Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_Yong Xi]

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?

Yes, yes, keep calling the electorate "deluded", "idiotic", "stupid", etc... That will be a sure way to win them over come November.

Why is it a gimmick to pick a Conservative Woman, but not a Liberal Black Man? Methinks we have a bit of a bias going on...

by the way, once again, I just want to state for the record that I want to vote for a Black Man... And it's about as "simple" and "idiotic" as that, too. He just has to be the right kind of black man. Someone who is centered, deeply patriotic in a nationalistic sense, and... Well, frankly... For me probably center-right rather than center-left, left, far left, or Obama-Left. I suppose much in the same way some of you don't view Socialism as the bogeyman it's made out to be by the Right, I don't view American Conservatism as the fascist theocracy some on the Left make it out to be. If a black man shared my values I would have 'zero' problem voting for him.

Perhaps you misunderstood my post. I didn't call the electorate deluded. I asked a poster if he thought the electorate was deluded if they bought into McCain/Palin.

[_antishock8]

Ah, I misunderstood then. I apologize.

[_Droopy]

Essentially, droopy’s response is that the federal government will have to dismantle its basic social programs in order to totally destroy Iran if necessary.

I've made no such claim. I don't know what an actual military move against Iran might require. If regime change is not necessary (Gaddafi was bombed into submission in one raid (which killed some members of his family) in the eighties and hasn't uttered a four letter word against the United States since...at least in public).

In point of fact, I've made no assertions even approximating those you've claimed I made above. Who's said anything about "destroying Iran"? Who's said anything about dismantling the government's basic social programs (which is not saying that most of them shouldn't be...they should, in an appropriate manner)?

If Iran goes nuclear, that is, operationally nuclear, that capability and its infrastructure will have to be destroyed.

I wouldn’t even be surprised if droopy would approve of the use of a nuke. He didn’t mention the draft but that would have to be a part of the plan.

The only folks proposing a draft of late have been the Democrats. I'm not interested in joining them.

This is a lovely libertarian fantasy, but it ain’t gonna happen. The vast majority of US citizens want the federal government to provide social services and safety nets.

That's fine, but does little to confront the fact than virtually none of these programs are to be found anywhere in the constitution.

You can fantasize and rant and rave about the stupidity of the American people (and some definitely are stupid, no doubt) all you want, but effective governing deals with the world as it is and not as how we would like it to be.

Its not about their stupidity, but about the transference of responsibility for many of the circumstances of life from the individual to the state. Much of the electorate learned long ago that they can exist at the expense of their fellow citizens with government as the mediator of that relationship. And you're correct: this state of affairs is not about to change any time soon.

So, given reality as it is, just how do the rest of you McCain supporters suggest that we deal with Iran when we are barely – barely – barely – dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq already????

This is pure hokum. Ultimate victory is in plausible sight at this point in Iraq, the surge having worked superbly. As soon as the Taliban actually stick their heads up again, they're going to have them shot off, as is always the case. Iran's conventional capability is not at issue, indeed, the Israelis can probably handle that all by themselves. The problem is the nukes, and if Iran acquires them, they will have to be destroyed.

What will happen isn’t a miraculous, sudden, complete change of the entire federal government a la Droopy’s fantasies, but instead, the same thing that happened with Iraq- which is that the plan wasn’t ever fully fleshed out and completely ignored the hard reality of that part of the world, and turned out to be nothing like what its supporters imagined.

Yes, serious miscalculations were made in the reconstruction phase of the Iraq war. The real problem, however, was that the dogs of war were never really fully unleashed on our enemies there. Bush allowed the war to be politicized and driven by fears of adverse media coverage. The other problem has been a risk averse, civilianized military bureaucracy that attacks and punishes its own soldiers for split second decisions under combat conditions. Soldiers are being treated as if they were civilian police-a catastrophic mistake (and which would be pushed to its absurd end under an Obama administration).

It’s been a drain on our economy, a drain on our military, it has handicapped our ability to respond to possible situations that actually do threaten our country, and the end result is uncertain and very likely unfavorable to us in the end (given how our invading Iraq has strengthened Iran……)

CBS Evening News history. After a generation of this, human beings become literally uneducable.

[_Droopy]

That being said, there are enough infants that survive the abortive process, that if given proper medical treatment would survive. They're no different than "premies". The only difference is they're not wanted by the mother. That's infanticide,

All abortions who's only purpose is to prevent the birth of a healthy, normal child because that child interposes itself between the mother and certain other lifestyle choices that would have to be forgone were the birth to occur, is infanticide in vitro.

