THESHADOWBOX.NET

Miscellaneous Ephemera => Scream Of Consciousness => Current Events => Topic started by: J_Beck on July 03, 2009, 04:26:04 PM

Title: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on July 03, 2009, 04:26:04 PM
Resigning!

http://in.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idINN0318189620090703 (http://in.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idINN0318189620090703)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Schplynthia on July 03, 2009, 04:36:26 PM
Jesus.  The thought of Sarah Palin as the first woman President of the US just sent a shiver down my spine.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 03, 2009, 04:52:06 PM
Jesus.  The thought of Sarah Palin as the first woman President of the US just sent a shiver down my spine.

me too!

She has no chance though.  She is only liked by the republican loyalists.  Moderates hate her.

She does have a good shot at getting the republican nomination but this would just guarantee Obama's reelection.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Rob on July 03, 2009, 05:42:57 PM
She has no shot.  Her only hope was/is to ride in on the coat tails of a more prominant candidate.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 03, 2009, 05:48:58 PM
She has no shot.  Her only hope was/is to ride in on the coat tails of a more prominant candidate.

Do republicans have one right now?

...wait... I forgot about Newt Gingrich.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 03, 2009, 06:16:45 PM
Never underestimate the power of propaganda combined with human gullibility....

(Especially when you see how many districts are still using very vulnerable electronic voting
machines with no vote-verification receipts, and all manufactured by companies with close
ties to the GOP...  and the disturbing popularity of massive vote-by-mail initiatives.)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 03, 2009, 06:34:31 PM
Never underestimate the power of propaganda combined with human gullibility....

(Especially when you see how many districts are still using very vulnerable electronic voting
machines with no vote-verification receipts, and all manufactured by companies with close
ties to the GOP...  and the disturbing popularity of massive vote-by-mail initiatives.)

What would never work in America.  If Exit polls said Democrats won and the vote count said otherwise, AND machines were used there would be riots.  At least as bad as what's in Iran.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on July 03, 2009, 06:51:40 PM
Never underestimate the power of propaganda combined with human gullibility....

(Especially when you see how many districts are still using very vulnerable electronic voting
machines with no vote-verification receipts, and all manufactured by companies with close
ties to the GOP...  and the disturbing popularity of massive vote-by-mail initiatives.)

What would never work in America.  If Exit polls said Democrats won and the vote count said otherwise, AND machines were used there would be riots.  At least as bad as what's in Iran.

It has worked in the past, you just can't have it be as crazy of a "victory" as Ahmadinejad had.  Switching a few thousand votes though in a city or county, would not be that measurable and sometimes makes a difference in a swing state.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 03, 2009, 06:54:34 PM
Never underestimate the power of propaganda combined with human gullibility....

(Especially when you see how many districts are still using very vulnerable electronic voting
machines with no vote-verification receipts, and all manufactured by companies with close
ties to the GOP...  and the disturbing popularity of massive vote-by-mail initiatives.)

What would never work in America.  If Exit polls said Democrats won and the vote count said otherwise, AND machines were used there would be riots.  At least as bad as what's in Iran.

It has worked in the past, you just can't have it be as crazy of a "victory" as Ahmadinejad had.  Switching a few thousand votes though in a city or county, would not be that measurable and sometimes makes a difference in a swing state.

this is true but it has to be awfully close to work.

The Republican party is so damaged right now it just won't be that close... Newt MIGHT be able to get somewhere but I'm sure Palin would be crushed.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on July 03, 2009, 06:57:23 PM
Never underestimate the power of propaganda combined with human gullibility....

(Especially when you see how many districts are still using very vulnerable electronic voting
machines with no vote-verification receipts, and all manufactured by companies with close
ties to the GOP...  and the disturbing popularity of massive vote-by-mail initiatives.)

What would never work in America.  If Exit polls said Democrats won and the vote count said otherwise, AND machines were used there would be riots.  At least as bad as what's in Iran.

It has worked in the past, you just can't have it be as crazy of a "victory" as Ahmadinejad had.  Switching a few thousand votes though in a city or county, would not be that measurable and sometimes makes a difference in a swing state.

this is true but it has to be awfully close to work.

The Republican party is so damaged right now it just won't be that close... Newt MIGHT be able to get somewhere but I'm sure Palin would be crushed.

It wouldn't take much to make it believable, a few thousand votes in each precinct, keep doing that over and over you have some real numbers there.

Combine that with some creative purging of the voter rolls and it could be making some big differences.

The scary thing is how easy voter fraud really is with electronic machines
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 03, 2009, 07:01:10 PM
Never underestimate the power of propaganda combined with human gullibility....

(Especially when you see how many districts are still using very vulnerable electronic voting
machines with no vote-verification receipts, and all manufactured by companies with close
ties to the GOP...  and the disturbing popularity of massive vote-by-mail initiatives.)

What would never work in America.  If Exit polls said Democrats won and the vote count said otherwise, AND machines were used there would be riots.  At least as bad as what's in Iran.

It has worked in the past, you just can't have it be as crazy of a "victory" as Ahmadinejad had.  Switching a few thousand votes though in a city or county, would not be that measurable and sometimes makes a difference in a swing state.

this is true but it has to be awfully close to work.

The Republican party is so damaged right now it just won't be that close... Newt MIGHT be able to get somewhere but I'm sure Palin would be crushed.

It wouldn't take much to make it believable, a few thousand votes in each precinct, keep doing that over and over you have some real numbers there.

Combine that with some creative purging of the voter rolls and it could be making some big differences.

The scary thing is how easy voter fraud really is with electronic machines

A few thousand in each precinct would become more noticeable.  They can accurately gauge how many will be in the state and from there it won't matter how many precincts you divide it up into.

Not saying that it could not happen... just that it would be difficult even with electronic machines.  They would need to get a significant number of people to all go in on it.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 03, 2009, 07:05:04 PM
Never underestimate the power of propaganda combined with human gullibility....

(Especially when you see how many districts are still using very vulnerable electronic voting
machines with no vote-verification receipts, and all manufactured by companies with close
ties to the GOP...  and the disturbing popularity of massive vote-by-mail initiatives.)

What would never work in America.  If Exit polls said Democrats won and the vote count said otherwise, AND machines were used there would be riots.  At least as bad as what's in Iran.

It has worked in the past, you just can't have it be as crazy of a "victory" as Ahmadinejad had.  Switching a few thousand votes though in a city or county, would not be that measurable and sometimes makes a difference in a swing state.

this is true but it has to be awfully close to work.

The Republican party is so damaged right now it just won't be that close... Newt MIGHT be able to get somewhere but I'm sure Palin would be crushed.

It wouldn't take much to make it believable, a few thousand votes in each precinct, keep doing that over and over you have some real numbers there.

Combine that with some creative purging of the voter rolls and it could be making some big differences.

The scary thing is how easy voter fraud really is with electronic machines
In case you missed it, the last election for one of Minnesota's US Senate seats was eventually decided by
about 400 votes.  Dubya's 2000 election swung on some very dubious vote-counting methodologies in a
few counties in Florida, and lest we forget, it is widely believed that John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon
by the margin of a few thousand fraudulent votes in Illinois and Texas.


Anyway, the trick is simply to have more votes at the end of the election (Electoral Votes for the Presidency).
There's no need to try to make a "popular mandate", just a win.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 03, 2009, 07:16:41 PM

In case you missed it, the last election for one of Minnesota's US Senate seats was eventually decided by
about 400 votes.  Dubya's 2000 election swung on some very dubious vote-counting methodologies in a
few counties in Florida, and lest we forget, it is widely believed that John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon
by the margin of a few thousand fraudulent votes in Illinois and Texas.


Anyway, the trick is simply to have more votes at the end of the election (Electoral Votes for the Presidency).
There's no need to try to make a "popular mandate", just a win.

I addressed this basic idea with:

"this is true but it has to be awfully close to work.

The Republican party is so damaged right now it just won't be that close... Newt MIGHT be able to get somewhere but I'm sure Palin would be crushed."
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on July 03, 2009, 07:43:09 PM

In case you missed it, the last election for one of Minnesota's US Senate seats was eventually decided by
about 400 votes.  Dubya's 2000 election swung on some very dubious vote-counting methodologies in a
few counties in Florida, and lest we forget, it is widely believed that John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon
by the margin of a few thousand fraudulent votes in Illinois and Texas.


Anyway, the trick is simply to have more votes at the end of the election (Electoral Votes for the Presidency).
There's no need to try to make a "popular mandate", just a win.

I addressed this basic idea with:

"this is true but it has to be awfully close to work.

The Republican party is so damaged right now it just won't be that close... Newt MIGHT be able to get somewhere but I'm sure Palin would be crushed."

Didn't 2004 start the "permanent Republican majority"?

There is no telling what the political landscape will look like in 2012.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 03, 2009, 11:10:18 PM

In case you missed it, the last election for one of Minnesota's US Senate seats was eventually decided by
about 400 votes.  Dubya's 2000 election swung on some very dubious vote-counting methodologies in a
few counties in Florida, and lest we forget, it is widely believed that John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon
by the margin of a few thousand fraudulent votes in Illinois and Texas.


Anyway, the trick is simply to have more votes at the end of the election (Electoral Votes for the Presidency).
There's no need to try to make a "popular mandate", just a win.

I addressed this basic idea with:

"this is true but it has to be awfully close to work.

The Republican party is so damaged right now it just won't be that close... Newt MIGHT be able to get somewhere but I'm sure Palin would be crushed."

Didn't 2004 start the "permanent Republican majority"?

No, I never heard anyone say that till just now.  Maybe a few people thought that but no where near as broad of a consensus as what we have now that the republicans will need a long time to recover.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on July 03, 2009, 11:31:36 PM

In case you missed it, the last election for one of Minnesota's US Senate seats was eventually decided by
about 400 votes.  Dubya's 2000 election swung on some very dubious vote-counting methodologies in a
few counties in Florida, and lest we forget, it is widely believed that John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon
by the margin of a few thousand fraudulent votes in Illinois and Texas.


Anyway, the trick is simply to have more votes at the end of the election (Electoral Votes for the Presidency).
There's no need to try to make a "popular mandate", just a win.

I addressed this basic idea with:

"this is true but it has to be awfully close to work.

The Republican party is so damaged right now it just won't be that close... Newt MIGHT be able to get somewhere but I'm sure Palin would be crushed."

Didn't 2004 start the "permanent Republican majority"?

No, I never heard anyone say that till just now.  Maybe a few people thought that but no where near as broad of a consensus as what we have now that the republicans will need a long time to recover.

Karl Rove and many in the GOP talked about it after their "big" win in 2004 (well big atleast compared to 2000).

All the GOP needs is 1 good candidate to be a threat for Obama, and with alot of the early front runners being knocked out this far in advanced there is a chance for some unknowns to come out of the woodwork.

Where was Bill Clinton in 89?

Even with Obama he was not on the short list, people thought he would possibly run in early 2005 but even the nomination would have been thought to be a very long shot.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 04, 2009, 12:15:56 AM
Karl Rove and many in the GOP talked about it after their "big" win in 2004 (well big atleast compared to 2000).

Party loyalists like Rove always exaggerate their accomplishments.  Now we even have republicans who think that party is screwed.

All the GOP needs is 1 good candidate to be a threat for Obama, and with alot of the early front runners being knocked out this far in advanced there is a chance for some unknowns to come out of the woodwork.

The GOP needs one REALLY good candidate with the way things are right now.  Now it would help them if the economy took a sudden dive before election time but that is not likely as a huge recession has probably just bottomed out.

It is very likely that the economy will be looking much better before election time no matter how much credit Obama's programs actually deserve (the recession had to bottom out eventually...) he will easily take credit for it.  With a fixed economy under his belt nobody the republicans could ever hope to find will have a chance against Obama.

Business cycle theory is never certain but I do have a degree in economics and I did enough independent study in this field to have a good idea about this current recession before it hit so I feel reasonably confident in my estimate that the economy will look better before the next election.

Where was Bill Clinton in 89?

Even with Obama he was not on the short list, people thought he would possibly run in early 2005 but even the nomination would have been thought to be a very long shot.

Clinton and Obama had a much more favorable political climates than the next GOP candidate is likely to have.  They also had much greater "likability" than any potential GOP candidates that I'm aware of.

After thinking it over I think Newt Gingrich has an excellent shot at the nomination.  He is a very eloquent speaker and will probably give Obama a rougher time in the debates than McCain did but if I'm right about the economy picking up it will all be for naught.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Andy Pants on July 04, 2009, 02:43:35 AM
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/voting_machines_elect_one_of (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/voting_machines_elect_one_of)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 04, 2009, 04:54:40 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/voting_machines_elect_one_of (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/voting_machines_elect_one_of)

The onion is great!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: hateandjealousy on July 05, 2009, 11:48:20 AM
Palin is plotting an attack on America and abortion clinics, that's why she left.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 05, 2009, 05:37:06 PM
BUT SERIOUSLY.......

She's planning to run for President in 2012 (duh...) and  someone finally beat into her head that she
could be the most incredible governor Alaska has ever had, or ever will have, and it still wouldn't give
her  any political  leverage in the other 49 states.  That is, she  NEEDS to get down to the lower 48,
and  there just aren't  enough excuses for the governor  of AK to do  all that out-of-state travelling
without handing every future opponent a big absentee-officeholder stick to beat her with.

Watch for her to become a regular feature at far-Right-interest-group functions betweeen now and 2011,
when we'll find out if she's acquired enough in-party clout to bully her way onto the GOP ballot for '12.
(Sadly for her, her influence outside the Republican Party will still be nonexistent, so her presence on any
such ticket will once again prove a liability.)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Andy Pants on July 05, 2009, 07:59:56 PM
BUT SERIOUSLY.......

