Sarah Palin & Those who laugh last!

Skatermom's question goes unanswered

Programmer Craig has all the time in the world to argue about motherhood and women in business, but a real issue that comes up about Palin's patriotism and integrity he dodges it like a pro!

HYPOCRISY and double standards galore

skatermom asked:
Can somebody please explain why Sarah Palin was a key note speaker and advocate for the Alaskan Independence Party aka (AIP). The fundamentals of this movement is to promote Alaska's cessation from the rest of the country. She can pin cushion herself with 500 American Flag pins and create a pencil skirt with old glory and yet that wouldn't explain how UNPATRIOTIC cessation from the lower 48 would be.

TheMrs

I never said that Clinton, being perhaps a bad father, was a good
president! Just because one mother gets criticized doesn't mean another
father is automatically better.

Not sure what you mean by that...

However, the difference is that the Clinton's had only one child.
For 2 career minded people, that is more reasonable.

Who gets to decide? Is it onluy voters? Or should employers also be able to decide how many children a woman who applies for a job with them can have, before they automatically disqualify her? And what about single moms, who have no choice but to work regardless of how many kids they have? Should their children be taken away from them by the state and put in foster homes? So they can work? Or should they be put on welfare? Would either of those options be examples of either feminism, or good family values?

It shows
calculation, family planning.

And how can a young woman prove to a prospective employer that she does not intend to have more than 1 or 2 children? She can't. So therefore, she should be excluded from working. Correct?

Even if Clinton cheated and was forgiven,
we're talking about a family matter affecting at most one other human
being.

So you don't think the probably hundreds of women that Bill Clinton cheated with were affected? What about their families? Their husbands? Their children? I don't think you have any concept of how much wreckage a philanderer like Bill Clinton leaves behind him. 

Not 5 kids one being disabled. Also, Mrs. Clinton didn't run for
office while her baby was 4 months old. Chelsey isn't pregnant at 16,
she's educated and holds a job.

We are no longer talking about specific situations. We are talking about feminism and the rights of women to work.

Working mom? Well if you are talking about a mom with 7 young kids
wanting an executive position, the same rule applies (as it would for a
man).

Why all the qualifiers? Why is it only an executive position where employers should discriminate? Don't you think an employer has a right to expect good job performance, in any position? And whyis it suddenly 7 that is the magic number? 

Well, since most white familes in teh US have only 1 or 2 kids (or none at all) and most other groups have many more than that, I guess employers should only hire white people. Yay, white people! We win again!

How is she or he going to concentrate on her job AND 7 kids? One
side suffers. It's just plain reality. There is no super human PERSON
who can handle job and work in 24 hours if either side is exaggerated.
Workohalic dads are notorious for being bad parents too!

OK. I'm glad we got that settled. I'm divorced with no kids, so you just improved my career prospects dramatically! I'm a white male too, which always helps!

This isn't a double standard. If Obama had 6 kids, I would say the
same thing. With the exception that Palin has a down syndrom kid
too. And a grand kid on the way. Like I said, there's only so many
hours in a day.

It certainly is a double standard. Most of Palin's kids are adults, and since when are grand-children relevant to a discussion like this? Wasn't Pelosi bragging about how many grand-children she had a few months ago? I guess we better exple her from teh Senate ASAP, eh?

Her family IS her politics because she is for abstinence which is
statistically proven not to work: her daughter is a living example of
this.

Don't you think the problems in her own family give her some perspective on such matters that others don't have? 

In many poor neighbourhoods a LARGE perncetage of children born
to unwed mothers DIE because they are born pre mature. If Palin stands
for life, her actions should show it. She should be the first example
of abstinence working!

Rather, you mean her kids should be the first example of that?

So how do you feel about her sending her own son to Iraq, when she supports the war there? Hard to fault her on that one, wouldn't you say? Why no mention of that?

She stands for working class families but has 5 kids and wears 313000 worth clothes at the conventions. PLEASE....

She comes from a working class family. She married a working class man. Can you say the same?

And no you fault somebody who comes from a working class background who manages to succeed in life. I guess in your view, the poor slobs who work blue collar jobs should know their place and stay there, right? I don't mean anything personal by that, I just find it amazing how many leftists who claim to be the champions of the working class seem to have that patronizing attitude.

