McCain chooses Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for V.P.

But thats the mothers stance. Probably not the kids. Hell my kids especially my oldest don't share alot of my points of views.
 
However, other persons have different stances on gay marriage, divorce, etc. and the right wing has no problem bashing them. Has Palin chewed out her daughter yet? Who, may I add, is a minor?

Edit: "Family Values" and "super mom" take a hit, too.
 
Last edited:
So a 17 year old got preggers out of wedlock. BFD.It happens all the time in all sorts of families.

If and when you have teenagers you might realize that you can only give them the guidance and the knowledge. It's up to them to use it or not.

As far as this issue goes. It happened. Kinda hard to close the gate after the horse is out. Now it's about how it's dealt with.
 
Originally Posted by mmarsh




They should care, because its those libs on the east and west coast that pays the lions share of the federal taxes, that money goes into their states (we pay more and get less). Personally, myself and others are getting tired of paying for ungreatful people.

Second of all, I assume you know why its called "flyover America". Its because nobody actually lives there. You have to combine the populations of Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, North+South Dokota to equal the population of New York City (not NY state). So I have no problem saying that states like NY, CA, IL etc carry more political clout than flyover America.

Actually, the coastal elitists also consider IL including Chicago as not worth their time as well. I believe this attitude will cost them dearly.
Flyover country or flyover states is a somewhat derogatory Americanism popular among entertainers, businessmen, and others concerned with doing business on the coasts. The name comes from the fact that many such individuals shuttle between coastal locations — e.g., Manhattan and Los Angeles — by air. "Flyover country" thus refers to the part of the country that such Americans only view by air. Even Chicago, one of the larger cities in the U.S., is often considered part of the region.
Click to expand...
You talk about the polls? The latest polls (as of yesterday - 8/31 )at Pollster.com show 45.7% for McCain and 48.4% for Obama. That is, for all intents and purposes, a statistical dead heat.There's no comfort zone for the Dems right now, no laurels to rest on and certainly no meaningless states to ignore.
 
Last edited:
03USMC said:
Wow! Arrogant much? So are you talking about those ungrateful people in the breadbasket of America who grow your food? Those unwashed, unlettered, unenlightened hicks "clinging to their guns and bibles" who don't really live there?

So your point is that due to higher population density on the coast's that translates into a higher tax base and thus a higher tax payout, that the ungrateful people in middle America ought to trade in whatever values and ideas they have or hold , kowtow to the educated, and enlightened denzians of the coasts and think and vote and act as their told? Because you and people of your ilk know whats best for everyone?

Are you saying that these ungrateful people, don't pay taxes. Or are you saying that by virtue of your tax dollars that you and your enlightened bretheran should have final say on how the country votes and is run. And if Middle America doesn't like it then screw them. Because you have all the answers right?

It's statements like the one you made that continually drive a wedge between the coasts and the people in middle america. That fawning arrogant "We know whats best for you hicks and hillbillies so you better listen up." Then you wonder why you get the one fingered salute.
Click to expand...
-----------------------------------------------------------
You obviously missed what DTOP wrote:

"There lots of people in “fly over” America who are not very concerned about what the libs on the East and West Coast think".

Now that's a true sentiment, I can personally testify as I lived 4 years in Indiana but that doesn't mean I have to like or accept it. Do you really think I am going to tolerate being snubbed by people whose lifestyles I am paying for? The fact is that people in NY (and other East+West Coast States) pay about more taxes INTO the the Federal Government and get alot less out of it.

New Yorkers Pay $15 Billion More in taxes than it gets back.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900EEDC1130F93AA3575BC0A96F958260

That money (our money) is recycled back to support a business (small farmers) that's largely dead, and been that way for decades.

Much of America's food is either imported or from the large Corporate Agri-Business (another subsides fueled industry) which are run like any other type of public ally traded Corporation on Wall Street. Only Federal subsides are keeping those businesses alive, that's it. No subsides means small farmers everywhere in America go bankrupt. Its gotten so crazy that some farming industries it actually profitable NOT to grow crops/products than to actually grow them because they receive more subsides that way. Industry IS more important than Agriculture. Small Farmers get hammered by both cheap South American imports and competition from AgriBusiness industry. Imported grain is cheaper than domestic. So might be arrogant to say that Industry is more important, but the proof is there.

