Pajiba

Can't someone tell him to stop using "My friends" all the time??

I was going to make some snarky comment about how tv ratings were the only reason McCain picked Palin, and use this to illustrate how horrible she'd be for America, but instead I'm driven to make two notes about the image you picked for this post:

1) What's up with all the reflected angles? Palin's left arm and McCain's mic, her right arm and the arm of the little girl, her whole upper body and the chest-bump of McCain's suit?

2) Heh, microphone boner...

I'd never seen a Republican with a black penis before.

Is it superficial of me to recommend White Strips? Because I freaking swear, I have never heard a word he's spoken because all I can think about are his nasty green Scott Farkis teeth.

Oooh, I bet that's his strategy. Well played, McCain. Well played.

Can we also recommend that he stops trying to lift his arms? My mom always pointed out that his bulbous head, fish teeth, and short fin like arms make him look like some horrible aged dolphin. Then I reminded her that he was a POW and my mom said "eh,whatever... fuck that guy."

It's probably gonna irk you all even more to know that Palin polled higher in popularity than both McCain and Obama...

And that according to recent polls, Obama's mighty 8-point lead has been vanquished...

"I'd never seen a Republican with a black penis before."

Ted Haggard says otherwise.

Larry Craig wishes he could say otherwise.

Some Guy: Where did you get those figures? Please name your polls and their polling sample (i.e., did they call anyone outside of Wasilla?) Yesterday McCain had fallen 16 points since last Friday in a Reuters poll.

I love listening to people talk about how much the other side's politicians lie and how stupid people have to be to listen to them.

We're all being pandered and lied to, okay? If someone can get this far, they did it by pandering and selling out and playing ball with business and special interests. If you don't think your candidate is pandering to anyone, that's because they're pandering to YOU. The kind of politicians that tell the truth and vote consistently, if they can even make it into the public eye, get swept under the rug in the early rounds. Do you really think the power base is even going to give you a chance to choose someone who is going to change anything in a significant way?

The only thing Palin has going for her is that she spells her first name correctly...Sarah with an h.

Amen, Sofia. Chris Rock is a genius.

For Godtopus' sake, he's too old to use his own pecker even with viagra. That's not a black penis, it's a strap on.

He's pointing to Cindy & telling her to take the night off, while he "talks policy" with his new runningMATE. I just hope Sarah was telling the kid to run like hell.

I don't know from poll numbers, nor, at this point, do I care much--the election's not till November.

However, I've seen various reports today that the Obama campaign received $10 million in donations in one day--Friday, the day Gov. Palin was announced as McCain's VP pick. Those same reports say that another $8 million has "trickled" in since Friday.

Obviously Sarah Palin has made an impact; but in whose favor remains to be seen.

Clearly, Cindy McCain is a Republican shocktroop for the SpamBot Apocalypse. That woman is not human.

I take it all Pajibans are registered to vote... aren't you?

Oh, please be!!

That's not what I asked. I still want to know what Republicans who aren't Federal government employees want to protect from the Democratic Party. What golden age of peace and prosperity under George W. Bush is occurring somewhere? What does one stand to gain or lose that would make one so giddy and eager to bait about opponents about weaknesses in the Democratic campaign?

It frustrates and confuses me because it always seems like both "My utopia is under attack by fanatical bullies!" and "Give it up, pussy. You've got no chance! Haw haw haw!!" Those don't quite go together. You see what I mean?

However, I've seen various reports today that the Obama campaign received $10 million in donations in one day--Friday, the day Gov. Palin was announced as McCain's VP pick.

...which, non-coincidentally, was also the day after his speech at the DNC.

Stick to the important stuff, like whether SP is a MILF

No. I like glasses a lot but hers are ugly and a deal blower. Without them she'd have more points than with.

I like her hairstyle though.

But she's no Laura Bush.

"Not only is she blatantly calling Palin - an educated, well-spoken, successful woman - an idiot (dropped g's?! NOOOOO!), but seriously?"

"Educated" is a strong word for somebody who supports creationism being taught in public schools. I'd hasten to add that it took girlfriend six years and five colleges to get a B.A., but I fear being labeled as "elitist" by the G.O.P.