Palin's kid with DS is always in her older child's arm. At 4 moths,
that kid needs a mommy. If you disagree, then I would like you to give
me 5 points that explain what a good mommy is.

He needs tender loving care, which he seems to be getting.  

Please be specific (she
should love her child is too broad, tell me how would she, a woman in
this case, be a good mom, specifics please).

Why don't you tell me what she should do to be a good mom, since you seem to know already? What would you do?And, what would you do better tahn the Palins?

If the father is staying home. That's fine. It's out of the norm of
society but there's nothing wrong with that.

It isn't "out of the norm" for Governor's and Presidents, or even Vice Presidents and  Assistant Governors. In fact, it is unheard of for the spouse of such an important figure to work in the country/state that their husband/wife governs.

Except that in this case,
the older child is pregnant! And this is a fundamentalist family. So
someone isn't learning her parents values right!

Ever heard of Cain and Able? Or the stories about the licentious Preacher's daughter? There is nothing new about rebellious teenagers. Or even rebellious young adults. If we start attacking people because of what tehir family members do, who will be excempt? You? Certainly not me.

If a person is to be judged by their morals, as Clinton and Edwards
have been judged, then their family and behaviour toward family has to
be analyzed.

That is a cop-out.  Nobody is responsible for the behavior of somebody else. nobody. My parents are in no way responsible for any of the shitty things I've done in my life. Your parents are not responsible for the things you have done, either. Not on a moral level, at least.

This chick needs to stay home for about 10 years. She can
be a governor (still too much if you ask me). At 54, if she isn't
knocked up again, she can run for VP.

I see. So, women should stay at home until their children are adults and they are past child bearing age. You know what? I don't see why any woman would object to taht. It seems perfectly reasonable. 

:P

americanwife

Don't misconstrue my words to say I don't think women should work.

I'm saying this very specifically when it comes to Palin. LISTEN.

NO... I don't think a mom with a special-needs child can be an
effective VP with the (albeit slim) possiblity of running the entire
friggin' country.

You aren't going to get away with that. If she can't do her job as Vice President because she is a mother of young children, then she couldn't do any other type of high-powered work effectively, either. Is it or is it not your position that mothers of young children should be discriminated against on that basis alone? Because that certainly SEEMS like your position, to me. The realtive importance of the job is irrelevant... it is certainly extremely important to the owner of a small company if the person he hires has too many family commitments to devote themselves sufficeintly to his company, is it not? 

Do you have any idea how long and how hard women nhave worked to overcome that kind of systematic discrimination in the work place? My own mother was divorced with two young children, and she never remarried. She became extermely successful as a computer programmer and system analyst, back in the days when that wasn't an easy thing for women to do. You would have had her apply for welfare instead, right? Now YOU listen. I will say it again... that doesn't sit well with me. Don't pretned to be some kind of feminist, when you voice this kind of opinion. If that's not your opinion, then you should restate it so that it makes some kind of sense.

handing it off to you...

themrs.

Wish I had read your comment first. My "unverified comment was floating in cyber space while yours was there saying it much better than I could. Well done.

Oh, he is thin!!

It is very intelligent, girlie!, I mean the mrs, obama is thin and you think it is enough. What about sarah being hot? then according to your standards , she qualifies!!
I guess we just have to ask her to throw up after eating , so you would approve of her?!?

sam sam khan I like the way you think:))))

hush, PC, just hush

Get off your high horse... it's going to hurt when you fall on your ass...:-0

Don't misconstrue my words to say I don't think women should work.

I'm saying this very specifically when it comes to Palin. LISTEN.

NO... I don't think a mom with a special-needs child can be an effective VP with the (albeit slim) possiblity of running the entire friggin' country.

To put it another way... I don't think a VP can be an effective Mom of a special-needs child.

Am I making myself clear? You can argue those specific points all day long but don't imagine for one moment that I don't recognize the difference between being a "working mom" and being the VP of the United States.

Now... to the family values issue. This one is purely personal. You obviously have some first hand experience and your bitterness which is so apparent appears to be justified. I am simply saying that I don't necessarily see his indiscretions/her forgiveness of said discretion as poor family values. Was he/is he a supportive husband... absolutely. The same can be said of her. Where they good parents? By all accounts, yes. Their daughter is a lovely, gracious and intelligent young woman (who to my knowledge has NOT been busted for underage drinking or gotten pregnant out of wedlock. I believe that these issues constitute family values.

