Sarah Palin for President? Let me get this straight . . .

[markinsac]

This is an interesting prediciment. We have a woman here who got lucky and was picked to be McCain's VP. I don't hold that against her, McCain actually made a daring pick that could have paid off. But she messed it up. She couldn't tell Katie what magazines she read, maybe she confused magazines for coloring books.

They lost the election and what does Sarah do? SHE RESIGNS AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ALASKA, causing confusion amongst those who braved cold tempatures to go vote for her. The voters actually should have been playing patty cake. She sold out her state to go make her "Fame and Fortune" in the lower 48.

AND YOU WANT HER TO BE PRESIDENT AFTER RESGNING AS GOVERNER?

GIVE ME A BREAK!! 2348ji23e

 

[Berkleybob]

Re: Sarah Palin for President? Let me get this straight . . .

She's nothing. She never did anything in her life. At least Obama was an organizer and senator!

 

[ACCC]

Re: Sarah Palin for President? Let me get this straight . . .

She's nothing. She never did anything in her life. At least Obama was an organizer and senator!

And what exactly did Obama accomplish as a Senator or organizer? I'm not even sure what a community organizer is; it sounds like a job in name only. Based on the fact he has basically done nothing as President, I imagine he was very similar as an organizer - that was probably good practice for him.

With that said, I would be happy to vote for Obama over Romney, as the latter has devoted his life to cutting jobs in the interest of greed.

 

[scrimmage]

Re: Sarah Palin for President? Let me get this straight . . .

With that said, I would be happy to vote for Obama over Romney, as the latter has devoted his life to cutting jobs in the interest of greed.

Why do citizens bother voting at all?To fool themselves,and feel like they're doing their
duty somehow.The current process is a complete means to an end, already decided,big
time production con job.
Live and learn:

In single majority elections, the only significant vote is the one that marginally surpasses the total vote count over the opponent’s vote count. All additional votes for the winning candidate are superfluous and have no significance. Put another way, if you vote and your candidate wins by two votes, you might as well have stayed at home, your vote did not change the outcome. The probability in large elections of a candidate winning by a single vote is exceptionally low, a fact that almost guarantees that the trip to the voting booth is an utter waste of time.

This position is often met with what I refer to as the Mandate Argument. The Mandate Argument holds that voters who form a large minority, say 48% versus a 52%, are able to shape policy of the elected officials by virtue of their “almost majority” status. While this group is usually addressed with noble sounding platitudes such as “I am the President of all citizens, not just those who voted for me”, the truth is that elected officials rarely even represent the interests of those who voted for them, let alone those who voted for their opponent.

The idea that voters opinions and desires are cast in to a melting pot and that this “collective consciousness” manifests itself in policies by elected officials is a fallacy that seems to remain rooted in the voting public’s belief system, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is probably because it supports an illusion of control over destiny through the political process. “My candidate may not have won, but at least my voice was heard” is probably easier to accept than “I donated money, stood in line and filled out a piece of paper for nothing.” This is an important issue to consider.

Democracy and “voting enfranchisement” have long been heralded as a civic duty. Arguments are frequently heard that people died for the right to vote, and merely questioning its practical value is consider heretical, yet has anyone ever considered that these arguments may perhaps be less noble than they are made out to be? After all, a great way to pacify people is to grant them the illusion of control, a concept that is explored in Stefan Molyneux’s brilliant video “The Story of Your Enslavement.” Suffice it to say, the fact that merely questioning the value of the electoral process is to invite scathing personal attacks should encourage the rational sceptic to conduct a deeper philosophical inquiry in to the matter.

Excerpt from/read more at:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig12/kofod3.1.1.html

 

[ACCC]

Re: Sarah Palin for President? Let me get this straight . . .

Why do citizens bother voting at all?To fool themselves,and feel like they're doing their
duty somehow.The current process is a complete means to an end, already decided,big
time production con job.
Live and learn:

My opinion is that Obama is grade D and almost all the Republicans are grade F. I don't see them as equivalent, which is the reason for voting.

As I have said many times, Republican administrations have been more destructive in terms of domestic and foreign policy, whereas Democrats are more submissive and passive. With Democrats things typically remain the same, but Republicans find ways to make conditions worse. Examples would be Iraq, Afghanistan, a lot of the deregulation and bailouts under Bush and Paulson, Republican efforts to remove bargaining rights, among others.

 

[scrimmage]

Re: Sarah Palin for President? Let me get this straight . . .


Talking Heads - "Once In A Lifetime"1981
<IFRAME height=480 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I1wg1DNHbNU" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

It's interesting to think about the meaning of this song. I think about the narrator as a person
who has lived their life asleep, just "letting the days go by" and reacting to whatever comes
their way. He or she has a sudden moment of clarity - a once-in-a-lifetime moment where he or
she knows "This is who I am. This is what I want and this is what I have." Cool video too.
DavidSpencer6174 23 hours ago