She's planning to run for President in 2012 (duh...) and  someone finally beat into her head that she
could be the most incredible governor Alaska has ever had, or ever will have, and it still wouldn't give
her  any political  leverage in the other 49 states.  That is, she  NEEDS to get down to the lower 48,
and  there just aren't  enough excuses for the governor  of AK to do  all that out-of-state travelling
without handing every future opponent a big absentee-officeholder stick to beat her with.

Watch for her to become a regular feature at far-Right-interest-group functions betweeen now and 2011,
when we'll find out if she's acquired enough in-party clout to bully her way onto the GOP ballot for '12.
(Sadly for her, her influence outside the Republican Party will still be nonexistent, so her presence on any
such ticket will once again prove a liability.)

If she does become the Republican candidate in 2012 then the future looks pretty bright for the Obama administration. Isn't it possible that she's become such an embarassment to her party that she's simply been encouraged to move out of a position in which she might be under the media spotlight?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 05, 2009, 11:17:19 PM
BUT SERIOUSLY.......

She's planning to run for President in 2012 (duh...) and  someone finally beat into her head that she
could be the most incredible governor Alaska has ever had, or ever will have, and it still wouldn't give
her  any political  leverage in the other 49 states.  That is, she  NEEDS to get down to the lower 48,
and  there just aren't  enough excuses for the governor  of AK to do  all that out-of-state travelling
without handing every future opponent a big absentee-officeholder stick to beat her with.

Watch for her to become a regular feature at far-Right-interest-group functions betweeen now and 2011,
when we'll find out if she's acquired enough in-party clout to bully her way onto the GOP ballot for '12.
(Sadly for her, her influence outside the Republican Party will still be nonexistent, so her presence on any
such ticket will once again prove a liability.)

If she does become the Republican candidate in 2012 then the future looks pretty bright for the Obama administration. Isn't it possible that she's become such an embarassment to her party that she's simply been encouraged to move out of a position in which she might be under the media spotlight?
Watch and see.....

The thing is, much as the GOP's pragmatic we'd-like-to-get-back-into-office-someday people
would like [her, Cheney, the Governor of SC, Rush Limbaugh...] to go away and never be heard
from again, those people just won't play along.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on July 06, 2009, 02:09:40 PM
BUT SERIOUSLY.......

She's planning to run for President in 2012 (duh...) and  someone finally beat into her head that she
could be the most incredible governor Alaska has ever had, or ever will have, and it still wouldn't give
her  any political  leverage in the other 49 states.  That is, she  NEEDS to get down to the lower 48,
and  there just aren't  enough excuses for the governor  of AK to do  all that out-of-state travelling
without handing every future opponent a big absentee-officeholder stick to beat her with.

Watch for her to become a regular feature at far-Right-interest-group functions betweeen now and 2011,
when we'll find out if she's acquired enough in-party clout to bully her way onto the GOP ballot for '12.
(Sadly for her, her influence outside the Republican Party will still be nonexistent, so her presence on any
such ticket will once again prove a liability.)

If she does become the Republican candidate in 2012 then the future looks pretty bright for the Obama administration. Isn't it possible that she's become such an embarassment to her party that she's simply been encouraged to move out of a position in which she might be under the media spotlight?
Watch and see.....

The thing is, much as the GOP's pragmatic we'd-like-to-get-back-into-office-someday people
would like [her, Cheney, the Governor of SC, Rush Limbaugh...] to go away and never be heard
from again, those people just won't play along.

She wont win the nomination, she has her fans in the GOP but most will view her as a quitter.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 06, 2009, 03:16:56 PM
BUT SERIOUSLY.......

She's planning to run for President in 2012 (duh...) and  someone finally beat into her head that she
could be the most incredible governor Alaska has ever had, or ever will have, and it still wouldn't give
her  any political  leverage in the other 49 states.  That is, she  NEEDS to get down to the lower 48,
and  there just aren't  enough excuses for the governor  of AK to do  all that out-of-state travelling
without handing every future opponent a big absentee-officeholder stick to beat her with.

Watch for her to become a regular feature at far-Right-interest-group functions betweeen now and 2011,
when we'll find out if she's acquired enough in-party clout to bully her way onto the GOP ballot for '12.
(Sadly for her, her influence outside the Republican Party will still be nonexistent, so her presence on any
such ticket will once again prove a liability.)

If she does become the Republican candidate in 2012 then the future looks pretty bright for the Obama administration. Isn't it possible that she's become such an embarassment to her party that she's simply been encouraged to move out of a position in which she might be under the media spotlight?
Watch and see.....

The thing is, much as the GOP's pragmatic we'd-like-to-get-back-into-office-someday people
would like [her, Cheney, the Governor of SC, Rush Limbaugh...] to go away and never be heard
from again, those people just won't play along.

She wont win the nomination, she has her fans in the GOP but most will view her as a quitter.
I agree that  there's no way for  her to accumulate  enough chips to get the top spot, but in some
ways  2012 will be  just like 2008 -  a woman on the ticket will still play to female voters who don't
get the fact that the Republicans really don't give a shit about them as a class of person.  Further,
if she  attends enough  Bible-thumping rallies,  anti-abortion protests  (with special-needs son and
daughter/unplanned-grandson  dragged shamelessly along), and gun shows,  she may accumulate
enough allies in the extremist factions of the party to win her the #2 spot.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on July 06, 2009, 05:15:22 PM
BUT SERIOUSLY.......

She's planning to run for President in 2012 (duh...) and  someone finally beat into her head that she
could be the most incredible governor Alaska has ever had, or ever will have, and it still wouldn't give
her  any political  leverage in the other 49 states.  That is, she  NEEDS to get down to the lower 48,
and  there just aren't  enough excuses for the governor  of AK to do  all that out-of-state travelling
without handing every future opponent a big absentee-officeholder stick to beat her with.

Watch for her to become a regular feature at far-Right-interest-group functions betweeen now and 2011,
when we'll find out if she's acquired enough in-party clout to bully her way onto the GOP ballot for '12.
(Sadly for her, her influence outside the Republican Party will still be nonexistent, so her presence on any
such ticket will once again prove a liability.)

If she does become the Republican candidate in 2012 then the future looks pretty bright for the Obama administration. Isn't it possible that she's become such an embarassment to her party that she's simply been encouraged to move out of a position in which she might be under the media spotlight?
Watch and see.....

The thing is, much as the GOP's pragmatic we'd-like-to-get-back-into-office-someday people
would like [her, Cheney, the Governor of SC, Rush Limbaugh...] to go away and never be heard
from again, those people just won't play along.

She wont win the nomination, she has her fans in the GOP but most will view her as a quitter.
I agree that  there's no way for  her to accumulate  enough chips to get the top spot, but in some
ways  2012 will be  just like 2008 -  a woman on the ticket will still play to female voters who don't
get the fact that the Republicans really don't give a shit about them as a class of person.  Further,
if she  attends enough  Bible-thumping rallies,  anti-abortion protests  (with special-needs son and
daughter/unplanned-grandson  dragged shamelessly along), and gun shows,  she may accumulate
enough allies in the extremist factions of the party to win her the #2 spot.

And where is Mitt Romney now??
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 06, 2009, 08:34:56 PM
And where is Mitt Romney now??

Honestly I think he was the most electable candidate the GOP had last election.  But all the bigots in that party won't support a Mormon so he won't make it.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 06, 2009, 08:49:08 PM
Rush Limbaugh will get the number one spot.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 06, 2009, 08:53:57 PM
Rush Limbaugh will get the number one spot.

If he enters the race all democrats should donate to his primary campaign O0
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 06, 2009, 11:52:45 PM
If he had a chance of securing the nomination, I'd switch my registration to republican so I could vote for him in the primaries.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 07, 2009, 12:22:15 AM
If he had a chance of securing the nomination, I'd switch my registration to republican so I could vote for him in the primaries.

Wait a sec.....

Under Federal election law, if he were on the ballot, he'd have to take a vacation from his radio show,
wouldn't he?   I'm in!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Cheddars Cousin on July 07, 2009, 11:38:31 AM
Rush Limbaugh will get the number one spot.

In Hell!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: music box on July 07, 2009, 12:08:44 PM
i think she might run for a higher office. however, if her family is a true concern she might try to stay out of the spotlight for a while.

like that will happen, though. people are all over her 24/7.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on July 07, 2009, 12:42:30 PM
She quit the last job before running for Governor, maybe she thinks it's a good strategy?

If that is the case she needs to look back a little more:

She claimed to leave the previous job because it was too corrupt, this makes sense to voters especially in a state where this is a huge issue.

This time she has none of those potential positives and only the label quitter.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: music box on July 07, 2009, 03:58:46 PM
if she has a strategy i don't see it. i think this is kind of bizarre and out of nowhere.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 07, 2009, 04:21:46 PM
if she has a strategy i don't see it. i think this is kind of bizarre and out of nowhere.

I agree.  I don't think she is running for 2012 because this is such a horrible thing to do if she is.  She is probably retiring from politics or at least taking a big vacation.  She might just do a book tour or become a lobbyist or something.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: music box on July 07, 2009, 04:25:31 PM
i don't think she'll try for president in 2012. if anything i think she might run for senate.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 07, 2009, 07:13:19 PM
I just had a kinda frightening thought......

In 1960, JFK defeated his Republican adversary for the Presidency, and that fellow went back
to California and declared:


YOU WON'T HAVE NIXON TO KICK AROUND ANYMORE....   :o 
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on July 08, 2009, 12:13:37 AM
She's cashing out. She'll never be as well-known and popular as she is right now, so...here comes the radio/cable TV deal and a ghostwritten book.

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 08, 2009, 12:49:04 AM
She's cashing out. She'll never be as well-known and popular as she is right now, so...here comes the radio/cable TV deal and a ghostwritten book.

#@!

You've seen the ego...  Do you really think she'll ever 'just go away'?    :angry7:
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: music box on July 08, 2009, 02:13:50 AM
a radio and/or tv show is always possible.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on July 08, 2009, 12:27:57 PM
She's cashing out. She'll never be as well-known and popular as she is right now, so...here comes the radio/cable TV deal and a ghostwritten book.

#@!

You've seen the ego...  Do you really think she'll ever 'just go away'?    :angry7:

who said anything about going away? All I'm saying is that her earning ability is peaking as we speak. Given that she's unemployed w/o insurance at the moment, I fully expect (and endorse) her to market herself in every way imaginable.

well, almost every way.  ^-^

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 08, 2009, 01:56:12 PM
She's cashing out. She'll never be as well-known and popular as she is right now, so...here comes the radio/cable TV deal and a ghostwritten book.

#@!

You've seen the ego...  Do you really think she'll ever 'just go away'?    :angry7:

who said anything about going away? All I'm saying is that her earning ability is peaking as we speak. Given that she's unemployed w/o insurance at the moment, I fully expect (and endorse) her to market herself in every way imaginable.

well, almost every way.  ^-^

#@!
They've got abundant cash in the bank (even if you just count what they had to disclose in electoral
paperwork last year).  She's already got the book deal and "assistant" writer, and there's almost certainly a
waiting list to get her to speak at rallies and the like.  I don't see her tying herself down to a long-term, standing
commitment like a radio show, though.


Our own Doug Wilder did that the other way around:
Governor => wannabe-Presidential candidate => radio host => pain-in-the-ass-mayor...
...and a back-room-meeting', favor-trading wheeler & dealer all the way...
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Lyzardly on July 08, 2009, 01:59:05 PM
And where is Mitt Romney now??

Honestly I think he was the most electable candidate the GOP had last election.  But all the bigots in that party won't support a Mormon so he won't make it.

I think Mitt was more damaged at least as much, if not more, by the fact that he was Governor of a state that legalized gay marriage than he was by being a Mormon. While there are far-right fundamentalists who believe that Mormonism is a cult, I think some are feeling the Mormon church is being unfairly attacked for its support of Prop 8... creating a sort of brothers in arms feeling.

At this point, enter Jon Huntsman to the 2012 quest for the ballot. Huntsman has worked with Reagan, Bush Sr., Dubya, and has accepted Obama's nomination of him as Ambassador to China. He's conservative on the wedge issues - abortion, gun control, gay marriage (while supporting civil unions), but is less conservative on environmental issues and healthcare. He's no Al Gore, but I think he's the best option for the Republican party to appeal to moderates without completely alienating the extreme right wing of the party.

As for Palin, I think she is going to everything she can to keep herself in the public spotlight as a Hockey Mom who is active in issues she cares about. I also think she will seek the nomination because she was so close to the White House she could taste it and I don't think she has ever acknowledged that she ever lost any votes for the Republican party. I don't think she will get on the ticket, but you never can tell.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: music box on July 08, 2009, 04:02:20 PM
i was prepared to vote for romney. i was angry about voting for mccain.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on July 08, 2009, 05:08:32 PM
i was prepared to vote for romney. i was angry about voting for mccain.

I wouldn't be, he messed up Massachusetts pretty badly

His idea of budget-cutting was about half a billion out of education, which basically paralyze our universities for awhile
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 08, 2009, 06:53:11 PM
Education is the duty of the Church. It's all that book larnin' that gets people tryin' to impose financial regulation so everyone doesn't get ass fucked by the halfwit dipshits that keep pretending the finacial system is simple enough that real education isn't necessary.


Fucking. Hell.


FACT. Lack of regulation has made a mess of this country. Not trying to be mean, Music Box, but the fact that someone can really, still lament the choice of Republicans one had is baffling. The only way anyone has been able to even hint that something other than republican fiscal ideology is responsible for the harm that has been done to so many people in this country and around the world, is to mine the facts ion such a way as to DECEIVE people regarding the nature and impact of the Community Reinvestment Act.