American imports of food have been rising steadily over the years. I am not saying to end all subsides because American farmers do have to survive. But I get really pissed off when Middle America says "Screw You New York Liberals?" when its those very same liberals that keeps them going. If someone else was paying for me, I would say "Thank You" not "F*** You" (Pardon my French).

We never said we were superior and perhaps we are snobbish (although this tends to be a stereotype against anyone living in any City, same is true in Paris). But Middle America also could show a little more humility and patience vis a vis its liberal brethren and I'd be careful about biting the hand that feeds you. And it is us that feeds them, not the other way around.

If people don't like it, then please write their congressman and ask them not to accept any more tax money comes from other states, especially mine! Then go ahead and tell us to piss off as much as you like, I wouldn't care a bit, Everyone is happy this way. NY could do a lot with an extra $15 Billion a year.

USMC+DTOP

The fact remains though that very few actually live in Middle America, the points of interest (business and personal) are not located there. Its people, not landmass that makes up political power in this country. If most people are concentrated in a few big states that's just the way it goes, we are not going to count deer, wolves and stalks of wheat as actual voters. Hence yes, the bigger states do have larger political clout, because they have more people and pay more taxes. Just like Texas as more clout than Vermont, Rhode island, Maryland, Delaware. Its demographics.

DTOP

How can you say that the Coastal States don't care about Illinois? Both Obama and Hillary are from Chicago, as are many famous Democrats. I don't even remember the last time Illinois voted Republican. Illinois is probably the most influential Democratic state after NY and CA. New York has a closer relationship to Illinois than California. New York and Chicago are practically identical.

As for the polls

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

USAToday - has it by 7
CBS - has it by 8
CNN - by 1

Except for CNN, That's slightly OVER the Margin of error. I am not saying its a lock or it couldn't change, but even if we were to use your poll, I'm sure McCain would rather have the 48% than the 43%. The GOP has a convention soon and McCain will likely get a boost. Unless either side makes a serious gaffe before November, it will be a squeeker.

I got abit OT (sorry about that) and Now My fingers hurt, Ill keep quiet now. :avi:
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
DTOP

How can you say that the Coastal States don't care about Illinois? Both Obama and Hillary are from Chicago, as are many famous Democrats. I don't even remember the last time Illinois voted Republican. Illinois is probably the most influential Democratic state after NY and CA. New York has a closer relationship to Illinois than California. New York and Chicago are practically identical.

As for the polls

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

USAToday - has it by 7
CBS - has it by 8
CNN - by 1

Except for CNN, That's slightly OVER the Margin of error. I am not saying its a lock or it couldn't change, but even if we were to use your poll, I'm sure McCain would rather have the 48% than the 43%. The GOP has a convention soon and McCain will likely get a boost. Unless either side makes a serious gaffe before November, it will be a squeeker.
Click to expand...

mmarsh, I was pointing out that the phrase flyover America generally includes everything that's not east or west coast and that there are a great many voters between the coasts, even if we don't count animals or plants.
As far as taxes go, being a native NYer myself (remember?) I can say that considering the difference in individual personal income levels between the average workers in each area, more taxes should be coming from the higher income areas. Until the day comes when cost of living is factored into the Federal tax rate, it makes sense to me. BTW, NY could do a lot more with the state and local taxes they collect as well, but that's a whole other discussion.
I think we agree that it looks like a close, heated race so far.
I know this may be a rather Quixotic plea, but if we can all manage take a deep breath before we place our fingers on the keyboard and consider our fellow users, maybe we can keep this thead and forum open for the duration of the race. I know we can do it. It's only a few more weeks.
 
City people used to be smarter. But now thanks to the internet, stupidity is blooming again.
Funny, the idea of people, not territory being the basis of power... it's actually nothing new. It's how things were done in both East Asia and Southeast Asia for centuries.
It'll be interesting one way or the other.

Oh and the pregnant kid... well Dick Cheney's daughter's a lesbian isn't she? And the late Ronald Reagan's son is a hard core democrat... and also homosexual I think. BFD.
 
