Jen**GPAC**'s Blog
•
Politics
In Case You Were Wondering, Palin Is a Big Fat Liar
In Case You Were Wondering, Palin Is A Big Fat Liar!
Email Print posted by Meme Magus 09/02/2008 05:24:25 AM EST
In Palin's speech she said, "As governor, I've stood up to the old politics-as-usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-ol'-boy network,".
According to MSNBC Palin, "employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group."
I expect politicians to lie, but to lie this blatantly shows that Palin is either extremely stupid, or a panderer like her "soul-mate" McCain. How anyone can defend her is beyond me.
$27 million for a town of less than 8,000 (I have heard so many different numbers that I am going to remain vague intentionally) is an alarming figure. McCain really has picked someone who's corruption rivals his own.
post comments to the author of this blog here
http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2008/9/2/52425/88241/Diary...
Email Print posted by Meme Magus 09/02/2008 05:24:25 AM EST
In Palin's speech she said, "As governor, I've stood up to the old politics-as-usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-ol'-boy network,".
According to MSNBC Palin, "employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group."
I expect politicians to lie, but to lie this blatantly shows that Palin is either extremely stupid, or a panderer like her "soul-mate" McCain. How anyone can defend her is beyond me.
$27 million for a town of less than 8,000 (I have heard so many different numbers that I am going to remain vague intentionally) is an alarming figure. McCain really has picked someone who's corruption rivals his own.
post comments to the author of this blog here
http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2008/9/2/52425/88241/Diary...
Article: Don't Vote for McCain
again.. not written by me :))
Blogs » Adam Knight's blog
Thinking about voting for McCain? Don't.
Are you considering McCain for president? Think he’ll help out with the Iraq mess? Think again. Six months before September 2001 he was already pushing for war in Iraq, even if we couldn’t get people to go with us. Yes, this was before the attacks on America. This was before they were considered a direct threat by any stretch of the truth. This was before the administration had an excuse to invade. Before that, he was already drumming up support for a peacetime invasion of a country that had done nothing to us.
Which is to say that while he’ll talk up the attacks and talk up all the events since then, he’s a member of the group of Republicans that has been wanting to go into Iraq ever since Bush Sr. refused to in ’91. His agenda is quite clearly not what he says it is for remaining there, and remain there we will as he’s said, repeatedly, that we could be there for over one hundred years.
One. Hundred. Years.
Can it get worse? Sure it can. McCain is expected to select Rudy as his running mate. Mr. 9/11 himself. Why is the dollar crashing? 9/11. Why can’t we get healthcare? 9/11. Why is my dog at the pound? 9/11. Yeah, him. By all accounts, McCain/9/11 would be worse for America than Bush/Cheney ever was (and make no mistake, they’re the worst pair ever put into office).
Even Pat Buchanan chimed in: McCain “will make Cheney look like Gandhi.”
Voting in the Republican primary? Vote for anyone else. Vote for your plumber. Don’t support this man.
Registered Democrat or independent and have a choice of which to vote in? Fear Hillary as well. She’s no better than McCain. Really.
Our greatest fear as Americans should be a McCain vs. Clinton general election. There will be no hope left if that happens.
ON IRAQ, GOP SPLIT OVER GAINING WORLD RESPECT OR ENFORCING IT
March 3, 2001
When Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) battled George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, one of the few GOP senators who supported McCain was Nebraska’s Charles Hagel, a fellow Vietnam veteran.
But today, McCain and Hagel define the poles of Republican thinking on Iraq.
McCain, who’s often feuded with President Bush on domestic policy, has become one of the administration’s staunchest supporters on Iraq. Hagel, who’s been closer to Bush on home-front issues, has emerged as perhaps the congressional Republican most critical of the administration’s strategy for confronting Saddam Hussein.
While never rejecting the use of force, Hagel has repeatedly warned that the United States must disarm Iraq in a way that reinforces international alliances. In that, he’s close to Democratic “tough doves,” such as Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the former NATO supreme allied commander. McCain has become the champion for the hard-line, neoconservative thinkers who want to move quickly against Iraq, no matter how many countries agree.
This argument between two friends crystallizes the choices America faces at a perplexing moment when our military power is unmatched and our sense of security is unraveling.
