This was not a rhetorical question.

They talk a good talk about "small town values" but If McCain drove through your neighborhood he would lock his car door. How do you reconcile this? How do you actually believe that these people care about you or your problems? I'd really like to hear the answer, even though I'm positive it will be a lie

Are you talking about the democrats, the republicans, or just politicians in general?

take a guess

At the very least Obama's well under the curve, with a single property that weighs in well under $1m. How does that compare to most senators, congressmen and governors? How does that compare to most presidents and vice presidents? If Obama is wealthy, then McCain is extravagantly rich.

Well, he is tired of the decisive exchange, and he's got one or two things to say about change, Like the change we must change to the change we hold dear - he really likes change, as he made himself clear?

I just read what she called her children:

Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow and Piper.

She is a sick f*** and must be stopped.

And in the same meeting she stated the line of questioning was rhetorical. Apparently no book was ever banned and despite being notified of her termination, the librarian was ultimately retained.

Still, it is interesting that so many people are so interested in scrutinizing and attacking her based on their allegations of her conduct twelve years ago. Why no substantive criticism on her recent record? Not by you, necessarily, but in general.

I'm a conservative. I don't want anybody to be elected that cares about my problems unless it is an acknowledgment that more often than not the problem is government. I want someone elected that cares about the problems of America. I am not like so many other voters that I am so selfish as to vote for the candidate that I think cares most about my problems. My problems are mine and entirely of my own making or completely under my control to deal with.

Now, I don't believe John McCain is the best man to be president. But he sure in hell is a far better man for the job than Obama. I said here over a year ago that he wasn't my man but that I could support him. I will support him through this race. I believe that he will win significantly because I don't think people will believe that Obama can deliver the change they want.

I've been looking for an appropriate place to put this and here is as good as anywhere else. Despite what many here will think of me, I watched quite a bit of the Democrat debates as well as their convention. Of course I did the same with the Republican debates and convention. As the RNC concluded I thought that how remarkable that I was left with the impression, by DNC design, after Obama's speech that his and his wife's speeches and propaganda seemed to be trying to get us to believe that they really were like "us". In contrast, at the end of the RNC I was left with the impression that the McCains were people to aspire to be like.

None of these candidates are perfect. I just prefer the ticket that seems to represent my values more. And that was not a lie.

You mean you believe in the Welfare State? I'm confused.

And seriously, Track, Trig, Bristol (BRISTOL FFS!!) Willow and Piper. He's bat-**** crazy to hire her.

You mean she didn't want to spend public money on porn for bums in the library? That's not the same thing. Setting certain standards for a publicly funded institution is not the same as banning books.

you mean she wants to ban romance novels? sweet! i hate people who read them. they're all annoying.

I'm yet to see any nudie pics, which means you all fail.

You most certainly are confused if you somehow raise that question from that quote. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning.

Thats probably the most moronic thing I've read in this thread thus far. It would make more sense if you meant that about all politicians, rather then just the rep side of the fence.

and for the record, Palin isnt really rich. Read her wikipedia article, then read her husbands, then stand corrected.

That, and if you have that kind of money in the bank you'd be as likely to be from any party. It's not like wealth is taxed. Not yet, anyway.

It's not the kind of thing a public official should even contemplate.



I'd say there's been plenty of attacks on her recent record, ranging from her stances on sex education and benefits for gay state employees to the ongoing investigation of the state trooper scandal.



When you "set certain standards" by banning books it's exactly the same as banning books. That's what banning books is.

At any rate, the Wasilla library's collection was already in line with national standards. It's not in the mayor's job description to revise those.

Why should a public official not be concerned with a librarians attitude about removing material from a library? What if the librarian had said she would remove material at the mayor's request?



Her personal views on sex education aren't relevant, her governing on the topic is and she hasn't done anything especially controversial in that regard. There are no mainstream attacks against gay state employee benefits and even if she fired a guy that didn't fire a criminal state trooper, that's pretty much a non-issue too.



Just out of curiousity, do you believe that any book (something with a cover and pages) should not be declined for inclusion in a library?



I thought the article made it clear that no books were banned. Also, unless it is a national library, I wouldn't think a municipal library would be required to adhere to national standards. Unless, of course, there are federal funding laws requiring them to adhere to them. Then again, a city could always reject the federal funding.

You sound like a gigantic tool. Just because Obama is a good speaker doesn't mean he's actually as principled as the bandwagon things he is. It's all a gigantic pissing contest. If Obama or Mcain actually had principals they'd go out of their way to discuss actual issues, and argue positions. Instead, they posture for the best sound bytes. They tell ignorant people what they want to hear, all the while saying as little as possible in order to appeal to the biggest audience. Just because Obama happens to be the Michael Phelps of this does not make him a leader. It's not about actual issues anymore, it's about flaming the fires of partisan politics with empty words like hope and freedom.

You can't blame this on the media, or politicians. They are simply giving us what we want. If anyone bothers to get "informed" it's not about assessing an issue, it's about finding a bunch of stupid factoids to use as ammo in another argument. No one looks for truth, everyone's mind is already made. They're simply in a constant search for ways to rationalize it and prove what they've already decided. It's all a retarded parade of self-righteousness. Everyone thinks they are principled and they are wrong.

Careful. Jon'C is the Messiah of Massassi, just as Obama is the Messiah of the left.

Statements like that are fair game. As was mine. Meh. I think I'm depressed.

This post is funny because it assumes Jon'C supports Obama.

The kind of mayor who would be concerned about a librarian saying something like that is also the kind of mayor unlikely to ask that books be removed in the first place. What was the point of this hypothetical again?