The Other Guy said:
However, other persons have different stances on gay marriage, divorce, etc. and the right wing has no problem bashing them. Has Palin chewed out her daughter yet? Who, may I add, is a minor?

Edit: "Family Values" and "super mom" take a hit, too.
Click to expand...


Whether she is a super mom with good family values will depend on how she handles this personal crisis - and it looks as though she is doing fine so far, up to the mark.
 
DTOP

Of course there are people in the middle, but the real political weight comes from people in the coasts not in the middle. As OTG stated even the GOP has to get votes from the coast, they cannot win on middle America alone. Speaking of which, Virginia is now officially tied. It went GOP in 2004+2000, If the GOP loses those 13 electoral votes they are going to be in a world of trouble.

As for taxes, its not so much the money that bothers me (although $15 Billion is a lot for one state, even a wealthy one like NY). I have no problem helping poorer states or industries not doing well. Its the "F-you" that comes with it that really boils me.

Last of all i wasn't making any type of color commentary on the subject, it was a small joke (not funny) as I am unaccustomed to typing that much. I will work on the humor angle.

Your idea is sound, but as this thread deals specifically about Palin, I might suggest someone creating a SUPERTHREAD of Election 08. Avoids all the little threads on more or less the same subject.

Back to Topic (To all)

I mentioned this before, but I still dont really understand it. Maybe someone can shed alittle light here...

Why do people think Palin is a good choice? You'all have guessed I am not conservative, but even if I were Palin is a very odd choice. For an experiment, I'll exclude all liberals and Moderates and focus strictly on conservatives. Its not like Sarah Palin is the only social conservative out there with people like Mike Huckabee, Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour, Rick Perry, Matt Blunt etc. etc. etc. Personally I think McCain is making a huge mistake chasing the liberal Hillary vote but if he really wanted a women to do so then Dole, Lingle or Rell? They are ALL better suited.

Palin reminds me of Dan Quayle, Young, Good looking, inexperienced, and in way over her head. Think about this: Forget political ideology for a second, do we really want someone so inexperienced so close to the presidency. This women has NEVER even left the country. How does choosing someone with even less experience than Obama help John McCain? Palin has invalidated McCains most accurate criticism about Obama. He can no longer use that attack without it being thrown back in his face.

And before you all question Obama's lack of experiance anyway. Remember it was the Democratic voters that chose Obama. To his credit Obama built his campaign from nothing and defeated ALL of the best Democratic candidates in the country including Hillary Clinton whom many thought unbeatable. That takes something, Smarts, Guts, Heart, whatever you want to call it. Even if Obama loses nobody can say he didnt put up a hell of a good fight. Now what did Palin do? She got picked by ONE PERSON, someone she hardly knew. And we now that Palin wasnt on McCains short list, that was Lieberman and Pewlenty.

If we chose VP like we chose a President, who would have marked Palin down as a candidate? The answer is NOBODY, because nobody (including most Republicans) had heard of her before last week. McCain only met Palin twice before the announcement. Once on a state visit and the other during the VP interview process. This is a person that even McCain barely knows. Its like a shotgun Arranged Marriage that was organized by Rush Limbaugh.

You cannot tell me that McCain couldn't have found a better qualified social conservative.

I just don't get it, I really don't. I see three possibilities:

1. Either McCain has got one hell of a rabbit up his sleeve which would make him a political genius.
2. McCain got bullied by the far right to pick some they wanted, not someone he wanted. There has been some evidence to support this. *If* thats true, it speaks badly about his character. Obama didnt let himself be bullied into taking Hillary, (and they certainly tried).
3. He's made the worst tactical mistake since Custer at the Little Big Horn.

What do you all think?
 
Last edited:
MMarsh

MM, at risk of sounding pedantic, despite struggling to refrain, I jus' gotta ask.

Two of your recent quotes on this thread I find hard to shake off, so here we go.



"Ronald Reagan - he’s hated everywhere else in the world."

"This is a racial issue, the jews don't like blacks."




Being a man of the world such as I am;), I have to question both of these.

Care to enlighten me so that I can sleep at nights?
 
Del Boy said:
MMarsh

MM, at risk of sounding pedantic, despite struggling to refrain, I jus' gotta ask.

Two of your recent quotes on this thread I find hard to shake off, so here we go.