Hagel believes that to succeed in the struggle against terrorism and weapons proliferation, the U.S. needs cooperation from allies. “All of [our] great power will not be enough to assure American security and prosperity in the 21st century. The threats to both our country and the world will require strengthened alliances,” Hagel said.
Therefore, he argues, if we go to war in Iraq in a way that divides us from our allies, we could harm our security more than help it. “If that is the price of waging war in Iraq, then victory … in the war on terrorism, in the Middle East, on the Korean peninsula, and against weapons of mass destruction, will not be ours,” he said in a recent speech.
In the broad sense, that means we must be humble in our approach to foreign policy, respectful of others’ views, aware of anxieties about our motivations and power, and committed to solving problems multilaterally whenever possible. “We must avoid the traps of hubris and imperial temptation that come with great power,” Hagel said.
More immediately, he said, before we go to war, we should give inspections another “two or three months,” with a firm deadline for Iraqi compliance, to build international consensus. That way, he said, “if a military option is required, we would have the legitimacy of the United Nations, our allies and world opinion.”
Hagel also insists we must balance our military thrusts against terrorism with global initiatives to solve problems that he believes breed extremism, such as poverty and hunger. “Military power alone will not end this scourge of mankind,” he said.
At the same time, the United States should build international goodwill by renewing our efforts to broker agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, Hagel argues. And we should be sanguine about neoconservative claims that a war in Iraq will trigger a democratic domino effect across the Mideast; that will require the hard work of specific initiatives to encourage economic development and educational reform across the region.
McCain marches from very different premises to very different conclusions.
The new “existential” risk of terrorism, he argues, compels America to act boldly against emerging risks around the globe. To safeguard its security, the United States cannot rely on others, either international institutions such as the United Nations or traditional European allies, much less the Arab world.
“Does anyone really believe that the world’s will to contain Saddam won’t eventually collapse, as utterly as it did in the 1990s?” McCain said in a mid-February speech.
In this dangerous environment, the U.S. must be willing to act alone, not only in Iraq but in North Korea, if necessary. While other nations “may risk their own populations, the United States will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people,” he wrote in January. “And spare us the usual lectures about American unilateralism.”
While Hagel believes the U.S. must demonstrate its commitment to international institutions, McCain reverses the equation: He argues that international institutions must demonstrate they are still relevant to American security by supporting military action against Iraq.
“Should great powers determine that multilateral institutions such as NATO and the [U.N.] Security Council cannot protect their interests when they are imperiled, countries will increasingly be tempted to go it alone,” he warned at a conference in Germany last month.
While Hagel attributes much of the tension with traditional allies to American actions, McCain pins most of the blame on the “calculated self-interest” of France and Germany and “Arab tyrants” who fear the example of a democratic, post-Hussein Iraq.
As a result, McCain argues that we cannot delay an invasion much longer for an international consensus that may never come. McCain also puts much less emphasis than Hagel on the role of economic development, or new efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace, in discouraging terrorism. And he is much more optimistic that the overthrow of Hussein will encourage a democratic chain reaction through the region.
In all, while Hagel argues that broadening international cooperation is the key to security in this new era, McCain believes “credibility” in delivering military force is the top priority. The one is focused on winning respect; the other on enforcing it.
Hagel is 10 years younger than McCain. But McCain is closer to the thinking in the emerging generation of conservative foreign policy thinkers inside and outside the Bush administration. Hagel is upholding an earlier Republican foreign policy tradition, a sober realism that worries about overreach, backlash, the law of unintended consequences.
Both men know better than most that war is a risky, unpredictable business. But like the nation, they have divided on whether the greater risk in Iraq is that America will act so quickly that it alienates its friends, or wait so long that it emboldens its enemies.
Submitted by Adam Knight on February 8, 2008 - 10:57am.
* Adam Knight's blog
and if you wish to comment to Knight go here..
http://www.hopelessgeek.com/2008/02/08/thinking-about-voting-...
Blogs » Adam Knight's blog
Thinking about voting for McCain? Don't.
Are you considering McCain for president? Think he’ll help out with the Iraq mess? Think again. Six months before September 2001 he was already pushing for war in Iraq, even if we couldn’t get people to go with us. Yes, this was before the attacks on America. This was before they were considered a direct threat by any stretch of the truth. This was before the administration had an excuse to invade. Before that, he was already drumming up support for a peacetime invasion of a country that had done nothing to us.