To Programmer Craig

I never said that Clinton, being perhaps a bad father, was a good president! Just because one mother gets criticized doesn't mean another father is automatically better.

However, the difference is that the Clinton's had only one child. For 2 career minded people, that is more reasonable. It shows calculation, family planning. Even if Clinton cheated and was forgiven, we're talking about a family matter affecting at most one other human being. Not 5 kids one being disabled. Also, Mrs. Clinton didn't run for office while her baby was 4 months old. Chelsey isn't pregnant at 16, she's educated and holds a job.

Working mom? Well if you are talking about a mom with 7 young kids wanting an executive position, the same rule applies (as it would for a man). How is she or he going to concentrate on her job AND 7 kids? One side suffers. It's just plain reality. There is no super human PERSON who can handle job and work in 24 hours if either side is exaggerated. Workohalic dads are notorious for being bad parents too!

This isn't a double standard. If Obama had 6 kids, I would say the same thing. With the exception that Palin has a down syndrom kid too. And a grand kid on the way. Like I said, there's only so many hours in a day.

Her family IS her politics because she is for abstinence which is statistically proven not to work: her daughter is a living example of this. In many poor neighbourhoods a LARGE perncetage of children born to unwed mothers DIE because they are born pre mature. If Palin stands for life, her actions should show it. She should be the first example of abstinence working!

She stands for working class families but has 5 kids and wears 313000 worth clothes at the conventions. PLEASE....

Palin's kid with DS is always in her older child's arm. At 4 moths, that kid needs a mommy. If you disagree, then I would like you to give me 5 points that explain what a good mommy is. Please be specific (she should love her child is too broad, tell me how would she, a woman in this case, be a good mom, specifics please).

If the father is staying home. That's fine. It's out of the norm of society but there's nothing wrong with that. Except that in this case, the older child is pregnant! And this is a fundamentalist family. So someone isn't learning her parents values right!

If a person is to be judged by their morals, as Clinton and Edwards have been judged, then their family and behaviour toward family has to be analyzed. This chick needs to stay home for about 10 years. She can be a governor (still too much if you ask me). At 54, if she isn't knocked up again, she can run for VP.

PS to AW

What is wrong with Palin's husband caring for the children? He won't be working anyway. It would be extremely unseemly for the spouse of an American President or VP to have a job, right? So he will have a lot of time on his hands.

americanwife

Just the facts ma'am... just the facts.

Looked like revisionist history, to me! Are you seriously claiming Carter's economy was better than Reagan's? lol. 

As for your other comment:

Hillary "standing by her man" while he cheated has NOTHING to do
with family values.

It doesn't? Well, my father has been divorced 4 or 5 times. My mother (his first wife) divorced him when I was 8 years old. I found out later that the reason she divorced him after standing by him for years knowing that he was cheating on her was because she got a heartrending letter from a woman who was pregnant by him. All of my father's divorces have been because of adultery. All of his ex-wives "forgave him"for a while, and then eventually gave up when the behavior never changed.

So, in my expert opinion (and I am an expert on this one) the failures of Hillary and bill Clinton are VERY MUCH about family values.

Hear me loud and clear on this one. It has
everything to do with a woman deciding to forgive her husband.

I heard you. Did you hear me?

Hell
yes, I'd lie about it too...lol. Just hearing you say that makes me
laugh... as if lying wasn't the standard of any and every politician.
Oh what the hell... of any human being.

Lying is one thing. Accusing other people of causing your own misbehavior is something else entirely.

I work full time... have since I was 16 years old and refused to ask
my parents for money to buy the new Dylan album... went back to work
within 4 weeks of having my son... am capable of supporting myself. No
one will speak louder than me when it comes to saying that women can do
it all. But I'll also be the first one to say that I can't run a
country AND be a mom (to said mentioned special-needs child) AND be a
supporting wife. I'm all for a woman president or vice president and it
WILL happen in my lifetime.

