On September 11 2008 13:36 HBwtf wrote: ...so this thread is what happens when 20-year old video gamers jump into a political discussion. Pretty dirty, guys.
A lot of clamoring, it's just eerie.
Though I cannot join the circle jerk, I am feeling a bit peckish and would love to dry-hump for a bit.
clearly you are much more intelligent and politically aware than the rest of us, many of whom major in this shit. enlighten us please
The pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has yet to be laid, federal approvals are years away and the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade. In fact, although it is the centerpiece of Ms. Palin’s relatively brief record as governor, the pipeline might never be built, and under a worst-case scenario, the state could lose up to $500 million it committed to defray regulatory and other costs.
Now I am new so please dont kill me >_<!! Ok Well I have done my research. I dislike McCain for wishing to stay in the war. This is common news. I dislike Biden for his views towards piracy and the privacy with computers.
Biden uses the views of plagerism for his views to stop downloads of music. Now I am not against that; however, I do not see a reasonable solution to knowing who downloaded what unless he searches the computers illegally.
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries. And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
It seems like they're content to lead us into another war in the name of national security >.> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting things though.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.
I'm probably extrapolating too far, but it sounds like she thinks that there's a divine plan for the world and the U.S., as one of the strongest entities that fits into what this plan states, has the responsibility to oversee the carrying out of this plan. Especially when she talks about Georgia, the Ukraine and Israel and how the US must look out for its democratic allies. I seem to be disliking Palin the more she talks policy.
Does that interview not scare anyone, I mean for crying out loud this is the same woman who has tried to have books banned, believes that incest, and rape victims do not have a choice. Yet demands her family's privacy be respected. Then the potential president whose own staff are concerned with his notorious temper, I mean Jesus think if he lost his temper with a foreign diplomat because they didn't agree, hell wars have started from less.
Not to mention she didn't even know what the hell the VP did before now. Wake the fuck up people.
This is the problem with McCain's (and Palin's, since she's a blank slate) neo-realist foreign policy. When they talk about the Cold War, they see it as being bad because of Soviet expansion. When I hear 'Cold War', I think of the two most powerful countries nearly annihilating eachother and exploiting hundreds of millions of people and dozens of countries in a political game that has directly lead to many of our current day crises.
Anything Palin says about foreign policy should simply be thrown out the window because it's not her actual belief. This is where democrats have every goddamn right to sound elitist. She doesn't have training in even the simplest of international relations, and she certainly has no clue when it comes to real engagements. Obama's platform isn't perfect, but this part of his Wikipedia entry cannot be repeated enough:
He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations.
Morons like to shit on academia these days, but the greatest foreign policy leaders of the 20th century all relied heavily on the work of civilians to construct their policy. Truman, Eisenhower and so on, so this isn't just some liberal concept. People study how IR works and in a competent administration, domestic officials have no business making foreign policy decisions without consulting them first. It's clear by her statements that she has not.
How exactly does placing sanctions and trade restrictions on Russia pull us away from a Cold War scenario? Not only is it firing up nationalism in the state, but those kinds of policies practically beg for them to install another command economy.
NATO itself has relatively little credibility at the moment, but I don't expect Russia to push the limits because (unfortunately) USA credibility is probably at an all time high (for those of you starting your USA-whine posts, credibility in this case refers to the 4Cs in deterrence theory.) Still, giving them the chance by accepting Georgia is simply not worth the risk, given it's a really shitty model of a democratic nation.
Unfortunately, none of this matters to the public at large because they don't know shit, but whoever wins the presidency needs to start appealing to China as our new great ally. What Inc didn't realize when he was trying to start his Russia vs. China crusade is that tension has already existed for quite some time, and pledging support to them is far more important than doing it for Georgia or Ukraine. I'm not sure if it's politically viable to come out and say that, but it has to happen in the back rooms.
PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.
This is the product of too much 24. Nuclear terrorism is a load of bullshit in the year 2008 for a ton of reasons. First, nuclear material is easily trackable and Iran is well aware that if a weapon goes off in Israel, they're getting decimated no questions asked. There are some small non-state actors that may not be considered rational actors, but the Iranian government and larger groups (Hezbollah, Hamas) certainly are. People in power are often able to convince idiots that there's life after death, but the people at the top know better, or at least they prefer their living life more than the dead life. Second, how exactly are terrorist groups going to set these weapons off? Iran has mid-range ballistic missiles which would deliver their nuclear arsenal (assuming they're actually working in that direction.) Nation states are really required for any type of nuclear attack in this day and age because no one else has the infrastructure to do it.
If they want to worry about something, it should still be biological weapons.
And for those 24 viewers wondering, suitcase nukes are not known to actually exist and if they did, would carry a payload no more destructive than conventional weapons. They would also be stupidly easy to find (you wouldn't even be able to get it past the NYC subway) and require too much maintenance.
BTW, props to Gibson for the interview. That was better than I expected from any of the primetime stations.