Which is to say that while he’ll talk up the attacks and talk up all the events since then, he’s a member of the group of Republicans that has been wanting to go into Iraq ever since Bush Sr. refused to in ’91. His agenda is quite clearly not what he says it is for remaining there, and remain there we will as he’s said, repeatedly, that we could be there for over one hundred years.
One. Hundred. Years.
Can it get worse? Sure it can. McCain is expected to select Rudy as his running mate. Mr. 9/11 himself. Why is the dollar crashing? 9/11. Why can’t we get healthcare? 9/11. Why is my dog at the pound? 9/11. Yeah, him. By all accounts, McCain/9/11 would be worse for America than Bush/Cheney ever was (and make no mistake, they’re the worst pair ever put into office).
Even Pat Buchanan chimed in: McCain “will make Cheney look like Gandhi.”
Voting in the Republican primary? Vote for anyone else. Vote for your plumber. Don’t support this man.
Registered Democrat or independent and have a choice of which to vote in? Fear Hillary as well. She’s no better than McCain. Really.
Our greatest fear as Americans should be a McCain vs. Clinton general election. There will be no hope left if that happens.
ON IRAQ, GOP SPLIT OVER GAINING WORLD RESPECT OR ENFORCING IT
March 3, 2001
When Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) battled George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, one of the few GOP senators who supported McCain was Nebraska’s Charles Hagel, a fellow Vietnam veteran.
But today, McCain and Hagel define the poles of Republican thinking on Iraq.
McCain, who’s often feuded with President Bush on domestic policy, has become one of the administration’s staunchest supporters on Iraq. Hagel, who’s been closer to Bush on home-front issues, has emerged as perhaps the congressional Republican most critical of the administration’s strategy for confronting Saddam Hussein.
While never rejecting the use of force, Hagel has repeatedly warned that the United States must disarm Iraq in a way that reinforces international alliances. In that, he’s close to Democratic “tough doves,” such as Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the former NATO supreme allied commander. McCain has become the champion for the hard-line, neoconservative thinkers who want to move quickly against Iraq, no matter how many countries agree.
This argument between two friends crystallizes the choices America faces at a perplexing moment when our military power is unmatched and our sense of security is unraveling.
Hagel believes that to succeed in the struggle against terrorism and weapons proliferation, the U.S. needs cooperation from allies. “All of [our] great power will not be enough to assure American security and prosperity in the 21st century. The threats to both our country and the world will require strengthened alliances,” Hagel said.
Therefore, he argues, if we go to war in Iraq in a way that divides us from our allies, we could harm our security more than help it. “If that is the price of waging war in Iraq, then victory … in the war on terrorism, in the Middle East, on the Korean peninsula, and against weapons of mass destruction, will not be ours,” he said in a recent speech.
In the broad sense, that means we must be humble in our approach to foreign policy, respectful of others’ views, aware of anxieties about our motivations and power, and committed to solving problems multilaterally whenever possible. “We must avoid the traps of hubris and imperial temptation that come with great power,” Hagel said.
More immediately, he said, before we go to war, we should give inspections another “two or three months,” with a firm deadline for Iraqi compliance, to build international consensus. That way, he said, “if a military option is required, we would have the legitimacy of the United Nations, our allies and world opinion.”
Hagel also insists we must balance our military thrusts against terrorism with global initiatives to solve problems that he believes breed extremism, such as poverty and hunger. “Military power alone will not end this scourge of mankind,” he said.
At the same time, the United States should build international goodwill by renewing our efforts to broker agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, Hagel argues. And we should be sanguine about neoconservative claims that a war in Iraq will trigger a democratic domino effect across the Mideast; that will require the hard work of specific initiatives to encourage economic development and educational reform across the region.
McCain marches from very different premises to very different conclusions.
The new “existential” risk of terrorism, he argues, compels America to act boldly against emerging risks around the globe. To safeguard its security, the United States cannot rely on others, either international institutions such as the United Nations or traditional European allies, much less the Arab world.
“Does anyone really believe that the world’s will to contain Saddam won’t eventually collapse, as utterly as it did in the 1990s?” McCain said in a mid-February speech.
