lol. I only just realised my Cheddar comment had gone in the wrong thread!

It was more appropriate than a couple recent comments.

Radar that blog comment is worthless. Anyone with teenage children knows that pic means NOTHING. That could be a perfectly normal pic of any teen girl. And if it really happened, why isn't the unabashedly liberal media all over it?

Stop propagating more bullshit and stfu.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here know what the VP does, day-to-day?
I don't... a rough idea what the VP's duties are, but not the day-to-day routine. I would imagine it amounts to following an itinerary handed to him/her by the staff, and knowing how to act appropriately in each of those situations as they arise. :confused:

The TV series West Wing taught me that the VP sits in a dark office all day waiting for Martin Sheen to come in and yell at him.

Fixed that fer ya. :lol:

Bill Maher answers this question well...

Another pompous asshole - keep 'em coming radar.

Radar, unit now I would have pegged you for a man who likes the truth. I would not have pegged you for a man who would use conjecture, rumor and statements that contain the word "may" and "appear", in place of statements of truth and fact. On daily KOS the following statements appear: "But it appears that Pallin's last child, a baby with Down's syndrome, may not be hers. It may be that of her teenage daughter. " I know we've quibbled before of the definition of "is", radar there is a big difference between "is" and "may". I could buy a copy of the National Enquirer for that kind of reporting. I guess I should count my blessings, I got here for free. :D

So, anybody ask why she was on a commercial flight?

She sold the official state jet on ebay when she took office, for 2.1 million, because she said it was a frivolous expense. Instead, she flies coach.

Know any other state governors who fly coach? Anyone?

the late Senator Paul Wellstone?

Loves me some Jib-Jab
http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

McCain's runing mate is a female human widely known as "Pallin".
Apart from that, I am not believing anything I hear about her for the next two weeks. Let the dust settle and the smoke clear first. There's still plenty of time before voting day. A few weeks scrutiny will sort the wheat from the chaff. Or in this case, the plausible PR spin from the outright lies.

And I won't believe anything new I hear in the last week before polling either. Standard trick - trott out some slander at the last moment when there is no opportunity to disprove it.

I'm only cynical if I'm wrong.

I didn't realize, they're letting Aussies vote this time around? ;)

Eh, fuggit, maybe we should... joke as it is...

Why not Michelle Bachman?! Dang. I must admit, I thought the affable (and more experienced) Gov Pawlenty was the threat.

Heckuvajob.
I think it is a very appropriate choice that highlights the caliber of decision making we might expect from a Pres. McCain (or his handlers).

The Alaska ethics investigation report is due 4 days before the election.

The duties will vary depending on the President. With the absurd growth in the power of the executive branch the VP's role has been increasing. Mondale apparently had a large role in the Carter administration, while W has had a significant role in the Cheney adm. ;) I expect that the next VP will have a role in whatever area of expertise they have. Biden will likely be the foreign policy guy and a channel to Congress. Pallin will have to define herself.

Well that's that. Reuters:
She didn't give birth 4 months ago, because she's five months pregnant now.

Phew.
Oh wait - I mean, oh dear.

The question is, is there a point at which the candidates private life affects their public life.

After the rumors about he covering for her teenage daughters pregnancy, it is now confirmed that her teenage daughter is pregnant.

One of the reasons McCain picked her was to appeal to social conservatives. Her answers to the 'abstinence only education' question during the vice presidential debate should be very informative. Even without Biden bringing her personal experience into it, the subtext will be there.

When the commentators mentioned her flying home during her 'labor' as an example of toughness, my wife looked shocked. It might actually be better for her if she wasn't pregnant and was covering for her daughter. Trying to sell her to women conservatives as an effective mom and politician are going to be difficult.

It's going to be an interesting two months.

I have to assume your wife is not conservative, right? It's a little weird that you transpose her reaction into a belief about how people who are not like her will react. The statement the Pallins gave said,

which is completely in line with their political beliefs, and the official social conservative reaction so far is:

It's a non-story, and won't affect her standing with social conservatives at all, just like Cheney's lesbian daughter didn't.

You mean non-mothers? I guess we could do a poll and ask mothers how many of them would board a plane in labor during a high risk pregnancy.

Her private life is part of the story. It always will be for candidates. Who your minister is, where you went to school, and how you are perceived as raising your family.

It is true that people let politicians who have been divorced multiple times can successfully run on a 'family values' ticket. This is something new.

I absolutely agree that people's private lives, in general, affect their viability for public office. What I take issue with is your assertion of what this will mean, not for you as a voter, but for other people as voters. This "scandal" is not a scandal to social conservatives, but social liberals wish it were, because they think they see a perverse justice being served.

Her whole career has been spent talking about unrealistic things like abstinence. She's a holy roller trying to shove her Christian morality down everyone else's throats through legislation, and now it turns out, like most zealots, she's got her own problems to worry about.

