PDA

View Full Version : Elections Sarah Palin would like to know what the Vice President does


HolmeZz
08-29-2008, 11:09 PM
You can't make this shit up.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Dwzk3g-lB0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Dwzk3g-lB0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ClevelandBronco
08-29-2008, 11:14 PM
Depends on who you ask. Some of you guys seem to think the veep stucks his hand up the president's ass and makes him dance and sing.

HolmeZz
08-29-2008, 11:16 PM
Depends on who you ask. Some of you guys seem to think the veep stucks his hand up the president's ass and makes him dance and sing.

Yeah, that would NEVER happen.

irishjayhawk
08-29-2008, 11:16 PM
Somehow Real Time with Bill Maher came on and they were talking about her. The black lady from NPR said that her "inexperience" was negated because Kaine was a finalist in VP selection for Obama. They both had the same inexperience. So she said no one could argue that point.

I kinda wanted to be there to set her straight on how that doesn't make any sense, but nonetheless it was an interesting argument.

HolmeZz
08-29-2008, 11:17 PM
Did you watch the video?! She's making a point on how it needs to be a productive position....

She admitted she didn't know what it was that a Vice President does.

Donger
08-29-2008, 11:19 PM
You guys must be really concerned about this pick.

HolmeZz
08-29-2008, 11:20 PM
Not at all... she was making a point of how little the Vice President does... more like... what the **** does Vice President do... what's the point... not... I have no ****ing clue what the Vice President do.

So her point was "why would I take such a stupid insignificant job?"

irishjayhawk
08-29-2008, 11:20 PM
You guys must be really concerned about this pick.

Keep thinking that.

Say it, it must be true.

ClevelandBronco
08-29-2008, 11:21 PM
You guys must be really concerned about this pick.

I think the realists among them are.

HolmeZz
08-29-2008, 11:22 PM
No.... more like... I would make into a productive position.

:spock:

It's been a more active office in the past 8 years than it's ever been, idiot.

Give it up. She didn't know what the vice president's job is.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-29-2008, 11:22 PM
You guys must be really concerned about this pick.

We're concerned about it in the same way that the Darwin Awards thread in The Lounge always gets 200 posts...we find it tragically stupid and endlessly hilarious. If that's concern, well then...ok.

irishjayhawk
08-29-2008, 11:22 PM
I think the realists among them are.

I'm already on record saying this is a good pick by him. I think it plays well.

And I happen to agree with the black lady from NPR on Real Time: Democrats will underestimate the pick to their peril.

At the same time, the pick is really bad.....

Ugly Duck
08-29-2008, 11:26 PM
UH oh... Faux News & the McSame camp is gonna jump all over this crying, "She's not ready to lead! She's not ready to lead!"

wazu
08-30-2008, 07:42 AM
I love that soundbite. This isn't a woman who wants to be in a figurehead position just smiling for the cameras. She's an activist and a reformer. I respect that she speaks her mind clearly and without a bunch of pretense.

Bill Parcells
08-30-2008, 07:50 AM
You guys must be really concerned about this pick.

They do seem to be obsessed with it.

Bill Parcells
08-30-2008, 07:51 AM
I love that soundbite. This isn't a woman who wants to be in a figurehead position just smiling for the cameras. She's an activist and a reformer. I respect that she speaks her mind clearly and without a bunch of pretense.

Exactly, what's wrong with being honest?

patteeu
08-30-2008, 08:34 AM
She admitted she didn't know what it was that a Vice President does.

Do you?

Messier
08-30-2008, 08:42 AM
They do seem to be obsessed with it.

Not that almost every post by a conservative on the board has been about Obama the last few months.

Messier
08-30-2008, 08:44 AM
Do you?

Does he need to?

Bill Parcells
08-30-2008, 08:46 AM
Not that almost every post by a conservative on the board has been about Obama the last few months.

Over a period of time, yes. but not eleventy billion threads and posts in 24 hours. Holmezz has already admitted to scouring the world wide web to find dirt on Palin. I don't know about you, but I really don't have all day to watch youtube videos of Obama.

Bill Parcells
08-30-2008, 08:47 AM
Does he need to?

