reply to post by Evisscerator
The points you raised are those of right wing republican views and though worthy of debate, and as you are probably quite aware, those of us to the
left of you don't agree, this thread is about Palin and why she owes America an apology. Therefore I will only have diolog with you regarding your
1. Palin did not start hurling insults ... Obama and Biden did.
I watched both conventions. What insults are you referring to? I am obviously bias (we all are according to our own ideologies) and thus may not
have interpreted things said in the same way you did. That said, I do not recall any insults hurled by them. What I do recall is that when they did
talk about the opposing candidates they talked about their position on the issues, and did not insult anyone based on their service in the past. As a
matter of fact, they were very gracious and put forth honor owed for the things they did for America.
It's also interesting to note how in every convention so far up till now when one candidate is referring to another they respectfully use that
candidates first and last name together. For the first time ever, this woman referred to her opponents with last name only breaking that tradition
When a republican attacks a democrat on the position they take on a particular issue, that is not an insult but when they attack on something like how
they served "the people" by putting it down and belittling it that is an insult. I would have rather they challenged their opponent on one of the
variety of issues such health care, or infrastructure improvement, but the way both her and Rudi Giuliani did things was low and as someone else on
this thread said, the type of quality you might find at a high school debate.
By the way, (and though this doesn't have much to do with the thread, I simply must respond to your quick assessment of my political views) did you
realize that since the 1970's more than $20 trillion in tax cuts were given to the upper 1% (who own more than 40% of the nation's wealth...these
are the ultra ultra rich) under Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? (reference: A People's History of the United States -- 1492 to
Present. Howard Zinn). Democrats and Republican administrations alike gave the cuts to the ultra rich at obscene levels...that's one of many many
examples of how both sides trip over one another to pander to the extreme wealthy at the expense usually of all the rest of us. You jump to
conclusions way to fast. I consider myself more of a populist and see not a whole lot of difference between most democrats and republicans who,
though they claim to push the individual party platform and say they are for "the people", keep grid lock up in DC. Thus never coming close to
accomplishing the platform issue goal, never really significantly improving conditions for the poor and assisting the working class, but instead feed
the golden goose which is big corporate interests such as Oil, military/defense contractors, and other large industry where the benifits go to the
large financial interests, top brass, and big shareholders-- except with this candidate.
With Barack Obama we see strong indications that he really is for "the people". Don't get me wrong, he of course is still a politician, and I'm
not saying he ignors corporate interests--nobody is saying that, However when you put aside all the rhetoric, and politics and really look at his
background we see someone who doesn't fit the standard mode. Here we have someone who decided after graduating from Harvard with his law degree to
not take a high paying job at Wall street like most do...no, he goes back to chicago where he did community work--something worthy of respect,
recognition, and top honors-- prior to law school, and works for the people in poverished neighborhoods to help them build their communities, improve
their lives, and be able to help themselves. As Bush would say "this is the real deal", only it really is! He is a man for the people and he put
his effort, skills, and education where his mouth is and his resume' proves it. I believe that is worthy of a second look, and it strongly suggests
that we have a candidate for the first time in a very long time, if ever, who actually will represent those other than the rich and corporate
interests. Perhaps this is why the establishment is and has fought him so hard. There are many many positive things we can say about this candidate,
and plenty of policy issues that can be debated, but for Palin to attack his work for the people, and then at the same time while looking us all in
the eye say she works for "the people" is a terrible misrepresentation at best, and a total insult.
So please, just because I am upset with Sarah's speech items and hurt by her lack of respect and display of arrogance only rivaled by
Rudi's...please don't automatically assume that it's party bias that is responsible. I have backed up all that I have stated with sound reasoning,
and am not posting something I read on a democratic web site. I watched the speech and the debates just like many of you did, and I came to my own
conclusions, and I for one, and apparently many others as well, feel jaded and insulted by this woman's rude comments and false statements.
[edit on 6-9-2008 by skyshow]