Sarah Palin just resigned as Governor

[C-fer]

Originally Posted by BigBallinColin

I can't wait until obama decides that all to better serve our country we need to all need to eat dog food for one year. I don't know if you guys are pissed or really want the country to fail. I can't believe you would actually want palin to be president?

I read the first page and skipped forward to this. Bolded for the mother fuckin truth.

End of story. I'll back any candidate if I like them no matter what party. Palin does absolutely nothing for me politically, aside from being some cougar/milf eye candy.
Her resigning makes her look even worse in my eyes, no matter what sports analogy spin she tries to put on it(point guard my ass).

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by DJ Gary-O

Are you saying the dumb fucking white jackass that ran this country into the ground the last eight years was qualified? Was he a better alternative to what we have now?

Wow, thanks for your opinion from Cali. Even if it sucks. I guess hearing the constant drone of asshat remarks on a daily basis out there really wears on ya.

I'd take the first 6yrs of W over what we've gotten in the first 6mths of Obama anyday. If this is the change you wanted... enjoy it cuz it's gonna take several generations to pay for this madness.

BTW, hows bidness on the left coast?

[DJ Gary-O]

Originally Posted by FarangBa

Wow, thanks for your opinion from Cali. Even if it sucks. I guess hearing the constant drone of asshat remarks on a daily basis out there really wears on ya.

I'd take the first 6yrs of W over what we've gotten in the first 6mths of Obama anyday. If this is the change you wanted... enjoy it cuz it's gonna take several generations to pay for this madness.

BTW, hows bidness on the left coast?

Cali is great. Thanks for asking. Minds are wide open and far more receptive to the opinions of others.

There are plenty of asshat remarks heard out here, but nothing more unusual than the barrage of inane comments spewed forth in this thread. The only real difference is that out here people feel more free to express themselves without the fear of being condemned, chastised or otherwise ridiculed by those who don't agree with them.

I didn't buy into the change thing so don't put me in that group. I bought into someone/something I believed in and I didn't find anything to rally around on the other side. I preferred Obama's politics over MaCain and found him to be more articulate, confident and in touch. If McCain had won, I'd be pretty disappointed (and fearful of Palin one day having her finger on the trigger if McCain kicked the bucket mid term), but I'd still be happy that Bush was out. That would have been change enough for me.

6 months isn't enough time to judge a president in my opinion, but I suspect you and others on the board who didn't vote for him would find fault in anything that he does so what's the point in debating it. Time will tell if his decisions and those of his administration were right. Let's hope for our sake that most of them are.

Sorry if you think my opinion sucks. I'm not very fond of yours either but you're entitled to it.

[Deff Gordon]

Originally Posted by FarangBa

Wow, thanks for your opinion from Cali. Even if it sucks. I guess hearing the constant drone of asshat remarks on a daily basis out there really wears on ya.

I'd take the first 6yrs of W over what we've gotten in the first 6mths of Obama anyday. If this is the change you wanted... enjoy it cuz it's gonna take several generations to pay for this madness.

BTW, hows bidness on the left coast?

i guess you didn't pay very good attention while 'W' was in office those 6 years. the estimated cost of the Iraq conflict is $4.5 TRILLION! talk about generations being fucked...

the economic plans they placed over there were despicable. horrendous. ruined us.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

i guess you didn't pay very good attention while 'W' was in office those 6 years. the estimated cost of the Iran conflict is $4.5 TRILLION! talk about generations being fucked...

the economic plans they placed over there were despicable. horrendous. ruined us.

I didn't know we had an Iran conflict.

[Deff Gordon]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

I didn't know we had an Iran conflict.

dammit... iraQ

hahaha

[jaesun]

Originally Posted by DJ Gary-O

Cali is great. Thanks for asking. Minds are wide open and far more receptive to the opinions of others.

Please excuse me if I don't LMFAO at the idea that people from California are more open minded. I have lived in LA and have met some very prominent liberal minds there via my uncle. And I have never in my life heard such blatant racism, bigotry, and hatred for ideals that do not match thier's in my life.

When I was at a wedding and met 3 very outspoken liberal/progressive activists, who were supposed to be the leaders of their community, dropping racists remarks and bad stereotypes directed at me because I have a southern accent like it was nothing... I was shocked. I'd say 95% of the people I talked to in Cali were so closeminded they couldn't even handle the fact that I own a gun and smoke cigarettes.

I was told by one woman I couldn't come into her house because she heard I was a smoker. This woman was my grandmother's baby sister. As if because I'm a smoker I'd light up in her house. She honestly screeched at me and told me to sit out by the car until the rest of our group came back out. Her own family member. Flesh and blood.