He's assuming that everybody should know what the VP does. so yes.

Messier
08-30-2008, 08:51 AM
Over a period of time, yes. but not eleventy billion threads and posts in 24 hours. Holmezz has already admitted to scouring the world wide web to find dirt on Palin. I don't know about you, but I really don't have all day to watch youtube videos of Obama.

No, but instead of telling us why we should vote for McCain it's been a long stream of why we shouldn't vote for Obama. And if posting negative material, no matter how much of a stretch, means people are scared, then some here must be absolutely terrified of Obama.

Messier
08-30-2008, 08:52 AM
He's assuming that everybody should know what the VP does. so yes.

No, I think he's assuming that people in politics should know.

wazu
08-30-2008, 08:53 AM
...if posting negative material, no matter how much of a stretch, means people are scared, then some here must be absolutely terrified of Obama.

Sounds like an accurate assessment.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 08:53 AM
I didn't get from that video that she was asking that out of ignorance but that she was being implying that it wasn't a productive position. It isn't. It's a do-less post unless breaking ties in the senate. She was sayin' it needed to be a more productive position....and for her home state.

Now I don't agree with her on that because I am not big on altering our Constitution even on a de facto basis. So we'll see how that bears out: her just having a voice on some things for her state or more changes to our Constitution. ( like declassifying materials)

wazu
08-30-2008, 08:55 AM
For those trying to figure out what the V.P. does, the answer is NOT A DAMNED THING. Haven't you guys seen the John Adams mini-series?

Maybe she'll be called in to break a Senate tie some day, but the official duties are pretty bare beyond that. Now, duties can obviously be expanded at the discretion of the president, and I think that's what she is counting on.

jlscorpio
08-30-2008, 08:55 AM
MILF for VP!! MILF for VP!!

NewChief
08-30-2008, 08:57 AM
No, but instead of telling us why we should vote for McCain it's been a long stream of why we shouldn't vote for Obama. And if posting negative material, no matter how much of a stretch, means people are scared, then some here must be absolutely terrified of Obama.

Truth.

BigMeatballDave
08-30-2008, 09:00 AM
Do you?Who does? :D

BigMeatballDave
08-30-2008, 09:06 AM
She admitted she didn't know what it was that a Vice President does.Dipshit. Way to read it out of context. She clearly says, "Everyday".

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 09:09 AM
For those trying to figure out what the V.P. does, the answer is NOT A DAMNED THING. Haven't you guys seen the John Adams mini-series?

Maybe she'll be called in to break a Senate tie some day, but the official duties are pretty bare beyond that. Now, duties can obviously be expanded at the discretion of the president, and I think that's what she is counting on.

Not if your a strict constructionist/originalist. I can't agree with that. Nor does Ron Paul. Doing things like this is what waters down original intent. It was Wilson that broke new ground having a president get involved in more legislation when that was once the domain of the congress. When the Constitution is silent on giving or not giving power no power exists if you believe powers granted are specific and enumerated .A thousand incremental breaks have put us in our current position as a republic.

Bouncing ideas off him for an opinion I can see.

Bill Parcells
08-30-2008, 09:10 AM
No, but instead of telling us why we should vote for McCain it's been a long stream of why we shouldn't vote for Obama. And if posting negative material, no matter how much of a stretch, means people are scared, then some here must be absolutely terrified of Obama.

I'll agree with that

wazu
08-30-2008, 09:13 AM
Not if your a strict constructionist/originalist. I can't agree with that. Nor does Ron Paul. Doing things like this is what waters down original intent. It was Wilson that broke new ground having a president get involved in more legislation when that was the domain of the congress.

Bouncing ideas off him for an opinion I can see.

I am not saying give her constitutional-type legislative stuff. But using her in a diplomatic role seems like a great idea as well as involving her on policy decisions as an advisor. These things not only help him get the perspective of a reform-minded, plain-spoken conservative, but also help keep her up to speed in the event that she has to step in and do the job of president.

ROYC75
08-30-2008, 09:22 AM
Dipshit. Way to read it out of context. She clearly says, "Everyday".


Democrats, taking things out of context ? NEVER, no way, no how..... It's unheard of.