Jay there are politico assholes on both sides of the major parties and probably some in the minor parties as well. There are thoughtful liberals and conservatives interested in the truth and what's best for the country, and there are loudmouthed jerks interested in their own agenda and hearing themselves talk. Guess which type manages to push themselves into the press more often? Republicans are just as sick of hearing how stupid, inbred, redneck, and greedy they are as you are of hearing them gloat. If you assume that all Republicans think and talk like Sean Hannity, you're doing yourself a disservice and allowing those jerkoffs to invent divides among the people for their own political benefit. Just like Republicans would be doing themselves a disservice if they assumed that all Democrats were pretentious dickweeds like Keith Olbermann. It's all designed to keep you from actually thinking about the issues at hand and how (and the oft-maligned whether!) the government should address them.

...do public schools usually have religion class? I don't think they should. I think they would have ruined it for me. Both theories can co-exist. I even like to lazily blend them together from time to time. My version of Genesis has Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs through the Garden...hmm,maybe I could have benefited from a class or two.
And statistically scientists are the most religious professionals with theologists most likely to be atheists.

And that according to recent polls, Obama's mighty 8-point lead has been vanquished...

One poll out of about four released in the last week.

And any poll, those showing Obama ahead by yards and those showing McCain caught up, are meaningless for another week or so; people need a bit of time to make up their minds after the conventions. Give it some time.

Public schools do not have religion classes. And ms shai - you're last sentence confused the hell out of me.

What really pisses me off is the assertion that being well-educated is a reason NOT to be President? REALLY?? I dont know about the rest of you but my gut has more attitude than a pmsing 16 yr old girl during prom season. My gut is not in charge of my life and no one's gut should lead this nation.

And don't get me started on Sarah "The Pandering Pawn" Palin. I want to bitch slap everyone with my burning bra who call her a feminist, or questions my feminism.

Sources as requested:
On palin being more popular:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain

On McCain closing the gap:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/opinion/polls/main4416798.shtml

Granted, every polling site is different and many contradict, but if you are going to call my sources as bullshit because you don't like what they show or are from "conservative" places, take a long hard look in a mirror regarding your "polls" as well.

Now let's look at some standard liberal practices that obama has said he would continue, or might possibly, and how they might have a negative effect.

Raise taxes on large corporations: Corporations hire more overseas workers, allocate overseas where tax burdens are smaller. America loses jobs.

Raise taxes on Gas companies: Gas companies in response raise gas prices to make up for the loss. We pay more, corporations continue to reap record profits. (Let's also remember that these rich american oil companies make around 70 percent of their profit from foreign buyers, not from the US. However, we will be the ones paying for it.)

Raise the minimum wage: Companies are forced to alter budgets, which means fewer workers get hired, and fewer underqualified workers get hired.

Universal Health Care: Giant raise in taxes and oodles of gov't spending. Let's look at england. England has been trying to adopt a universal health database for several years now. That is, they've been trying to get a database of all citizens health records for easy access. So far it has not worked and has cost over 20 billion dollars. And this is a country with around a fifth of the population of america.

you all realize that a lot of conservatives dislike Bush because he spent like a democrat, right?

Alternative fuels: So far, alternative energy sources such as thermal and wind power account for less that 2 percent of the total power supplied in the US. Now, if Ted Kennedy himself wouldn't allow wind power stations to be installed 5 miles off the coast of new england, because it would ruin the view, how do you think the great plains will look with thousand of giant turbines and windmills marring up the place? Oh but it's the midwest. Fuck em, right?

and drilling for oil in alaska or the gulf? You can claim that it will take 10-12 years to actually see oil and profits, but why is that?

Brazil recently discovered huge oil deposits. They are projected to start seeing production and profits in around 2-3 years from discovery to $$$. Why does it take so long in the US?

Because of democratic environmentalists and their red tape. The reason it takes so long to get oil is not because of the work involved, but because of the red tape holding up the work involved.

Now, if you all could be so nice as to tell me how Bush and the repubs. have personally ruined your life, please tell me. Yes, unemployment spiked and the economy took a turn last year. But before that? Record stock market profits after 9/11. The economy grew at a pace unequaled since reagan.

Lose your house to shady mortgage lenders? Well next time, don't spend outside your means. It's called PERSONAL FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Bush's unemployment average has been around .2-.3 percent higher than that of the clinton years. Call me when it hits 10 percent or more, and then we will really have a problem.

And don't give me that torture, gitmo, war crap, or even wiretapping, because unless your friend or neighbor was taken away during the night never to be seen again by Gmen, or you can actually prove that the gov't was listening to your personal phone calls, I don't see how any of those things really affect your lives.