So the idea that there are more open minded people in Cali is full of shit. Try the other way around.

Originally Posted by DJ Gary-O

There are plenty of asshat remarks heard out here, but nothing more unusual than the barrage of inane comments spewed forth in this thread. The only real difference is that out here people feel more free to express themselves without the fear of being condemned, chastised or otherwise ridiculed by those who don't agree with them.

Again... IMHO... I call BS. If anything its worse in California.

Originally Posted by DJ Gary-O

I didn't buy into the change thing so don't put me in that group. I bought into someone/something I believed in and I didn't find anything to rally around on the other side. I preferred Obama's politics over MaCain and found him to be more articulate, confident and in touch.

So you agree with Binden when he said "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."? Because all the other mainstream African-Americans weren't, right?

[DJ Gary-O]

Originally Posted by jaesun

Please excuse me if I don't LMFAO at the idea that people from California are more open minded. I have lived in LA and have met some very prominent liberal minds there via my uncle. And I have never in my life heard such blatant racism, bigotry, and hatred for ideals that do not match thier's in my life.

When I was at a wedding and met 3 very outspoken liberal/progressive activists, who were supposed to be the leaders of their community, dropping racists remarks and bad stereotypes directed at me because I have a southern accent like it was nothing... I was shocked. I'd say 95% of the people I talked to in Cali were so closeminded they couldn't even handle the fact that I own a gun and smoke cigarettes.

I was told by one woman I couldn't come into her house because she heard I was a smoker. This woman was my grandmother's baby sister. As if because I'm a smoker I'd light up in her house. She honestly screeched at me and told me to sit out by the car until the rest of our group came back out. Her own family member. Flesh and blood.

So the idea that there are more open minded people in Cali is full of shit. Try the other way around.



Again... IMHO... I call BS. If anything its worse in California.



So you agree with Binden when he said "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."? Because all the other mainstream African-Americans weren't, right?

I didn't say there weren't closed minded people in Cali - of course there are wing nuts out here, just like anywhere else. My experience has been quite different than yours however. I personally have found most people out here to be open minded, and the general acceptance of diverse opinions, attitudes, and modes of dress for that matter, is so much greater in Cali than anywhere I've ever lived (Dallas and Baltimore being the others). This has been my experience. Sorry you had a shitty one.

Not sure what you're getting at with the African American quote. I was comparing Obama's attributes to McCain, not comparing Obama's attributes to those of other African Americans. Race is not a factor here so don't try to make it one.

[vinnie97]

Gary, I'm not going to try to help you comprehend what I posted above, especially when you're going off on a vitriolic fit of rage. I said neither of them are exactly qualified for the position one of them is currently holding but I know which one I would prefer.

To sum it up to all you haters, I would choose Palin over Obama for 2 very good reasons:

1) She didn't knowingly sit in front of the pulpit of a racist for 20 years and then pretend it didn't happen.
2) She didn't associate with terrorists like Bill Ayers and left-wing radicals like Saul Alinsky.

For the life of me, I can't think of anything ideologically speaking that makes Palin so despicable...other than not having a perfect family and coming from a religious background (that's enough for some, I'm sure). All suits brought against her in AK were dismissed whereas Chicago is a hotbed of political corruption, with Obama's seat up for sale the day after his election! I won't claim to know all the reasoning behind her resignation but if she was facing nonstop legal suits from the leftist loonies in her state while in office, she did AK a favor fiscally.

[DJ Gary-O]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

Gary, I'm not going to try to help you comprehend what I posted above, especially when you're going off on a vitriolic fit of rage. I said neither of them are exactly qualified for the position one of them is currently holding but I know which one I would prefer.

To sum it up to all you haters, I would choose Palin over Obama for 2 very good reasons:

1) She didn't knowingly sit in front of the pulpit of a racist for 20 years and then pretend it didn't happen.
2) She didn't associate with terrorists like Bill Ayers and left-wing radicals like Saul Alinsky.

For the life of me, I can't think of anything ideologically speaking that makes Palin so despicable...other than not having a perfect family and coming from a religious background (that's enough for some, I'm sure). All suits brought against her in AK were dismissed whereas Chicago is a hotbed of political corruption, with Obama's seat up for sale the day after his election! I won't claim to know all the reasoning behind her resignation but if she was facing nonstop legal suits from the leftist loonies in her state while in office, she did AK a favor fiscally.

