The Cheapening of the Democratic System via Sarah Palin, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 01:39 PM by pavil
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic




Let be more direct: Can Obama hold enough of Democratic base together to win the election? He already PO'ed half of the primary voters by not selecting Hilliary as his running mate.

Yes McCain's selection of Palin was to shore up his base, but by selecting a women he went directly after part of Obama's base (Female Hillary voters).

To me, the Obama side is crying foul over something they should have done themselves in the first place. It's was a no brainer to select Clinton as VP. He has only himself to blame if he loses this election.


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 02:30 PM by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by pavil
Can Obama hold enough of Democratic base together to win the election?


If I knew that, I'd be a lot less concerned than I am, not to mention a wealthy woman, being able to read the future and all. The answer is that I have no idea.


Yes McCain's selection of Palin was to shore up his base, but by selecting a women he went directly after part of Obama's base (Female Hillary voters).


And therein lies the "cheapening" that the title speaks to. McCain (or whoever actually chose Palin) did so because she has the same sex organs that Hillary has. And that's where their similarities end. The two women are diametrically opposed politically. And this being a political election, I do not understand a woman who would vote for sex organs.

So any woman who was voting for Hillary's sex organs will probably vote for Palin's. I hope they make a good president.


To me, the Obama side is crying foul over something they should have done themselves in the first place.


I don't see anyone crying foul. Nobody's saying that anything illegal or any "cheating" was done. Speaking for myself, this is just our opinions about the selection of Sarah Palin. The reasons, the motivations and what it means for politics and the country.


He has only himself to blame if he loses this election.


Right you are. If he loses a fair election, (and by that, I mean all votes are counted, no cheating and no hanging chads) it will be his fault. No argument. And I'm sure he agrees. I don't think anyone's trying to blame you.

BTW, I'm GLAD he didn't choose Hillary. If he had, I very likely would have voted for someone else. SO while he may have gained some votes with that pick, he would have lost some, too. There are many people (women included) who do NOT like Hillary.


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 02:46 PM by kozmo



reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 06:26 PM by pavil
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



You express yourself well BH, for that I admire you. I don't agree much with you, but I do enjoy discussing with you. You keep it civil, which I greatly appreciate.

To me it's pretty obvious the Democrats are in a tizzy over the selection of Palin, otherwise why all the dirt/innuendos being thrown her way, you don't see the Republicans talking about Obama selecting a known plagiarist as his running mate do you? They don't fear Biden like the Dems seem to fear Palin, she's only the VP candidate for crying out loud. They should be running more against McCain than against Palin IMO, but I'm done giving the Democrats free advice. Not that they listen to any of it.



[edit on 13-9-2008 by pavil]

[edit on 13-9-2008 by pavil]


reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 12:49 AM by TruthWithin
Originally posted by kozmo
PATHETIC! This thread and the premise of the OP is pure CRAP! Clearly what I am seeing here is the typical Dem double-standard of "It is OK for me to question and belittle everything about you but don't you dare do that to me" mentality. And frankly... it is transparent as glass.


No double standard. Obama was vetted for the past two years. Scrutinized, looked at, criticized and praised. He was chosen because the Democrats wanted him to run.

I am voicing my opinion, which last I checked is still legal and allowed. Sorry you think it was crap.


I am absolutely amazed by the liberal blindness in this campaign... Obama (Who is running for PRESIDENT!) has less experience than the Republican ticket's choice for VP, yet they continually attack Palin's supposed lack of experience without addressing Obama's much more serious lack thereof.


You wanna talk about blindness or "following the herd" without mentioning the Republicans? The whole crowd was screaming about experience and then they bring in Palin and suddenly everyone is praising her for her incredible accomplishments and how a few years as mayor of a town of 5,300 and the a couple years as Governor. Talk about blindness....


Next, as the ticket of alleged "Change" Obama selects one of the longest standing Senators from the old guard - Biden has served for 36 years! Yeah, that is change I can believe in.


I think Benevolent Heretic covered this one pretty well. Joe Biden was chosen because of his foreign relations experience. This is important because foreign relations will be the biggest challenge of the next president because of how royally the republicans have screwed it all up.


The Democrats are being exposed and realized for being the hypocrites that they really are and people are catching on. The tantrums being thrown by the left are typical when they can't put one over on the public.


Not tantrums. Just asking for the same scrutiny that Obama/Biden had/has.


And before any moronic partisan barbs come flying my way - I am NOT voting for McCain/Palin, I'm voting third party. I'm just calling it as I see it - and how millions of other Americans are seeing it as well.


You mean "barbs" like "This thread and the premise of the OP is pure CRAP!", or how about, "I am absolutely amazed by the liberal blindness".

Practice what you preach, champ.



reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 03:46 AM by southern_Guardian
Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
Cheap tactics.....Like running a young black man to get the left wing votes.


Barack Obama ran against a formiddable candidate who had connections in politics, had name recognition and plenty of campaign money in the start, yet Obama still won. Obama ran for president and EARNED the votes to get the nomination. His not some random guy who was picked out of nowhere to gain the black vote. He didnt start serious politics a mere 2years ago, the time in which these candidates started their campaigns, and he wasnt the one making "experience" his core arguement.