[_Droopy]

George Bush happened to be influenced by the neoconservatives in his administration - Cheney most notably. Unlike Bush, John McCain is a neoconsevative (he's been the dream candidate of Brooks and Kristol for a long time) and his advisory team essentially consists of them. Not only is there every indication that he would've gone to war in his statements, he probably was more likely to go to war in Iraq than Bush because the ideological motivations for it surround him far more than they do Bush.

John McCain is a moderate liberal Republican with certain conservative tendencies. He was never a leftist, and so could not be a neoconservative (not knowing what he's talking about is E's forté, as he demonstrates here yet again).

I think the idea that he has "ideological" motivations for war, beyond protecting and defending the constitution and the American people, per his oath of office and the constitution itself, is frankly inane.

[_Droopy]

Is Jane Fonda on her way to the earthquake zone yet?

They're aren't any good guys for Hanoi Jane to root for in Iraq anymore. The Baathists, who were a socialist party, are gone, and all that leaves are the remnants of the mercenary Islamofacists from throughout the Arab world who flooded the country after the ousting of Saddam.

Jane would like them because they hate America, but I don't think she'd be very enthralled by their view of her, she being a woman and all that.

[_dartagnan]

Oil is a global commodity. It goes to the highest bidder. By the time any new oil would actually be on the market, which would be at least ten years,

This is one of the many energy myths propagated by the libs. It is essentially based on periods in the past, which usually involved years of leasing litigations and government red tape, after oil had actually been discovered. But with the government working in concert with the oil companies to confront this energy crisis, which has become a threat to national security, there is little reason to believe production would take as long as it has in the past. Not with todays sense of urgency.

But I never understood this argument anyway. What exactly is beasties's point? That solar and wind is more feasible and would produce results much faster than drilling? This is demonstrably false. The fact is, we have been sitting around with out thumbs up our butts when democrats could have made a difference years ago:

If President Clinton hadn't vetoed the idea of drilling in ANWR back in 1995, we'd have that oil on the market today. Ditto if Congress had approved ANWR drilling in 2002, when President Bush requested it.

Even so, the larger point is false anyway. New oil will be flowing in some cases within three to four years, according to industry estimates. But the impact on prices will be immediate. Why? Because markets would suddenly have to discount future oil prices for the expected gain in oil supply. That would cause oil prices, especially in futures markets, to drop.

By the way, this isn't just conjecture. President Reagan, within a week of his inaugural in 1981, removed domestic controls on oil. Energy prices began tumbling almost immediately, with oil falling from $34 a barrel in early 1981 to just $11 by 1986.
It worked before, and it'll work again - http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 7602247481

This reinforces the same thing I said earlier. When President Bush recently removed the executive ban on drilling, gasoline prices dropped by 17 percent over the next few months. It was as low as $3.38 in Atlanta a few weeks ago, down from $4.10 in March. This, with no benefit of increase in oil production. How is this possible if what beastie says is true? OPEC responds to politics. It responds to wars. It responds to perceived "tensions" that might ensue. It has responded to America's action to become self sufficient, and it will again. But the main point is that we have to become energy independent and now is the best time to start. Even if it takes ten years, ten years is better than never.

Further, democrats have been playing a numbers game while contradicting themselves. Democratic Senator Chuck Shumer argued strongly that if Saudi Arabia had increased its output by a million barrels a day, that it would cause gas prices to immediately drop by 62 cents. This is how he argued on May 13th, 2008 on the Senate floor:

"If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 dollar per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel. In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and 17 percent, or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer regular-grade price - offering much needed relief to struggling families."

A week later the following took place during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings:

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER, (D-NY): Next question is for, I guess -- let me ask any of you. If Iraq -- sorry, if Saudi Arabia increased its production tomorrow of a million barrels of oil a day, let's just assume they do -- we know they can, because they've -- it's lower by about several hundred thousand barrels a day than it was in 2005, and they've added production -- how much would the price of oil go down in the next few months? Just if you can give me an approximate guess. Does anyone want to hazard a guess?

PETER ROBERTSON, VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CHEVRON CORPORATION: No. I mean I think it would go down. I think the real -- what really is important for the market is what's going to happen in the future. Maybe they could produce a million barrels a day for some short...

SCHUMER: Well, what if they committed for two years?

ROBERTSON: I think it would make a difference. And I think if we all, any of us that showed that we were going to increase production by some significant amount over a significant period of time, would make a difference.

SCHUMER: And most people -- the estimates I've seen, not done by me, but from experts, say it could go down -- if they did a million barrels of oil a day increase from today, it would go down about -- the translation to gasoline would be about $.50 a gallon, maybe $.62.
Does anyone think that's out of line, seriously out of line?