It's 2009. The republicans were, it turns out, officially wrong.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 08, 2009, 10:24:23 PM
...and while that doesn't necessarily mean the Dems are "right", it hasn't been disproven, yet.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 08, 2009, 10:35:56 PM
As far as the assertion that better regulation is vital, there isn't much else needed in the way of proof. Of course, that proof has cycled through history many times. When things get good, and the imaginary castles are being built faster than real materials can sustain them, profiteers, once again, will find ways to draw that fuel from the people. The catch is, without a financially solvent population, it all... falls... down. Socially, I am a liberal, but I am a fiscal liberal. Booyah.

Just tax the people less, right? People don't need to understand economics or institutionalized larceny as long as everyone works hard. No matter that there are more effective policies to keep dollars in the hands of the people than tax breaks and cuts... especially when those cuts are always balanced by local (even less efficiently applied) levies.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Cheddars Cousin on July 08, 2009, 11:48:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/aEdXrfIMdiU
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 09, 2009, 12:07:54 AM
Democrats were definitely too conservative back then.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 09, 2009, 01:12:26 AM
Imagine, if you will, that you're driving down the road, and you come to an intersection....

Should you turn left, right, or not at all?

The correct answer, as is obvious to sensible folk, is:
D - Not enough information...



If circumstances warrant it, taxes should be cut...  in other circumstances, they should be raised...
These days, everyone in Washington seems too busy sticking his (or her) head up the Party's ass,
to unwilling to consider whethet "party line" is the right thing to do...

It's one of the things I quite admired about SENATOR McCain, but he clearly abandoned the habits
that had made him a true "maverick" when he signed on to run for President.  It's too bad the label
became a joke, because when he was willing to think for himself, he was a damn good Senator.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on July 09, 2009, 01:13:08 AM
She's cashing out. She'll never be as well-known and popular as she is right now, so...here comes the radio/cable TV deal and a ghostwritten book.

#@!

You've seen the ego...  Do you really think she'll ever 'just go away'?    :angry7:

who said anything about going away? All I'm saying is that her earning ability is peaking as we speak. Given that she's unemployed w/o insurance at the moment, I fully expect (and endorse) her to market herself in every way imaginable.

well, almost every way.  ^-^

#@!
They've got abundant cash in the bank (even if you just count what they had to disclose in electoral
paperwork last year).  She's already got the book deal and "assistant" writer, and there's almost certainly a
waiting list to get her to speak at rallies and the like.  I don't see her tying herself down to a long-term, standing
commitment like a radio show, though.


Our own Doug Wilder did that the other way around:
Governor => wannabe-Presidential candidate => radio host => pain-in-the-ass-mayor...
...and a back-room-meeting', favor-trading wheeler & dealer all the way...


define "abundant"

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 09, 2009, 06:37:33 PM
Imagine, if you will, that you're driving down the road, and you come to an intersection....

Should you turn left, right, or not at all?

The correct answer, as is obvious to sensible folk, is:
D - Not enough information...



If circumstances warrant it, taxes should be cut...  in other circumstances, they should be raised...
These days, everyone in Washington seems too busy sticking his (or her) head up the Party's ass,
to unwilling to consider whethet "party line" is the right thing to do...

It's one of the things I quite admired about SENATOR McCain, but he clearly abandoned the habits
that had made him a true "maverick" when he signed on to run for President.  It's too bad the label
became a joke, because when he was willing to think for himself, he was a damn good Senator.

Right, and in the circumstances that have been built over the last twenty-eight years, the tax issue has become so disproportionately central to economioc discussions that we are in crisis. It has favored the right for most of that stretch. We know, in quaintifiable terms, what percentage of tax breaks make it back into the economy. The fact is, food stamps are a more effective stimulus. The things society is coming to realize need to be done, will have to be paid for with public funds. These changes in society will take work. Workers and money. Things will be produced. People are so willing to spend money to fight wars that produce nothing, but a war against unsustainibilty and crumbling infrastructure is too rich for our blood. That's madness.

Fuck party line. I don't give a shit about it either, and when a republican idea seems right (like defense of the Second Amendment) I will support it. For now, the issue is about building a system that will cost us less, down the road, in energy, health care and loss of productivity due to economic disenfranchisement. We need to spend money on that now, and there is only one entity with that ability. The people... and yes, even the whiners need to pitch in.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: music box on July 10, 2009, 09:46:38 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_resignation (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_resignation)

this kid is starting to get annoying.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 10, 2009, 12:55:32 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_resignation (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_resignation)

this kid is starting to get annoying.
...and yet, he & Bristol P. are clearly the perfect couple.  They should get a trailer together, and
she can sponge off mom & dad, and he can have a thing with the skinny waitress at the bar in
town, and someday he can murder her in a drunken rage and die in a shootout with the police.
(His rage will have been the result of her just never shutting up about the whole "we ought to
get married" thing...  )

Either that, or he'll move to California and star in Paris Hilton's next movie...  then move on to porn.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 10, 2009, 02:24:33 PM
FACT. Lack of regulation has made a mess of this country. Not trying to be mean, Music Box, but the fact that someone can really, still lament the choice of Republicans one had is baffling. The only way anyone has been able to even hint that something other than republican fiscal ideology is responsible for the harm that has been done to so many people in this country and around the world, is to mine the facts ion such a way as to DECEIVE people regarding the nature and impact of the Community Reinvestment Act.

Non economists tend to feel a lot more certain of this "FACT" than macro economists are...

There are a lot of things going on in an economy we still don't have the tools necessary to gauge exactly how big of an impact each one has relative to one another.

You sound so sure that it was the deregulation that made such a mess but how much have you studied Monetary policy?  I'm willing to bet heavily you have not looked at it very much and that is very common.  People who have not had formal economics education think so much about fiscal policy and just ignore monetary which seems to have a more direct effect on how well the economy functions.  I mean really... you hear main stream pundits and politicians go on and on about a 2% tax cut as if that really was going to matter but than say next to nothing about something as crazy as a sustained 1% interest rate.  Before every major recession there was a lot of credit expansion.  This was the case with the great depression, a lot of the troubles during the late 70s and 80s and Alan Greenspan did it again during the Clinton and early Bush years.

Business cycle theory is a very difficult subject so different economists will give different answers depending on their own biases but many economists would back me up when I say this:

1) There are a lot of subtle mechanics in an economy that result in the business cycle.  Nobody is totally certain how this works and nobody can say with any confidence that we would not have had at least a minor recession no matter what.  It is just a question of what might have caused it to be particularly deep.  It is possible that since our economy has been relatively stable for so long that we were overdue.  Here is one possible explanation of the business cycle that I think sounds very plausible:

Quote
A better understanding of economics would help people understand our financial crisis. The only sustainable way to improve the economy is to increase productivity. Productivity increases are only possible by the formation or saving up of capital goods, goods that are used to ultimately create consumer goods. The Fed's policy of continually injecting money into the economy follows the false Keynesian idea that spending drives the economy. Increasing the money supply doesn't increase capital goods, but diverts them from their most appropriate use, causing artificial booms that wouldn't have happened on a free market. The busts are inevitable because the boom is unsustainable.

Interest is a price of sorts, the price of borrowing money. The supply of money is provided by savers, and the demand for money comes from borrowers. The natural interest rate is where that supply and demand intersect. The Fed's interventionist policies prevent the free market rate of interest from occurring, and essentially creates an interest price control. They inject new money not backed by real savings, and thus create unsustainable booms that cause the business cycle.

Because it is an interventionist policy, the Fed faces the calculation problem: they have no way of knowing what the actual interest rate should be. The Fed has tried to improve the economy with these unsustainable booms unbacked by real savings, real capital, but economic reality cannot forever be evaded--the bust is inevitable as the market tries to correct for the economic disruption that has been caused.

Basically, if this theory is accurate and I certainly think it could be, than a large part of the reason why our economy was relatively stable for so long could have been because the Fed kept propping it up all these years with bubble after bubble and we are paying for some of that now.

2) The terribly expensive war in Iraq could be a large part of what made this recession worse than normal.

3) The housing bubble probably hurt even more than the war did.  And the housing bubble would have certainly been MUCH smaller if not for Alan Greenspan's decision to keep interest rates far too low for too long.  Greenspan himself acknowledged this mistake.

4) There is probably some truth to the idea that certain regulations will increase stability.  In particular, limits on how much leverage banks of various types can use is likely to help.  BUT such regulation might only be necessary when there is a lot of credit expansion because very easy credit makes borrowing seem a lot more attractive than proper interest rates do.

I think it is possible that the half-assed "free market" that republicans aim for is actually less stable than either European style socialism, like what you want, or an actual free market, which would mean market determined interest rates like what libertarians want.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 10, 2009, 09:34:35 PM
I'm actually usually pretty on guard over the fact that most of my information is derived from macro-economists. I am surely a layman, but I follow the Wall Street Journal, NPR and The Economist religiously. Ten of the last thirteen books I have read have been about the state and fate of the economy. I have recommendations, if you would like some. There are questions about what would have happened under other circumstances, but the mechanics of the economy crashed due to some very specific mechanisms. Credit default swaps, as abstract as they may seem, are actually pretty easy to explain. Derivatives, which are actually pretty convoluted, are demonstrably dangerous. The competing theory, that of what republicans call (the forcing of banks, by the government, to make loans to people who couldn't pay them" is verifiably mistated. Sure, we can speculate as to what regulations ought to have been in place, but the fact that the unregulated economy has been our downfall is pretty much a lock. If you want to debate details, I'm all for it. I take it you have studied economics?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 10, 2009, 09:49:50 PM
I'm actually usually pretty on guard over the fact that most of my information is derived from macro-economists. I am surely a layman, but I follow the Wall Street Journal, NPR and The Economist religiously. Ten of the last thirteen books I have read have been about the state and fate of the economy. I have recommendations, if you would like some. There are questions about what would have happened under other circumstances, but the mechanics of the economy crashed due to some very specific mechanisms. Credit default swaps, as abstract as they may seem, are actually pretty easy to explain. Derivatives, which are actually pretty convoluted, are demonstrably dangerous. The competing theory, that of what republicans call (the forcing of banks, by the government, to make loans to people who couldn't pay them" is verifiably mistated. Sure, we can speculate as to what regulations ought to have been in place, but the fact that the unregulated economy has been our downfall is pretty much a lock. If you want to debate details, I'm all for it. I take it you have studied economics?

I have a BS in economics.

I addressed the points you made in this post with:

"There is probably some truth to the idea that certain regulations will increase stability.  In particular, limits on how much leverage banks of various types can use is likely to help.  BUT such regulation might only be necessary when there is a lot of credit expansion because very easy credit makes borrowing seem a lot more attractive than proper interest rates do."

In my last post.  Basically I think it is true that certain regulations could have stopped this but I think tighter credit may have simply made this unnecessary because tighter credit makes it seem a lot less appealing to expand your debt.  And all of those fancy mechanisms like credit default swaps that contributed to the instability of the financial market boil down to expanding debt.

The financial market is not the whole economy either.  No matter how confident you are about certain things contributing to it's collapse there are still other things going on in the economy.  In particular, taking a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of men in prime working age out of the economy is terrible for productivity (I'm talking about the war of course).

Also, back in the 70s and 80s we had some minor collapses of financial markets while regulations from the depression area were a bit tighter.  This is why I think the bigger relationship that recessions have with one another is the credit expansion.

In the modern world this is done by central banks but in the past this kind of thing also happened when a lot of new gold was discovered or when governments did something to inflate the currency.

It is easy to find a long, LOOOOOONNNNGGG list of examples of huge booms followed by huge busts right after credit expansion in an economy.  Meanwhile it is much harder to find such a rich history of regulations affecting such things.

Once again, I'm not saying that the deregulation was not a factor, just that I think it is a much weaker one.  Even when regulations are tighter there are always plenty of examples of companies finding interesting ways around said regulations.  In particular, credit default swaps were conceived just to get around an already existing regulation on how much banks could loan.


Basically, what I'm getting at is that the economy has always had unstable mechanics that are tempting to just outlaw but before such regulation and before even central banks these were often kept in check with market determined interest rates.  Sure there was still a boom and a bust cycle, but busts were generally short unless the government did something big such as fighting a huge war which is always bad in any system.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 10, 2009, 10:23:25 PM
I don't think we should necessarily outlaw any of the financial tools that have been abused, but I think some of them should be made less attractive. The path of a bill should be traceable, and there should be platforms of responsibility. Obviously, mass psychology plays a huge role in the economy, and there is little way to control that. Consumer and investor confidence will wax and wane like a heartbeat, but what is the difference between that crashing an economy and just slowing it a bit? How can we allow the movers of money to take chances with the money of people who aren't even aware of how it is being gambled? When it is suggested that we watch more carefully and control the degree to which this happens, the Right cries "Communism!"

...or even funnier, "Personal responsibility!"

If we are going to rely upon an entire community to do the right thing, we will never mitigate risk. The government can help. It can also help us out of this mess, and that is going to require spending. It doesn't take a financial genius to understand that producing something is a more efficient expenditure than destroying, but the Right tends to be so comfortable with spending on war... and so apprehensive about spending on bettering our communities. For all the discussion of the net gain or loss from green technologies, if the $700 billion that has gone into the Iraq War had gone into such things, we would have better economic prospects. We'd still have the economy around the production of the systems. We'd have an new industry, and it would produce something we use anyway.

What am I missing?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 10, 2009, 10:50:19 PM
I don't think we should necessarily outlaw any of the financial tools that have been abused, but I think some of them should be made less attractive. The path of a bill should be traceable, and there should be platforms of responsibility. Obviously, mass psychology plays a huge role in the economy, and there is little way to control that. Consumer and investor confidence will wax and wane like a heartbeat, but what is the difference between that crashing an economy and just slowing it a bit? How can we allow the movers of money to take chances with the money of people who aren't even aware of how it is being gambled? When it is suggested that we watch more carefully and control the degree to which this happens, the Right cries "Communism!"

