McCain picks Sarah Palin

Of course, pro-choice implies that the other side is "anti-choice", which is somewhat misleading at times, as the choice itself could be to abort fetuses in their third trimester that are perfectly viable (this occurs about 15% of the time, if I remember correctly) But I do agree with you that antiabortion activists are hardline in other departments as well. (Three Gs - God, gays, guns, and abortion)

And in my post above- I think that's Cheney's daughter*.

And you really can't get mad at McCain for playing the politics game by picking a woman.

But that's exactly the thing - that completely goes against McCain's (old) image. You see, I used to like McCain. He said things like they were. He did things because they were the right things to do, not just because they would get him more votes. He was, for the most part, pretty reasonable. He knew that politics is a sleazy business and he would mock the stupid things that politicians did to get a few more votes. He didn't even really campaign in Iowa because he knew that the corn subsidies were a bad idea, and he wasn't willing to go there and lie about how the farmers in Iowa were what was making America great. But now he's just like the rest of them. The old John McCain probably would have chosen Lieberman because they work well together and he thinks he would be a good person for the job. The new John McCain realized that there was a possibility that more of Hillary's supporters would vote for him if he picked a woman - so out comes a woman.

It is a supremely political choice, not a choice for governing.

But that's exactly the thing - that completely goes against McCain's (old) image. You see, I used to like McCain. He said things like they were. He did things because they were the right things to do, not just because they would get him more votes. He was, for the most part, pretty reasonable. He knew that politics is a sleazy business and he would mock the stupid things that politicians did to get a few more votes. He didn't even really campaign in Iowa because he knew that the corn subsidies were a bad idea, and he wasn't willing to go there and lie about how the farmers in Iowa were what was making America great. But now he's just like the rest of them. The old John McCain probably would have chosen Lieberman because they work well together and he thinks he would be a good person for the job. The new John McCain realized that there was a possibility that more of Hillary's supporters would vote for him if he picked a woman - so out comes a woman.

It is a supremely political choice, not a choice for governing.

Since when did Lieberman become a Republican? :f6: I thought he was a dem. lol

He's an independent now. He used to be a democrat. He was Gore's VP choice. There was talk of him being a possibility for McCain's VP choice because they're basically BFF. But it would have cost McCain a lot of votes because he's still trying to convince Republicans that he's conservative enough.

Wow. I hadn't even heard that. Well good for him for having the balls to switch things up a bit. I really liked Lieberman.

I actually think he mainly switched because he lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut to Ned Lamont, so he ran as an Independent. I'm not actually overly fond of him, and I think he would have been just as bad a choice as Sarah Palin, but I would respect McCain more if he'd chosen him.

Also I just looked on wikipedia and it says that he's listed as an "Independent Democrat," whatever that means. He's pretty much a Democrat, but he likes the war in Iraq. A lot.

^ He's been drifting towards conservative policies for a while. Lamont was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

It is a supremely political choice, not a choice for governing.

You realize that he wanted Lieberman, but when he tested that idea, the whole religious establishment roared in disapproval. He needs someone to shore up his base, and Palin is better than the other choices he would have picked.

And since when were either candidate in this race not playing the game?

McCain used to not be playing the game. I give you my previous example of him not campaigning in Iowa because he wasn't willing to lie about how great farm subsidies are. Before, he did a lot of things that made Republicans mad, and that's a big part of why he has to backpedal so much now and do things to reassure them that he'll be a nice conservative president.

I understand perfectly well why he chose Palin, but I don't like his reasons and it's just another reason why I'm not going to vote for him come November.

WHOA. That scared the crap out of me when it popped up lol. Way to close up.

1. Fired one person... okay... which president hasn't fired someone for politcal purposes? Let's see... George Washington. That's about it.
2. I can't say much about this.
3. In the latest poll, a majority of Americans agree with drilling in ANWR.
4. Instead of supporting a pullout without any specifics that will plunge Iraq into a civil war. I guess that's a dumb idea though.
5. I can't say much about this either.
6. Opposes all abortion? Look closer. (Hm... if you think that fetuses have no rights whatsoever until birth, you're just as wrong as the people that think that eggs have the same rights as the woman upon conception)

---

McCain used to not be playing the game. I give you my previous example of him not campaigning in Iowa because he wasn't willing to lie about how great farm subsidies are. Before, he did a lot of things that made Republicans mad, and that's a big part of why he has to backpedal so much now and do things to reassure them that he'll be a nice conservative president.

