Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_Brackite]

I know it involves Australian politics, however a news item appeared in the Sunday paper of the costs involved to the taxpayer of a Conservative politician who visited the US for a conference on The Art of Politic Campaigning. Some of the topics were " Dumpster Diving: How to find and use the opposition research" I understand that reporters from Fox (Faux) were checking out the dumpsters around Rev Wrights church. Promotional material says "Nothing says 'gotcha' to an opponent like finding good dirt... and how best to use it to best to use it to boost your candidate's campaign'. Another says "Effective spin: Damage Control and crisis management"

Do you, by chance, know how many investigators and lawyers the Obama campaign sent to Alaska once it found out Governor Palin was selected as the VP?

Hi There,

No, aussieguy55, our friend here, doesn't really know, and he doesn't really care about that. The reason being why aussieguy55 doesn't really care about all of those investigators and lawyers that were sent out to Alaska, is because he is an ultra-liberal. And Since Governor Sarah Palin is Not a liberal, instead She being mostly a Great Conservative, the ultra-liberal aussieguy55, likely mainly and mostly thinks it was just fine with many, many of those investigators and many, many of those lawyers being sent out mostly by the Obama Campaign, to try to dig dirt on Governor Sarah Palin, who has been a Respectable and a very Great Governor over there.

[Rosebud]

Haha ultra liberal?? Let me tell you our conservatives would be liberal in the US. We have universal healthcare, a good welfare system and women who get $4000 when a child is born. And we have a national budget in surplus. Maybe if Palin gets in power she can lead the staff in the Whitehouse in some holy laughter.

I think Whoopi Goldberg said it well when she thought that Obama should go careful in his attacks as whites would see it as an attack by a black man on a white women, bringing to the surface all the under the surface fears about black men. Harry Belefonte was not allowed to kiss his costar. I think many whites just can't stand the thought of a black man ruling over them.
"With the close of Reconstruction in the late 1870s, southern whites were determined to end northern and black participation in the region's affairs, and northerners exhibited a growing indifference toward the civil rights of black Americans. Taking its cue from this intersectional white harmony, the federal government abandoned its oversight of constitutional protections. Southern and border states responded with the Jim Crow laws of the 1890s, and white mobs flourished. With blacks barred from voting, public office, and jury service, officials felt no obligation to respect minority interests or safeguard minority lives. In addition to lynchings of individuals, dozens of race riots--with blacks as victims--scarred the national landscape from Wilmington, North Carolina, in 1898 to Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921."

No wonder Wright said God damm America , not God bless America. You have slavery for a few centuries then segregation. America is reaping what it sowed.

[_Ray A]

Haha ultra liberal?? Let me tell you our conservatives would be liberal in the US. We have universal healthcare, a good welfare system and women who get $4000 when a child is born. And we have a national budget in surplus. Maybe if Palin gets in power she can lead the staff in the Whitehouse in some holy laughter.

Reminds me of the joke:

In America a bison is an animal.

In Australia it's something you wash your face in.

[Guest]

delete.

[_dartagnan]

I think Whoopi Goldberg said it well when she thought that Obama should go careful in his attacks as whites would see it as an attack by a black man on a white women, bringing to the surface all the under the surface fears about black men.

She really said this? What makes you think this has any ounce of merit to it? It is just the typical "poor me everyone is racist" mentality that popular black figures in America try to instill in everyone. They want teh blacks to feel inferior and the whites to feel guilty. There is nothing positive in there.

Harry Belefonte was not allowed to kiss his costar. I think many whites just can't stand the thought of a black man ruling over them.

Belefonte is an anti-American nimrod who tries to use his race as a crutch. He's the same idiot who called Colin Powell a house slave for Bush. Jesus. He needs the black man to occupy this negative image of a "tyrant" his words because without it, his world view collapses and he will be forced to live as an equal to the rest of us. But he doesn't want to be an equal. He wants to be an inferior. White America is afraid to have a black man rule over them? LOL. What a crock.

I tried looking for reasons to vote for Obama, but it seems the best reason going around is that he's black. That's why Oprah wants him in. That's just the cool thing nowadays. People want to look back and say they voted for the first black president the same way people today want to be able to say they marched with MLK. It is just a joke, and the unfortunate thing is he will probably win. All he has to do is to get all the uneducated minorities and the poor to vote for him, which they will glady do in ignorance.