I defiantly think that mass psychology and fluctuations in consumer confidence are a major part of the business cycle.  But to be honest I think that the constant creation of financial tools to fool people is also a near unavoidable part of the economy that will continue no matter what regulation does.  Many on the fiscal left have tried to act like that recent recession is so different because of a huge unprecedented lack of regulation but I don't think the instability from these tools is fundamentally anything new.  It's just a small portion of what has always gone on in an economy that is mind-bogglingly complex.

If we are going to rely upon an entire community to do the right thing, we will never mitigate risk. The government can help.

As I already said a few times, I agree that certain regulations might curtail the over leveraging but the government can also do a lot to hurt.  In particular Alan Greenspan did a lot to hurt and contribute to the housing bubble by holding interest rates way down for so long.

You have not yet addressed my belief that bad monetary policy is a huge portion of what made this recession so much larger than normal but this particular piece of business cycle theory is a very important part how how I think the economy works.  Do you agree that tighter credit would by itself do a lot to deter the over leveraging that helped make our economy so unstable?

It can also help us out of this mess, and that is going to require spending.   It doesn't take a financial genius to understand that producing something is a more efficient expenditure than destroying, but the Right tends to be so comfortable with spending on war... and so apprehensive about spending on bettering our communities. For all the discussion of the net gain or loss from green technologies, if the $700 billion that has gone into the Iraq War had gone into such things, we would have better economic prospects. We'd still have the economy around the production of the systems. We'd have an new industry, and it would produce something we use anyway.

What am I missing?

This part is not missing much at all.  You are preaching to the choir if you want to tell me that war spending is far dumber than domestic spending. O0

Quote
It can also help us out of this mess, and that is going to require spending

Well... this really depends on just how much the crowding out effect crushes what is spent.  There is a lot of evidence that the crowding out effect is not one-to-one because of all the lagging mechanics in the market but the benefit in the economy from government spending are further diminished when they spend the money on non-productive goods such as bombs or unnecessary infrastructure.

Pork spending, which is always defended by the party in power as a source of job creation, is often very non-productive.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 10, 2009, 11:16:38 PM
Agreed again on pork spending. The struggle there is clearly one of politics, and that might just be one discipline that is more complex than economics. It's a shame, because I think there are enough clearly valuable pursuits in our path that we could employ everyone many times over to achieve them.

I'm all for the rebirth of freight rail. I can't believe that is not a big part of any stimulus plan that also hopes to address reliance on foreign oil.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 10, 2009, 11:21:32 PM
Agreed again on pork spending. The struggle there is clearly one of politics, and that might just be one discipline that is more complex than economics. It's a shame, because I think there are enough clearly valuable pursuits in our path that we could employ everyone many times over to achieve them.

I'm all for the rebirth of freight rail. I can't believe that is not a big part of any stimulus plan that also hopes to address reliance on foreign oil.

Better rail transit would be very nice but there are wealthy lobbies aiming for it so we won't get it...

I do believe that ideal government would be a great thing to have... but I think that with the way government actually operates we'd often be better off if it did nothing at all.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 11, 2009, 01:29:43 AM
Would either of you economic geniuses like to comment on the long-term prospects for our economy
as we become more and more of an importer/consumer nation, and produce less and less of the things
we need here?


[...and I will take points off if you say something stupid about "high tech jobs" or "new green jobs", both
of which  are  being created, but only in a tiny fraction of the number of traditional manufacturing
jobs that are leaving the US never to return.]
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 11, 2009, 09:58:01 AM
Working backwards, the percentage of green and tech jobs now, compared to manufacturing and other jobs lost is not a static number. If this crash has shown anything, it is that the system changes when it breaks. The green economy, if it really does come alive, has barely twitched so far. It's also too general a term to answer with "as soon as..." There is a struggle going on now. Subsidies and credits for US manufacturers of, say, windmill parts, could put Detroit in ther running for the leading position in the manufacturing such things. While we wrestle with whether or not a second round of stimulus will ever be needed, developing economies are offering companies amazing deals to set up shop in their countries. The green jobs are coming. The question is whether or not they are coming here.

We can produce things, and we need to produce things. We're still a nation full of inspired people with great ideas. We can invent, fix and thrive... unless people get in the way on purpose. Otherwise, we might actually only be beginning to sink.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 11, 2009, 03:30:21 PM
So then, you're saying you take it on faith that new commodities will be invented that will
be  wanted/needed  by enough  people-with-the-means-to-purchase-them to replace the
textile/appliance/automotive (for example) jobs we've lost and are continuing to lose?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 11, 2009, 08:03:12 PM
I'm saying that the ideas are there, and we must put them in motion or die. We could just cease to be a prosperous nation, but so far the new has replaced the old. It hasn't always been perfectly synchronized with the needs or wants of the people, but that's because business tends to deplete the old before moving on to the new. Big business is not necessarily the best custodian of the human condition.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 11, 2009, 08:16:03 PM
Would either of you economic geniuses like to comment on the long-term prospects for our economy
as we become more and more of an importer/consumer nation, and produce less and less of the things
we need here?


[...and I will take points off if you say something stupid about "high tech jobs" or "new green jobs", both
of which  are  being created, but only in a tiny fraction of the number of traditional manufacturing
jobs that are leaving the US never to return.]

Manufactured goods have not been the majority of our economy for a long time.  Services are extensive and rapidly growing.

The whole point behind international trade is that nations can do what they are best at and don't have to be self-sufficient.  Developing nations are just better suited towards manufacturing simple goods than we are.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 12, 2009, 12:53:40 AM
Would either of you economic geniuses like to comment on the long-term prospects for our economy
as we become more and more of an importer/consumer nation, and produce less and less of the things
we need here?


[...and I will take points off if you say something stupid about "high tech jobs" or "new green jobs", both
of which  are  being created, but only in a tiny fraction of the number of traditional manufacturing
jobs that are leaving the US never to return.]

Manufactured goods have not been the majority of our economy for a long time.  Services are extensive and rapidly growing.


The whole point behind international trade is that nations can do what they are best at and don't have to be self-sufficient.  Developing nations are just better suited towards manufacturing simple goods than we are.
...BECAUSE the manufacturing sector has been shrivelling, and it's not a sustainable condition.
Capital within the system circulates just fine among the advertizers, marketers, retailers, wholesalers,
chefs, waiters and hairstylists, but at the base of it all, we're borrowing from China (among others) to
but manufactured goods wholesale from China (among others)...

The water swirls nicely in our jacuzzi, but it leaks.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 12, 2009, 01:13:54 AM
Would either of you economic geniuses like to comment on the long-term prospects for our economy
as we become more and more of an importer/consumer nation, and produce less and less of the things
we need here?


[...and I will take points off if you say something stupid about "high tech jobs" or "new green jobs", both
of which  are  being created, but only in a tiny fraction of the number of traditional manufacturing
jobs that are leaving the US never to return.]

Manufactured goods have not been the majority of our economy for a long time.  Services are extensive and rapidly growing.


The whole point behind international trade is that nations can do what they are best at and don't have to be self-sufficient.  Developing nations are just better suited towards manufacturing simple goods than we are.
...BECAUSE the manufacturing sector has been shrivelling, and it's not a sustainable condition.
Capital within the system circulates just fine among the advertizers, marketers, retailers, wholesalers,
chefs, waiters and hairstylists, but at the base of it all, we're borrowing from China (among others) to
but manufactured goods wholesale from China (among others)...

The water swirls nicely in our jacuzzi, but it leaks.


Switzerland has a very healthy economy by primarly providing banking and financial services.  The US is of course too large to do that but that is an example of how an economy can be largely service based without so much dependence on manufacturing.

It is definitely possible for the US economy to completely shift away from manufacturing although it would of course be very difficult.  I'm sure you think it is more practical to keep more manufacturers and I agree.

We tax our companies too highly.  Many manufacturers are very tempted to move overseas because of the easier tax situation.

Also... Cap n Trade = our manufacturing sector evaporates.  A much better way to control CO2 is to copy France's nuclear energy program.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 12, 2009, 01:18:30 AM
How far off are we, do you think, from mustering the political will for that?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 12, 2009, 01:24:02 AM
How far off are we, do you think, from mustering the political will for that?

well... nobody talks about it at all.

I'm sure Obama could sell the idea to people if he tried.  It's not hard to see the case for it.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 12, 2009, 01:27:45 AM
Combined with Shai Agassi's battery station plan, oil could be demoted to [component of plastics status.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 12, 2009, 01:35:18 AM
We pamper our workforce, what with all that minimum-wage, OSHA, sexual-harrassment, workman's-comp
bullshit.  Many manufacturers are very tempted to move overseas because of the cheaper labor situation.
Fix'd.

After you figure in the MASSIVE tax-credits, write-offs and exemptions that the GOP and corporate America
leave out of their calculations, our actual corporate tax rate is lower than most of the "developed world".....
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 12, 2009, 01:51:07 AM
We pamper our workforce, what with all that minimum-wage, OSHA, sexual-harrassment, workman's-comp
bullshit.  Many manufacturers are very tempted to move overseas because of the cheaper labor situation.
Fix'd.

After you figure in the MASSIVE tax-credits, write-offs and exemptions that the GOP and corporate America
leave out of their calculations, our actual corporate tax rate is lower than most of the "developed world".....

American manufacturing workers all make WAY more than the minimum wage so that's not even a factor.

Corporate tax is only a fraction of what they pay.

As for the sexual harassment... It would make things much easier and in my opinion more fair to businesses if the victim could only sue the employee that was actually doing the harassment.  This would be a huge weight off the shoulders of the companies and would spare everyone the mandatory sensitivity training since it would only be their ass on the line if they did it.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 12, 2009, 05:28:17 PM
As for the sexual harassment... It would make things much easier and in my opinion more fair to businesses if the victim could only sue the employee that was actually doing the harassment.  This would be a huge weight off the shoulders of the companies and would spare everyone the mandatory sensitivity training since it would only be their ass on the line if they did it.
On the surface, a fair plan, but it leaves out a big piece of a properly-working system:

1. Woman goes to work (...could be a man, but much less often)

2. Co-worker or supervisor hits on her, makes inappropriate remarks, just won't leave off...

3. WOMAN GOES TO THE OFFENDER'S SUPERVISOR AND REPORTS THE PROBLEM.

-if that doesn't work, one can then address the matter through the legal system, but this way
the company has both the opportunity and an incentive to take appropriate steps before making
a big public issue of what may be simply an isolated problem.  If they fail to act, or (for example)
take action against the complainant, they're on the hook.

If it's just the individual (as it was for many years), the company has great incentive to ignore
the problem and to fire troublemakers.



...and no, the typical manufacturing employee doesn't make minimum wage, but it does force up the
entire nationwide pay-level-structure.  (I have nothing against minimum wage, btw.)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: virtual~mary on July 13, 2009, 02:03:41 PM
You have not yet addressed my belief that bad monetary policy is a huge portion of what made this recession so much larger than normal but this particular piece of business cycle theory is a very important part how how I think the economy works.  Do you agree that tighter credit would by itself do a lot to deter the over leveraging that helped make our economy so unstable?

stepping in here to say i wholeheartedly agree. more than bad monetary policy, i would call it convoluted in the extreme, historically as well as recently, and recently downright criminal. yes, it’s a huge part of what made this particular recession so devastating and precisely because it’s so instrumental.

normally, tighter credit would do more in the short term to stabilize things, but by itself and in the situation we're currently in, i don’t think it’s enough. then there’s the old idea of a big fiscal (government) stimulus package, which takes longer and carries its own risks. what choice do we really have but to try a combined monetary and fiscal policy approach? the parties generally fall along the lines of one or the other, but i just don’t think it’s an either/or situation we’re in.


Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Cheddars Cousin on July 13, 2009, 02:58:20 PM
Let me take this opportunity to tell you Tiervexx, I would totally go nondairy for you.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 13, 2009, 03:40:54 PM
Through what mechanism would tighter credit be instituted? How might we assure that geographically prejudiced standards do not come into play?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 13, 2009, 05:48:19 PM
You have not yet addressed my belief that bad monetary policy is a huge portion of what made this recession so much larger than normal but this particular piece of business cycle theory is a very important part how how I think the economy works.  Do you agree that tighter credit would by itself do a lot to deter the over leveraging that helped make our economy so unstable?

stepping in here to say i wholeheartedly agree. more than bad monetary policy, i would call it convoluted in the extreme, historically as well as recently, and recently downright criminal. yes, it’s a huge part of what made this particular recession so devastating and precisely because it’s so instrumental.

normally, tighter credit would do more in the short term to stabilize things, but by itself and in the situation we're currently in, i don’t think it’s enough. then there’s the old idea of a big fiscal (government) stimulus package, which takes longer and carries its own risks. what choice do we really have but to try a combined monetary and fiscal policy approach? the parties generally fall along the lines of one or the other, but i just don’t think it’s an either/or situation we’re in.

The best short term solution is to just flood the economy with cash which is what they are doing.  Of course this is terrible for long term stability because we are just replacing one bubble with another.

I think the best longer term solution (one to two years or so) is to do just the opposite.  Tighten credit by a lot and balance the budget.

I think the real reason why they won't do this is because it would be a political nightmare.  In the short run this would look like another crash but it would also flush out the bad investment and "bubbles."  A couple years from now the economy will look much better if we do this but the short run panic might scare a lot of politicians.

It is worth mentioning that this is basically what we've recommended to other nations when they were struggling.  Balance the budget, don't inflate the currency, and don't prop up failing businesses.  This advice has worked wonderfully all over the world, from China to Chile yet we won't follow our own damn advice and we'll pay for it.

Let me take this opportunity to tell you Tiervexx, I would totally go nondairy for you.

Awwwww, thanks!

Through what mechanism would tighter credit be instituted? How might we assure that geographically prejudiced standards do not come into play?