But, you would have never had the opportunity to be a working mom at all if your prospective employers had the same attitude that you have. That doesn't sit well with me. *shrug*

But it isn't going to be palin. It is an insult to every woman for mcclueless to think he can buy our vote.

This isn't about McCain. This is about your double standards.You are not suggesting Palin is incompetent... you are suggesting that her status as a mom should exclude her from a position in politics. Or, presumably, any stressful position of importance at all.You may be right about that. But if that isyour honest opinion, why don't you just say so? Why do you apply it only to a politician that you don't like? makes no sense to me. If you really belive that working moms should be discriminated against because they are less capable of performing their jobs effectively than men (or women without children, but women without children should not be hired because they may have childdren in future, right?) then put it out there and stand by it.

Re: PS

It is not a close race because:

1) The Republicans picked the one candidate with the best chance of winning.
2) The Democrats picked the one with the best chance of losing.
3) Republicans are good at winning elections and trashing the Democrats.
4) Democrats take it and don't respond.
5) Obama does not have a lot of years in high level politics.
6) McCain has a ton of years in the senate even though lots of his decisions are questionable.
7) People don't trust the Democrats to be tough ever since the Carter disaster.
8) A portion of Hillary supporters are too mad to support him at least so far.
9) Whether you like McCain or not, he appeals to independents.

homework!

Damn it Kaveh... now I'm going to have to spend all night doing homework! I was so looking forward to a cold beer and a little jaa cigaree with my husband over a game of takheh nard. (don't tell anybody but I actually backgammoned him... first time ever!)

whoo hoo!

samsam... you're too silly for words...:-)

Ladies, Gentlemen & Transvesties! It,s all about substance!

I,m neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I belong to the party of Common Sense. Ever since Jimmy Carter the Democrats have become the political transveties & populist charlatans who lie lie lie to get elected & once elected , spend spend, appease to dictators , passively deny imminent threats & finally leave the fruits of their inaction (Jehadists, Inflation, Over spending budgets) for the next adminstration to deal with.

Lindon gave birth to Vietnam & left it for Nixon. (I liked Kennedy so He is exempt) 

Jimmy  gave birth to IRI & left it for Regan.

Bill gave birth to Alquida & left it for Bush.

Who will Jump on Obama & impregnate him? & what legacy will this president dude leave for the proceeding poor bastard who will replace him?

Democrats should Get over it!! Obama,s 15 minutes & brand  is done & over with. Sarah Palin "Is" & Mr Obama "Was"

Time to plan for 2016..This one is out the door!!

Cheers All!!

& thanks Curly jan!! You rock !

AW

Since today is cut and paste day, I guess I have to come to the front of the class and present my homework project LOL

Read these at your leisure. We can chat about it anytime if you like.

//archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/12/164726.shtml

//www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/jimmy_carters_human_rights_dis.html

//www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_hostage.html

//www.venusproject.com/ecs/jimmy_carter_irans_king.html

//www.kowabunga.org/2007/06/jimmy_carter_father_of_the_ira.html

//www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/jimmy_carter_can_only_blame_hi.html

//rescueattempt.tripod.com/id24.html

There's a seemingly endless supply of material to substantiate what I said concerning Carter/Iran, from people far more qualified to speak on the matter than I can ever hope to be.

As far as Reagan, reducing taxes as he did spurred on economic growth that was desperately needed. Yes the deficit went up, because government income was down from tax cuts. That kept more money out in circulation which was needed for the economy to grow strong and healthy. The budget surplus during Clinton's term can be traced directly to the policies implemented under Reagan's administration. It took that much time for the full effects to be realized, but that's how the economy works sometimes. At least everybody benefited.

By the way....Dylan? He's like fingernails on a blackboard with that nasally whine. Thankfully his writing talent makes up for it, but he's too hard on the ears.

PC

"The first signs of impending trouble are the exploding budget deficits themselves. They began, of course, under the parlous economic stewardship of Ronald Reagan. Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans from 70% to 38%. He promised it would spur an orgy of investment and rocket the economy to new levels of production and prosperity. Instead, his “supply side economics” did the exact opposite. It produced the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a “B” grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.

George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton’s policy in order to revive Reagan’s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his “base” as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush’s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I’ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment.