If you start citing crap from a century ago, then you're just like Obama, Oprah and Belefonte. You're all a part of the problem, not the solution. Blacks today have to get over this victimhood nonsense. Taxing the hell out of white America to give them some sense of payback is doing nothing good for the country or whatever problem of racism they think exists.

[_Ray A]

delete.

Have you contracted the "Moniker disease"? (Sorry, Mon)

[_dartagnan]

The better path in Iraq was to never walk the path in Iraq, the position Obama took.

Obama took no position that mattered because he wasn't held accountable. He was not a Senator at the time and he had no vote on the matter. Now that he is a Senator, we see he votes along his party lines nearly 100 percent of the time. So there is no doubt he would have voted for the war if he were in the Senate at the time, just as most other popular democrats did.

Taking the right position on the surge is like picking the best way to fry a turd. It might be sauteed with the best spices, but it's still a turd.

What an unbelievable attitude to a very serious issue.

The fact is we are in Iraq now, so why keep pretending we're not? The question is, what's the best way to handle it now that we are there? By complaining over the fact that we went there to begin with? What a stupid way to approach a problem.

McCain suggested the surge, which Obama condemned strongly. The surge went through and it succeeded beyond Obama's wildest dreams; his words. This proves beyond a doubt that, with respect to our position in Iraq, McCain, not Obama, is better suited to lead our military overseas. Obama cannot make right decisions with respect to Iraq. He has been wrong ever since it started.

If Obama had gotten his way on the surge issue, the surge never would have taken place and more American lives would have been the price we paid. If he becomes Commander in Chief, the same will happen again. He will make stupid decisions like he has recently with recent votes on Iraq and even his choice of VP.

You libs scare the hell out of me because you are so flippin ignorant on the issues and you pretend to be knowledgable. I mean the way you approach Iraq is just downright scary. Who cares if we should have gone in or not? One would think that question is long past us by now. The fact is we are there. Moaning and groaning over the what ifs in hindsight is counterproductive.

It reminds me of a uncle I have, completely negative in every way. He never gets a damned thing done, never proactive. If his wife left the iron on and the room caught fire, he would probably remain still in his lazyboy recliner, complaining that she never should have left it on to begin with. This is the current liberal attitude towards Iraq.

McCain would have called the fire dept and risked his own life to put out the blaze. Obama and his little minions would organize mobs to complain that the iron never should have been left on in the first place.

In what corner of the universe does this kind of non-action count as "responsible" and illustrate a "readiness to lead"?

Is it any wonder the military vote is strongly Republican? Obama would be like Lindon B. Johnson was during the Vietnam war, causing more American deaths than need be. Democrats don't know how to win wars. They never have.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi friends,

I watched Sarah Palin's interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson in utter disbelief.

Competency, not ideology, is at the core of this presidential election. Not Palin's competency—John McCain's. And McCain has manifested arresting incompetence in selecting a heartbeat-away-from-the-presidency running mate who is nothing more than a political gimmick. McCain's VP pick doesn't wither from equating foreign policy experience with seeing the ice-capped tip of geographic Russia from the northwestern extremities of Alaska, and she exhibits no compunction in dissembling her position on "the bridge to nowhere" (among many other things). When it comes to McCain and his VP choice: Thanks, but no thanks!

My best,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_Yong Xi]

I don't believe we should "drill drill drill". By the time we would see any benefit from that drilling,

If oil companies were given a go on this, we can see production in just a few years. What's more important, we do not need to see production in order for oil prices to drop. Beastie just doesn't understand the market. Why do you think gas prices dropped over the last few months by $0.60 a gallon? Because Bush removed the executive ban on drilling - this required no actual increase of production. If our competitors get any sense that we are taking serious measures to be energy independent, the gas prices drop. What do you think they'll do if they realize we're drilling? They'll panick and reduce prices even more - anything they can to dissuade us from becoming energy independent. They need us to be dependent on them, and if gas is cheap enough, they might dissuade oil companies from investing in more drilling.