This is the kind of thing the Federal reserve can do in a heart beat if it wanted to.

In the absence of a Central bank a market determined interest rate would also tighten credit.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 13, 2009, 08:27:32 PM
In essence, regulation.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 13, 2009, 10:02:13 PM
In essence, regulation.

wut?

Tightness of credit has nothing to do with regulation.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Cheddars Cousin on July 13, 2009, 10:07:13 PM
It is market driven and it will work.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: 85283-071 on July 13, 2009, 10:40:35 PM
In essence, regulation.

wut?

Tightness of credit has nothing to do with regulation.

It sounded as if you were suggesting that such become the case.

...and Cheddar, if market driven tightening of credit will work, then we have nothing to worry about except for the fact that we're just leaving it to its cyclical nature again. A cycle that is justified by the fact that there will always be scavengers to grab up the gems from the rubble and rebuild is a failue.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 13, 2009, 10:57:01 PM
In essence, regulation.

wut?

Tightness of credit has nothing to do with regulation.

It sounded as if you were suggesting that such become the case.

...and Cheddar, if market driven tightening of credit will work, then we have nothing to worry about except for the fact that we're just leaving it to its cyclical nature again. A cycle that is justified by the fact that there will always be scavengers to grab up the gems from the rubble and rebuild is a failue.

It sounds like you are a bit confused of what I mean by credit.

I'm talking about the price on borrowing money.  The interest rate.  While the Federal Reserve is in place it has an iron fist on the interest rate.  By market driven interest rate we mean what would happen if we did not have a central bank.  Market driven tightening of credit obviously can't coexist with the Federal Reserve.

Sorry if this is insulting your intelligence but your post associating my statements with tightening credit with regulation suggested there may have been some confusion.

I did say however that tightening credit could reduce the need for regulation on how much leveraging banks of various kinds can use.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: virtual~mary on July 14, 2009, 05:01:26 PM
You have not yet addressed my belief that bad monetary policy is a huge portion of what made this recession so much larger than normal but this particular piece of business cycle theory is a very important part how how I think the economy works.  Do you agree that tighter credit would by itself do a lot to deter the over leveraging that helped make our economy so unstable?

stepping in here to say i wholeheartedly agree. more than bad monetary policy, i would call it convoluted in the extreme, historically as well as recently, and recently downright criminal. yes, it’s a huge part of what made this particular recession so devastating and precisely because it’s so instrumental.

normally, tighter credit would do more in the short term to stabilize things, but by itself and in the situation we're currently in, i don’t think it’s enough. then there’s the old idea of a big fiscal (government) stimulus package, which takes longer and carries its own risks. what choice do we really have but to try a combined monetary and fiscal policy approach? the parties generally fall along the lines of one or the other, but i just don’t think it’s an either/or situation we’re in.

The best short term solution is to just flood the economy with cash which is what they are doing.  Of course this is terrible for long term stability because we are just replacing one bubble with another.

I think the best longer term solution (one to two years or so) is to do just the opposite.  Tighten credit by a lot and balance the budget.

I think the real reason why they won't do this is because it would be a political nightmare.  In the short run this would look like another crash but it would also flush out the bad investment and "bubbles."  A couple years from now the economy will look much better if we do this but the short run panic might scare a lot of politicians.

“flooding” the economy with cash is not working, even in the short term, and unemployment is continuing to rise. plus, the “political nightmare” you mentioned is just starting to unfold with economists freaking left and right.

while I agree that tightening credit (higher interest rates) and balancing the budget both need to happen (even though this will hit the poor and lower middle classes the hardest just like it did when the bubble popped and as it always does), that alone is not going to cut it this time. we need new and improved (i know, lol, yet again) fiscal policies to go along with the monetary policy adjustments. jobs and new “industries” must be created and promising existing ones infused with money or it really doesn’t matter what brilliant monetary change we make.

Quote
It is worth mentioning that this is basically what we've recommended to other nations when they were struggling.  Balance the budget, don't inflate the currency, and don't prop up failing businesses.  This advice has worked wonderfully all over the world, from China to Chile yet we won't follow our own damn advice and we'll pay for it.

hmm. yes, chile is relatively prosperous now, i suppose. too bad all those people had to be tortured, kidnapped and murdered under pinochet’s junta (backed by the chicago boys) in order for capitalism to ultimately “flourish.” i recommend The Shock Doctrine by naomi klein for more insight. 

and what of our gaping trade deficit? friedman is wrong!


Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 14, 2009, 05:15:27 PM
You have not yet addressed my belief that bad monetary policy is a huge portion of what made this recession so much larger than normal but this particular piece of business cycle theory is a very important part how how I think the economy works.  Do you agree that tighter credit would by itself do a lot to deter the over leveraging that helped make our economy so unstable?

stepping in here to say i wholeheartedly agree. more than bad monetary policy, i would call it convoluted in the extreme, historically as well as recently, and recently downright criminal. yes, it’s a huge part of what made this particular recession so devastating and precisely because it’s so instrumental.

normally, tighter credit would do more in the short term to stabilize things, but by itself and in the situation we're currently in, i don’t think it’s enough. then there’s the old idea of a big fiscal (government) stimulus package, which takes longer and carries its own risks. what choice do we really have but to try a combined monetary and fiscal policy approach? the parties generally fall along the lines of one or the other, but i just don’t think it’s an either/or situation we’re in.

The best short term solution is to just flood the economy with cash which is what they are doing.  Of course this is terrible for long term stability because we are just replacing one bubble with another.

I think the best longer term solution (one to two years or so) is to do just the opposite.  Tighten credit by a lot and balance the budget.

I think the real reason why they won't do this is because it would be a political nightmare.  In the short run this would look like another crash but it would also flush out the bad investment and "bubbles."  A couple years from now the economy will look much better if we do this but the short run panic might scare a lot of politicians.

“flooding” the economy with cash is not working, even in the short term, and unemployment is continuing to rise. plus, the “political nightmare” you mentioned is just starting to unfold with economists freaking left and right.

while I agree that tightening credit (higher interest rates) and balancing the budget both need to happen (even though this will hit the poor and lower middle classes the hardest just like it did when the bubble popped and as it always does), that alone is not going to cut it this time. we need new and improved (i know, lol, yet again) fiscal policies to go along with the monetary policy adjustments. jobs and new “industries” must be created and promising existing ones infused with money or it really doesn’t matter what brilliant monetary change we make.

I think you are looking for a new and improved policy that might not exist.  What has worked the most efficiently before and will work the best again (in all likelihood) is to jack up credit and balance the budget than let the market fix itself.  The more creative the leadership gets the more disastrous the results often are with the business cycle.

Quote
It is worth mentioning that this is basically what we've recommended to other nations when they were struggling.  Balance the budget, don't inflate the currency, and don't prop up failing businesses.  This advice has worked wonderfully all over the world, from China to Chile yet we won't follow our own damn advice and we'll pay for it.

hmm. yes, chile is relatively prosperous now, i suppose. too bad all those people had to be tortured, kidnapped and murdered under pinochet’s junta (backed by the chicago boys) in order for capitalism to ultimately “flourish.” i recommend The Shock Doctrine by naomi klein for more insight. 

and what of our gaping trade deficit? friedman is wrong!

Naomi Klein's book includes some of the most atrocious jumps imaginable.

Pinochet tortured and murdered people for his own power.  It was not till after he put an iron fist on Chile that he begged the Chicago boys for help because his economic policies were not working.  Trying to associate the Chicago boys with Pinochet's violence is totally irresponsible because had they not offered him economic advice the people of Chile would have just been that much poorer.  Offering advice to Pinochet was the nicest thing they actually could have done for the people of Chile.

If you look at Friedman's actual work, than compare them to the interpretations Naomi Klein runs with for her book you'll see that she is either intentionally lying or has the reading comprehension of a 9 year old.  She literally uses the exact opposite meaning of many of his statements.

In particular she tries to associate Friedman's economic ideas with things he directly and persistently argued against such as corporate welfare and the Iraq war.

Because many republicans pretend to be interested in Milton Friedman's work many liberals like to blame him for everything bad republicans do, independent of what Friedman actually said.  Fact is that almost nothing Friedman advocated has been put in play here.  This should absolve him from blame.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on July 14, 2009, 11:08:04 PM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/13/us/13palin.xlarge1.jpg)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 14, 2009, 11:21:48 PM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/13/us/13palin.xlarge1.jpg)

"Oh    My   Gosh!  YOU'RE SARAH PALIN!!!   Would you autograph my child?"  ...in permanent marker?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Pope Totalfrog on July 15, 2009, 06:29:48 AM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/13/us/13palin.xlarge1.jpg)

Noooooo...Mummy that is the lady I see in my nightmares - don't let her near me
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 15, 2009, 10:31:22 AM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/13/us/13palin.xlarge1.jpg)

Noooooo...Mummy that is the lady I see in my nightmares - don't let her near me
Ya know, I just realized how little photoshop-skill would be required to replace that sharpie  ^-^
with the Giant Sacrificial Dagger from the Black Altar of Cheney!   :o

OH NOOOOEZ!!!   EVIL RITUAL!!!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: music box on July 15, 2009, 12:12:40 PM
oh please...
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: virtual~mary on July 15, 2009, 12:43:06 PM
I think you are looking for a new and improved policy that might not exist.  What has worked the most efficiently before and will work the best again (in all likelihood) is to jack up credit and balance the budget than let the market fix itself.  The more creative the leadership gets the more disastrous the results often are with the business cycle.

yes, i am looking for a policy that does not yet exist, because what will work “the best again” will “in all likelihood” be in favor of those it has always worked best for. meanwhile the economy is being eroded from the bottom up with segments of “the middle” also acutely feeling it and having to adjust their lifestyles.

it could be argued that the “disastrous results” you mention aren’t fully realized yet not because our leadership hasn’t been creative enough, but because it hasn’t been accountable enough.

Quote
Naomi Klein's book includes some of the most atrocious jumps imaginable.

Pinochet tortured and murdered people for his own power.  It was not till after he put an iron fist on Chile that he begged the Chicago boys for help because his economic policies were not working.  Trying to associate the Chicago boys with Pinochet's violence is totally irresponsible because had they not offered him economic advice the people of Chile would have just been that much poorer.  Offering advice to Pinochet was the nicest thing they actually could have done for the people of Chile.

If you look at Friedman's actual work, than compare them to the interpretations Naomi Klein runs with for her book you'll see that she is either intentionally lying or has the reading comprehension of a 9 year old.  She literally uses the exact opposite meaning of many of his statements.

In particular she tries to associate Friedman's economic ideas with things he directly and persistently argued against such as corporate welfare and the Iraq war.

Because many republicans pretend to be interested in Milton Friedman's work many liberals like to blame him for everything bad republicans do, independent of what Friedman actually said.  Fact is that almost nothing Friedman advocated has been put in play here.  This should absolve him from blame.

cmon tiervexx, you’re going to need to substantiate your claims a bit more if you want to convince me that klein’s meticulously researched and referenced thesis (74 pages of endnotes) is little more than the ramblings of a liar who can’t read.

here's what klein had to say about the claim that friedman opposed the invasion of iraq and that she called him a “neo-con:”

“In April 2003, Friedman told the German magazine Focus that “President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA.” Asked about increased tensions between the U.S. and Europe, Friedman replied: “the end justifies the means. As soon as we’re rid of Saddam, the political differences will also disappear.” Clearly this was not the voice of anti-intervention. Even in July 2006, when Friedman claimed to have opposed the war from the beginning, he remained hawkish. Now that the U.S. was in Iraq, Friedman told The Wall Street Journal, “it seems to me very important that we make a success of it.”

All of this has nothing to do with my book, however. In The Shock Doctrine, I describe the invasion and occupation of Iraq as the culmination of Friedman’s ideological crusade because he was America’s leading intellectual favoring the privatization of the state – not because he personally supported the war, which is irrelevant. For more than five years Iraq has been the vanguard of this radical privatization project. Private contractors now outnumber U.S. soldiers and corporations have taken on such core state functions as prisoner interrogation."

you might find this to be of interest as well:

"If you are concerned that I am exaggerating Friedman’s support for the brutal regime of Augusto Pinochet, read a letter Friedman wrote to Pinochet. (http://wwww.naomiklein.org/files/resources/pdfs/friedman-pinochet-letters.pdf)  If you are suspicious that I am making disaster capitalism seem more conspiratorial than it is, read the minutes (http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/resources/part7/chapter20/pro-market-ideas-katrina)  from a meeting that took place at the Heritage Foundation just two weeks after the levees broke in New Orleans. It lays out 32 “free market solutions” for Hurricane Katrina and high gas prices, many of which have been championed by the Bush Administration.

The thesis of The Shock Doctrine was not born of whimsy but of four years of research. Debra and I put these documents online because we want educators, students and general readers to move beyond an admittedly subjective version of history – as all histories are -- and go straight to the source. We invite you to explore these documents, send us ones we missed, and come to your own conclusions."



Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 15, 2009, 04:15:38 PM

“In April 2003, Friedman told the German magazine Focus that “President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA.”

This quote is only describing Bush's motives, not Friedman's.  Milton Friedman had met with Bush and wanted to believe that Bush/Cheney had the best intentions.  The wording is poor but I think Milton might have intended to include a "he believed anything else...".

Asked about increased tensions between the U.S. and Europe, Friedman replied: “the end justifies the means. As soon as we’re rid of Saddam, the political differences will also disappear.” Clearly this was not the voice of anti-intervention. Even in July 2006, when Friedman claimed to have opposed the war from the beginning, he remained hawkish. Now that the U.S. was in Iraq, Friedman told The Wall Street Journal, “it seems to me very important that we make a success of it.”

There is a fundamental difference between the belief that we needed to go in there verses believing that now that we are there we are kind of stuck.