(Unless you are so caught up in "world opinion" that the idea of some random european resenting you or disliking you because of the actions of your gov't. causes you to lose sleep. In which case, work on your self-esteem, because last time I checked, the the largest economies in europe are pro-america. France and Germany specifically, with england on the fence. )

How will Obama improve your lives?

Draya,
You can always make them wear the bra, pull it back all the way and then let it go. The bra snap hurts like hell.

Draya,

did Bush make you invest 200 g's in the market? Could it be because you made poor choices in what to invest in?

I don't see how you can blame a man for losing your money when you allowed your money to get lost.

I have three simple questions for all of you:

Are we in a recession?

What needs to happen to technically label the US economy as "in a recession?"

At what percent did the US economy grow last quarter?

Jay-

Those are the same people, they're just not famous. You notice them because they make noise. The fact that they put themselves out in the forefront of the party by pushing and shoving and yelling doesn't mean they represent the views of the party.

It was in issue in 2004 Jay, Bush won because of foreign policy and the war on terror. They didn't want Kerry running the war in Iraq, which we certainly would have actually lost had he been elected and pulled out like he promised.

I blame Obama. If he had only picked Hillary as V.P. we wouldn't even know Palin's name.

There is no war on terror. It's a marketing slogan, and an excuse to stay on "a war footing". A terrorist crime happened, one time, and suddenly we're at war with...."terror". "Terror" is a concept, the "War on Drugs" was at least about physical matter. When is the "war" won? When "terror" gives up? Or is that just a way to always say "but we're at WAR!"

There was a war the US started in Iraq that lasted a few weeks. There is no "war" to lose there now, we're just there, shooting and getting shot at. When would one win this "war" anyway? When Al-Sadr signs a treaty on a battleship? Who's going to surrender their sword? If there's any war there it's a civil war. We busted the dam that an admittedly tyrannical system had kept in place, so we also liberated the same thing that tore up the Balkans after European communism fell ten years earlier. It's still not our "war" to win or lose.

oh, and I forgot- new drilling will take 10-12 years because the oil companies SAY it will because like any good business, they, um, DON'T HAVE ALL THE EQUIPMENT JUST LYING AROUND. See, they have to buy it. Build it. Lay Pipe. Move the rigs.

It's a play for land. Period. There are billions of barrels of oil on-tap. ON-TAP right now. If they wanted to, they could flood the market and make gas $.50 a gallon. Because it's there. There are pre-drilled and caped reserves out there now. But there is no incentive to do so.

Import taxes? You mean like tariffs? Those are for people that don't understand economics. Tariffs always cost the economy money (this should be obvious since there is money flowing to the government). The money gained by the industry will never and can never equal the cost to the rest of the economy. BUT, since the people that lose their jobs as a result of the cost of the tariff and the economic impact of the tariff on individuals and business are diffuse, it looks like you're doing something really good for one group of people (which you are in the sense that you're preserving their jobs and giving them money, although you're also removing incentive for them to actually take measures to become competitive) without affecting everyone else in any significant way, which is not true but is a trick of the mathematics involved.

I'm not sure how the fact that we will pay more at the pump if we tax the oil companies more is a strawman. If we tax the oil companies, the ONLY group that will profit is the government. It won't force the oil companies to lower their prices: they can't really because their margins aren't high enough. They make so much money because of the volume involved. If you tax the oil companies more, they will be forced to pass the cost on to you in order to survive.

It's easy to get fired up over the McCain, Palin ticket. I can't say enough about Sarah Palin. I liken her detractors to skaters who go down hard; that look of disbelief. Again, we're seeing them fold like lawn chairs. It's long overdue. Anyway, here's a clip from Jan & Dean. I found it apropos. Better than "Barracuda." Bet you can't watch just once: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX7X4FovYRA&NR=1 And how 'bout them Dems: lost in space, or true tales from the Pork-master General: http://theseedsof9-11.com

There is no war on terror. It's a marketing slogan, and an excuse to stay on "a war footing".

Posted by: Jay at September 5, 2008 2:58 PM

So true, Jay, but I don't think you go far enough. There is a war on terror going on, it's just not being fought against "terrorists" -- unless you consider every citizen of your own country a terrorist-in-waiting. Suspension of habeas corpus, "wartime combatants", and unauthorized surveillance -- the FISA bill is a complete travesty -- are tools for keeping the citizenry in check; just look at what happened to the demonstrators in St. Paul.

Republicans (and many Democrats, to be fair) regard the Constitution, and especially those pesky amendments (such as #4), as an unwelcome obstacle. The idea that Republicans are enemies of government spending is laughable; their disdain for taxes (at least on themselves) seems to be real but it is definitely outweighed by their own shylock-ian tendencies.