I understand perfectly well why he chose Palin, but I don't like his reasons and it's just another reason why I'm not going to vote for him come November.

Remember, the McCain that didn't play the game (in 2000) lost the elections.

And are you saying that you would have voted for McCain if he continued being a maverick? I know a lot of Democrats that criticize McCain for this and that, but to be honest, they would all vote for Obama no matter what McCain did.

Food for thought, what would you guys think about electing the VP seperate from the President?

Food for thought, what would you guys think about electing the VP seperate from the President?

Food for thought, what if the President that is elected and the VP that is elected have completely different views?

Do you know how they used to select the VP? Whoever came in 2nd for the President position (usually the winner opposer) IMagine how much they must have disagreed on policies. Nothing would get done

1. Fired one person... okay... which president hasn't fired someone for politcal purposes? Let's see... George Washington. That's about it.
2. I can't say much about this.
3. In the latest poll, a majority of Americans agree with drilling in ANWR.
4. Instead of supporting a pullout without any specifics that will plunge Iraq into a civil war. I guess that's a dumb idea though.
5. I can't say much about this either.
6. Opposes all abortion? Look closer. (Hm... if you think that fetuses have no rights whatsoever until birth, you're just as wrong as the people that think that eggs have the same rights as the woman upon conception)

---



Remember, the McCain that didn't play the game (in 2000) lost the elections.

And are you saying that you would have voted for McCain if he continued being a maverick? I know a lot of Democrats that criticize McCain for this and that, but to be honest, they would all vote for Obama no matter what McCain did.

lol just because the majority of Americans agree with it doesn't mean it's correct. The majority of Americans are fucking retarded. They aren't informed and just listen to what their first century fiction literature tells them. Little do they know that drilling in ANWR is not even a temporary solution; it will lower gas prices by, at most, 2 cents...

Of course, pro-choice implies that the other side is "anti-choice", which is somewhat misleading at times, as the choice itself could be to abort fetuses in their third trimester that are perfectly viable (this occurs about 15% of the time, if I remember correctly) But I do agree with you that antiabortion activists are hardline in other departments as well. (Three Gs - God, gays, guns, and abortion)

Yeah, I don't like "pro-choice" either.

And in my post above- I think that's Cheney's daughter*.

Nice try, but I meant it as a grouping of Bush's daughters and Cheney's daughter. All 3 of them are "daughters".

But I did make a mistake. Should have said:
"Bush's and Cheney's daughters."

It is a supremely political choice, not a choice for governing.

Yeah, but my point is that no one batted an eye when Obama picked Biden. They're both playing a game, but McCain is the only one getting bitched at over it. And irony of ironies is that Obama himself matches up similarly to Palin in the experience department, except that Palin's chief experience is actually in the executive branch. I just don't see how it is ok for the Democrats to pick Obama as Presidential nominee, yet it is not ok for Republicans to pick Palin as VP nominee.

lol just because the majority of Americans agree with it doesn't mean it's correct. The majority of Americans are pineappleing retarded. They aren't informed and just listen to what their first century fiction literature tells them. Little do they know that drilling in ANWR is not even a temporary solution; it will lower gas prices by, at most, 2 cents...

Sometimes the psychological effect is enough to cause drastic change. It might not have a large economic effect, but it would have a psychological effect and that CAN have a large economic effect.

Incidentally, can you cite a source on your claim of "it will lower gas prices by, at most, 2 cents"?

ps hey googlesearch: that image forgot the easiest blow: she is in favor of teaching CREATIONISM IN THE CLASSROOM HOLY pumpernickel

Remember, the McCain that didn't play the game (in 2000) lost the elections.

And are you saying that you would have voted for McCain if he continued being a maverick? I know a lot of Democrats that criticize McCain for this and that, but to be honest, they would all vote for Obama no matter what McCain did.

I will say this: After it was clear that McCain and Obama were going to be the two nominees, I was happy because I felt I would be fine with either of them in office. Obama was clearly the more exciting candidate, but I was also ready to vote for McCain if necessary because I was worried that if we got out of Iraq too quickly it would become a mess and that there was a possibility of fixing it if we stayed in longer. I am now completely certain that I am voting for Obama, both because McCain has completely abandoned his principles (the Sarah Palin choice being the most recent example of this) and because I think the surge has worked well enough that it is reasonable to withdraw fairly quickly from Iraq.