But the cost to the public has been a return to the exploding deficits of the Reagan years. Bush blew through Clinton’s surplus in his first year. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record. Still, its real size is masked by the fact that Bush has shifted $150 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to make the shortfall look smaller. It’s like pretending you’re richer when you move money from one pocket to another. Both sums have to be repaid, so the real amount borrowed is the $415 billion “nominal” deficit plus the $150 billion from Social Security or $565 billion."

Just the facts ma'am... just the facts.

PC

hmmm... a gut reaction to some of your comments:

Hillary "standing by her man" while he cheated has NOTHING to do with family values. Hear me loud and clear on this one. It has everything to do with a woman deciding to forgive her husband. Hell yes, I'd lie about it too...lol. Just hearing you say that makes me laugh... as if lying wasn't the standard of any and every politician. Oh what the hell... of any human being.

Now this really shouldn't be taken as dissing working Moms, BUT (did you see that Kaveh... I am a "but" person too...:-)

* one child versus five with the youngest being impaired... big BIG difference than a teenager capable of taking care of her/himself.
* with the exception of Hillary, every other Mom in the WH was non-working.

I work full time... have since I was 16 years old and refused to ask my parents for money to buy the new Dylan album... went back to work within 4 weeks of having my son... am capable of supporting myself. No one will speak louder than me when it comes to saying that women can do it all. But I'll also be the first one to say that I can't run a country AND be a mom (to said mentioned special-needs child) AND be a supporting wife. I'm all for a woman president or vice president and it WILL happen in my lifetime.

But it isn't going to be palin. It is an insult to every woman for mcclueless to think he can buy our vote.

PS

How is this even a close race? Bush is the most unpopular President in history, the US is involved in two unpopular wars, the economy is in the dumpster... why isn't Obama leading by 30+ points in the polls?

americanwife

it's a pretty safe bet that the economy is going to surge AGAIN under a Democatic president.

The .com crash happened at the end of Bill Clinton's Presidency. I remember it well, because I've been working in hi-techs since about 1990. Bill clinton benefitted from the "information age" and the "PC Revolution" which just happened to occur on his watch, despite Al Gore's claim that he invented the internet :P

You give Clinton credit he doesn't deserve, and you give Bush blame he doesn't deserve. Not only did Bush inherit a sharply declining economy when he took office, but then 9/11 happened that same year. And then the real estate bubble (which is where investors went when they lost faith in the stock market) burst. 

If you really believe that democrats being in office is going to "turn the economy around", I don't think you are being realistic. If they take office and fail to turn the economy around, you can still blame Bush I suppose. Unless the economy actually gets drastically WORSE, like it did when Jimmy Carter took office. If that happens, democrats are going to be screwed for the forseeeable future.

Jimmy Carter

I'm c&p because I don't want to rely on my already depleted mental faculties...lol

"As president, Carter created two new cabinet-level departments: the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He established a national energy policy that included conservation, price decontrol, and new technology. Foreign oil imports were reduced by 50% from 1977 to 1982. [2] In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties and the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). Carter sought to put a stronger emphasis on human rights; he negotiated a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979. After leaving office, Carter and his wife Rosalynn founded The Carter Center, a nongovernmental, not-for-profit organization that works to advance human rights. He has traveled extensively to conduct peace negotiations, observe elections, and advance disease prevention and eradication in developing nations."

So, my point in this little recitation of his credits is simply to point out that YOUR interpretation of Carter's achievements vastly differs from mine and many many Americans.

I'm just saying that to most Americans his presidency was not completely defined by the Iran issues... either the hostage situation or Khomeni. (and you are absolutely right in correcting my hostage/issue comment...:-) It may come as a surprise to you but we were concerned with other issues as well... and to me, his achievements in human rights will FORVER stand against his failures.

And while I really don't want to keep beating this horse to death, I'm going to say it anyway. The whole Carter/US/Western World = the woes of Iran is nothing more than a "but" excuse. I don't buy that anymore than I do the excuse of my son when he did something wrong... "but my friends made me do it... but they did it first". Nobody MADE Iran accept Khomeni. Facilitating something is a FAR cry from absolute responsibility. That seed was there already. Maybe we watered it... but it's growing in your garden.

samsam jan

I am with you brother. Now lets pack our guns and go and shoot some dumb animals...I am ready for lunch.;-)

AW

Crediting or criticizing one person for the economy or the budget is too easy. It's far too large and complex for credit or blame to be given to one person. Congress must be held accountable as well, for better or worse. The economy will improve no matter who is in office. The U.S. economy is a cyclical one. It goes up it goes down. It fell down and went boom this time and more people felt it because of how fast it surged. It's the nature of the beast.