Regarding taxes on business leading to jobs being shipped overseas: Obama's plan, according to his speech at the DNC, was to create tax incentives to those corporations that keep or create jobs here in America, and use taxes to penalize those that take jobs overseas. Whether you think that is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion but I don't think he said anything about tariffs.

If Palin is a pro-life MILF, does that mean you can fuck her without a rubber?

Markets make money for anyone who has anything to sell. What is the difference between a company dominating a market because it is efficient enough that it can and the government taking over the market? Only that someone can have a chance to offer an alternative in the first case.

Losses happen in any market. Losses happen in the free market. Losses happen because of luck, because people get lazy, because people make bad decisions. Losses are not an indictment of the system, unless, I submit, they are built into the system the way that they are whenever the government tinkers with the economy. That's the stupidest false dichotomy. "Someone lost money in this system, so there must be something wrong with it." Bullshit. The system doesn't make the money, the people do, no matter which system it is. The difference is that when someone fucks up in capitalism, someone else can take advantage. When someone is screwing you over in capitalism, someone can come in and screw you over less and capture the market. It doesn't always happen instantly, but if someone is really bilking you that much, the opportunity to undercut them is always there... UNLESS they manage to manipulate government authority to keep anyone from doing it. But that is a fault of excess government, not of capitalism. You can't abuse or sell out power that isn't there. Look, seriously, everyone complains that big business corrupts government... and then the solution they come up with is to give government more power. Har de har har. Yes, this law will be the one that the businesses can't buy someone to twist or ignore.

And what do you mean "free market" is a misnomer? The free market isn't a system that people put in place or don't, the free market is what is: the exchange of goods and services at the price agreed on by the buyer and seller. Every piece of government regulation, incentive, subsidy, excise tax, all they do is change how you can use the free market, they don't replace it.

Jake

I disagree. You say "needs"... in order to what? Trade would cease if there were no government intervention? Of course not. Trade preceded government. Government is what we are willing to give up in freedom and efficient trade in order to insure smooth trade and peaceful coexistence. Where we run into problems is when we start to believe that the sign of a properly operating system is that nobody fails. That's what starts us spinning out of control with government regulation, subsidies, etc., because we will never stop failure, and past a certain (arguable) point we will only make it more difficult for anyone to succeed.

Also, I would say that violation of contracts constitutes theft, not an aspect of trade that occurs when there is no regulation. As I said, free trade is the exchange of goods and services at agreed upon prices. If you agree to a price and then don't deliver the goods/services or the proxy (money), then you have stolen something, not used an aspect of free trade that the government thankfully curtails.

Get what I mean? Theft is not a part of free trade, it is a violation of free trade. Violating a contract is the same thing as stealing. It is of course a function of the government to arbitrate cases of theft, as it is a function of the government to arbitrate any case of harm to person or property.

Every piece of government regulation, incentive, subsidy, excise tax, all they do is change how you can use the free market, they don't replace it.

Posted by: Eep at September 5, 2008 6:17 PM

I started to prepare an Econ 201 response, but then I drifted back down to your last line and realized that all we may have here is a failure to communicate.

What exactly do you mean when you say "free market"? A lot of your rhetoric seems geared toward a theoretical Adam Smith-type "free market", yet you also seem to conflate modern global capitalistic markets with "free markets" (which in reality are nothing of the sort). Which is it? I'll gladly debate you on either economic abstraction or on the merits of degrees of market freedom, but I'd much rather avoid trying to do both simultaneously.

P.S. Your screen name makes me chuckle; my German mother used "eep" as her slang/code term for penis (I have no idea if that's actual German slang or just her bipolar dual-citizenship shining through).

There are two main reasons why McCain chose Palin that make her spectacle: 1) pregnant 17 year old daughter, anyone? hot 18 year old that impregnanted her daughter anyone...comments?, 2) OIL OIL OIL!!! DRILLING!!!! in off the Alaska National Park! YES! Anyone? Yeah, more gas for us to consume. Her anti-abortion, pro-abstinence stance is quite deplorable. Did you notice all audience at the RNC that night were white? It's sure hard not too!

I'm sure many people watched for the same reason they watch NASCAR - they were hoping for the flaming wreck. As for McCain's ratings, the carry over viewers from the NFL game on NBC helped.

-- "I'm guessing that McCain's speech drew at least 8 or 9 million fewer viewers than Palin's speech."

