you want to know why i am going to vote obama and i am telling you why. I am not attacking anyone. I do not trust her. about anything. I offered what i am worried about and tried to bring up a few points as an explanation for my fear. I am extremely fearful of all the talk about Russia. I am fearful of the neocons surviving in the Mccain administration. and with her as VP they can come back pretty quickly. i am not voting for him i am voting against Neocons mainly and the Christians[political] secondary for their unconditional support of the neocons and for trying to mix religion into politics. But i also believe that he is capable of handling the job and will be a good president. maybe if they let her do more interviews then we have other things to talk about but stop the phony outrage. we have been talking about candidates religion for months now. even herreligion was showcased by Mccain camp so questioning it is also totally legitimate. by the way chaney hunts also bush=Mccain Chaney=Pailin
Oh really? So people should not have the right to self-determination? This answer is for GRIM too. Not really. I don't particularly care. Look, sometimes, you look at someone or hear about someone, and you like them. I like several authors whose books I have read, even though I know nothing about them, because I enjoyed their books, I like the author. Sarah Palin is from a remote state that has a lot of federal pork, but also a lot of rugged individualism. She is a tough lady, she hunts and fishes. She's a mom, and she's proud of it. And she said nice things about Ron Paul when everyone in his party was crapping on him. She might be for secession, the Alaskan secession movement believes so at least, and that's good enough for me. She seems to be the most genuine human (for better and for worse) of all 4 candidates. Obama is a black Max Headroom, Biden has actually championed sending people to jail and destroying families over victimless crimes, and McCain treats his wife like trash in public, which is the lowest a man can go (besides dropping bombs on Vietnamese civilians). That's it. I mean, the whole exercise is irrational. Sure enough, there is a war brewing with Pakistan, the Iraqis have demanded that the US withdraw, Russia is talking like we're gunna have WWIII, OPEC is crumbling, while the government divides up the loot and hands it to Wall Street without Congressional authority, and everyone is caught up in this stupid horse race, in an election that will be decided by Diebold, not the voters. So yeah, I like Sarah Palin and I don't think it will make a lick of difference one way or another if she did the bridge to nowhere or something else underhanded. After all, if elected [sic] McCain and his buddy Lieberman will be running the show on behalf of AIPAC and the banks, not Palin. And frankly, Obama's campaign is taking on water faster than Bin Laden's dialysis machine. At this rate, I don't see how Obama can win, this Palin selection, like it or not, has totally blown away any momentum he had, and any bump from Biden. It's the one thing McCain has done right in the election, it might be the only thing he does right, and I think it is good enough to win at this point. So instead of the socialist, we get the wannabee general with the Patton complex. Great.
You love her because she caught a fucking fish? And you have the gall to critisize pizza for his lame ass posts? She claims she was not for secession and did not attend any of their meetings. So she is either a liar or is not pro-secession. Another great reason for you to "love" her. You know what I think of these types of posts of yours. You often let your true feelings come out and they are precisely what they have always been. I can only thank God that your views of America and what is best for it are soundly and repeatedly rejected by the American people. At least you have your heroes and their radio shows.
Why might I ask are you for secession? If anything that is yet another turn off to me, I honestly don't like her one bit on anything that comes to government from what I have read so far. The few things that were possibles she ended up being just as bad if not worse, such as her own use of her mayor's office for her run for governor, being 'against' the bridge to nowhere only after she was 'for' it. Every possible item that would be positive has been axed out. So she said some good things about RP, that is nice and all, doesn't equate to even remotely a reason to support her. Being from a 'rough' state also is not a reason to support her in my book, nor is her outdoor woodsman side a reason to want her to run things in my book. IMHO she sucks just as bad as the others, if not worse. She's new, the only real reason there isn't more on her and what is there IMHO is pretty damn bad. She also gets to play the victim card way too much, which to me is yet another reason not to vote for her ticket. Who wants a VP who is going to always play the victim card ever chance they get? Not me...