What the hell is beastie even talking about? If we become energy dependent by relying strictly on our own oil supplies, then China isn't in the picture. She might be referring to off shore drilling, but in this case China is going to do their drilling whether we drill or not. They are already out surveying areas off our coast.
altogether.

Who exactly does beastie think is going to be investing in the drilling to begin with? She seems to think the government is going to be losing money if we drill, but Oil companies will be the ones footing the bill. All we need from the Federal government is to give the companies the green light. McCain is all for investing in newer technnologies, but these are clearly long term projects. We're not even in the developmental stages of some of these technologies. They are just ideas at this point which have to first attract private companies, which requires convincing that it is economically feasible. At this point it isn't. Maybe beastie thinks the government should just take over the transportation industry.

Energy independence is probably not possible and may not be desirable. We live in a global economy. Accordingly, we depend on other countries for our economic good. The price of oil is not a local matter. If the U.S. government allowed drilling in ANWR, as correctly noted, oil companies would foot the bill for this. These oil companies are global in nature and have a responsibility to maximize shareholder returns. These shareholders are global as well. The only way these global giants would agree to sell oil originating from U.S. sources exclusively to the U.S. is in the event the U.S. would be willing to pay a higher price than other countries. Accordingly, our prices would be above the global price and make us less competitive in the global marketplace in general. The only other way to keep U.S. oil in the U.S. would be to nationalize oil and this would obviously be disastrous. Imagine what would happen in the event of a natural disaster (hurricane) disrupting our drilling and refining capabilities and no ability to import foreign oil to offset the decrease in supply. I suppose we could agree to buy from friendly nations such as Mexico and Canada. We would have to bid up the price in order for them to sell to us, thus reducing supplies to their other customers. These former customers must then purchase their oil from another provider, thus bidding up the price again. It becomes a never ending cycle, because global supply had been reduced in one location.

The U.S. is spending hundreds of billion dollars a year on foreign oil. What do these countries do with the money? They buy products and services from countries all over the world, including the U.S.
They invest in large multinational corporations headquartered in the U.S. and elsewhere. They put money into U.S. pension funds, U.S. banks, etc. Some money may go to fund terrorism. Withholding petro dollars will not reduce terrorism, however. It is estimated that the 9/11 strike cost less the one million dollars to fund.

Nations unfriendly to the United States. (Mideast nations, Russia, Venezuala,etc.) control about 70% of the proven (proven is debatable ) oil reserves. These countries are not worried about the U.S. not buying their oil anytime soon. Any oil produced in the U.S. goes into the global oil supply. Our reserves do not come close to matching theirs nor does it matter. They want our dollars but if for some reason we stop buying their oil, they could reduce output and increase costs at the pump or just sell to someone else. They act in their economic self interest. If they are going to make more by increasing output, they will do so. Conversely, if they will make more by withholding production, this is the course they will take.

Furthermore, energy independence in my mind implies a restriction on trade and is isolationist and tribal in nature. This cannot have positive political implications. If we are going to become energy independent, why not explore becoming independent of foreign food, electronics or a myriad of other products or commoditie? Certainly, we should do what we can to reduce the global cost of energy, whatever that may mean. Perhaps, it means drilling in order to increase global supply. Obviously, it means some level of conservation while investing in and exploring new technologies. For the foreseeable future, however, we are tied to oil in the global sense. Perhaps, we need to face the economic and geopolitical reality of that.

[_Yong Xi]

Hi friends,

I watched Sarah Palin's interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson in utter disbelief.

Competency, not ideology, is at the core of this presidential election. Not Palin's competency—John McCain's. And McCain has manifested arresting incompetence in selecting a heartbeat-away-from-the-presidency running mate who is nothing more than a political gimmick. McCain's VP pick doesn't wither from equating foreign policy experience with seeing the ice-capped tip of geographic Russia from the northwestern extremities of Alaska, and she exhibits no compunction in dissembling her position on "the bridge to nowhere" (among many other things). When it comes to McCain and his VP choice: Thanks, but no thanks!

My best,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

Yes, selecting Palin may be a political gimmick and it may turn out to be brilliant. Since her selection, energy has been sucked out of the Obama compaign. If McCain is elected president, will it be because he was smart, lucky or is the electorate just deluded?