Also, I understand why McCain is doing all the things he's doing. I suppose that in the end, it is our collective fault, because nobody would vote for him if he didn't sacrifice his principles. He is certainly in a better position to win the presidency now that he has done so, but I just can't respect him anymore.

Yeah, but my point is that no one batted an eye when Obama picked Biden. They're both playing a game, but McCain is the only one getting bitched at over it. And irony of ironies is that Obama himself matches up similarly to Palin in the experience department, except that Palin's chief experience is actually in the executive branch. I just don't see how it is ok for the Democrats to pick Obama as Presidential nominee, yet it is not ok for Republicans to pick Palin as VP nominee.

Obama is in the position he is in because he's a very talented politician. He has qualities that more than make up for his inexperience. Sarah Palin is...a woman. That is her sole redeeming quality (oh wait, and she's pretty so the newspapers like to show pictures of her). I hardly think that qualifies her to be president. Heck, *I* could be McCain's running mate if that's all it takes.

I also think that being in the Senate gives you more relevant experience than being mayor of a town of 9000 people in Alaska and being the governor of Alaska, if we're really going to match up the experiences. Alaska is basically a welfare state, and Palin hasn't had to deal with *any* major domestic or foreign policy issues. The issues she's had to deal with are completely different from the issues a US president has to deal with. (Except maybe oil.)

I also don't think that McCain's pick of Palin and Obama's pick of Biden are very analogous. Obama picked Biden to make up for a (perceived) weakness - that he doesn't have enough experience. McCain picked Palin because he thought he could get Hillary's supporters to vote for him if he picked a woman. Of course, they're both trying to get more votes, but the way McCain did it makes him look like a sleazeball, while Obama looks like he's evaluating his weaknesses and trying to fix them. It looks like all McCain cares about is winning the election. Obama seems more interested in being a good president once he has won the election.

Yeah, I don't like "pro-choice" either.


Nice try, but I meant it as a grouping of Bush's daughters and Cheney's daughter. All 3 of them are "daughters".

But I did make a mistake. Should have said:
"Bush's and Cheney's daughters."


Yeah, but my point is that no one batted an eye when Obama picked Biden. They're both playing a game, but McCain is the only one getting bitched at over it. And irony of ironies is that Obama himself matches up similarly to Palin in the experience department, except that Palin's chief experience is actually in the executive branch. I just don't see how it is ok for the Democrats to pick Obama as Presidential nominee, yet it is not ok for Republicans to pick Palin as VP nominee.


Sometimes the psychological effect is enough to cause drastic change. It might not have a large economic effect, but it would have a psychological effect and that CAN have a large economic effect.

Incidentally, can you cite a source on your claim of "it will lower gas prices by, at most, 2 cents"?

ps hey googlesearch: that image forgot the easiest blow: she is in favor of teaching CREATIONISM IN THE CLASSROOM HOLY pumpernickel

http://jec.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseActi...c0886c6668

lmfao "from state of alaska official website"

why do her eyes have like 2 different types of make-up? :O

The issues she's had to deal with are completely different from the issues a US president has to deal with.

As are any issues any member of the Senate has had to deal with. The difference here being that being governor gives a taste of the executive branch, while being in the senate puts you at the top of the legislative branch. Totally different things... Might as well say being in the Senate would make you a good Justice in the Supreme Court, or being President would make you more apt to be a Justice. It makes no sense to make this claim, and this is on top of the fact that NOTHING can give the experience that will make a good President.

I also don't think that Palin and Biden are very analogous.

The analogue is:

Obama <-> Palin
Biden <-> McCain

Obama and Palin are both young and have relatively very little time in government. Biden and McCain are old and have plenty of time in government. That's how they connect.

The analogue is:

Obama <-> Palin
Biden <-> McCain

Obama and Palin are both young and have relatively very little time in government. Biden and McCain are old and have plenty of time in government. That's how they connect.

I apologize, I guess I wasn't clear. I was talking about Obama's pick of Biden and McCain's pick of Palin, in response to this:

Yeah, but my point is that no one batted an eye when Obama picked Biden. They're both playing a game, but McCain is the only one getting bitched at over it.

I thought it was clear that I wasn't referring to the individuals themselves, as I went on to talk about the two picks and not the people themselves, but I guess I was sloppy in my wording. I'll edit my post so that it's more clear.

Also, I don't really understand your position. Do you think that both Obama and Palin are unqualified for the positions they are running for, or do you think that both of them are good enough for the positions they're running for?