That is what Tucker Carlson said. I never said I loved her. Did I? Yeah, because J-Street is a myth, and the Walt and Mearsheimer book is a myth, and Pat Buchanan is a myth, and Ron Paul is a myth, and Philip Weiss is a myth. Gimme a break. You make it sound like anyone who thinks that AIPAC is the most influential of the foreign lobbies, perhaps of all the lobbies is a nutjob, but ask yourself, what other lobby group has each candidate and their VP candidate had to speak in front of? Only AIPAC. You have some serious anger issues. You and I were getting along, and then you start flipping out on me from nowhere. I had you on ignore, maybe you should put me on ignore, because I'm tired of getting my ass reamed whenever you lose it. I won't be responding further. You're pro-Obama, you hate Palin, fine. You aren't doing a good job of hiding it, just like you don't do a good job of hiding your irrational defense of the Israeli state, regardless of what it does. Which again is fine. I don't need to call you on it, it is what it is. But I'm done with these attacks. It's total BS.
Then you wouldn't have liked Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Many of the Founding Fathers were Englishmen and seceded from the British Empire with the revolution. They believed in the right to self-determination by free men. They were willing to die to be free. That's what the Declaration is about. It says that man's rights come before the establishment of government (natural rights), and government is only created to maintain those rights, and if government gets out of control, the people also have the right to abolish it.
I honestly do not believe you can equate the founding fathers breaking off from the British to that of Alaska seceding. If anything it's a slap in the face of the founding fathers, saying 'fuck you' we don't agree with this nation, how you set this nation up. Standing up to the federal government I can see, standing up and refusing to give them power that was not given to them via the constitution I can see, slapping the founders in the face however is a totally different story.
@g help abolish this republican first. LOL they are more dangerous stop being irrational G. You have to accept that RP did not win. Move on. We have some real problems. She is as much of RP supporter or pro women issues as Clarance Thomas supports issues important to African Americans.
You're missing the point. It's not about Alaska specifically. It's about the right of free people to self-determination. Uhm, not all of the Founding Fathers weren't even for a Constitution, some of them wanted to stick with the Articles of Confederation (Patrick Henry IIRC). They set up the country as 13 independent states, with a federal government that was very limited, and really only handled interstate relations, national defense and foreign relations. They never set up what there is today. If you've read the article I posted about the Alaskan secessionists, the one lady pretty much makes the same case. Where is the slap in the face specifically? I'm missing it. I think we have a misunderstanding here.
No I actually am not, peoples right to self determination does not equate to a state seceding IMHO Of course the founders did not agree on everything, the fact remains the constitution was what we were founded upon. Some not being for it does not change the fact of what we have before us, what was implemented and what has kept this great nation in check for so many years. You yourself are for the constitution, how can you be for it, in such a case but be for secession? That does not change the fact that you can defy the federal government, basing it off the constitution and not bowing to federal pressure without the need to take your ball and go home. I see it as a slap in the face very easily. The founders no matter who agreed on it or not, this nation is based off of the constitution. The constitution last I checked does not give states the power to secede. It does not give the powers to the feds that they abuse today either 'which is another slap in the face', two slaps in the face in such a case does not make a right. In other words my belief in the constitution does not stop at individual rights, it carries over to state and federal rights. States should do everything in their power short of secession, something that is not empowered to them by the constitution as far as I'm aware to dispute and fight the federal governments over reaching power. If you allow secession there is truly no point in government in the fist place, each state can secede at it's own choosing. Texas can become primarily Mexican and secede losing land and states from foreign powers without even a fight. If a state can secede why can't a county, or a city? Where does it end? There are other ways to fight the federal governments over reaching power than secession.
Ok, GRIM I see you writing a response, but I am way past bedtime (again). I'm not saying I agree Alaska should secede. But I am pretty sure the Founders believed in the right to secede. Whether Alaska has a real movement for it, or worthwhile reasons for it, I dunno. But if you read the Declaration, and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, it seems to me that the Founders were pretty strong on the individual liberty and personal sovereignty. Maybe I wasn't clear about that. So yeah, I don't know if Alaska has a case for a train of usurpations, but I think it's quite safe to say the Founders did not believe people should have to live under a government that they find repressive. Of course, the Founders thought a 3% tax was repressive. So whatever.
Not all the founders were for the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, I also don't see them as secession but states rights which I have no problem with and encourage, you can fight for states rights w/o secession. The constitution was also the point the founders put out there to make certain such cases, as you brought up in the declaration did not occur. If they were for secession, they would have obviously put forth such a power to the states in the constitution. For people being so worried about such a situation they either are going to create a document to make certain such cases do not occur, and or include a method either in said document or apart from it if the document does not exist to give guidance and power to the states to secede. I do not see that being the case.