Matthew 7: 1-5

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Why not? Should I limit speculation to liberal moderate males of my age. How about if I only speculate about the voting patterns of men born on my exact birth date?:D

I believe that anyone can be a political pundit and speculate about the voting habits and opinions of any group they want. Otherwise, we'd need an army of correspondents on Fox and MSNBC to represent every possible voting block in the country. And try to find an Albanian-American neocon pre-op transexual when news breaks on a Friday night in the Balkans.

I believe that independents will be rolling their eyes when she answers the 'abstinence only education' question in the debates. Hard core social conservatives may stay with her, but she will probably lose the more pragmatic ones.

I've been arguing that for years.
The USA dictates our foreign policy.
The USA sets our trade policy.
The USA influences our environmental policy.
The USA strongly hints at our social policy.

I reckon we SHOULD have the right to vote for the prez of the USA.

(Okay guys, just kidding, but I assert the right to have an opinion about the candidates.)

I also note that I have twelve days left to learn how to spell Palin :p

What a remarkable coincidence.

I wonder how that will turn out. Clear her, condemn her, or be ambiguous, but I reckon by that time most people will have made up their minds.
It makes the choice of Palin seem very odd. Choosing someone who is currently under investigation for unethical behaviour, with the result as yet unknown. High risk.

It actually might work out beautifully for him. Choose a running mate with possible issues that might force a resignation, including legal and/or family issues. Get elected. Either the family issue or the legal issue prompts VP to resign. Appoint the VP you originally wanted, but who couldn't get you elected.

Say hello to VP Lieberman in 18 months.

This would explain why McCain picked her while knowing about the investigation and her daughters pregnancy.

F***ing brilliant.:thumb:

Brilliant ... provided it doesn't cost him the election.

Don't worry this won't cost him the election. The fact that he's less popular than Obama and not as good a candidate will cost him the election. The pick of this corrupt woman will just make him lose by a larger margin.

If Obama does happen to lose, will you please post some pics of your imploded head for us?

I can't do that, but I will take a photo or two of me paying out about $3,000 I've made in bets.

Obamas response to the pregnancy was a master stroke in my opinion.

And the proper one. Her kid getting knocked up in High School has nothing to do with it. The daughters of people who promote early sex education & contraception, also get knocked up.

Delaying medical attention, and flying, after her water broke, might make some people question her priorities. OK, fair question, but leave the kid out of it.

Harassing her ex-brother, and lying about it, is more interesting to me.

Governor “Squeakyclean”….or not. about half way down the page.

Very interesting if it's true. Custody battles can get pretty nasty, and the line between truth and fiction often becomes very blurred as we all know. Still, doesn't look good for her though.

Sorry but dishonesty and hypocrisy in a candidate is important to me, even if it's in their home life. Her daughter's pregnancy are as politically important as John Edward's relationship with the woman he cheated on his wife with or the blow job Clinton got.

The public has no right to know about these things, but they should be out in the open when someone wants to act like a pious and holy person who tells other how to live their lives. If someone wants to create laws to force their Christian morality down the throats of others, they should live up to the same standard.

Yeah...we should all be responsible for the mistakes others make.

eta: Of course, this is definitely not a very libertarian viewpoint.

Just remember Radar has a violent and unreasoning prejudice against anything with a Republican label -- for all that the Democrats are manifestly the bigger socialists, which are about as antilibertarian as a viable American political philosophy gets. He avoids understanding this. He probably won't go near the elephants at the zoo.

I didn't say she was responsible for the mistakes someone else made. She's responsible for her own mistakes, as in the mistakes she made when raising her daughter, or in focusing on her career rather than being focused on raising her kids in a way that was consistent with the morality she claims to subscribe to and which she's trying to shove down everyone else's throat.

The woman doesn't believe in evolution. That alone proves her to be a nutjob.

For the record, Republicans are more socialist than Democrats and Republicans are more fiscally irresponsible than Democrats.

"...would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives" That's far from shoving down throats.

And so you indulge in rumor-mongering and overstatement. Care to apply your own standards to yourself?

True, abstinence is just about as unrealistic as say getting even a tenth of the country to believe your views on taxes, national defense, or... really just about any damn thing you've hung your flag on. Completely unrealistic. But here's the thing, I don't consider you a nutjob because I disagree with you. Why is it that she must be a nutjob if she disagrees with you?

Pfffft! Facts? Facts can be used to prove anything.

The truth doesn't change based on the number of people who believe in it. I contend that anyone who thinks evolution is false and creationism is true is mentally deficient. It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of having the ability to discern science from fairy tales.

The majority of the world believed the world was flat. The majority of the United States believe income taxes are legal. The majority of America is stupid enough to think the federal government has powers other than those enumerated in the Constitution. They are all equally correct in their beliefs.

It will be delayed. [/fearless prediction]

u r 1 funnee mofo~!!!11
:lol2:

Whatever. The facts are already known and admitted to by the parties involved. They are just investigating to find out if she was wrong in her actions, or not. :right: Anyway, that issue isn't going to make anyone like or dislike her anymore than they would have anyway.