Personally I'm all for the rapid troop withdrawal. It's long overdue. But it has to be done in a way that doesn't pave the way for the bad to be replaced with worse, which could result in even more problems down the road. I honestly don't think anybody from any party has come up with anything intelligent in that regard. Plus it has to be done without the insurgents' knowledge, for obvious reasons.

I don't want you to think that I'm defending GWB or Cheney, because I'm not.   :)

TheMrs

And the proof is that her kid is pregnant. Mommy wasn't able to pass on
good values and watch over the kiddies, she was too busy dealing with
the legislature.

So how do you feel about a woman who "stands by her man" while he's getting serviced by subordinates in the oval office? That is good family values? lol. And it isn't like Hillary didn't know about Bill from way back, is it? And not only did she defend him, she lied for him repeatedly and even made up teh whole "vast right wing conspiracy" thing to try to blame Republicans for what her own husband had done. Is that the kind of behavior you would want YOUR kids to emulate?

And also, I seem to recall that both the Clintons and the carters had young children when they were in the White House. What's with the double standards? Also, your argument taht women with young children are incapable of focussing on their work and taking proper care of their kids at the same time seems to be a blanket indictment against working women, in general. If what you say is true, then why should anyone hire a working mom? 

If you want to attack her because of her politics, then do so. If you want to attack her because of her family, then at least be fair about it.

Joke of the Day: "Sarah the true warrior of feminism"!!!!!!

Dear Samsam: You need to learn about feminism. Being AGAINST *abortion* and *sex education* is the antithesis of being a feminist, let alone a "true warrior of feminism". Sarah Palin is the most anti-feminist woman I know. She is a backward fanatic, using the road paved by the feminists. Democrats shall win, you'll see.

to continue...

With regard to the "continue" statements, it's my opinion that based on past performance of the last 3 terms in office, it's a pretty safe bet that the economy is going to surge AGAIN under a Democatic president. You know the statistics as well as I do, or better... a surplus under Clinton which Bush managed to crap away at a record breaking pace. With regard to the economy, that is all that needs to be said. Surely it speaks volumes.

As far as withdrawing troops from Iraq... I don't think anyone could seriously suggest that the Democrats aren't committed to a quick withdrawal. Hasn't that been the issue the Republicans have been banging away at all this time...that the Dems are unwisely pushing for an immediate withdrawal?

So, I think that these "what if" scenarios are nothing more than a weak defense against the reality of the mess that Dumb and Dumber have gotten us into.

Mashti.....

What you're calling cherry-picking is actually reading in between the lines. You can teach a pig to swim, but that doesn't make him a fish.

Islam doesn't scare me, Mashti. What scares me is what some people do in the name of it, thinking it's what God wants.

AW

You mentioned specifically the hostage issue, if I'm not mistaken. If I misread, I apologize. 

While I agree that Iranians were duped, Carter facilitated it. And he did it out of pure spite.

It wasn't even the US as you say, which I'm guessing implies the government in general. Carter acted against the advice of many advisers and experts who saw the writing on the wall where Khomeini was concerned. In other matters as well, such as wanting to pull troops out of South Korea and cutting $6 billion from the defense budget, while spending tens of billions on training insurgents in Pakistan and Afghanistan to combat the USSR. It defies reason and logic.

Some of Carter's other failures can be traced to his deregulation of various industries contributing to the creation of the atmosphere we encounter today. Oil companies with record profits, but still no investment in new technology or infrastructure. The savings and loan crisis. Carter called for a reform of the tax system but other than raising social security payrolll taxes, did nothing. His ending of the wheat deal with the USSR led to many farmers going under.