I don't feel like getting into another flame war with Crazy Mary, but...

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B043FDC12%2DA2D2%2D433A%2DB910%2DED41AD132571%7D&siteid=rss

Ah, it is as I said . . . American politics, my favorite blood sport. As a fan, of course.

Many years ago there was a series on PBS, televising brilliantly facilitated discussions of actual hard issues. The host was a law professor at one of the better schools. The panel always included about 10 folks, with knowledge and actual positions on the hard topic. The host would pose questions, spinning scenarios, and changing the scenario a little to exxplore the issue and more important the ways of reasoning about it. That was a prof I'd like to have had.

The best of the series was titled Hard Drugs, Hard Choices. The panel discussion of that topic, as broadcast, ran 240 minutes - 4 hour-long episodes. Why? Because entirely unlike the War on Terror (Can you even have a war on an emotion?), or the invasion of Iraq, or the sternwheel spatterings of crazed hummingbirds that are the political mewlings here and now, thought, consideration and actual listening went into the discussions.

To be clear, this is not a diatribe against the current administration alone. A pox upon all your houses - fabricators of false urgency & deniers of actual present malafece, imperial, imperious executives, and the spineless enablers who let them.

We get candidates like these because as a polity we deserve them, indeed we insist upon their like. We get the "discussions" virtiolic, knee-jerk, and unresolved that we also deserve. Indeed, on most of the "third rail" issues no fact-based position can help but muster the bile of both sides.

It's a diverse country. Start by respecting that other opinions have their reasons. Seek first to understand and maybe, just maybe, we'll get a crow come to help a soul put the wrong things right.

Until then, it's Devil's night, people.

Oh. My. God.

I weep for the future.

Che
Without going back and reading all my comments, I'm pretty sure that I was referring throughout to a market without government regulation. To be perfectly honest I haven't read Adam Smith, or even P.J. O'Rourke on Adam Smith, so I couldn't tell you if that's his position.

As far as the conflation goes, unless you're talking about a different part of my comments, I'm saying that there is always a free market, you can only restrict how people use it. What I was getting at is that the free market is what is being used whenever a transaction takes place, though you may have to make that trade in a certain way because of legislation. Legislation and control is not an alternative to free trade, it's a modification of it.

Think of a river. Commerce flows up and down the river. If you add locks and dams to the river, they change the way that commerce flows, and usually (at least in the immediate sense) slow its passage, though they might increase safety at certain points, or allow larger traffic than the stream itself originally allowed, what have you. Those are like regulation. They are a system imposed on parts of the river. But they don't change the fact that it is a river.

I suppose some might think of it as a semantic difference and claim that as soon as you impose any sort of regulation the free market no longer exists, but I think it makes more sense to think of it my way because the underlying thing doing most of the work and having the largest effect is always the underlying free market. Placing one or even thousands of government regulations on how you use it doesn't mean that you've constructed a competing system, you've just changed how people are allowed to access the free market. If people weren't making choices and conducting commerce based on their own needs to the extent they are allowed, they would end up with a bunch of crap that didn't suit their personal needs and needing a bunch of stuff that they weren't allowed to buy.

I appreciate the well thought-out response, Eep, especially the river metaphor. I think you're right about our differences being largely semantic, at least at this point.

You suggest that a "free market" with regulations is still "free" (as you implied that a river with dams and locks is still a river). I think the operative word over which we disagree is "free". Using your metaphor, you actually start with a "wild river" or "untamed river" and are left with a "river" after it is dammed; similarly, I believe you are left with a "market" after a "free market" is regulated. Since there are very few markets these days -- especially in the industrial world -- that are untouched by regulation, I would assert that "market forces" are responsible for the behavior that you attribute to "free markets".

It's a small difference, to be sure, but it enables a conversation about a theoretically free market relative to the conversation about markets as they exist today. I get exasperated quickly when I engage people -- usually Republican -- in such a discussion and have to listen to blather about our "free markets". Thus, I just wanted to clear this hurdle before we got any farther into it.

Having said all that, now I have to figure out where we are with respect to the actual issue that triggered all this expository discussion. Clearly, someone invoked the charged words "free market" and "free trade"...

But oh, those glasses...

Right on, lordhelmet. All this partisan bickering, and we forgot the true issue here: whether or not Palin is worth sexing up.

Because if I have learned anything in my years on this earth it is this: The penis is the true bipartisan.