You cant make the comparison between him and the random VP pick of Palin to get the women vote, I mean are you serious? If Palin had run for president and earned the Republican votes for the nomination then theres a comparison to be made.. however that didnt happen and I dont see that happening for a long time. She was chosen to be VP, she never ran a campaign to earn votes. This political stunt is yet more proof of gender discrimmination still verymuch existant in the GOP. Lets just choose somebody for their gender and assume women will just fall one by one for her.

Please the DNC is just as guilty. Just not as smart. Hillary would have won Obama the election.


You sure about that? Because from what I know the Republicans were licking the lips at the thought of Hillary becoming the Democratic nominee not to long ago. This woman carries more negative political luggage than any other Democrat, not considering that despite all her advantages at the beginning she still lost, and your almost certain she would have, or are you just trying to be more negative? And why should the Democrats be as inconsiderate as to choose her purely for her gender? I tell ya that there are just asmuch, if not more voters who would have not voted in Obama had he chosen Hillary. The media is just making a show of it... as usual...

They made a major mistake and McCain took advantage of it. Palin has put McCain ahead in electoral votes, and as we know from Gore...Popular vote does not matter.


Yes how wonderful, I guess this didnt count in the case of Hillary? Or the months of time Obama was ahead of McCain, I guess that didnt count? Only when Obama is disadvantaged, then it counts

[edit on 14-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]


reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 03:52 AM by TheAgentNineteen
Originally posted by mental modulator


conservative
1. tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions :


I find it silly that there are people want to stop or quell PROGRESS - this notion is the MOST FUTILE of ideas. THE same "conservative minded" people of the past believed in: an oath of faith, slavery, no vote for women, white supremacy ( in the public domain )







Your definition of what a "Conservative Mind" represents is completely illogical and amazingly flawed. Conservative can mean any number of things, such as the ideals upon which this Nation was Founded, or maintaining lost values such as that of a Strong Family Unit, or the Sanctity of Unborn Life. These are many values upon which modern society has completely lost focus, and many would say that is the very reason behind why we have problems such as: Violence, Neglect, and general Social Decay.

On the other hand, Liberalism does not denote itself to "Progression" anymore than Conservatism denotes itself to "Regression". To maintain positive lost values is to many in this modern age, as true a form of Progression as any. However, if one is to take to the extremely Liberal ideologies of Socialism, Marxism, or even Communism, then many would consider such to be Regressive.

True Progression is a balance between Conservative ideals, and Liberal thoughts. You only Regress when you ignore the Balance, and Take to extremes.



[edit on 9-14-2008 by TheAgentNineteen]


reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 03:14 PM by bagari
reply to post by mental modulator



You are misinformed about slavery. The Republican party,led by Abraham Lincoln ( a Repub), led the way in abolishing slavery.


reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 04:23 PM by pavil
reply to post by missvicky



Me thinks you protest too much. You wouldn't be caring if your candidate was still leading in the polls. You guys (and gals) have only yourselves to blame for not running a better campaign. Look in the mirror, you shot yourselves in the foot by not securing half of your political base.


reply posted on 15-9-2008 @ 11:17 AM by SevenThunders
reply to post by TruthWithin





She has very little experience and does not have half the judgment that Obama has exhibited oer this TWO YEAR vetting process.


Well let's hope so. During this time our glorious senator Obama has had the distinction of receiving land and legal help from Tony Rezko, indicted racketeer, con man and the recipient of millions of dollars from wealthy Arab islamo-fascists. Rezko, himself was born in Syria.

Obama also engaged in a quid-pro-quo crooked stock deal where he bought stock in AVI Biopharma, received money from them and then voted for them to receive government contracts.
blog.washingtonpost.com...

Obama also voted for lawmakers to be able to receive bribes whilst serving the Illinois legislature.

However, IMHO, the most telling tale of Obama's "good" judgement is his support for the Kenyan islamic jihadist Raila Odinga, who happens to be his cousin. Apparently that support did not waver even after Odinga's thugs went on a rampage and slaughtered 1/2 million christians after Odinga lost the election for Kenya's president.
iperceive.net...
www.wnd.com...


That's the true Obama, a supporter of genocidal muslim terrorists and a corrupt self aggrandizer. Other than that he has my full support.


reply posted on 15-9-2008 @ 11:21 AM by TruthWithin
reply to post by SevenThunders



You cite blog and World Nut Daily? Seriously? I thought this thread was about Palin...

Get some real sources please if you are going to spew this hogwash.


reply posted on 15-9-2008 @ 11:29 AM by SevenThunders
reply to post by TruthWithin



My point is that the claim that Obama has better judgment than Palin is categorically false. I'd rather have an uninformed but righteous person in office than any Rhodes scholar corrupt demogogue. Of course Obama is no Rhodes scholar like Clinton was, but he is certainly corrupt.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 10 days ago with 59 member flags
Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 9 days ago with 11 member flags
ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 8 days ago with 11 member flags
There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 8 days ago with 10 member flags
White House pressure on Gulf oil leak figures
  Posted 10 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Greetings from a Dying Man
  Introductions, Posted 11 hours ago, 102 replies
Alien Grey caught in photo ?
  Aliens and UFOs, Posted 12 hours ago, 70 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 17 hours ago, 58 replies
Iran sent pink drone to Obama
  World War Three, Posted 17 hours ago, 43 replies