Reality, it's the norm ....... Like an old song says, ( It should be their theme song for Any comment )bend me shape me anyway you want me , as long as you ( want ) use me , it's alright . Twist and spin baby, twist and spin.

banyon
08-30-2008, 09:34 AM
Not if your a strict constructionist/originalist. I can't agree with that. Nor does Ron Paul. Doing things like this is what waters down original intent. It was Wilson that broke new ground having a president get involved in more legislation when that was once the domain of the congress. When the Constitution is silent on giving or not giving power no power exists if you believe powers granted are specific and enumerated .A thousand incremental breaks have put us in our current position as a republic.

Bouncing ideas off him for an opinion I can see.


I know this is futile, but deviant history is on the loose again and this time it's all that demonical Wilson's fault. I'm pretty sure if you read a normal history book, you'll find that Washington (through his cabinet, mainly Hamilton) was involved in a great deal of legislation, as were Jefferson (La. Purchase), Andrew Jackson (particularly wrt the 2nd Bank of the US and indian removal), Cleveland (civil service reform), TR (labor strikes).

In any event, no one would want a return to the insular meek nobodies of the 1880's like Garfield, Hayes, Arthur. You know, the guys that are remembered for nothing if they are remembered at all. Following the strict antiprogress reactionary-ultraliberatrian jedi code that about 0.001 % of the population embraces, we'd have been lucky to have ventured out past the Appalachian mountains and would probably have been conquered by someone.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 09:37 AM
I am not saying give her constitutional-type legislative stuff. But using her in a diplomatic role seems like a great idea as well as involving her on policy decisions as an advisor. These things not only help him get the perspective of a reform-minded, plain-spoken conservative, but also help keep her up to speed in the event that she has to step in and do the job of president.
I don't know about the diplomatic role part. Not sayin' you're wrong on that. We have people for those jobs. It doesn't have to be the VP. It's primarily a fill-in job. Not much more ( except for breaking ties in the senate).

And banyon, the great believer in expansion of the state for socialist programs, alleging deviant history is classic projection.

Bill Parcells
08-30-2008, 09:46 AM
No, I think he's assuming that people in politics should know.

How many people run to be VP? they're appointed. a cabinet position is pretty easy to know what you're doing. but the day to day job of VP? what do you think the VP does every day?

banyon
08-30-2008, 09:47 AM
I don't know about the diplomatic role part. Not sayin' you're wrong on that. We have people for those jobs. It doesn't have to be the VP. It's primarily a fill-in job. Not much more ( except for breaking ties in the senate).

And banyon, the great believer in expansion of the state for socialist programs, alleging deviant history is classic projection.

That's why I provided the details that are obvious to people with even a passing familiarity with American history, your errant pop psychobabble notwithstanding.

Messier
08-30-2008, 09:49 AM
How many people run to be VP? they're appointed. a cabinet position is pretty easy to know what you're doing. but the day to day job of VP? what do you think the VP does every day?

Don't know, but I'm not in the position to know, neither are you, she is however.

Bill Parcells
08-30-2008, 09:50 AM
Don't know, but I'm not in the position to know, neither are you, she is however.

She is now, not as Governor of Alaska.

penchief
08-30-2008, 09:52 AM
You guys must be really concerned about this pick.

I'll be honest. At first I was a little concerned. I didn't really know a whole lot about her and I thought to myself, "that ****ing John McCain picked a woman just so he could siphon off disaffected Hillary voters. What a prick."

Then I thought, "that son-of-a-bitch thinks that just because he picks a woman he's all about change. What a calculating cynical pandering political ashole!"

But then I immediately thought that some people are going to buy into to. So there I was driving down the highway thinking how republicans always put PR gimmicks and lip service over substance and somehow always win and that it was probably going to happen again.

After giving it some time to settle in I'm thinking a little differently now. I'm still concerned because it's apparent that McCain picked her for two reasons. One, because she is going to appeal to the hard right base and the religious fundamentalists. So he's trying to energize Bush voters which I suppose is legitimate. And second, he is trying to play for the female vote by saying that he represents change and that a woman can still have one of their own in the White House. Which, IMO, is patronizing to women, those who want real change, and anyone with a bullshit detector.