Palin can never make a good

Palin can never make a good VP:

- There are just so many hours in the day! A mother with that many young children, one with downsyndrom has to either cut from her time to tend to her kids (bad VP) or cut from her kids to tend to her job (bad mom -> bad VP). This isn't a sexist issue, it's just reality. Women can be VP, Presidents and so on...but this one isn't at the right stage in her life to be who she wants to be. And the proof is that her kid is pregnant. Mommy wasn't able to pass on good values and watch over the kiddies, she was too busy dealing with the legislature.

- She thinks the Iraq war was from God. Need I say more? I mean COME ON. Even if we assume that she is saying this charandiat to attract the Christian voters, does she think the rest of us are dumbos? Bad VP.

- She likes to hunt. Now I'm not a PETA member but what kind of a person can shoot at a moose and then stand over his head and take a picture? She is a blood thirsty witch.

- I watched Mayor G make fun of Obama left and right last night and it occured to me that no matter how bad the Democrats are, the Republicans are so much worse that their best weapon is mockery!

- Obama may not have credentials (this is debatable) but at least he doesn't have 10 kids and 20 grand kids on the way to church every sunday. Not to mention that he is thin and young. Has anyone seen Mccain lately? It looks like his body guards are from the nursing home trying to lead him to the door as he collapses.

- Palin is good where she is. There are better women out there. Even if she succeeds, it will be because she may be good at marketing herself better, that doesn't make a good VP.

- Anyone who thinks the iraq situation is going well is absolutely senile and out of touch with reality. Anyone who sends their kid to that hell is too much of a fundamentalist to have good judgement. She isn't a good mother and can't be a good VP.

Kaveh live in fear as you wish

None of the stuff you say are reflective of what was in the 9/11 report. You want to cherry pick the report and revise it to your liking. It doesn't really matter. It is obvious you are not comfortable and need someone to blame and unload on. That in and of itself is so old news!

Islam scares you?! That means you are scared of yourself! Boo!

Kaveh

Ok... first of all. I asked specifically "other than the Iran issue" which is obviously making you partial, what is your objection to Jimmy Carter. However, it's probably only reasonable to expect that it's difficult to be impartial or fair. So I'll deal with what I'm dealt here.

"Carter failed to see the obvious fraud that Khomeini was. Khomeini, as uneducated and primitive as he was, still managed to outwit Carter and the U.S. government in general."

Might I point out to you that Khomeini managed to outwit IRAN first. While you might want to blame Carter and the US for allowing Kohmeini to gain power, I certainly hope you're not suggesting that we alone bear responsbility for that injustice. Mind you, I'm not denying any responsibility for actions that contributed to said take over, I'm simply pointing out that unless you want to imply that Iran is helpless in the face of interference by others, we WILL NOT take sole responsbility for Kohomeini.

I've got other points to discuss but that's one for right now.

Thanks!

Mashti

You're saying I'm rehashing old news.....but you want to ignore it!!

Also, please don't trick yourself into believing the 9/11 report. While it contains some truth, and some elements of truth, it does not contain "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Sworn testimony of national security people and the truth have very little in common.

You say I'm fearmongering? There are idiots out there who want to kill others. Do you know there were Iranians who were passengers in the planes that morning? Do you know there were Iranians who worked in the towers? They were Moslem. Do you think those Arabs gave a damn? When the fact that Moslem civilians were killed that morning, their response was essentially, "oh well".

Knowing that there are people out there like that should instill fear, Mashti. Because honestly, it scares the shit out of me.

And in addition to angering me, it scares me even more that it could have been prevented if action had been taken in the early to mid 1990s.

Can somebody please explain

Can somebody please explain why Sarah Palin was a key note speaker and advocate for the Alaskan Independence Party aka (AIP). The fundamentals of this movement is to promote Alaska's cessation from the rest of the country. She can pin cushion herself with 500 American Flag pins and create a pencil skirt with old glory and yet that wouldn't explain how UNPATRIOTIC cessation from the lower 48 would be.
American wife,
I don't really understand the entire Jimmy Carter thing myself. I get so many conflicting reports on that one. It's turning me in to a whacky conspiracy theorist. I'm not sure if it's good to like or dislike the man. I do know that since his presidency he was lauded as the only president that actually continued to work as a public servant. He also seems to be an advocate for the Palestinians which also confuses me. Since Iranians seem to be overly concerned with the Israeli/Palestinian mess. I know in my parents house "Jimmy Carter" is synonymous with blasphemy.