In this dangerous environment, the U.S. must be willing to act alone, not only in Iraq but in North Korea, if necessary. While other nations “may risk their own populations, the United States will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people,” he wrote in January. “And spare us the usual lectures about American unilateralism.”
While Hagel believes the U.S. must demonstrate its commitment to international institutions, McCain reverses the equation: He argues that international institutions must demonstrate they are still relevant to American security by supporting military action against Iraq.
“Should great powers determine that multilateral institutions such as NATO and the [U.N.] Security Council cannot protect their interests when they are imperiled, countries will increasingly be tempted to go it alone,” he warned at a conference in Germany last month.
While Hagel attributes much of the tension with traditional allies to American actions, McCain pins most of the blame on the “calculated self-interest” of France and Germany and “Arab tyrants” who fear the example of a democratic, post-Hussein Iraq.
As a result, McCain argues that we cannot delay an invasion much longer for an international consensus that may never come. McCain also puts much less emphasis than Hagel on the role of economic development, or new efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace, in discouraging terrorism. And he is much more optimistic that the overthrow of Hussein will encourage a democratic chain reaction through the region.
In all, while Hagel argues that broadening international cooperation is the key to security in this new era, McCain believes “credibility” in delivering military force is the top priority. The one is focused on winning respect; the other on enforcing it.
Hagel is 10 years younger than McCain. But McCain is closer to the thinking in the emerging generation of conservative foreign policy thinkers inside and outside the Bush administration. Hagel is upholding an earlier Republican foreign policy tradition, a sober realism that worries about overreach, backlash, the law of unintended consequences.
Both men know better than most that war is a risky, unpredictable business. But like the nation, they have divided on whether the greater risk in Iraq is that America will act so quickly that it alienates its friends, or wait so long that it emboldens its enemies.
Submitted by Adam Knight on February 8, 2008 - 10:57am.
* Adam Knight's blog
and if you wish to comment to Knight go here..
http://www.hopelessgeek.com/2008/02/08/thinking-about-voting-...
McCain blog I found very interesting
I have been reading a lot of blogs as of late.. and I came across this one I found interesting.. keep in mind I am not the one who wrote it.. but parts of it made sense to me.. read and enjoy and please don't shoot the messenger (aka me):))
McCain is a Petulant Arse
| posted by Melissa McEwan | Wednesday, April 05, 2006
If this buttfor can’t even hack a heckling audience, how does he expect to be president?
Sen. John McCain threatened on Tuesday to cut short a speech to union leaders who booed his immigration views and later challenged his statements on organized labor and the Iraq war.
"If you like, I will leave," McCain told the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department, pivoting briefly from the lectern. He returned to the microphone after the crowd quieted.
"OK, then please give me the courtesy I would give you."
Wev. Is there a Republican who doesn’t talk to adults like they’re children? Who doesn’t refuse to face people who disagree with them and aren’t afraid to make it known? Who doesn’t reject accountability, or the notion that courtesy is earned, not demanded?
Later, the senator outlined his position on the Senate immigration debate, saying tougher border enforcement must be accompanied by guest-worker provisions that give illegal immigrants a legal path toward citizenship.
Murmurs from the crowd turned to booing. "Pay a decent wage!" one audience member shouted.
"I've heard that statement before," McCain said before threatening to leave.
What a baby.
In the speech, McCain also argued that withdrawing U.S. troops prematurely from Iraq would turn terrorists loose on the United States.
This time, there was no booing — though one audience member cursed from the back of the crowd.
[…]
But he took more questions, including a pointed one on his immigration plan.
McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.
Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain's job offer.
"I'll take it!" one man shouted.
McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."
Some in the crowd said they didn't appreciate McCain questioning their work ethic.
People like McCain have no idea what the fuck real life is like anymore. Of course people would take that job. A lot of people do a lot worse jobs for a lot less money. Even Americans, who people like him like to assume just “won’t do” certain jobs. There’s a difference between refusing to do a job because you think you’re above it, which is what they think is the problem, and not choosing a certain job because you couldn’t possibly support yourself, no less a family, on the salary being offered. People like McCain think that Americans won’t clean toilets or pick fruit or whatever because of pride. Well, I grew up in Northwest Indiana when all the steel mills were closing, and men who got laid off from those jobs to find out that there was nothing left for them did anything they could to put food on their tables. Men who had been supervisors were slinging hash and stocking shelves, working two and three menial jobs to try to avoid losing their homes. Between pride and feeding your kids, the kids win out every time. How dare he suggest that there are people who wouldn’t, or couldn’t, pick lettuce if given a livable wage? Asshole.