Jay, as a lifetime 4-eyes I can't totally disagree with you, but since there's precious few 4-eyed high-profile and high-visibility people, I'll take what I can get, k? I sure wouldn't mind her upgrading those frames but it's a good start for my fantasies. Oh, and Verm, let's not forget that, as a VP candidate, sexing up is about the only thing that Palin is good for. 'Cause even a bipartisan penis has gotta have some standards!

"If Palin is a pro-life MILF, does that mean you can fuck her without a rubber?"

"We forgot the true issue here: whether or not Palin is worth sexing up."

Oookay. So I'm not one to pick fights, but I'm getting really fucking tired of people completely sexualizing and demeaning this woman. She's accomplished more in her 40-plus years than any of us ever will, and, like her or dislike her, people should be somewhat respectful. The fact that she wears a skirt and has boobs does not make her some porn star deserving of all these tacky comments. I don't mind when people talk about women in a sexual way - especially if they are in an industry in which their sexuality is a big selling point. But this woman is a governor and a candidate for Vice President of the United States. She is out there promoting herself in an entirely professional, non-sexual way, and all half of you want to talk about is her tits. Apparently we think this is appropriate because she's a Republican and we therefore don't have to take her seriously? I'm sorry, it still sucks.

Disappointed in you, Pajiba. Boo.

tt_marie, sexualising Palin is the only way I can say anything positive about her - yes, she's risen to greater heights than I'm likely to, but that doesn't in and of themselves make those heights better, especially given her (alleged) misconduct in those positions. Tack on her hypocrisy, double standards, attempted censorship, unthinking agreement with her wack-job pastor (and president!), let alone her near-meritless appointment to VP candidate, and there's really very little there to inspire any kind of positive treatment. I consider myself a feminist guy, enthusiastically behind equal pay and equal treatment and opportunity and protection before the law, but her energetic abandonment of any rational principles and abdication of basic feminist/egalitarian principles in my mind removes her from any sort of protection from my scorn. Heaps of burning scorn, make that. So rather than fighting seriously over her (when she herself isn't serious, at least in good faith), I will trivialise her by pointing out the only appeal she has left, and refrain from being adequately insulting to be misinterpreted as questioning her worth as a human being. Hopefully, by laughing long enough, she'll go away. If she cares to respond rationally and stand up and face her critics without running away and hiding behind FOX's apron strings, I might relent. As long as Palin and her puppet masters handlers continue to disrespect feminism, rationality, and the rule of law, (with due respect and apologies to women elsewhere), she and they will continue to receive my complete lack of serious regard and respect.

So I'm not one to pick fights, but I'm getting really fucking tired of people completely sexualizing and demeaning this woman (...) Apparently we think this is appropriate because she's a Republican and we therefore don't have to take her seriously?

Posted by: Boo

I have to kindly disagree with you. Obviously the MILF comments were submitted to lighten the mood a little bit; things were getting too political (and that's fine) and maybe we just wanted to have a laugh. Not because of Palin. She's a MILF who just happens to be a Republican, just as Tina Fey is a MILF (and the flyest woman in the bizz) who happens to be a Democrat. Palin's political colors have nothing to do with this. I was raised in a conservative home, and although I don't share the same beliefs, I respect their stances because obviously they have thought things over before deciding what they want to be (or one should hope so).

As a woman, I am not offended when somebody gets called a MILF. Hell, Palin has accomplished a heck of a lot in very little time, and on top of that she's hot? That's a good thing. She's a conservative with a pregnant teen and she still has the guts to run for VP of the most powerful country in the world. Of course we acknowledge her merits, but you have to keep in mind that everything that's been said fits in a context. This is a mostly liberal site, and if I'm not mistaking, female readers are a majority. So I will kindly suggest you turn it over in your mind a couple of times before being disappointed in Pajiba and its eloquents, because we want to discuss politics intelligently and be irreverent at the same time.

I don't think it should be done at the cost of trivializing women in politics.

The nomination of Sarah Palin trivializes women in politics.

No one's talking about important, relevant things because she won't let anyone ask.

Palin not 'scared' to answer questions: McCain campaign

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080907/pl_afp/usvotepalin_080907190329;_ylt=AuViqIC7pgXWfhqHlVFuD1nCw5R4

For all of her speech's arrogance, the Pit Bull's handlers are whining up a storm. And you can't expect serious journalism if you freeze out serious journalists. We'll see what Charlie Gibson does.

I couldn't give a shit what chromosomes a candidate's packin, it'll earn neither my scorn nor respect.