Personally I just want to get out ASAP (as does Milton's son David whom I'm a bigger fan of) but I can understand why someone would be worried about the fallout from a sudden withdraw even if they did not want to be in there in the first place.

So Milton was more hawkish than his son but still not nearly as much as someone who wanted to go in there from day one.

All of this has nothing to do with my book, however. In The Shock Doctrine, I describe the invasion and occupation of Iraq as the culmination of Friedman’s ideological crusade because he was America’s leading intellectual favoring the privatization of the state – not because he personally supported the war, which is irrelevant. For more than five years Iraq has been the vanguard of this radical privatization project. Private contractors now outnumber U.S. soldiers and corporations have taken on such core state functions as prisoner interrogation."

It is true that Milton Friedman's influence probably lead to more private contractors being used but this is still different than wanting to go to war in the first place.  No matter how anti-war you are you must have an interest in how it is fought when you don't have the power to just pull out as we would wish...

you might find this to be of interest as well:

"If you are concerned that I am exaggerating Friedman’s support for the brutal regime of Augusto Pinochet, read a letter Friedman wrote to Pinochet. (http://wwww.naomiklein.org/files/resources/pdfs/friedman-pinochet-letters.pdf)

Okay, I just read that letter.  It gives Pinochet economic and monetary policy advice.  Not a single word of it is advocating any kind of violence.  There is talk of a "shock" policy but he is talking about rapid economic change, not any sort of violence.

Did you even read that letter before linking it to me?  If you did you probably would not have since it does not go against anything I said.  It confirms what I already knew and supported, he just gave him economic advice.  I stand by his decision to do that 100%

If you are suspicious that I am making disaster capitalism seem more conspiratorial than it is, read the minutes (http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/resources/part7/chapter20/pro-market-ideas-katrina)  from a meeting that took place at the Heritage Foundation just two weeks after the levees broke in New Orleans. It lays out 32 “free market solutions” for Hurricane Katrina and high gas prices, many of which have been championed by the Bush Administration.

Once again, Milton is just giving economic advice that has nothing to do with violence.  The Bush administration gave his ideas lip service but did a lousy job of acting on them.  If Klein thinks Milton hoped and prayed for something like Katrina (which I think she does) than she has yet to present even a scrap of evidence for that.

If Milton offering "free-market" advice for Katrina qualifies as a conspiracy than that would have to mean that politicians purposing big government solutions for Katrina must be a big socialist conspiracy!

Clearly neither one qualifies as even remotely conspiratorial.

The thesis of The Shock Doctrine was not born of whimsy but of four years of research. Debra and I put these documents online because we want educators, students and general readers to move beyond an admittedly subjective version of history – as all histories are -- and go straight to the source. We invite you to explore these documents, send us ones we missed, and come to your own conclusions."

I read the documents.  He is clearly only trying to offer solutions to problems.  The fact that some of these problems emerged after disasters would only be relevant to her conspiracy theory if Milton actually conspired to cause them himself, which is completely unsupported.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: virtual~mary on July 15, 2009, 05:20:39 PM
of course i read the letter before linking it. in my estimation, klein is trying to establish that they had a friendship that was collaborative and "supportive." that pinochet's regime was brutal is well-known. could friedman have been completely oblivious to the true nature of the powerful man he was giving such strong economic advice to? perhaps. but if that's true wouldn't it be foolish to offer the kind of advice he himself admitted would cause "severe difficulty?" remember too, that i am thinking of it in context of an entire book (researched thesis) as opposed to just her statement/letter i quoted out of context. 

as far as friedman's support of the iraq war personally, klein herself admits it's irrelevant anyway because she believes it was an ideological crusade. she was merely responding to her detractors.

did you, in fact, read the book? do you know what she means by a "shock" policy? if you do, you might think of it less as conspiracy theory and more as education in strategic "corporatist" policies aimed at global dominance.



Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 15, 2009, 06:42:38 PM
of course i read the letter before linking it. in my estimation, klein is trying to establish that they had a friendship that was collaborative and "supportive." that pinochet's regime was brutal is well-known. could friedman have been completely oblivious to the true nature of the powerful man he was giving such strong economic advice to? perhaps. but if that's true wouldn't it be foolish to offer the kind of advice he himself admitted would cause "severe difficulty?" remember too, that i am thinking of it in context of an entire book (researched thesis) as opposed to just her statement/letter i quoted out of context.

I think that his, more so than anything else she talks about is what is not fair to Milton Friedman.

When Pinochet asked for advice Milton certainly could have ignored it BUT had he done that the people of Chile would have suffered MORE not less.

And had Milton written an insulting letter to Pinochet he might have just ignored Milton's advice and left the people of Chile to their poverty.

If a Dictator asked me for economic advice I would have done the same thing no matter how brutal the dictator because that is probably the only thing I could possibly do to ease the burden on that dictator's people.  I'm sure that Milton was thinking the same thing.

as far as friedman's support of the iraq war personally, klein herself admits it's irrelevant anyway because she believes it was an ideological crusade. she was merely responding to her detractors.

Correct me if you think I am misunderstanding but she is trying to say that Milton helped craft the ideology that lead to war.

I totally disagree with this because it is a huge jump to go from "government is bad" to "lets use government to go to war, the ultimate expression of state power."

Jesus had a much bigger role in crafting Republican ideology than Friedman did.  And I actually have met soldiers who fancies themselves holy warriors.  Meanwhile I have never met a soldier who thought they were going to war for glorious Friedman Capitalism.

An association between Christianity and the war in Iraq would still be a huge jump but it would make a lot more sense and be much closer to reality IMO than blaming Milton Friedman for it.

Milton Friedman never preached violent take downs of anything.  Meanwhile many republicans really do think that their Christianity commands them to stand up to tyrants like Saddam.

did you, in fact, read the book? do you know what she means by a "shock" policy? if you do, you might think of it less as conspiracy theory and more as education in strategic "corporatist" policies aimed at global dominance.

I read parts of it and thought "WHAT THE FUCK?!"
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: virtual~mary on July 17, 2009, 03:36:35 PM
Correct me if you think I am misunderstanding but she is trying to say that Milton helped craft the ideology that lead to war.

she is asserting that the intellectual underpinnings of "disaster capitalism" (which briefly means an economic re-engineering following a crisis situation when everyone is in shock) can be traced directly to the university of chicago's economics department under milton friedman.

Quote
I read parts of it and thought "WHAT THE FUCK?!"

read the whole thing cover to cover with the notes and some auxillary research and you'll really think what the fuck?!!?!!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on July 17, 2009, 04:18:15 PM
Correct me if you think I am misunderstanding but she is trying to say that Milton helped craft the ideology that lead to war.

she is asserting that the intellectual underpinnings of "disaster capitalism" (which briefly means an economic re-engineering following a crisis situation when everyone is in shock) can be traced directly to the university of chicago's economics department under milton friedman.

When something bad happens all sides try to recommend what they think will help the most.  The capitalist suggestions that got the most press came from Milton Friedman but as I said earlier, plenty of socialist suggestions have come from other sources so why isn't there also a "disaster socialism."

When people are frightened by something all sides of politics try to reach out to them both out of good intentions and selfishness.  This is a very damn old part of the political game.  Sure conservatives do it but so do liberals.  When Katrina hit many liberals screamed for bigger government institutions as well.

From what I've seen so far Klein's idea of the "Shock Doctrine" is comparable to a 12 year old waking up to the reality that politicians lie.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on August 01, 2009, 01:46:23 PM
I started to put this down there in the Poetry Thread, but since it's not
my own original work, I put the links here.  The material speaks for itself.
(...and yes, it's worth clicking, especially the second...  I think she has some untapped talent here...)

Link The First (http://www.hulu.com/watch/85839/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-does-palin)

Link The Second (http://www.hulu.com/watch/86189/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-reads-palins-tweets)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on August 01, 2009, 04:01:53 PM
I started to put this down there in the Poetry Thread, but since it's not
my own original work, I put the links here.  The material speaks for itself.
(...and yes, it's worth clicking, especially the second...  I think she has some untapped talent here...)

Link The First (http://www.hulu.com/watch/85839/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-does-palin)

Link The Second (http://www.hulu.com/watch/86189/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-reads-palins-tweets)

I didn't know he did the tweets  ;D
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on August 02, 2009, 01:03:21 AM
I started to put this down there in the Poetry Thread, but since it's not
my own original work, I put the links here.  The material speaks for itself.
(...and yes, it's worth clicking, especially the second...  I think she has some untapped talent here...)

Link The First (http://www.hulu.com/watch/85839/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-does-palin)

Link The Second (http://www.hulu.com/watch/86189/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-reads-palins-tweets)

I didn't know he did the tweets  ;D
Admit it, you've heard/read stuff that was intended as poetry, that wasn't as good...
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on August 02, 2009, 01:12:39 AM
I started to put this down there in the Poetry Thread, but since it's not
my own original work, I put the links here.  The material speaks for itself.
(...and yes, it's worth clicking, especially the second...  I think she has some untapped talent here...)

Link The First (http://www.hulu.com/watch/85839/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-does-palin)

Link The Second (http://www.hulu.com/watch/86189/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-reads-palins-tweets)

I didn't know he did the tweets  ;D
Admit it, you've heard/read stuff that was intended as poetry, that wasn't as good...

Maybe she found her calling? 
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on August 02, 2009, 01:25:58 AM
I started to put this down there in the Poetry Thread, but since it's not
my own original work, I put the links here.  The material speaks for itself.
(...and yes, it's worth clicking, especially the second...  I think she has some untapped talent here...)

Link The First (http://www.hulu.com/watch/85839/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-does-palin)

Link The Second (http://www.hulu.com/watch/86189/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-reads-palins-tweets)

I didn't know he did the tweets  ;D
Admit it, you've heard/read stuff that was intended as poetry, that wasn't as good...

Maybe she found her calling? 
Sara Palin: Right Wing Radical Beat-Poet...   It does kinda have a ring to it, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on August 02, 2009, 01:27:16 AM
I started to put this down there in the Poetry Thread, but since it's not
my own original work, I put the links here.  The material speaks for itself.
(...and yes, it's worth clicking, especially the second...  I think she has some untapped talent here...)

Link The First (http://www.hulu.com/watch/85839/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-does-palin)

Link The Second (http://www.hulu.com/watch/86189/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-reads-palins-tweets)

I didn't know he did the tweets  ;D
Admit it, you've heard/read stuff that was intended as poetry, that wasn't as good...

Maybe she found her calling? 
Sara Palin: Right Wing Radical Beat-Poet...   It does kinda have a ring to it, doesn't it?

Shatner could be the next Tina Fey
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on August 02, 2009, 01:31:47 AM
Hey, The Shat is nobody's "next"....
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on August 02, 2009, 01:43:00 AM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_g7KcbMxmLEU/R66lV-pfBPI/AAAAAAAADdQ/ZDc05dtl-ao/s400/shatner.jpg)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on December 16, 2009, 12:10:28 AM
Heeeeyyyy!  I did CPR and revived this thread...

First, Conan O'Brien did the Shatner-reading-Palin-as-Beat-Poetry schtick,
but then had Sarah P come out and read parts of Shatner's book in a like
manner...  It was kinda funny on both ends.



And then there was this.  I kinda hope at least some of these people are actors,
or at least they seriously cherry-picked the interview clips...

Anyway, it's good for a pretty scary laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/v/mKKKgua7wQk
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Rob on December 16, 2009, 05:56:25 PM
Cee...You and I both know that youtube is full of videos just like this on the other side.  You should be ashamed of youself.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on December 16, 2009, 06:19:25 PM
Cee...You and I both know that youtube is full of videos just like this on the other side.  You should be ashamed of youself.

Yeah, but the Leftie-looneys are both funnier and less scary.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Rob on December 16, 2009, 06:52:33 PM
ORLY

http://www.youtube.com/v/gCXot2HQT00

http://www.youtube.com/v/OqB0t4jRrC8

http://www.youtube.com/v/ukvRzYm8gKY
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on December 16, 2009, 08:09:46 PM
Gee, those Lefties are no fun at all... 

Well, I mean, girls in bikinis, yay, but where's the free marijuana for all and like that?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: peppamintdynamo on December 18, 2009, 12:54:56 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Whos_Nailin_Paylin.jpg)

We actually rented this because it seemed so ridiculous.... It was so worth it.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: N.U. on December 18, 2009, 02:34:16 PM
Well, to Forest Gump Palin

Palin is as Palin does
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on December 20, 2009, 03:18:07 PM
ORLY

http://www.youtube.com/v/gCXot2HQT00

http://www.youtube.com/v/OqB0t4jRrC8

http://www.youtube.com/v/ukvRzYm8gKY

I watched a little bit of those and it was painful.

An even better example of lefty wackos are this one organization of people I encountered at the gay rights march in DC.  They where passing out a paper claiming that Mao was not such a bad guy.  I find it disgusting that people like that are not ridiculed as much as people saying the same thing about Hitler would and should be.  Especially seeing as how Hitler was an amateur murderer compared to some of the big commies.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on December 20, 2009, 04:53:05 PM
I watched a little bit of those and it was painful.

An even better example of lefty wackos are this one organization of people I encountered at the gay rights march in DC.  They where passing out a paper claiming that Mao was not such a bad guy.  I find it disgusting that people like that are not ridiculed as much as people saying the same thing about Hitler would and should be.  Especially seeing as how Hitler was an amateur murderer compared to some of the big commies.
This may be the thing that bugs me most about American politics these days:
If you, say, support gay rights, it is assumed that you MUST:
-oppose gun rights
-oppose school-vouchers
-oppose capital punishment
-support abortion rights
-favor expanded government
...because you can't possibly make up your own mind on hot-button issues independent
of the flock of people who agree with you on some other hot-button issue... 