The right to nullify federal law, is basically the right of secession. Most people probably don't know that trial by jury also allows a jury the right to nullify a law if they feel it is unjust. Judges intentionally try to hide this, and if you tell them you are for nullification (or even know about nullification) they will not allow you on a jury. But if you look up jury nullification, it is a fundamental check by the citizenry on the courts, to prevent people for being punished for breaking bad laws. Ok, maybe I wasn't clear or precise before. I don't know if Alaska should secede. What I am saying, is that individuals have the right to separate from coercive institutions that do not represent them, and seek to harm their life and liberty. The Constitution does not give power to the states. It places limits on the federal government, by defining everything not allocated to the federal government, as a right of the states and people. The Founders were really paranoid about a too powerful Federal government, that is why the Constitution barely touches on the states, and focuses so much on checks and balances. By definition, everything that comes up that is not allocated as an area of responsibility of the federal government in the Constitution, even if it is new and has a national scope, by Constitutional definition, is a right of the states and people, unless an Amendment is made to add it to the powers and responsibilities of the Federal Government. Ok, I really gotta go to sleep now. I am so screwed for tomorrow. PS, remember, the Constitution institutes government, it is not the Declaration of Independence, which says that your individual rights come BEFORE the government, which comes AFTER the Constitution.
I don't honestly see secession as being even remotely the same as not following a federal law the state views as overreaching. One can buck the system without fully withdrawing yourself from it. Fair enough. True, however something as powerful as allowing the state to remove itself from the Union I honestly believe goes far and above allocating powers the feds do not have to the states. Yes, which is why I do not believe they were truly as a whole nor in the writing of the constitution for giving the states the rights to secede as they put the powers of checks and balances, to not allow federal tyranny to occur so that secession would not be required. I honestly believe that is a bit of a stretch, that's basically saying a state can dissolve itself should they want to, something I do not believe the intent of the constitution was, by having such a stance the 'union' is meaningless as the state can secede whenever they want to take their ball and go home. Sure appears like Congress has power to make rules and regulations regarding that of territory of the United States, would a state not be territory as in it's land mass of the United States?
@ guerilla I think people can relate to Sara Palin. Obama, McCain and Biden do not come off as being average citizens. Sara seems like an average American citizen with a streak of outdoors man. She hunts, fish, built a drift car and likes to hike and enjoy nature but not to the extreme of a tree hugging environmentalist. She is a wholesome mother of a family of 5. A normal family that's not spending 50,000 per month on private schools eating the finest meats and cheeses and shopping at Tiffany & Co. Sara family seems to like home-cook meals and shopping at Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart crowd may not seem like a special group to target to garner votes like the vocal gay & lesbian crowd or vocal pro-choice group but the wal-mart crowd is registered to vote and the numbers are the majority of registered voters. The choice to pick Palin was not a rush to pick a candidate as NPT is trying to lead everyone to believe but a calculated choice for the greater good of the American people. Sara is the hope and the change the United Stated need.
Ok, that sounds like Soviet propaganda dude. It's very scary. You need to check that. She's just another woman, not the mother to the nation. That is what was so scary about Clinton. She could be drafting your youngins to die in a foreign hot war, a place that most parents couldn't identify on a map, and sell it as her sacrifice as a mother of the nation that they have to go. Sarah is a smart, good looking woman, who gets a shot at the big time. She's not hope and change. That's just goofy. And NPT might be right, regardless, it's working out great for McCain, rushed or not. Maybe he just got lucky.
I started writing a long reply, I'd rather take it to PM because it's going way off topic. I'll PM you this evening. A good discussion thus far for sure. Thanks!
she is the backdoor for the neocons. don't be fooled. Look into it and think about it. when they couldn't get the nomination for their candidate they switched to trying to get in from the backdoor. You sound like an old man that is falling for a young girl's smile. why are they hiding her? what are they scared of us seeing?
Hmmm nice rep, so whoever posted this that does not have the balls to sign it, how is it 142 days? BTW the debate I had was on a different forum, but I'm sure this troll w/o balls is a member there as well.