Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341 [crosscut.com]

    Despite talking about cutting taxes, fiscal responsibility, small government and fighting corruption, her career has been exactly the opposite of that.

    • Despite talking about cutting taxes, fiscal responsibility, small government and fighting corruption, her career has been exactly the opposite of that.

      Incorrect on all counts.

      • There is a content free assertion. Which of the following statements are wrong?

        1. When she became mayor of Wasilla, the budget was balanced.
        2. When she left, the city was in debt. (Fiscally responsible?)
        3. One of her first actions as mayor was to fire various people (eg the police chief and library director) and hire her own friends. The reason she gave wasn't competence, it was because they were "not fully supporting her efforts to govern". ie not endorsing her as mayor. (This kind of political manipulation s
        • There is a content free assertion.

          Yes, exactly. You gave a content-free assertion, so I responded in kind.

          When she left, the city was in debt. (Fiscally responsible?)

          All the debt was for specific infrastructure purposes, was favored by the people, and was budgeted for in advance. This is quite responsible, yes.

          One of her first actions as mayor was to fire various people (eg the police chief and library director) and hire her own friends. The reason she gave wasn't competence, it was because they were "not fully supporting her efforts to govern". ie not endorsing her as mayor. (This kind of political manipulation should be abhorrent exactly because it leads to corruption.)

          Utter tripe. If she can't work with them effectively to accomplish her goals, hell yes, she should fire them, and the sooner the better.

          Under her, Wasilla hired a lobbyist to try to get more in federal earmarks. It received them to the tune of $23 million. (She says she's against earmarks?)

          Earmarks are not a problem at all. I couldn't care less. What matters is WHAT is being earmarked.

          This was despite raising taxes substantially. (Didn't she say she was for cutting taxes?)

          You already addressed this exact point above: taxes were

          • No I am not lying [mcclatchydc.com] about Wasilla charging rape victims for medical exams under Palin. In case you doubt, here is confirmation from an article in 2000 [frontiersman.com]. It caused a controversy the caused a state-wide law to be put in place banning the practice.

            On earmarks, I care about two things. First I don't like earmarks in general because they tend to be pretty much pure pork. Secondly I really do care about the hypocrisy. The McCain-Palin ticket is promising to reduce earmarks to the tune of 100 billion per year.

            • No I am not lying [mcclatchydc.com] about Wasilla charging rape victims for medical exams under Palin.

              You were lying when you said it was her policy.

              Secondly I really do care about the hypocrisy.

              Fine, then let's look at all the hypocrisy from Obama, on earmarks, on lobbyists, on the DC gun ban, on campaign finance ... the list is long.

              So, I don't care about earmarks, but if you want to discuss hypocrisy, we can do that ...

              If you're really against federal taxes, then you should also be against federal spending.

              Again: the money ALREADY CAME TO HER STATE. Before she even took office. To blame her for taking money that she didn't take is obviously nonsense. The Bridge to Nowhere debate -- whatever your personal feelings about it -- was primarily about a specific project. She said she wouldn't spend the federal money on that project, regardless of the fact that it was no longer earmarked. She still could have tried to spend the money on it, despite no earmark. She said no.

              You might think her record isn't what she's saying, and I don't know. But I still don't see how she did anything wrong as governor on this issue ... unless you wanted her to spend that money on the Bridge.

              That's what the Republican party misleads people on.

              No. That is what ELECTED Republicans -- especially in DC -- mislead REPUBLICANS on. Which is why the Democrats won in 2006, because Republican voters stayed home. It's not the Republican, or even the Republican Party as a whole, it's that the Republicans elected people who didn't actually represent their interests.

              They claim to be for small government. They claim to be fiscally responsible. They claim to be good for business. But in the last 50 years when we've had Republicans in office we've consistently seen enormous deficits.

              Clinton inherited a growing economy from Bush (the recession ended in about September 1992), and then the tech boom hit. Clinton didn't give us a surplus, he just happened to be President when those things happened. And then Bush inherited a recession due to the tech bubble bursting in around March 2000 under Clinton, and then September 11 happened, and combined with loss of manufacturing etc. under Clinton and his predecessors, gave us a very slow recovery.

              Similarly, Reagan had several years underwater due to the lingering effects of the terrible economy under Carter. So Carter's years in office actually look better than Reagan's first term, even though obviously the problems in Reagan's first term were due to effects caused during Carter's term.

              MOST of what happens is not from what they do, including the fact that it's the CONGRESS that passes the budgets, so it's just pure bullshit to give credit and blame depending on who is in office at the time.

              Clinton's autobiography lays a pretty good case out that the boom was due to policies from his first two years that just took a while to get going.

              No, it doesn't. That is complete and utter bullshit. The tech boom was coming no matter what. As a geek, you should know that as well as most. It's shocking you were actually taken in by that line of crap.

              So if I care about fiscal responsibility, who should I vote for?

              Not the Republican Congress, sure. Nor the Democratic Congress, obviously.

              But you could vote for the most fiscally responsible person in the Senate for the last 20 years: John McCain.

              Or you could deceptively point to who happened to be in the Presidency at the time, or dishonestly saddle McCain with the blame for his party's policies that he has opposed for years.

              I think I'll skip the one that just added a former beauty contestant for the candidate

              Yeah, I agree, I think I'll skip Obama too. I don't think he is qualified just because he won the Democratic Beauty Contest, er, nomination.

              who has done a well-managed nationwide organization for the last couple of years that has several times as many people involved as Alaska.

              Psssst: he doesn't actually run his "nationwide organization." He has people to do that for him. Give it a rest.

              The fact is Obama has no more significant qualifications than Palin. They spent about the same amount of time as mayor vs. state legislator, which are comparable. They spent about the same amount of time as governor vs. U.S. Senator (before he left to run for President), which are comparable.

              You are grasping at straws.