And obviously, if you favor gay rights, you must be amenable to some sort of radical Communist crap...
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Rob on December 20, 2009, 08:26:06 PM
They're not called PINKOS for nuthin'!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on December 20, 2009, 11:04:32 PM
They're not called PINKOS for nuthin'!
Says mister Red-State
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on December 20, 2009, 11:13:54 PM
I watched a little bit of those and it was painful.

An even better example of lefty wackos are this one organization of people I encountered at the gay rights march in DC.  They where passing out a paper claiming that Mao was not such a bad guy.  I find it disgusting that people like that are not ridiculed as much as people saying the same thing about Hitler would and should be.  Especially seeing as how Hitler was an amateur murderer compared to some of the big commies.
This may be the thing that bugs me most about American politics these days:
If you, say, support gay rights, it is assumed that you MUST:
-oppose gun rights
-oppose school-vouchers
-oppose capital punishment
-support abortion rights
-favor expanded government
...because you can't possibly make up your own mind on hot-button issues independent
of the flock of people who agree with you on some other hot-button issue... 


And obviously, if you favor gay rights, you must be amenable to some sort of radical Communist crap...

Yep.

What might really shock people is that I was in DC with a pro life lesbian.  She is not sure that she would ban abortions (particularly if it's rape) but she would say that being liberal should not mean you have to believe it's okay to kill a child...
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: colordeaf on December 21, 2009, 06:56:34 PM
I watched a little bit of those and it was painful.

An even better example of lefty wackos are this one organization of people I encountered at the gay rights march in DC.  They where passing out a paper claiming that Mao was not such a bad guy.  I find it disgusting that people like that are not ridiculed as much as people saying the same thing about Hitler would and should be.  Especially seeing as how Hitler was an amateur murderer compared to some of the big commies.
This may be the thing that bugs me most about American politics these days:
If you, say, support gay rights, it is assumed that you MUST:
-oppose gun rights
-oppose school-vouchers
-oppose capital punishment
-support abortion rights
-favor expanded government
...because you can't possibly make up your own mind on hot-button issues independent
of the flock of people who agree with you on some other hot-button issue... 


And obviously, if you favor gay rights, you must be amenable to some sort of radical Communist crap...

The problem is, the "other party" is very unlikely to support gay marriage in the first place and any party member who does gets ostracized, at least the way it is now :/

The issue being a "never budge no matter how many letters written to local representatives" kind. Then the other issues which are "communist" solicit an, "eh, I'll leave it".

On Palin: no opinion. I haven't read the book.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on December 21, 2009, 11:11:04 PM
I watched a little bit of those and it was painful.

An even better example of lefty wackos are this one organization of people I encountered at the gay rights march in DC.  They where passing out a paper claiming that Mao was not such a bad guy.  I find it disgusting that people like that are not ridiculed as much as people saying the same thing about Hitler would and should be.  Especially seeing as how Hitler was an amateur murderer compared to some of the big commies.
This may be the thing that bugs me most about American politics these days:
If you, say, support gay rights, it is assumed that you MUST:
-oppose gun rights
-oppose school-vouchers
-oppose capital punishment
-support abortion rights
-favor expanded government
...because you can't possibly make up your own mind on hot-button issues independent
of the flock of people who agree with you on some other hot-button issue... 


And obviously, if you favor gay rights, you must be amenable to some sort of radical Communist crap...

The problem is, the "other party" is very unlikely to support gay marriage in the first place and any party member who does gets ostracized, at least the way it is now :/
My point exactly.  It's gotten so your "team" is more important than your views.
It's a rare and wondrous (albeit somewhat irritating) thing that the anti-abortion
Democrats felt strongly enough to voice their opinions on this health-care bill....
I disagree with them, but I'm glad they stood up to disagree with "party line".


Oddly, to get back to the subject of this thread, S. Palin and I are in agreement here,
even though she'd NEVER admit it if the question were phrased that way: during the
campaign, she said she'd been outside Alaska when she learned that her son had a
chromosomal anomaly, and would probably be severely developmentally disabled...
She said she considered having an abortion...  She was away from home, and no one
knew her, and no one would ever need to know (this being long before anyone used
the word veep in the same sentence with her name)....  She, of course, rejected this
course, and now has a wonderful, if "challenged" son....

Yep, she had a "choice" and she chose without hesitation as I would hope someone
(particularly someone with the resources to care for a special-needs child) would.

...but she doesn't trust anyone else with that choice, especially not women who
don't have a few million in the bank and a state-funded staff to provide child care.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on February 24, 2010, 01:33:38 PM
Amazingly, there are still people who think she's somehow qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.
http://www.youtube.com/v/7G8RrZlwEQE

Seriously?  Even Cheney called her on this one (probably what caused his heart attack).

Someone wanna show me how this idiocy is somehow "taken out of context"?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Captain Oblivious on February 24, 2010, 02:01:45 PM
So...war is the only way Obama will be re-elected, cos it'll prove how "tough" he is?? How much shit can one person speak before people realise she's an idiot?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on February 24, 2010, 07:28:53 PM
she must've have taken one hell of a life insurance policy out on her oldest son.

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Pope Totalfrog on February 24, 2010, 07:32:57 PM
she must've have taken one hell of a life insurance policy out on her oldest son.

#@!

She just doesn't like him very much....
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on February 25, 2010, 02:19:23 AM
So...war is the only way Obama will be re-elected, cos it'll prove how "tough" he is?? How much shit can one person speak before people realise she's an idiot?

It is hard to outline every way she just proved she is an idiot but I'm bored so I'll try:

1) Stupid neo-cons (not to be confused with conservatives) often seem to project their view of the world onto everybody.  The reason Obama is not very popular right now is because people where hoping to see the economy improve faster (not realistic imo).  Nobody but a minority of the craziest and/or dumbest neo-cons will be happier with Obama if they get more war.  She's really in her own little world with that one.

2) Although his not not popular right now he would still almost certainly be reelected if the election was right now because republicans have nothing but tomato cans to run against him.

3) It takes a complete retard to think that a leader of a huge nation can express how tough they are by sending other people to die...  Obama would still be safe and sound if he declared war on the whole Middle East.

4) I'm no fan of Obama but if Palin got elected I'd move to Canada.  She is the only mainstream candidate that scares me that much.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on February 25, 2010, 12:43:02 PM
So...war is the only way Obama will be re-elected, cos it'll prove how "tough" he is?? How much shit can one person speak before people realise she's an idiot?

It is hard to outline every way she just proved she is an idiot but I'm bored so I'll try:

1) Stupid neo-cons (not to be confused with conservatives) often seem to project their view of the world onto everybody.  The reason Obama is not very popular right now is because people where hoping to see the economy improve faster (not realistic imo).  Nobody but a minority of the craziest and/or dumbest neo-cons will be happier with Obama if they get more war.  She's really in her own little world with that one.

2) Although his not not popular right now he would still almost certainly be reelected if the election was right now because republicans have nothing but tomato cans to run against him.

3) It takes a complete retard to think that a leader of a huge nation can express how tough they are by sending other people to die...  Obama would still be safe and sound if he declared war on the whole Middle East.

4) I'm no fan of Obama but if Palin got elected I'd move to Canada.  She is the only mainstream candidate that scares me that much.
To be fair... 
Starting a war (or more to the point still-being-in-a-war) did let Dubya get re-elected...
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Tiervexx on February 26, 2010, 05:44:22 PM
So...war is the only way Obama will be re-elected, cos it'll prove how "tough" he is?? How much shit can one person speak before people realise she's an idiot?

It is hard to outline every way she just proved she is an idiot but I'm bored so I'll try:

1) Stupid neo-cons (not to be confused with conservatives) often seem to project their view of the world onto everybody.  The reason Obama is not very popular right now is because people where hoping to see the economy improve faster (not realistic imo).  Nobody but a minority of the craziest and/or dumbest neo-cons will be happier with Obama if they get more war.  She's really in her own little world with that one.

2) Although his not not popular right now he would still almost certainly be reelected if the election was right now because republicans have nothing but tomato cans to run against him.

3) It takes a complete retard to think that a leader of a huge nation can express how tough they are by sending other people to die...  Obama would still be safe and sound if he declared war on the whole Middle East.

4) I'm no fan of Obama but if Palin got elected I'd move to Canada.  She is the only mainstream candidate that scares me that much.
To be fair... 
Starting a war (or more to the point still-being-in-a-war) did let Dubya get re-elected...

totally different circumstance.  After 9/11 Americans where desperate to reclaim their pride by bombing somebody.  Now most people have woken up to the fact that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on February 26, 2010, 08:29:54 PM
What I find truly spectacular about this particular bit of idiocy is that the woman's
son is in the frickin' army, in a combat MOS...  and she's suggesting that someone
could just invade another country for purely domestic-political gain as if it were a
perfectly reasonable thing to do.....


DOUBLE-EWE TEE EFF?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: N.U. on March 04, 2010, 12:44:59 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/2LOsK.jpg)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on March 04, 2010, 03:53:43 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/2LOsK.jpg)
Can you alter that ever-so-slightly:
"What the hell, the world is supposed....."
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on March 09, 2010, 11:26:23 AM
hmm...looks like Sarah's family partook in the benefits of Canada's socialist health care system when she was little.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html?page=144

 :D

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on March 12, 2010, 11:46:35 AM
My thread just wont die  ;D
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on March 12, 2010, 11:47:56 AM
gift that keeps on giving.

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: cynthiaskeezy on March 15, 2010, 09:11:35 PM
My thread just wont die  ;D
NEVER haha. Most threads die and then get resurrected cause people like me like to lurk haha.
ESPECIALLY When there's shit like this going on.....I LOVE IT
(http://i.imgur.com/2LOsK.jpg)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: MauraLeeBee on March 15, 2010, 09:15:24 PM
D'aww come on guys. Quit hatin'. She's so overly qualified and utterly amazing.
I mean, come on! SHE CAN SEE RUSSIA FROM HER HOUSE.

*eyeroll*
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: cynthiaskeezy on March 15, 2010, 09:49:30 PM
^^ Like why the fuck would she say that?
I can't believe people actually voted for her.
That's amazing. ;D
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: MauraLeeBee on March 15, 2010, 09:59:23 PM
I know, right? Ahaha I see her once in a while on a magazine cover in the store, and I'll be like "NO SHE DOESN'T EXIST."
She needs to seriously go away. The world is getting dumber with her in it.

Also, funny story: a close friend of mine went to his grandfather's gun show in Florida, and he got a picture with the real Sarah Palin. I'm not even joking.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: cynthiaskeezy on March 16, 2010, 12:11:47 AM
I know, right? Ahaha I see her once in a while on a magazine cover in the store, and I'll be like "NO SHE DOESN'T EXIST."
She needs to seriously go away. The world is getting dumber with her in it.

Also, funny story: a close friend of mine went to his grandfather's gun show in Florida, and he got a picture with the real Sarah Palin. I'm not even joking.
I'd get a picture with her too. FO SHO.
She's like one of those people that are so stupid and smart.
Like, she manipulates Alaska, then America.
GENIUS. But her Ideas are stupid. She's LAME.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: MauraLeeBee on March 16, 2010, 02:33:49 PM
She's the Palinator: rough, tough, and ridiculous. xD
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on March 16, 2010, 05:16:48 PM
She's the Palinator: rough, tough, and ridiculous. xD
....and with a funny accent.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: MauraLeeBee on March 16, 2010, 07:07:54 PM
She's the Palinator: rough, tough, and ridiculous. xD
....and with a funny accent.

Indeed... I'm not familiar with how people from Alaska talk really, but she sounds more like she's from the deep south. (no offense to any southerners out there!)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CottonCandy on March 16, 2010, 07:17:37 PM
I thought this was a topic like "Love is..." except with Palin and we'd put witty stuff/quotes in. Like Palin is... like a bulldog with lipstick. Or Palin is... like passing out in the alaskan snow.

I'll just go now.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on March 16, 2010, 08:29:40 PM
I thought this was a topic like "Love is..." except with Palin and we'd put witty stuff/quotes in. Like Palin is... like a bulldog with lipstick. Or Palin is... like passing out in the alaskan snow.

I'll just go now.

........an Alaskan dingbat.

-Alan Grayson
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on March 16, 2010, 10:34:00 PM
She's the Palinator: rough, tough, and ridiculous. xD
....and with a funny accent.

Indeed... I'm not familiar with how people from Alaska talk really, but she sounds more like she's from the deep south. (no offense to any southerners out there!)
It's closer to Minnesota or parts of Wisconsin, but apparently (as I don't know any other Alaskans,
so I have to take other people's word for it) nothing like anyone else in Alaska...
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on March 17, 2010, 02:48:56 AM
^^ Like why the fuck would she say that?
I can't believe people actually voted for her.
That's amazing. ;D

Sarah Palin never actually said she could see Russia from her house. That was Tina Fey impersonating Sarah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psyo4JDbJJ4   at the 1:05 mark.

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on March 17, 2010, 01:33:07 PM
^^ Like why the fuck would she say that?
I can't believe people actually voted for her.
That's amazing. ;D

Sarah Palin never actually said she could see Russia from her house. That was Tina Fey impersonating Sarah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psyo4JDbJJ4   at the 1:05 mark.

#@!
That was Tina Fey paraphrasing Sarah Palin when she was interviewed by Charlie Gibson....
http://a11news.com/645/palin-russia-war-quotes/

The quote I can't find is the one where Tina Fey is talking about how to "do" Sara Palin...
...just quote her word-for-word...
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: cynthiaskeezy on March 17, 2010, 07:43:11 PM
Tina Fey is hott. Can I just put that out there?

Does this have anything to do with Sarah Palin.
Well, kinda.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on March 18, 2010, 01:45:27 AM
Tina Fey is hott. Can I just put that out there?

Does this have anything to do with Sarah Palin.
Well, kinda.
1. Agreed, Tina Fey is way hot.

