictability since that time has given rise to the label.

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

But shame shame on MSNBC for using a section of mostly empty seats behind Brokaw for their backdrop.

I liked how in the very first sentence of the vid the GOP links and blames Shiite Iran for al quida's 9/11.
Have you registered your kids yet Ptah for service in the Republican's coming war in Iran?

No. I figure the Iraq exit strategy will be to leave via Iran. Shouldn't take but a few days before Bush declares victory. We just need all their radioactive material and that president guy and then can leave the rest of the country to fend for themselves... should work out nicely.

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

George Orr wrote:

Grownups don't know the mikes are on!

Link to YouTube page

"It's over."

Whoa nellie! All is not well in the GOP. Peggy Noonan really swung that baton at the Elephants kneecaps. You can smell the fear in this one.

Let the loathing begin.

Early this morning I saw Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and as we chatted about the McCain campaign (she thoughtfully and supportively) I looked into her eyes and thought, Why not her?

Simple: she's from Texas.  The McCain campaign wants to distance itself from the current administration (understandably so).  Picking a running mate from Bush's home state doesn't help with that.

That answers the "Why not her?" question.  As to "Why Palin?" my theory is early onset senile dementia.

Last edited by Zookeeper (2008-09-05 10:35:15)

From across the pond:

"But there remains a brutish, ignorant, xenophobic rump who regard soccer as effete, foreign and profoundly anti-American. And they are of course overwhelmingly attracted to the Republican party. For these die-hards soccer is emblematic of an imagined anti-American liberal (and, whisper it, Jewish) enemy-within out to undermine "real" American culture.

And then there's the sport of ice hockey. Despite the fact that in both ice-hockey and soccer one of the most eagerly anticipated scenes is that of players slapping at each other ineffectually (ice hockey players because they're wearing pads and skates, the soccer players because all their muscles are in their legs and, besides, they've done nothing but play soccer since they were five and so never learned to fight properly), in the minds of what passes for the Republican intelligentsia, the two sports are worlds apart. Hockey is unpretentious, hardscrabble, working class and white. While soccer is French and gay."