I prefer to look at it as passion vs. rage, but you can call it what you want.

I also understand your rationale and if that works for you, great.

[vinnie97]

That's a fair response.

[Deff Gordon]

my reasons for not wanting palin are as follows:

she's a political evangelist. she doesn't care what you think or feel. her actions are guided by her beliefs only. not open minded to others. there is no way somebody like that should EVER be that close to guiding the ship. "do as i say, not as i do."

her actions when she fucks up...
ex 1: katie couric interview. she wasn't bombarded... asking 'what she reads' is a softball question! that's like saying "what is your favorite color?" is tough question. palin and camp acted like cunts and crybabies and went on a katie couric smear campaign when palin couldn't even answer a simple question.
ex 2: going on all the smear campaigns about her family being attacked by the media... puh-leeze. she brought her family in and placed them on a fucking pedestal right next to her.

to top it off... she's a quitter: going gets tough... she bails
her excuse is total BULLSHIT. period. Alaska ain't a fucking busy place. not a hard job. there isn't even a full-time reporter for the government up there because THEY DON'T DO SHIT. they meet for about a month and move on. Alaska pretty much runs itself. not a lot going on up there. her excuse is pure crap. she's a quitter.

it's totally unfathomable how anybody could even remotely think she's the shit.

and vince... those reasons you gave on hating obama are kinda weak. the church he went to? bill ayers? jeez... do you even know how the whole bill ayers thing went down? i'm on boards of things here and share seats with a lot of people. i'm sure i've crosses some sorted paths in my day. in fact... it's pretty much a given i've been around all sorts. why not argue some real shit like economic decisions or real business that's happening? do you even understand why you are a republican? i don't think so.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

i guess you didn't pay very good attention while 'W' was in office those 6 years. the estimated cost of the Iraq conflict is $4.5 TRILLION! talk about generations being fucked...

the economic plans they placed over there were despicable. horrendous. ruined us.

That's not what we spent though. ($845 billion spent directly - the estimates you're pointing to account for interest etc. That 845 is less than TARP and less that the bail out - its less than either - not less than both combined. TARP passed by Dems w/GOPers and GWs signature may be paid back not so with "stimulus" spending. Obama wins the spending match.)

Obama quadrupled GW's deficit and doubled the debt in his first six months. That's impressive spending even by Democratic standards.

[Deff Gordon]

Originally Posted by PETA

That's not what we spent though. ($845 billion spent directly - the estimates you're pointing to account for interest etc. That 845 is less than TARP and less that the bail out - its less than either - not less than both combined. TARP passed by Dems w/GOPers and GWs signature may be paid back not so with "stimulus" spending. Obama wins the spending match.)

Obama quadrupled GW's deficit and doubled the debt in his first six months. That's impressive spending even by Democratic standards.

yes. that estimate is in regards to total cost including interest. it's a staggering number and you know that for the first handful of years it was run like the wild west. that money was just given away. their policies were total crap and they did a horrible job regarding rebuilding and stabilization. the one (of a million) examples that i like to bring up is we never put iraqis to work. they had 7 concrete factories ready to work. they weren't destroyed from the bombings. instead... we subcontract it to subcontractors and import it at 20x the price. multiply that on a grandiose scale and you have the colossal fuck up that is Iraq. thank jeebus they changed... but it *did* take them WAY too long. no wonder the insurgents or terrorists or whatever you want to call them rose well after a year of the occupation. our policies were directly hurting the countrymen we were there to "save." going in and privatizing everything to the "coalition of the willing" while directly keeping the iraqis unemployed and offering substandard utilities when they could do it 1000x better isn't a way to fix things. hell, we were putting in policies that locked out Iraqi owned PRIVATE companies. horrible.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by PETA

That's not what we spent though. ($845 billion spent directly - the estimates you're pointing to account for interest etc. That 845 is less than TARP and less that the bail out - its less than either - not less than both combined. TARP passed by Dems w/GOPers and GWs signature may be paid back not so with "stimulus" spending. Obama wins the spending match.)

Obama quadrupled GW's deficit and doubled the debt in his first six months. That's impressive spending even by Democratic standards.

Keep pushing that completely inaccurate number. Do you not think about TCO when you buy a car? It's only 40k for the car... but the insurance, interest, gas, taxes are insignificant? Big picture....