2. Tina Fey is also very smart.  I find this quite attractive as well.

3. Sarah Palin might be fairly attractive if she weren't....
  ....um, what's the nice way to say stupid, narrow-minded and mean?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: cynthiaskeezy on March 19, 2010, 07:37:12 PM
I would get with Sarah Palin. Even if she's a retard  ;D
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: N.U. on May 03, 2010, 10:24:58 PM
I wouldn't. Eventually, she would want to talk, and I can't keep something stuffed in there 24 hours a day.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on May 04, 2010, 12:12:24 AM
I wouldn't. Eventually, she would want to talk, and I can't keep something stuffed in there 24 hours a day.

that's why they make ball gags.

well, ok - it's not the only reason...

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: J_Beck on May 18, 2010, 09:16:55 AM
I only stop by the box every month or so and there is always a new post in this thread, Palin really was the gift that keeps giving......... for entertainment purposes at least.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on December 02, 2010, 05:57:30 PM
When in doubt, GWAR!!!!!    :headbang: >:D :headbang: :D :D

http://www.youtube.com/v/D6VCQgA9FnI
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Morpheus Laughing on December 02, 2010, 06:14:32 PM
^
Somewhat misleading.
They merely revealed the hidden octopus creature inside the human shell...  Cthulu Jr.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on December 02, 2010, 10:47:08 PM
May be, but she is NOT a witch....   ;D
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Morpheus Laughing on December 03, 2010, 10:03:37 AM
^
I'll believe the "witch" status when she's done the appropriate tests.  ;D
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on December 03, 2010, 10:48:15 AM
She is not a witch...  she's just like you.   :toothy5:
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: The Epigrammic Poultry on December 12, 2010, 06:36:13 PM
Christine O'Donnell is just like me. She's a gay left-leaner who masturbates daily. :)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Morpheus Laughing on December 12, 2010, 07:06:57 PM
@CeeGBee.

Just noticed this…

I’m not sure who should be more offended.  ;D


Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on December 13, 2010, 12:54:46 PM
@CeeGBee.

Just noticed this…

I’m not sure who should be more offended.  ;D

Turns out the lady was lying when she said that...  Go figure.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Shock G on December 28, 2010, 11:11:14 PM
Anyone watch her reality show?  That avid hunter sure doesn't look comfortable around firearms:

http://www.youtube.com/v/zL7B7L7nZlE

Hell she can't even work the bolt  :uglystupid2:
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: cynthiaskeezy on December 31, 2010, 07:59:50 PM
Christine O'Donnell is just like me. She's a gay left-leaner who masturbates daily.

I'm going to sig this if I haven't already.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: The Epigrammic Poultry on December 31, 2010, 08:25:10 PM
YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

MY FIRST SIG! MOTHERFUCKERS.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Agonistes on December 31, 2010, 08:48:37 PM
Anyone watch her reality show?  That avid hunter sure doesn't look comfortable around firearms:

http://www.youtube.com/v/zL7B7L7nZlE

Hell she can't even work the bolt  :uglystupid2:
her dad or whoever should claim that shot.  there's probably a guy in the camera truck with a sniper rifle and a silencer in case she just plain didn't bag anything at all.  i'll be impressed when i see her wrestle a bear down and kill it with a pocketknife.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on December 31, 2010, 11:46:44 PM
Anyone watch her reality show?  That avid hunter sure doesn't look comfortable around firearms:

http://www.youtube.com/v/zL7B7L7nZlE

Hell she can't even work the bolt  :uglystupid2:
her dad or whoever should claim that shot.  there's probably a guy in the camera truck with a sniper rifle and a silencer in case she just plain didn't bag anything at all.  i'll be impressed when i see her wrestle a bear down and kill it with a pocketknife.
I notice Dick Cheney's whereabouts at that time have not been disclosed....
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Agonistes on January 01, 2011, 01:34:53 AM

I notice Dick Cheney's whereabouts at that time have not been disclosed....
i'd like to see him wrestle a bear too.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: cynthiaskeezy on January 02, 2011, 10:41:36 PM

I notice Dick Cheney's whereabouts at that time have not been disclosed....
i'd like to see him wrestle a bear too.

I second this.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Agonistes on June 04, 2011, 05:59:09 PM
now she's a biker?


http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-29/news/29618802_1_bristol-palin-sarahpac-sarah-palin


black leather and heels.  rofl what an idiot.  if she wanted to make an appearance on an american bike, she shouldn't have chosen an harley.

Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on June 04, 2011, 08:04:37 PM
[yaaaaaawn]

Sorry, did someone say something?


No?  okay...
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Agonistes on June 05, 2011, 01:21:51 AM
no, not really.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Cheddars Cousin on June 06, 2011, 09:46:13 AM
(http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m260/robdowning/spm.jpg)

That's hot!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on June 06, 2011, 12:42:07 PM
(http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m260/robdowning/spm.jpg)

That's hot!


grass, gas or ass - nobody rides for free.

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on June 06, 2011, 07:25:25 PM
I liked the Paul Revere bit....

First, she blew a historical reference, screwing up the story of Paul Revere's ride to warn
the American rebels about the approach of the British army...

Then she tried to cover by claiming that both:
-it did happen the way she said, and
-the news guys asked a "gotcha" question to trip her up....


THEN - some of her people tried to edit the WIKI article about Paul Revere to make it
say what she had said.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Agonistes on June 07, 2011, 12:20:32 AM
i heard that on public radio today and almost fell off a ladder laughing.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Shock G on June 11, 2011, 02:05:28 PM
I liked the Paul Revere bit....

First, she blew a historical reference, screwing up the story of Paul Revere's ride to warn
the American rebels about the approach of the British army...

Then she tried to cover by claiming that both:
-it did happen the way she said, and
-the news guys asked a "gotcha" question to trip her up....


THEN - some of her people tried to edit the WIKI article about Paul Revere to make it
say what she had said.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Many on the right are claiming an NPR segment proved she was right.....the reality is they had a historian on who said yes some minor details she said did happen but not in the context she claimed and that her narrative as a whole was wrong.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Agonistes on June 11, 2011, 03:17:30 PM
I liked the Paul Revere bit....

First, she blew a historical reference, screwing up the story of Paul Revere's ride to warn
the American rebels about the approach of the British army...

Then she tried to cover by claiming that both:
-it did happen the way she said, and
-the news guys asked a "gotcha" question to trip her up....


THEN - some of her people tried to edit the WIKI article about Paul Revere to make it
say what she had said.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Many on the right are claiming an NPR segment proved she was right.....the reality is they had a historian on who said yes some minor details she said did happen but not in the context she claimed and that her narrative as a whole was wrong.
heard that too.  he didn't claim she was right; he did say some things similar to how she worded them, but he clarified that the context in which she was saying it was probably incorrect.  in other words, his attitude was that he didn't want to outright call her facts wrong, but he wanted to clarify that they were not as accurate as they could be.



the quote from palin in the first place was that paul revere was, rather than trying to rouse the colonial militia to arms, was instead trying to warn the british not to take our arms, because it would violate our second amendment rights, which f course hadn't been written yet.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on June 28, 2011, 05:40:37 PM
the nut doesn't fall too far from the tree:     http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpps/entertainment/bristol-palin-says-her-virginity-was-stolen-dpgonc-20110628-fc_13885669

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: The Epigrammic Poultry on June 30, 2011, 02:22:20 PM
Quote
At 17, Palin became pregnant by Johnston during a high school camping trip, when she said she was drunk on wine coolers.

That just doesn't happen.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: N.U. on June 30, 2011, 02:37:35 PM
Palin is the anti-Obama:

Palin - 5 letters
Obama - 5 letters

Palin - 3 consonants and 2 vowels
Obama - 2 consonants and 3 vowels

Obama - Male
Palin - Female

Palin - candidate rumored to have adequate elected office experience but was proven to have very little experience
Obama - candidate rumored to have little elected office experience but was proven to have adequate experience

Obama - kept up his elected office duties while running for President until he was sworn in as President.
Palin - shirked her elected office duties while running for Vice-President and eventually quit after losing the election.

Obama - Slow to make decisions/give answers. Decisions/Answers that show forethought.
Palin - Quick to make decisions/give answers. Decisions/Answers that require constant back-tracking and revisions.

Palin - Talks tough about terror; can see Russia from her house, Did nothing to protect Alaska from Terrorism while governor
Obama - gave the kill/capture order for Bin Laden, a mission that lost no American lives. Passed bipartisan legislation with republican Dick Luger to account for all nuclear weapons worldwide to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorist organizations.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on June 30, 2011, 11:11:32 PM
Quote
ANCHORAGE — A new Hays Research poll shows Barack Obama would beat Sarah Palin
among Alaskans if the presidential election was today....

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/29/2290612/alaska-poll-says-obama-would-beat.html)

Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: The Epigrammic Poultry on July 02, 2011, 04:40:32 PM
...Passed bipartisan legislation with republican Dick Luger to account for all nuclear weapons worldwide to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorist organizations.

And a terrorist organisation is...?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 02, 2011, 05:19:33 PM
...Passed bipartisan legislation with republican Dick Luger to account for all nuclear weapons worldwide to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorist organizations.

And a terrorist organisation is...?
People who:

1. Disagree-with/don't-like the US, and....

2. Refuse to build sufficient material infrastructure to make
    in-kind payback a reliable deterrent against attack.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: The Epigrammic Poultry on July 02, 2011, 06:24:08 PM
...Passed bipartisan legislation with republican Dick Luger to account for all nuclear weapons worldwide to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorist organizations.
And a terrorist organisation is...?
People who:

1. Disagree-with/don't-like the US, and....

2. Refuse to build sufficient material infrastructure to make
    in-kind payback a reliable deterrent against attack.

Exactly :)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on July 02, 2011, 09:31:48 PM
...Passed bipartisan legislation with republican Dick Luger to account for all nuclear weapons worldwide to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorist organizations.
And a terrorist organisation is...?
People who:

1. Disagree-with/don't-like the US, and....

2. Refuse to build sufficient material infrastructure to make
    in-kind payback a reliable deterrent against attack.

Exactly :)
...and, to be fair, it is just this sort of group that we want to
make sure NEVER gets their paws on a beeeg bada-boom.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Cheddars Cousin on July 04, 2011, 04:51:22 PM
...Passed bipartisan uninforcible legislation with republican Dick Luger to account for all nuclear weapons worldwide to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorist organizations.

Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on August 17, 2011, 10:50:55 AM
Palin is...so yesterday.

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-08-14-BachmannCornDog.png)

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Shock G on August 20, 2011, 02:15:15 AM
Palin is...so yesterday.

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-08-14-BachmannCornDog.png)

#@!

Even better is her husband:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L4QMyszTGAE/TklQx_YwCbI/AAAAAAAAAfQ/41JmIyae4qQ/s1600/The+Bachmann%2527s.jpg)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on August 20, 2011, 03:02:48 PM
^ I see a future in bisexual geriatric porn for those two.  :love3:


back to Sarah:    http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/?id=653468&t=sarah_palin%27s_husband_admits_on_video_that_his_wife_quit_being_governor_so_she_could_make_more_money

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on September 14, 2011, 07:25:14 PM
oh, dear:    http://www.mercurynews.com/celebrities/ci_18895905?nclick_check=1

#@!
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Agonistes on September 14, 2011, 11:40:41 PM
link seems to be baleeted
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: lentower on September 14, 2011, 11:48:28 PM
link seems to be baleeted

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18895905 (http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18895905)
works
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Agonistes on September 15, 2011, 12:13:45 AM
thanks ever so. 

what is it with republicans and cocaine?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on September 16, 2011, 12:27:52 AM
thanks ever so. 

what is it with republicans and cocaine?
It was cool when they were 20-something, and they aren't cool enough to be junkies...
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Shock G on March 12, 2012, 08:11:30 PM
So did anyone watch Game Change?
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: N.U. on March 13, 2012, 01:58:54 AM
Yup. Sure did. Dumbasses never properly vetted her.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Shock G on March 13, 2012, 05:51:09 PM
Yup. Sure did. Dumbasses never properly vetted her.

We thought the other guys did!

What a fuck up.
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Astica on March 18, 2012, 03:16:03 PM
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2010/4/1/18/3-invisible-dicks-23149-1270159242-22.jpg)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on March 19, 2012, 12:03:04 AM
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2010/4/1/18/3-invisible-dicks-23149-1270159242-22.jpg)
L O (seriously) L



In other news...
Check out "The President"... around :35 sec...
http://www.youtube.com/v/Py_IndUbcxc
CAN'T WAIT!!!  (I just hope a theatre somewhere near me actually picks it up...)
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: imaginary friend on March 19, 2012, 10:14:51 AM
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2010/4/1/18/3-invisible-dicks-23149-1270159242-22.jpg)

she needs to work on her handjob technique. seriously.

:(
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Astica on March 20, 2012, 05:08:09 AM
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2010/4/1/18/3-invisible-dicks-23149-1270159242-22.jpg)

she needs to work on her handjob technique. seriously.

:(
She's a republican, what do you expect? ;D
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: CeeGBee on March 20, 2012, 12:41:34 PM
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2010/4/1/18/3-invisible-dicks-23149-1270159242-22.jpg)

she needs to work on her handjob technique. seriously.

:(
She's a republican, what do you expect? ;D
I've heard some guys enjoy that whole Iron Grip thing....   :-\
Title: Re: Palin is.....
Post by: Shock G on May 14, 2012, 01:13:07 AM
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2010/4/1/18/3-invisible-dicks-23149-1270159242-22.jpg)
L O (seriously) L



In other news...
Check out "The President"... around :35 sec...
http://www.youtube.com/v/Py_IndUbcxc
CAN'T WAIT!!!  (I just hope a theatre somewhere near me actually picks it up...)

That has to be the greatest movie of all time!