Edit: Okay, I'm going to guess at the point and answer with "Yes, it's okay to fire a librarian for censoring irresponsibly but not for refusing to censor."



I'm not accepting that a politician's stated positions are irrelevant just because she hasn't managed to act on them yet.



I'm not sure what you mean here. Palin fought hard to deny benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. Does this put her outside the mainstream, and if so, is that something we should be worried about?



I didn't realize we were talking about what you think is an issue. As I remember it, your question was about why there are no criticisms of Palin's current record. The answer is that there are.



Of course not. It's impractical to expect a library to stock every book available to them. They have to make choices based on what books have the most merit or are most likely to be useful to their patrons. Libraries already do this, and there's no good reason they'd need a mayor to second-guess them on it.



Yeah, I got that no books were banned. As stated, I have a problem with the fact that Palin even asked. And naturally those national guidelines aren't binding, but they're going to be a hell of a lot more useful to a library than the mayor's opinions on which books are icky.

I'm guessing, but it goes the same either way.

I would have doggy style sex with Sarah Palin. Without second thought.

This thread is now closed.

Wookie - you said you wanted the government to deal with other people's problems and leave you alone. That sounds like Welfare to me.

Not that I'm digging - I believe in the Welfare State. My problem with it in our country is that it wastes too much money on those that don't deserve it, while those that do have to fight tooth and nail for it.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that liberals only vote for people who will address their problems (what you describe as "selfish voting")?

If we are going to start increasing welfare stuffs and health care, it should be done on the state level. I do not trust the feds at all to manage the health care of 300M Americans. California's needs are different than Wyoming's or Mississippi's.

No. I don't think so. I think they want the best for the nation. I just think their methods aren't the proper way.

To be honest, I don't care about economic politics since I've become so jaded that I don't know the value of money. However, I do have morals and therefore I could never in good conscience vote conservative.



An election is won based on soundbites and posturing, just because Obama and McCain are playing to win It doesn't mean they don't have principles. Almost every person you will ever meet or hear about gives more of a crap about things than they might appear to.

Additionally the fact that people love Obama is precisely what might make him a good leader. A leader isn't someone who knows all the right answers, it's someone who can inspire people to follow them down routes they may not normally be willing to travel. As long as they have the capability to listen to advice, anybody who can get people to follow is suitable to be a leader. On the same vein, someone who knows best will make an awful leader if they don't have the skills required to put their plans into action.

Yeah, but then you get people like FDR, who arguably created much of the mess we are in right now in the first place (Social Security, welfare state, alphabet programs, etc). I have no doubt that FDR was probably "the guy" for his time, but had some long term consequences. I mean, whether you believe he made the Depression worse or not is irrelevant, but you have to admit that he and LBJ pretty much created the modern welfare state that has so many problems. (Mostly because FDR self-admittley had NO clue what he was doing sometimes when it came to things like the economy).

We need to get the **** rid of welfare. Thats one of the biggest economical problems we have right now. It was only supposed to be temporary anyway, not something for white trash and minorities to leech off of for the rest of their lives.

It's not meant to be temporary itself, it's meant to be temporary for the people it applies to. Once you've dug yourself out of the s*** with the help of welfare you're meant to crack on under your own steam - the fact that some people leech off it isn't a problem with the idea of the welfare state, but with its implementation.

I seem to be alone in my friends at home in bringing in a decent wage, but being utterly fine about being taxed up the arse to feed people less well-off than me. I know the system needs fixing, but the principle is what matters to me.

You mean feed the single woman with 5 kids who just keeps having them to quality for more welfare? Yeah she really needs your money. The priciple may be all nice and dandy, but its horribly and disgustingly abused by the lazy ****s of our degenerate society.

Yes, that's wrong. But in that circle of ****e there are people who genuinely need the help.

*shrug*

I just know that if there aren't people who help out those less fortunate than themselves the whole world will turn to crap. Just remember how lucky we all were to be born (a) at all (b) in the "rich" west and (c) into a family who have enough cash to buy a computer and internet to let you log on here in the first place. Most people on the planet aren't nearly that lucky, so I feel it's my place to look after them as soon as I've finished looking after myself and my family.

Generalities FTL.

And then I bring up my aforementioned post about any welfare goals/programs should be done on the STATE level. If Oklahoma can't get their welfare system under check, Missouri doesn't have to eat the cost. To qualify for federal $$$ for welfare, the states have to display that their welfare is to help as a reliant source of income. If the state gets denied their $$$, then it's the problem of the state.

Not really, they even have the audacity to brag about it in some rap songs. Its rediclous, and really more common then people would like to think. Theres politicially correct, and theres just true life.

I do agree with you on the state level management. This would help ease the abuse, and make it more of a state economy problem, rather then national. I'm suprised they haven't done so already.

You're kinda retarded boy.

It's not altogether uncommon in inner cities--but a lot of rappers are from places like Detroit, Brooklyn, and Chicago, where unemployment rates are EXTREMELY high, and there's not enough mcdonalds to employ everyone.

There are still acceptable cases for welfare, and you can only qualify for it for 1 year (or 6 months, can't remember which) at a time anymore--then you have to get a ****in job.

It's 5 years, Yoshi, and you'll be cut from benefits if you don't have a permanent job after 2 years, at least at the Federal level. It was worked out between President Clinton and the republican Congress.

And here it's indefinite. As long as you're "looking" for a job.

But I still pay for it happily. Because I know Izzy and I are ****ing lucky to be where we are.

I think welfare and unemployment should have a time limit, and should require drug tests.

Aye. I don't know exactly how it should work, but that's why I'm not in government