STEPHEN SIMON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION: I would have no way of estimating that, Senator.

SCHUMER: Right. How about -- OK, would it go down significantly? Does anyone disagree that it would go down significantly? A million barrels a day?

SIMON: One point I would like to make, Senator, is when you look at the market today, it is well supplied. And so, if you take a well- supplied market and then you throw another million barrels a day in it, yes, it will go down.

SCHUMER: Right. And if you all are preaching to us that you need new exploration so you can find more oil, which is something I don't always disagree with. I support it. I was -- with a handful of Democrats to support more drilling in the east Gulf so we could do just that.
Then clearly a million barrels a day production now would have a significant effect, because you can't -- it's a contradiction, isn't it, that you finding new supplies and producing them will keep the price in line, but Saudi just pumping a million barrels wouldn't keep the price in line? Right?

Mr. Robertson, you're shaking your head.

ROBERTSON: No, I not shaking -- I'm nodding...

SCHUMER: Shaking your head yes.

ROBERTSON: I think that the really critical thing here are signals to the world that there's a determination to increase production for the foreseeable future.

SCHUMER: Correct.

ROBERTSON: We could do that in our country, I believe...

SCHUMER: The Saudis could do it tomorrow, couldn't they?

ROBERTSON: Well, the Saudis are making significant investments to increase capacity. They could.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHUMER: But right now...

ROBERTSON: ... in the world that made a significant -- you're talking about a short term -- anywhere in the world that made a commitment for the long term to increase production by a significant amount would have an effect on oil...

SCHUMER: But here, Senator Kohl was asking you about OPEC and how OPEC restrains supply and that keeps the price high. And you all go along with OPEC.

SCHUMER: Now, the bottom line is, if there weren't an OPEC, and if Saudi -- or within OPEC -- Saudi decided to do what they could do tomorrow -- from what I understand they have 2 million barrels more of capacity -- the price would go down significantly.

And I think there's agreement from all of you about that, not that you can force them to do it. No one is saying that. And I see that everyone's nodding.

Anyone disagree with that?

SIMON: Again, when you look at the market today, though, Senator, it is well supplied.

SCHUMER: I didn't ask you that. I asked you -- well supplied is a very flexible definition. OK? I asked you -- I want to now then ask you, yes or no, if Saudi Arabia tomorrow said for the rest of their -- for the next three years they're increasing supply by a million barrels a day and it will not stop, would the price go down significantly?
SIMON: It would go down today because then you be flooding the market with an extra million barrels a day to a well-supplied market.
SCHUMER: OK.

Schumer's daily magic number of 1 million barrels is the exact increase experts believe we would today be pumping through the Alyeska pipeline had Bill Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling back in 1995. And even the most rabid anti-domestic-drilling Democrats don't take issue with that figure.

So then, the increase he demands of "Bush's friends," the Saudis - which he claims would reduce prices by up to 25 percent -- is the exact amount he argued earlier this month would only "reduce the price of oil by a penny" were it coming from ANWR - eco-sacred breeding ground of the Porcupine Caribou.

So, Schumer was chastising these executives for wanting to explore for more oil while getting them to admit an additional million barrels available per day would bring prices down significantly even though he believes the extra production if it came from ANWR would be totally irrelevant.

Why weren't media all over this glaring hypocrisy?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... g-flipflop

China's geometrically escalating demand for oil will double the world's demand for oil by 2025. So any oil produced by opening places like anwar would go on the market at the same time that China would be replacing the US as the major consumer of oil. The oil companies will sell that anwar oil to the highest bidder.

Beastie simply doesn't understand how the oil market works. An increase in output will result in lower prices. All experts agree with this. This is supply-demand 101. And for the most part, OPEC determines the price by controlling the flow of production. China's increase in demand is irrelevant to the point being made here. Even if China is buying oil from American before it can put it to use for itself, then this only means China is not buying as much as it used to from OPEC countries, which means demand, as far as OPEC is concerned, has dropped dramatically since its second biggest buyers is buying elsewhere. Beastie envisions America going through all this trouble to tap into its own resources, just so it can sell it all off to China, as if it we would be forced to do this by some cosmic petro law she has in mind.

This isn't rocket science. The reason this country is in such serious trouble is because its citizens act like it is.

ROFL.