Fiscal and military cost of Iraq fiasco yet to be fully grasped

Mon, Jul 06, 2009
OPINION/ANALYSIS: With 5,000 dead and 80,000 wounded, the US is leaving the entire Iraq episode behind it. But then again maybe not, write LINDA BILMES and JOSEPH STIGLITZ .
THE UNITED States “stood down” in Iraq last week, finalising the withdrawal of 140,000 troops from Iraqi cities and towns – the first step on the long road home.
After more than six years, most Americans are war-weary, even though a smaller percentage of us have been involved in the actual fighting than in any defining conflict in US history.
We have relegated the car and suicide bombings to the inside pages of newspapers, accepting at face value that the “surge” has calmed things down enough so we can finally leave the whole sorry Iraq adventure behind us.
But not so fast. The conflict that began in 2003 is far from over for us, and the next chapter – confronting a Taliban that reasserted itself in Afghanistan while the US was sidetracked in Iraq – will be expensive and bloody.
The death toll for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan reached 5,000 in June. An additional 80,000 Americans have been wounded or injured since the war in Iraq began. More than 300,000 US troops have required medical treatment, and army statistics show that more than 17 per cent of US returning soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.
In Iraq, even though most of the population has long told pollsters they can’t wait for US forces to leave, US officials have said 50,000 troops are likely to be stationed at military bases in the country for the foreseeable future.
This is because the situation in Iraq is highly precarious. The country ranks high on lists of the most dangerous places on Earth, with a continual stream of suicide bombings and murders targeting political and religious leaders as well as civilians.
According to the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index, two million people – largely from the middle class by most accounts – fled Iraq during the war, but only a handful have returned. The vast majority of Iraq’s doctors, lawyers and other professionals are now living abroad, and many are seeking asylum. An additional 2.7 million “internal” refugees, 10 per cent of the population, abandoned their homes, and most are too frightened to return.
The struggle for power among Kurds, Shia and Sunnis is ongoing, with battles looming over oil and land.
Moreover, the US barely has begun to face the enormous financial bill for the war. By our accounting, the US has already spent $1 trillion on operations and related defence spending, with more to come – and it will cost perhaps $2 trillion more to repay the war debt, replenish military equipment and provide care and treatment for US veterans.
Many of the wounded will require indefinite care for brain and spinal injuries. Disability payments are ramping up and will grow higher for decades. The stress of extended, multiple tours to Iraq means that a whole generation of US military men and women may now be suffering from long-term mental health issues. The suicide rate in the army is at its highest level since record-keeping began.
This wartime spending undoubtedly has been a major contributor to the present economic collapse. The US has waged an expensive war as if it required little or no economic sacrifice, funding the conflict by massive borrowing.
Unfortunately, you can’t spend $3 trillion on a reckless foreign war and not feel the pain at home.
Burned by the difficulties in Iraq, US political leaders have no illusions about the length and difficulty of the challenge facing the country in Afghanistan. But in other respects the US seems set to repeat the same mistakes that were made in Iraq.
The US president has just signed yet another “emergency” supplemental appropriations measure ($80 billion) to fund continuing operations in Iraq and expansion into Afghanistan. This means that for the 30th time since 2001, war spending has been rushed through the budget process without serious scrutiny.
The US has 240,000 contractors working in the two war theatres – but the Pentagon’s oversight of independent contractors remains lax. The Army Criminal Investigation Command – which just a few weeks ago brought fraud charges against a contractor responsible for supplying troops with bulletproof vests – is woefully understaffed, with fewer than 100 people to investigate billions of dollars in alleged war profiteering.
Obstacles continue to beset returning veterans too.
Despite an increase in the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the backlog of disability claims has reached its highest level, and the budget for helping returning veterans reintegrate into civilian life is less than is spent in a single day of combat operations.
Early this year, Barack Obama committed 20,000 troops to a “surge” in Afghanistan. That, combined with a large, ongoing presence in Iraq and continued reliance on private contractors for virtually every aspect of military support, remains a recipe for staggering out-of-control expenditures.
Surely the US can draw some lessons from the Iraq debacle and set aside money to care for veterans, crack down on fraud and profiteering and account for the true costs of the war in the budget so the American taxpayer can see what they are paying for.
Linda Bilmes of Harvard University is a former US assistant secretary of Commerce. Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University is a winner of the Nobel Prize in economics and a former chairman of the council of economic advisors.
They are the co-authors of The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict . – (LA Times-Washington Post service)

Two of the most overlooked costs are replacing weaponry and caring long-term for these wounded soldiers. There's the immediate and long-term cost. Quit only thinking about the short-term. (Then again, if you had thought long-term...maybe you wouldn't of so wholeheartedly supported a war based on lies that has wrecked the budget and killed thousands all the while turning a country back to the stone age...)