Jump to content

Video: Sarah Palin gets booed down at Flyers Opening Game


beforewisdom
 Share

Recommended Posts

:lol:

She just keeps waving like a dumbass.

offense, those are some harsh words about Gov. Palin don't you think?

 

For those of you who don't know Southeastern Pennsylvania is Obama country. He has more supporters their than in any other part of Pennsylvania. Outside of Pittsburg and Phillly the rest of the state are conservative racist rednecks. I know because I've lived in rural PA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The republicans have controlled the presidency and executive branch, and at least part of congress, more than 80% of the time in the past 25 years. Their policies have turned our economy and financial system into a banana republic full of white collar criminals and scammers, they've wrapped a ten trillion dollar noose of debt around our families and childrens necks, they've manufactured an endless war in Iraq based on lies that has cost 3 trillion dollars with no end in sight and killed over a million people, they've Walmartized the economy and made jobs our biggest export, they've created a medical system that underinsures or doesn't cover almost a third of the population that is by far the most expensive in the world undermining the competitiveness of our companies and workers, they've created laws that prevent food manufacturers from being liable for creating the obesist and one of the most unhealthy populations in the industrial world. And then the fools scratch their heads and wonder why people lack confidence in the system they've created. We've been down the road of right-wing rule before; another republican presidency could easily drive the country into another republican Great Depression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

She just keeps waving like a dumbass.

offense, those are some harsh words about Gov. Palin don't you think?

 

For those of you who don't know Southeastern Pennsylvania is Obama country. He has more supporters their than in any other part of Pennsylvania. Outside of Pittsburg and Phillly the rest of the state are conservative racist rednecks. I know because I've lived in rural PA.

 

No, she really is a dumbass. She really wants to have our kids learn that dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time.

 

http://bygonetv.com/shows/the_flintstones/images/family.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The republicans have controlled the presidency and executive branch, and at least part of congress, more than 80% of the time in the past 25 years. Their policies have turned our economy and financial system into a banana republic full of white collar criminals and scammers, they've wrapped a ten trillion dollar noose of debt around our families and childrens necks, they've manufactured an endless war in Iraq based on lies that has cost 3 trillion dollars with no end in sight and killed over a million people, they've Walmartized the economy and made jobs our biggest export, they've created a medical system that underinsures or doesn't cover almost a third of the population that is by far the most expensive in the world undermining the competitiveness of our companies and workers, they've created laws that prevent food manufacturers from being liable for creating the obesist and one of the most unhealthy populations in the industrial world. And then the fools scratch their heads and wonder why people lack confidence in the system they've created. We've been down the road of right-wing rule before; another republican presidency could easily drive the country into another republican Great Depression.
Excellent points RawVgn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this could be a big thing. A lot of voters aren't political junkies, but do follow sports quite a bit. They'll take notice.

 

It also shows that the absurdity of the socially constructed demographic of "hockey moms". People who like hockey and take their kids to hockey games don't all have the same political values and ideas.

 

But, again, she seems like a nice person and I'd have no reason not to not like her, if she weren't running for a position that puts her one failed heartbeat away from the presidency. As Dr. McDougall points out, McCain's love for junk food makes you wonder when that last failed heartbeat would be.

 

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/pres/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is also pretty scary:

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnns-ed-henry-and-ed-hornick/

 

I think there are a lot of people who think Obama is a foreign terrorist running for President in the United States. We have a lot of dumb people around the world and many of them live and hang out in America too.

 

At the end of the day, I believe it comes down to who we trust and resonate with them most, rather than how a candidate stands on specific issues. I really think that is true. I think the issues and debates aren't as significant as we'd like to think. It comes down to who we like better, who we trust more, who we believe will do the best job based on our own personal interests and value systems.

 

For me, that is Sen. Obama, and it is for most of America. He's a smart guy, he seems like a nice guy, a great leader, a great role model and a man of integrity. I have been following the political race but when it comes to who to vote for I don't think the issues are as important as how we feel about the individual and their ability to effectively run the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging by comments I have seen on the web people don't know what the word "Arab" means.

 

They also do not seem to know what the words "socialist" and "communist" means, instead using those words as adult sounding substitutes for the phrase

 

"you are a bad man!"

 

If any candidate is a socialist in this race it would be Govenor Palin as she is practically running Alaska soley on taxes from the oil companies.

 

As far as the definition of "terrorist" goes, that word has long been watered down to be meaningless and has also become an adult sounding substitute for "you are a bad man".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism is when the means of production in any given society are partially owned by the people. In the US, this is the case in some sectors of economic activity (education system, highways and roads, firefighting etc.)