All that said, it's still reason for concern if she turns out to be formidible. But it is a big risk by McCain and, in my opinion, was a hail-mary reaction to the success of the democratic convention.

banyon
08-30-2008, 09:52 AM
She is now, not as Governor of Alaska.

Do you think Joe Biden knows what the VP does?

Bill Parcells
08-30-2008, 09:54 AM
Do you think Joe Biden knows what the VP does?

He's been in Washington for 36 years, so it's safe to assume he might know something about it. but I don't know.

PS: I know this is a lawyer question. give it to me beyyyatch :evil:

J Diddy
08-30-2008, 09:54 AM
I'll be honest. At first I was a little concerned. I didn't really know a whole lot about her and I thought to myself, "that ****ing John McCain picked a woman just so he could siphon off disaffected Hillary voters. What a prick."

Then I thought, "that son-of-a-bitch thinks that just because he picks a woman he's all about change. What a calculating cynical pandering political ashole!"

But then I immediately thought that some people are going to buy into to. So there I was driving down the highway thinking how republicans always put PR gimmicks and lip service over substance and somehow always win and that it was probably going to happen again.

After giving it some time to settle in I'm thinking a little differently now. I'm still concerned because it's apparent that McCain picked her for two reasons. One, because she is going to appeal to the hard right base and the religious fundamentalists. So he's trying to energize Bush voters which I suppose is legitimate. And second, he is trying to play for the female vote by saying that he represents change and that a woman can still have one of their own in the White House. Which, IMO, is patronizing to women, those who want real change, and anyone with a bullshit detector.

All that said, it's still reason for concern if she turns out to be formidible. But it is a big risk by McCain and, in my opinion, was a hail-mary reaction to the success of the democratic convention.

Good point

banyon
08-30-2008, 10:08 AM
He's been in Washington for 36 years, so it's safe to assume he might know something about it. but I don't know.

PS: I know this is a lawyer question. give it to me beyyyatch :evil:

The only constitutionally specific role is to preside over the Senate and to cast a vote to break ties if necessary. But thinking they should just nail themselves to the chair and be on C-Span all day would be equivalent to saying the Speaker of the House doesn't have anything to do but sit in a chair all day and bang the gavel.

Because he or she must be ready to assume the role of office, he or she is very much the Damon Huard of the Executive Branch. Familiarize yourself with the playbook, develop a role with the team, keep in playing shape (i.e., attend foreign policy/intel briefings, coordinate some policy initiatives within the executive branch). Lately, they have been given onve policy area to focus on as well. With Gore it was gov't efficiency, with Cheney, energy policy, among other things. I don't remember them trusting Quayle to do anything though.

irishjayhawk
08-30-2008, 11:06 AM
Democrats, taking things out of context ? NEVER, no way, no how..... It's unheard of.








Reality, it's the norm ....... Like an old song says, ( It should be their theme song for Any comment )bend me shape me anyway you want me , as long as you ( want ) use me , it's alright . Twist and spin baby, twist and spin.

INDEPENDENT ROY STRIKES AGAIN!!!!

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 11:17 AM
That's why I provided the details that are obvious to people with even a passing familiarity with American history, your errant pop psychobabble notwithstanding.
So in other words you got nuthin' from the actual words of the Constitution?
I thought so. The position of president was intended to be weak, with legislative supremacy. Check out Section 2 Powers of the President.
There is no provision for your claim except the actions of others. The activist and strong executive idea is a much more a modern notion even if some tried to do some things earlier.

Using Hamiliton is a farce since from day one being a Whig at heart, mercantilist, loving the British parliamentary, aristocratic, imperial type of govt ( the moneyed interest) he went about circumventing the Constitution trying to increase powers of the federal govt immediately working on Washington much to Jefferson's dismay.