"I was impressed with his comedy routine and ability to tap dance without music. But I was impressed with nothing else about him," said John Wasniewski of Milwaukee. "He's supposed to be Mr. Straight Talk?"
Welcome to the real America, Mr. McCain.
and here is the address if you wish to comment to the author.. which I am sure some of you would do.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/04/mccain-is-petu...
McCain is a Petulant Arse
| posted by Melissa McEwan | Wednesday, April 05, 2006
If this buttfor can’t even hack a heckling audience, how does he expect to be president?
Sen. John McCain threatened on Tuesday to cut short a speech to union leaders who booed his immigration views and later challenged his statements on organized labor and the Iraq war.
"If you like, I will leave," McCain told the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department, pivoting briefly from the lectern. He returned to the microphone after the crowd quieted.
"OK, then please give me the courtesy I would give you."
Wev. Is there a Republican who doesn’t talk to adults like they’re children? Who doesn’t refuse to face people who disagree with them and aren’t afraid to make it known? Who doesn’t reject accountability, or the notion that courtesy is earned, not demanded?
Later, the senator outlined his position on the Senate immigration debate, saying tougher border enforcement must be accompanied by guest-worker provisions that give illegal immigrants a legal path toward citizenship.
Murmurs from the crowd turned to booing. "Pay a decent wage!" one audience member shouted.
"I've heard that statement before," McCain said before threatening to leave.
What a baby.
In the speech, McCain also argued that withdrawing U.S. troops prematurely from Iraq would turn terrorists loose on the United States.
This time, there was no booing — though one audience member cursed from the back of the crowd.
[…]
But he took more questions, including a pointed one on his immigration plan.
McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.
Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain's job offer.
"I'll take it!" one man shouted.
McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."
Some in the crowd said they didn't appreciate McCain questioning their work ethic.
People like McCain have no idea what the fuck real life is like anymore. Of course people would take that job. A lot of people do a lot worse jobs for a lot less money. Even Americans, who people like him like to assume just “won’t do” certain jobs. There’s a difference between refusing to do a job because you think you’re above it, which is what they think is the problem, and not choosing a certain job because you couldn’t possibly support yourself, no less a family, on the salary being offered. People like McCain think that Americans won’t clean toilets or pick fruit or whatever because of pride. Well, I grew up in Northwest Indiana when all the steel mills were closing, and men who got laid off from those jobs to find out that there was nothing left for them did anything they could to put food on their tables. Men who had been supervisors were slinging hash and stocking shelves, working two and three menial jobs to try to avoid losing their homes. Between pride and feeding your kids, the kids win out every time. How dare he suggest that there are people who wouldn’t, or couldn’t, pick lettuce if given a livable wage? Asshole.
"I was impressed with his comedy routine and ability to tap dance without music. But I was impressed with nothing else about him," said John Wasniewski of Milwaukee. "He's supposed to be Mr. Straight Talk?"
Welcome to the real America, Mr. McCain.
and here is the address if you wish to comment to the author.. which I am sure some of you would do.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/04/mccain-is-petu...
SIGN PETTION TO STOP CHINA"S SALE OF ARMS TO SUDAN
http://action.humanrightsfirst.org/campaign/cah_madein_ths
The people of Dar fur have suffered over 5 years of being slaughtered and driven from their homes by their government. China needs to prove that it's worthy of having the light shone on them during this Olympics season and end their atrocities against these people.
The people of Dar fur have suffered over 5 years of being slaughtered and driven from their homes by their government. China needs to prove that it's worthy of having the light shone on them during this Olympics season and end their atrocities against these people.
Wal Mart protest.. Seriously...
I am serious.. would anyone like to do this.. I will .. Lord knows I have hated Wal-Mart since 1.)working there and being treated like a 2nd class citizen and 2.) I have seen that millions have been treated the same if not worse than I was... if you want examples.. I will give them to you.. but for now I am interested in those of you willing to piss them off come April the 1st... let's do it.. it won't hurt them in the long run.. we have to brain storm for the future.. but for now.. let's just annoy them...