 

Palin does not want this trend to increase.

 

She does support government making it easier for big money corporations to keep the big money coming in, albeit not for the benefit of "the people," only for the benefit of her corporate benefactors. And possibly anti-science illogical creationists, pseudointellectuals, and phonies that she will hire to work for the government. But that's not the same thing as socialism.

 

Sorry, back to the regularly scheduled romp with the dinosaurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also do not seem to know what the words "socialist" and "communist" means, instead using those words as adult sounding substitutes for the phrase

 

"you are a bad man!"

 

If any candidate is a socialist in this race it would be Govenor Palin as she is practically running Alaska soley on taxes from the oil companies.

 

As far as the definition of "terrorist" goes, that word has long been watered down to be meaningless and has also become an adult sounding substitute for "you are a bad man".

 

Hehe...that's a good observation beforewisdom. It reminds me of Orwell's classic essay "Politics and the English Language", which talks about how people intentionally use language in dishonest ways:

 

"...Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality"

 

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism means an economic system, not just one instance.

"An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government"

 

If you don't call the banking system, credit, taxes a means of production I suggest you think about how you define that set. Everything runs on credit.

 

Bush, Palin, and McCain are not socialists, but their supporters are accusing Obama of being a socialist when these people, not Obama, have taken actions that would befit a socialist ( socializing the banking system, taxing most of the oil revenues to run her state budget, & offering to buy failed mortgages respectively ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism means an economic system, not just one instance.

"An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government"

If you don't call the banking system, credit, taxes a means of production I suggest you think about how you define that set. Everything runs on credit.

Marx was pretty clear on means of production. It's the material and apparatus required to manufacture and distribute goods and services. Financial capital is not part of the means of production. However, it can contribute to the ownership of the means of production. The two are definitely distinct, though.

 

The means of production in the US are primarily owned by private companies controlled by a small group of people. This makes us a capitalist society in which the bourgeoisie control and profit from the means of production. We would be socialist if the government (or, in ideal socialism, workers collectives) owned and controlled the means, but that's not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism means an economic system, not just one instance.

"An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government"

 

If you don't call the banking system, credit, taxes a means of production I suggest you think about how you define that set. Everything runs on credit.

 

The means of production are owned and controlled collectively under a socialist economy, not a few banks and insurance companies. And it's certainly not socialism when the government bails out private corporations, with public money, any time they lose a large chunk of money, but keep them as private entities. That's just ripping off the general public to benefit a few rich people, without the consent of the general public. That has absolutely nothing to do with true socialism (which has never existed for very long and doesn't presently exist in any country), in which there is democratic control over economic assets and decisions.

 

 

Bush, Palin, and McCain are not socialists, but their supporters are accusing Obama of being a socialist when these people, not Obama, have taken actions that would befit a socialist ( socializing the banking system, taxing most of the oil revenues to run her state budget, & offering to buy failed mortgages respectively ).

 

The bailout and the (probably temporary) nationalizations of various companies were, in fact, supported by Obama. In fact, Obama was the main Democratic Congressperson lobbying members of the House who initially voted against the bailout to vote for it later. He personally called dozens of House Democrats to persuade them to change their votes--to vote in favor of a plan that gave our hard-earned tax money to the very Wall Street firms that have run the economy into the ground, while doing nothing to fix core problems such as mortgage foreclosures. Again, this has nothing to do with socialism; it's a disgusting Robin-Hood-in-reverse scam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marx was pretty clear on means of production..

Marx also lived in the 19th century. We live in the 21st century United States. You can't produce (as in "means of production" ) anything of significance in significant quantity without credit.

As long as you have the machinery and the raw materials, you can produce. That's all the means of production is concerned with. Your point about credit is good, since credit is a form of financial capital and financial capital can be used to own and control means of production, but again, the ownership and control are distinct from the means.

 

But yes, if the financial capital is used to consolidate ownership and control of the means of production under the government or a workers council, that would be socialist. However, that's still not the case. The US government does not own or control the vast majority of the means of production. Private entities do. In this sense, the government is actually at the mercy of the bourgeoisie, since they rely on means they do not control. Of course, the bourgeoisie is at the mercy of the government for protection and security. And the government may be able to take the means of production, but that's a larger issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Marx also lived in the 19th century. We live in the 21st century United States. You can't produce (as in "means of production" ) anything of significance in significant quantity without credit.

 

Words and ideas retain their meaning regardless of the time period. Socialism is still socialism, capitalism is still capitalism, blue is still blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...