Hamilton would be a corporatist today. Why do you think he was so eager to get rid of the Articles of Confederation? Just because Hammy influenced Washington doesn't make it right. Jefferson railed against him for such actions. And all of Hamilton's ideas were rejected at the Constitutional Convention. You can check the notes from that on the Yale site with the Avalon Project. There is no revision here.

irishjayhawk
08-30-2008, 11:19 AM
So in other words you got nuthin' from the actual words of the Constitution?
I thought so. The position of president was intended to be weak, with legislative supremacy.
The activist and strong executive idea is a much more a modern notion even if some tried to do some things earlier.

Using Hamiliton is a farce since from day one being a Whig at heart, mercantilist, loving the British parliamentary, aristocratic, imperial type of govt ( the moneyed interest) he went about circumventing the Constitution trying to increase powers of the federal govt immediately working on Washington much to Jefferson's dismay.

Hamilton would be a corporatist today. Why do you think he was so eager to get rid of the Articles of Confederation? Just because Hammy influenced Washington doesn't make it right. Jefferson railed against him for such actions. And all of Hamilton's ideas were rejected at the Constitutional Convention. You can check the notes from that on the Yale site with the Avalon Project. There is no revision here.

Weak in what way? The Judicial branch is clearly the weakest. They had to derive their override capabilities.

BigChiefFan
08-30-2008, 11:25 AM
INDEPENDENT ROY STRIKES AGAIN!!!!

Yep, Good 'Ol INDEPENDENT Roy. He sure is open-minded, isn't he?

banyon
08-30-2008, 11:39 AM
So in other words you got nuthin' from the actual words of the Constitution?
I thought so. The position of president was intended to be weak, with legislative supremacy. Check out Section 2 Powers of the President.
There is no provision for your claim except the actions of others. The activist and strong executive idea is a much more a modern notion even if some tried to do some things earlier.

I don't dispute that the role has been made larger over a couple of centuries. Our role in the world is more important as well. Expecting Presidents to just sign bills into law and have no involvement in their passage or creation is pretty antiquated and unrealistic when topics are so complex that the administrative cabinets have to provide much of the background and data on issues. Installing one of these caretaker nothing presidents would be a joke at this point in our history, and not much was accomplished when we had the sort of weak president you seem to favor.


Using Hamiliton is a farce since from day one being a Whig at heart, mercantilist, loving the British parliamentary, aristocratic, imperial type of govt ( the moneyed interest) he went about circumventing the Constitution trying to increase powers of the federal govt immediately working on Washington much to Jefferson's dismay.

Hamilton would be a corporatist today. Why do you think he was so eager to get rid of the Articles of Confederation? Just because Hammy influenced Washington doesn't make it right. Jefferson railed against him for such actions. And all of Hamilton's ideas were rejected at the Constitutional Convention. You can check the notes from that on the Yale site with the Avalon Project. There is no revision here.

I mentioned a lot of people besides Hamilton, but the point was that you had claimed Wilson was the first to attempt to do any of these things. So as long as you understand that you were dead wrong on that, I really don't need to address your obsession with villifying Hamilton.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 12:06 PM
I mentioned a lot of people besides Hamilton, but the point was that you had claimed Wilson was the first to attempt to do any of these things. So as long as you understand that you were dead wrong on that, I really don't need to address your obsession with villifying Hamilton.

Wilson effectively nationalized the economy. He took legislative involvement to new heights ( recommending legislation is different and okay as are vetos) but there are certain things he did that were new and considerable breaches here. I'd have to go back and look up the specifics.

I guess you could say, he continued what TR started. This idea was part of the progressive mind set at the time because they couldn't ram through their thoroughly statist agenda with so many in the congress but makes it easier with one man breaching his Constitutional powers. THAT was the idea of not granting the executive that kind of power and why it's not in the Constitution. To say it's antiquated is a matter of opinion—the progressive expansion of executive power thinking. The whole idea of this was separation of powers, checks and balances so that tyranny could be stymied and liberty flourish. If it's antiquated then debate it openly, instead of circumventing the Constitution, and add an amendment.

Don't know understand how you guys can condemn Bush for such expansion of executive power, then say it's antiquated not to.
You're just as much for it when it suits your own ideology.