Her sister was married to a cop and in a custody dispute. The cop had abused her in the past and there were some other issues with him that you might not like to be swirling around a cop. His boss chose not to discipline him, so the boss got removed from his job. Palin's hack took fell on his sword and promptly said he did it on his own without her involvement. Whatever. stupid move but nothing unusual in the world of politics unfortunately.

Translation: Palin's sister was divorcing a cop and she wanted to make sure she got the kids, so rather than try to do it fairly in court, she made up stories of abuse, and had her sister fire the guy. When his commander refused to fire him, she had the commander fired and replaced . The new guy quit soon after being appointed the replacement.

Now Palin is caught with her hand in the "abuse of power" cookie jar.

yeah, that could be it too. i wasn't there personally so just basing my statements on what is readily available. Now that I've thought about it a little more I think you're probably right.

Palin is a republican so the chances of her sister being honest are next to nil. And really, I seriously doubt a cop would ever hit his wife. This all started as a plot to invade another country. Chances are he came home and caught that whore he'd married banging some republican stooge so he'd vote for her sister. The upstanding cop was so sickened at the thought of republican corruption that he had no choice to speak loudly at his wife while admonishing her republican whoring about. She, being a republican and a whore, (probably a crackhead and parttime lesbian too, but I digress) quickly seized at this opportunity and called Karl Rove to come hit her a few times so she'd be able to convince her sister that the husband was in fact an abusive bastard who she caught trying to sell Uranium to the...

oh fuck it, i'm just not as good as you at hating. Radar, you talk as if truth and facts are all you and right thinking libertarians care about but you spread more bullshit and innuendo than even most D's and R's.

Don't blame yourself. Few have my capacity for hate. ;) Also, don't hate the player, hate the game. The Democrats & Republicans invented smear campaigns. I'm just using their own tactics against them.

Seriously though, I've seen people make up terrible things during a divorce... like allegations of abuse (sexual or physical) on the wife or kids.


Let's look at the two stories and see which seems more logical from an objective viewpoint.


1) A cop beat his wife and abused her, and her sister just happens to be governor and she attempts to get him fired only because of this alleged abuse and not because he was in a nasty divorce with her sister.

or


2) A cop and his wife were getting a divorce and things got ugly, so she called her sister, the governor, and asked her to get this guy fired on the grounds of spousal abuse.


I think option 2 sounds more believable. Not because this women is a bible-thumping, disgusting neocon who stupidly believes evolution is fake, but simply because it's just more plausible.


Perhaps the truth lies somewhere between. In either case, it is an ethical violation for her sister to try to get the guy fired.

if that's the way it went down it's an ethical violation. ok? next.

obama couldn't afford to buy the mansion he wanted so he entered into a shady real estate deal. ok? next.

neither of these issues is enough to eliminate them from public office. politicians aren't squeaky clean. life isn't black and white like you want to believe, so it's up to us to look at the whole picture and weigh out the pros and cons we see with a candidate and sift it through our own priorities and values. At the end of that process you'll find you can only support one of the candidates and you'll probably have to hold your nose a little while you do. welcome to politics. what you fail to accept is that 2 reasonably intelligent, rational people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions without any mental defficiency. that blindness is a problem that afflicts an awful lot of hardcore, rabid party desciples whether they be R,D, or L.

OK, how many people here are parents who have children who sometimes do things they'd rather they didn't? Or...shock horror...do things completely opposite to the way they've been raised for the usual teenage reasons?

Is it your fault as a parent? Maybe although I tend to believe that taking a different path to your parents is part of the growing process and there are things to be learned by both the child and the parent from the experience.

If kids never bothered doing things contrary to what their parents 'brought them up to believe', we'd all still be either living in the garden of Eden, or in caves (depending on your belief system).

As to the situation with Palin, if I were American her actions wouldn't affect how I'd vote anyway. Surely you all know that the person in the top job is just a mouth piece by now anyway right? They do what the party tells them or they get dumped. They're all human and make mistakes. If they've done something that causes them to be fired in due course, then so be it. Unfortunately the nature of politics dictates that the little people must leave it to the big dogs to sort it out.

Have you looked at Cheney's Vice Presidency? He's been pretty active and powerful for the last 8 years, enabling him to perplex many in his own party. I'm just saying that it actually is a position of power, if the executive maneuvers it so.


Oh, and I couldn't care less about the daughters, neither Palins or Cheney's!

Fair enough Warch. You're right in that regard, so maybe she would have power to enact her evil plans.

I doubt they could be too much more evil than Cheney's though could they? ;)

And how's that work on the Cellar and in real life? Now your credibility is shot. Where do you go from there?

Yeah, but sometimes you risk not overt evil, just incompetence. Which is worse? The whole election circus should work to help voters weigh and balance ideologies with the skills of practice in reality-based sausage making of governance, particularly during a time of global war. Obama/Biden seems more balanced in that regard to me, than McCain/Palin.

I'd be voting for Obama/Biden if I had the chance. I don't though, so I just have to leave my future in the hands of the people who do have the chance.

Here's an idea, I'll auction my vote to one of you for'ners. Ali to Zengum, I've got you covered.