This, coming from someone who thinks that, without our say-so, China is just going to buy up all our oil if we end up going through a concerted decade long plan to acquire it. Even in this weird scenario, nothing changes the fact that the price of oil in twenty years will be far less with America as a major oil producer. We're the number one consumer of oil in the world. We drink nearly three times as much oil as China. If we become energy independent, as Brazil has become - after their recent discoveries off their own coast - and stop importing oil from other countries, then why the hell would China want to buy from America when OPEC will have had no choice to to drop their prices through the floor?
In any event, beastie and other libs miss the point, and they have distorted the argument:

It is government's job to think long term, which is exactly why Congress should allow more offshore oil exploration. I've already written in this space about the absurd moratorium on oil-shale production. As far as offshore drilling goes, what's most frustrating is we can't even have an informed debate.

There may be very little undiscovered oil in the outer continental shelf (OCS), or there may be a multiple oil fields the size of Tupi - the monster field that Petrobras discovered off the coast of Rio de Janeiro in 2006. We just don't know how much oil is out there because oil companies have no incentive to do the costly seismic surveys required to find out. - http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/13/news/ec ... g.fortune/

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Yong Xi,

You ask...

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?

... I think that electorate motives (to say nothing of McCain's and Obama's motives) are not easily defined—if they can be defined at all. Some people may have compelling reasons for why they lean/vote the way they do, others may simply succumb to human nature and lean/vote intuitively. The latter is most disconcerting because intuition can be fundamentally—even fatally—inaccurate. This is an election where voters across the ideological spectrum need to get off their collective duffs and do a little research for themselves.

All candidates evolve, changing positions as more information emerges (a good thing, in my opinion). But not all candidates brazenly portray an evolved position du jour as if it were an inveterate belief always held. If McCain and Palin provoke their undoing, this may well be it. A candidate can always remain "bulletproof" when sheltered from public/media scrutiny.

Kind regards,

</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

[_harmony]

All candidates evolve, changing positions as more information emerges (a good thing, in my opinion). But not all candidates brazenly portray an evolved position du jour as if it were an inveterate belief always held. If McCain and Palin provoke their undoing, this may well be it. A candidate can always remain "bulletproof" when sheltered from public/media scrutiny.

Kind regards,

</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

What exactly are you referring to, Brent?

Incidently, nice to "see" you in a discussion that isn't centered around correcting something Daniel said.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi harmony,

What I am referring to is...

... this:

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

... now, Sarah Palin today:

Sarah Palin on Congressional Spending and the ''Bridge to Nowhere":

GIBSON: One of John McCain's central campaign arguments, tenets of his campaign, is eliminating earmarks, getting rid of them. Are you with John McCain on that?

PALIN: I certainly am. And of course the poster child for the earmarks was Alaska's, what people in the lower 48 refer to as the bridge to nowhere. First it was a bridge to community with an airport in southeast Alaska. But that was excessive. And an earmark—an earmark like that, not even supported necessarily by the majority of Alaskans. We killed that earmark. We killed that project...

GIBSON: You have said continually, since he chose you as his vice presidential nominee, that I said to Congress, thanks but not thanks. If we're going to build that bridge, we'll build it ourselves.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: But it's now pretty clearly documented. You supported that bridge before you opposed it. You were wearing a T-shirt in the 2006 campaign, showed your support for the bidge to nowhere.

PALIN: I was wearing a T-shirt with the Zip code of the community that was asking for that bridge. Not all the people in that community even were asking for a $400 million or $300 million bridge.

GIBSON: But you turned against it after Congress had basically pulled the plug on it; after it became apparent that the state was going to have to pay for it, not the Congress; and after it became a national embarrassment to the state of Alaska. So do you want to revise and extend your remarks?

PALIN: It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the ear form—earmark process has been accepted in Congress. And that's what John McCain has fought. And that's what I joined him in fighting. It's been an embarrassment, not just Alaska's projects. But McCain gives example after example after example. I mean, every state has their embarrassment. And, as I've said over and over, if Alaska wants that bridge, $300 million, $400 million dollars, over to that island with an airport, we'll find a way to build it ourselves. The rest of the country doesn't have to build that for us.

GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time...

PALIN: I was...

GIBSON:... until Congress pulled the plug.

PALIN: I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure.

GIBSON: Right.

PALIN: What I supported was the link between a community and its airport. And we have found that link now.

GIBSON: But you didn't say no to Congress, well build it ourselves until after they pulled the plug. Correct?

PALIN: No, because Congress still allowed those dollars to come into Alaska. They did.

GIBSON: Well, but...

PALIN: Transportation fund dollars still came into Alaska. It was our choice, Charlie, whether we were going to spend it on a bridge or not. And I said, thanks, but no thanks. We're not going to spend it on the bridge.

Palin's dissembling is of the worst kind. Gibson provided the opportunity for revision, but Palin opted for obfuscation—her 2008 "Thanks, but no thanks!" view is clearly the antithesis of her 2006 position.

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