Let's not forget Wilson's repression of dissent and civil liberties ...

from the jailing of thousands of critics of the war, most notably Socialist leader Eugene Debs, to banning the playing of Beethoven (a Hun), changing the name of sauerkraut to Liberty cabbage, and seeking to prohibit the teaching of the German language in the public schools ("Speech of Hated Hun Forbidden," was how the press saw one such triumph). Leading the nationwide assault was the federal government; the executive branch also orchestrated councils and organizations on the state and local level, and gave official sanction to vigilante activities of superpatriots engaging in surveillance of their neighbors.-- Murray Rothbard

And people wonder why I call the current conservatives in the WH left/liberal/progressives?

banyon
08-30-2008, 12:13 PM
Wilson effectively nationalized the economy. He took it legislative involvement to new heights ( recommending legislation is different and okay) but there are certain things he did that were new and considerable breaches here. I'd have to go back and look up the specifics.

I guess you could say, he continued what TR started. This idea was part of the progressive mind set at the time because they couldn't ram through their agenda with so many in the congress but makes it easier with one man breaching his Constitutional powers. THAT was the idea of not granting the executive that kind of power and why it's not in the Constitution. To say it's antiquated is a matter of opinion—the progressive expansion of executive power thinking. The whole idea of this was separation of powers, checks and balances so that tyranny could be stymied and liberty flourish. If it's antiquated then debate it openly, instead of circumventing the Constitution, and add an amendment.

Don't know understand how you guys can condemn Bush for such expansion of executive power, the say it's antiquated not to.

I'm in favor of scaling back executive power. Just not back to 1875. Clearly the secrecy and lack of transparency need to go, along with a lot of the other features of the "unitary executive" theory of the NeoCons (the real ones).

And people wonder why I call the current conservatives in the WH left/liberal/progressives

Progressives are against accumulations of power in private or public hands, so that should help you understand why I don't share Bush's opinion of the executive branch. Again, there is some middle ground here.

whoman69
08-30-2008, 05:11 PM
Somehow Real Time with Bill Maher came on and they were talking about her. The black lady from NPR said that her "inexperience" was negated because Kaine was a finalist in VP selection for Obama. They both had the same inexperience. So she said no one could argue that point.

I kinda wanted to be there to set her straight on how that doesn't make any sense, but nonetheless it was an interesting argument.

Hmm, Kaine is governor of one of the most populous states in the country and a mayor a good sized city before was not chosen. Palin governor of one of the least populous states in the country and mayor of a small town was chosen. Tell me how those are even close to balancing act?

Programmer
08-30-2008, 05:36 PM
You guys must be really concerned about this pick.

They are seeing the demise of Barak Apollo Obamas run at the presidency. Yes, they are worried.

Messier
08-30-2008, 05:39 PM
They are seeing the demise of Barak Apollo Obamas run at the presidency. Yes, they are worried.

What?

patteeu
09-02-2008, 07:20 AM
No, but instead of telling us why we should vote for McCain it's been a long stream of why we shouldn't vote for Obama. And if posting negative material, no matter how much of a stretch, means people are scared, then some here must be absolutely terrified of Obama.

I know I am. It's terrifying that a smooth talking, black liberation theology embracing, radical red diaper baby who is soft on foreign policy and weak on national defense, who will strive to fill the SCOTUS with Ruth Bader Ginsberg clones has won the POTUS nomination of one of America's two major parties. Anyone with any sense would be terrified, IMO.

Programmer
09-02-2008, 09:30 AM
What?

You can't really be that thick headed.

BigChiefFan
09-02-2008, 09:41 AM
I know I am. It's terrifying that a smooth talking, black liberation theology embracing, radical red diaper baby who is soft on foreign policy and weak on national defense, who will strive to fill the SCOTUS with Ruth Bader Ginsberg clones has won the POTUS nomination of one of America's two major parties. Anyone with any sense would be terrified, IMO.Actually warmongering is a Hell of alot more terrifying than peace. McCain and his "maverick" ways could put us in a world war-not cool, not cool at all.

Programmer
09-02-2008, 10:37 AM
Actually warmongering is a Hell of alot more terrifying than peace. McCain and his "maverick" ways could put us in a world war-not cool, not cool at all.

That could be right, but what you are overlooking is that Obama has the same chances with the lack of experience and his willingness to try and talk our way out of war.