I really hope Obama wins but I'm not sure of the legitimacy of the state's elections =\. The last two elections were really sketchy and I have no doubt that this one will be any different. Are you a political science student Jibba?
must say, this palin business is like a dark comedy. the really irksome thing is not about palin herself, but the amount of attention paid to utterly inane stuff like that lipstick thing. palin is not a national figure with a public profile kept by tight codes of conduct, nor does she have a conventional politics. and since palin has no issue to speak of, she is just an image poster, a person who can connect with the informed and respected voters, just like that lady on the late night AsSeenOnTV! oven infomercial connects with the average housewife, whom the oven company values as an informed and respected friend. it is demagoguery to the worst, but it is so audaciously crude that there is no way to counter it without coming off as raging. it's like when you play chess and create complexities and bully the other guy with position, pretty brilliant but downright dirty and perverse. utterly perverse.
added together, the whole affair is a joke, but everyone must keep a straight face because it is the vice presidential debate! can we get the american idol panel some electoral votes please!
On September 11 2008 14:31 Smurg wrote: Apparently they can predict the results of the election by the amount of action figures modelled on Governors/Senators.
As of now Republicans are going to win based on that gimmick. It's been right several times in the past.
Funny device of prediction...but whatevz!
but figurines depicting well to do niggers do not sell in america
and to jibba, perhaps i used ideology in the wrong way earlier. for movement republicans fighting against the liberal establishment of basically everyone who writes a paper disagreeable or critical, taking in competent advice is not a matter of experience or ability but a matter of political attitude. i think it is fair to call this ideology in one of its senses. a proper respect for the delicacies of even ordinary government decisions is found lacking in the bush administration, and i would attribute this to the ideological or political history of those in charge. the right is on the ascend, despite some road bumps, i still expect them to be aggressive pushing stuff on ideological grounds.
On September 11 2008 14:31 Smurg wrote: Apparently they can predict the results of the election by the amount of action figures modelled on Governors/Senators.
As of now Republicans are going to win based on that gimmick. It's been right several times in the past.
Funny device of prediction...but whatevz!
but figurines depicting well to do niggers do not sell in america
and to jibba, perhaps i used ideology in the wrong way earlier. for movement republicans fighting against the liberal establishment of basically everyone who writes a paper disagreeable or critical, taking in competent advice is not a matter of experience or ability but a matter of political attitude. i think it is fair to call this ideology in one of its senses. a proper respect for the delicacies of even ordinary government decisions is found lacking in the bush administration, and i would attribute this to the ideological or political history of those in charge. the right is on the ascend, despite some road bumps, i still expect them to be aggressive pushing stuff on ideological grounds.
You're right. Part of the failure of Iraq has been this administration's emphasis on loyalty over qualification/experience. If I went to one of those small Christian colleges, I could be hired in a civilian position for rebuilding Iraq, even before graduating. I wouldn't know what the fuck I'm doing, but that's the case for a lot of the people we've hired to rebuild their country.
Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.
Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices. Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.
As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.
Under the state constitution, the governor of Alaska has unusually strong powers to shape the state budget. At the Republican National Convention, Palin bragged that she had vetoed "nearly $500 million" in state spending during her two years as governor. This amounts to less than 2% of the proposed budget. That's how much this warrior for you (the people) against it (the government) could find in wasteful spending under her control.
One thing Barack Obama and McCain disagree on is an oil windfall–profits tax. McCain is against it, on the theory that it is a tax and therefore bad, and also that it would discourage domestic production. Obama is for it, on the theory that if oil companies can make a nice profit when oil sells for $50 per bbl., they can still make a nice profit when it sells for more than $100, even if the government takes a bit and spreads the money around to those who are hurting from higher oil prices.
Although Palin's words side with McCain in this dispute, her actions side with Obama. Her major legislative accomplishment has been to revamp Alaska's windfall-profits tax in order to increase the state's take. Alaska calls it a "clear and equitable share" tax. The state assumes that extracting oil from the tundra costs about $25 per bbl. and takes as much as 75% of the difference between that and the sale price.
But Americans like stories more than issues. Policy proposals are useful in the theater of presidential politics only inasmuch as they illuminate character: far more people are aware of the fact that Palin put the state jet on eBay than know that she imposed a windfall-profits tax on oil companies as governor and was a porkaholic as mayor of Wasilla.
So Obama faces an uphill struggle between now and Nov. 4. He has no personal anecdotes to match Palin's mooseburgers. His story of a boy whose father came from Kenya and mother from Kansas takes place in an America not yet mythologized, a country that is struggling to be born — a multiracial country whose greatest cultural and economic strength is its diversity. It is the country where our children already live and that our parents will never really know, a country with a much greater potential for justice and creativity — and perhaps even prosperity — than the sepia-tinted version of Main Street America. But that vision is not sellable right now to a critical mass of Americans. They live in a place, not unlike C. Vann Woodward's South, where myths are more potent than the hope of getting past the dour realities they face each day.
Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.
Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.
Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.
EPT