"Ronald Reagan - he’s hated everywhere else in the world."

"This is a racial issue, the jews don't like blacks."

Being a man of the world such as I am;), I have to question both of these.

Care to enlighten me so that I can sleep at nights?
Click to expand...

Of Course (a brief sumery)

Ronald Reagan

Like Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan is a very controversial president. The Republicans consider him amongst the best, the Democrats amongst the worst. His presidency was very unpopular outside of the US, as he was found to be extremely aggressive and abrasive especially toward the Soviet Union. His rearmament and sabre-rattling especially worried Western Europe because it was feared he might provoke a paranoid Soviet Union on a move against NATO (Remember the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was still raging, and Czechoslavakia crackdown was still fresh too).

He pissed off the Arabs when he invaded Beirut in support of Isreal, and he severely angered many Central American countries for his supporting for rightwing death squads. What became later known as Iran-Contra Affair.

Black-Jews

These 2 ethnic Have not had a very good relationship over the past 2 decades. The reason is in NYC their communities (and elsewhere) border each other. Mostly its sterotypes: blacks thinks Jews are parasites because they have businesses in or near black communities, jews think blacks are criminals and are too lazy to work. Unfortunatly there has been some ethnic violence between these 2 groups not to mention mistrust.

My comments to DTOP were because Jewish New Yorkers often retire to Florida because of the warm climate. Therefore its not surprising that the Jewish community in Florida (which is traditionally democrat) might not like Obama. They supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries. Its not a sure thing they will vote for McCain, because his ideology is very different from theirs. Even if they do vote McCain in Florida is not critical to Obama winning the election.

Hope this helps.
 
Thank you MM.

Well, I have yet to meet any indication in the west of hatred towards Reagan. He is known as tough but amiable, highly respected. Of course he was abrasive towards Soviet Union, they had been getting their own way for far too long. That abrasive, decisive, attitude stopped them in their tracks, called their bluff, brought them down.

As for your your statement regarding Jews, I am glad that you were good enough to qualify that, and explain your specifics.
Of course I find completely unacceptable a bald 'Jews don't like blacks', considering that many Jews are black. I would have been more comfortable if you had stated which Jews, making the difference between all Jews, Florida Jews, American Jews, NY Jews, as against Jews generally.

I hope you will understand if I describe both original statements as very wide of the mark, and careless, but I accept that you were relating to specifics and working through a long and detailed post.

Just for the record. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Del Boy said:
Thank you MM.

Well, I have yet to meet any indication in the west of hatred towards Reagan. He is known as tough but amiable, highly respected. Of course he was abrasive towards Soviet Union, they had been getting their own way for far too long. That abrasive, decisive, attitude stopped them in their tracks, called their bluff, brought them down.
Click to expand...

Really around these parts Reagan (during his term) was often thought to be crazy and while he wasn't hated he was the butt of many "senile" jokes and I will bet good money that most people believe the guy that brought down the Soviet Union was Gorbachev. Which is an amusing story in itself as we were always told to be very worried when a Soviet leader that hadn't seen the horrors of WW2 takes power and yet the first one that did take power immediately dismantled the Soviet Union.

As for your your statement regarding Jews, I am glad that you were good enough to qualify that, and explain your specifics.
Of course I find completely unacceptable a bald 'Jews don't like blacks', considering that many Jews are black. I would have been more comfortable if you had stated which Jews, making the difference between all Jews, Florida Jews, American Jews, NY Jews, as against Jews generally.

I hope you will understand if I describe both original statements as very wide of the mark, and careless, but I accept that you were relating to specifics and working through a long and detailed post.

Just for the record. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I have always struggled to understand groups that describe themselves as a colour or religion, I was always taught that people are not Jews, Muslims, Christians or Buddhists, Blacks, Whites, Reds or Yellows because this was a way of being separatist and divisive (unless of course you are discussing a particular religion). I have always described people by their nationality.
 
Last edited:
MontyB - I believe you make my point, regarding outside the US consideration of Ronald Reagan , better than I. Your take, particularly as he became older, was a source of benign humour here, but he was never unpopular. And your take on Gorbachov I also share, and have already said so recently; certainly he was the key.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top