Cal Club Autocross Forums

Why Sarah Palin would make a poor President.

First an assumption:
Bill Clinton's presidency was far more successful than George W Bush's.

Now ask yourself....
How many blow jobs did W receive while in office?

How many blow jobs did Bill receive while in office?

Therefore, I conclude that the success of the presidency is directly related to the number of blow jobs received while in office.
I suspect this spells doom for Palin's prospects of succeeding John McCain.

how so?..

perfect example of president and vice president working together..

Oh yes.... Assumption number two....

RECEIVING!!!!

Jeff Shyu wrote:how so?..

perfect example of president and vice president working together..

Yeah, but Cindy's probably packing heat, too.

i think cindy looks better than sarah.

sarah with the gun is pretty hawt though.

Jeff Shyu wrote:i think cindy looks better than sarah.

sarah with the gun is pretty hawt though.

You need your eyes examined.

for a 40 year old, pretty good..

Jeff Shyu wrote:for a 40 year old, pretty good..

MILF

Jeff Shyu wrote:
for a 40 year old, pretty good..

If you say so.

i have no idea if this is actually her.

it was linked from another forum, of pictures of Palin. the actual file name doesn't really indicate much.

if it's not a photochop job though, definitely a MILF..

VPILF

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:

Jeff Shyu wrote:for a 40 year old, pretty good..

MILF

HMILS

(Hockey Mother I'd Like to Shoot)

Jeff Shyu wrote:i have no idea if this is actually her.

it was linked from another forum, of pictures of Palin. the actual file name doesn't really indicate much.

if it's not a photochop job though, definitely a MILF..

To each his own. I don't think she's attractive.

It's always curious to me to see how many people consider looks above ability WRT decision making regarding one's future. Does it really matter what the oncologist looks like? Maybe I'm weird in thinking that 'not dying' might be of importance.

And 'chix wit gunz' porn fanciers strike me as a bit odd as well. Sorta like there's some latent 'Ekstrand's car paint color' implications going on there. Guess I'm just some sort of elitist that likes cupcakes better.

In college I had a crush on my gynecologist. He was SO HOT.

Was that TMI? Oops.

Bill Schenker wrote:

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:

Jeff Shyu wrote:for a 40 year old, pretty good..

MILF

HMILS

(Hockey Mother I'd Like to Shoot)

Problem is her gun is likely to be bigger than yours. And she's an excellent marksman.

Having a nearly 40 year old wife, I'm not impressed.

David Avard wrote:Having a nearly 40 year old wife, I'm not impressed.

Yeah, but Julie hasn't pounded out 5 kids...

Curt Luther wrote:

David Avard wrote:Having a nearly 40 year old wife, I'm not impressed.

Yeah, but Julie hasn't pounded out 5 kids...

I wish Sarah's parents hadn't had any.

What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick

A theocrat is a theocrat, whether Muslim or Christian.
By Juan Cole

Sep. 09, 2008 | John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.

McCain pledged to work for peace based on "the transformative ideals on which we were founded." Tolerance and democracy require freedom of speech and the press, but while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin inquired of the local librarian how to go about banning books that some of her constituents thought contained inappropriate language. She tried to fire the librarian for defying her. Book banning is common to fundamentalisms around the world, and the mind-set Palin displayed did not differ from that of the Hamas minister of education in the Palestinian government who banned a book of Palestinian folk tales for its sexually explicit language. In contrast, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it."

Palin argued when running for governor that creationism should be taught in public schools, at taxpayers' expense, alongside real science. Antipathy to Darwin for providing an alternative to the creation stories of the Bible and the Quran has also become a feature of Muslim fundamentalism. Saudi Arabia prohibits the study, even in universities, of evolution, Freud and Marx. Malaysia has banned a translation of "The Origin of the Species." Likewise, fundamentalists in Turkey have pressured the government to teach creationism in the public schools. McCain has praised Turkey as an anchor of democracy in the region, but Turkey's secular traditions are under severe pressure from fundamentalists in that country. McCain does them no favors by choosing a running mate who wishes to destroy the First Amendment's establishment clause, which forbids the state to give official support to any particular theology. Turkish religious activists would thereby be enabled to cite an American precedent for their own quest to put religion back at the center of Ankara's public and foreign policies.

The GOP vice-presidential pick holds that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or severe birth defects, making an exception only if the life of the mother is in danger. She calls abortion an "atrocity" and pledges to reshape the judiciary to fight it. Ironically, Palin's views on the matter are to the right of those in the Muslim country of Tunisia, which allows abortion in the first trimester for a wide range of reasons. Classical Muslim jurisprudents differed among one another on the issue of abortion, but many permitted it before the "quickening" of the fetus, i.e. until the end of the fourth month. Contemporary Muslim fundamentalists, however, generally oppose abortion.

Palin's stance is even stricter than that of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In 2005, the legislature in Tehran attempted to amend the country's antiabortion statute to permit an abortion up to four months in case of a birth defect. The conservative clerical Guardianship Council, which functions as a sort of theocratic senate, however, rejected the change. Iran's law on abortion is therefore virtually identical to the one that Palin would like to see imposed on American women, and the rationale in both cases is the same, a literalist religious impulse that resists any compromise with the realities of biology and of women's lives. Saudi Arabia's restrictive law on abortion likewise disallows it in the case or rape or incest, or of fetal impairment, which is also Gov. Palin's position.

Theocrats confuse God's will with their own mortal policies. Just as Muslim fundamentalists believe that God has given them the vast oil and gas resources in their regions, so Palin asks church workers in Alaska to pray for a $30 billion pipeline in the state because "God's will has to get done." Likewise, Palin maintained that her task as governor would be impeded "if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God." Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei of Iran expresses much the same sentimentwhen he says "the only way to attain prosperity and progress is to rely on Islam."

Not only does Palin not believe global warming is "man-made," she favors massive new drilling to spew more carbon into the atmosphere. Both as a fatalist who has surrendered to God's inscrutable will and as a politician from an oil-rich region, she thereby echoes Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has been found to have exercised inappropriate influence in watering down a report in 2007 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Neither Christians nor Muslims necessarily share the beliefs detailed above. Many believers in both traditions uphold freedom of speech and the press. Indeed, in a recent poll, over 90 percent of Egyptians and Iranians said that they would build freedom of expression into any constitution they designed. Many believers find ways of reconciling the scientific theory of evolution with faith in God, not finding it necessary to believe that the world was created suddenly only 6,000 ago. Some medieval Muslim thinkers asserted that the world had existed from eternity, and others spoke of cycles of hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Mystical Muslim poets spoke of humankind traversing the stages of mineral, plant and animal. Modern Islamic fundamentalists have attempted to narrow this great, diverse tradition.

The classical Islamic legal tradition generally permitted, while frowning on, contraception and abortion, and complete opposition to them is mostly a feature of modern fundamentalist thinking. Many believers in both Islam and Christianity would see it as hubris to tie God to specific government policies or to a particular political party. As for global warming, green theology, in which Christians and Muslims appeal to Scripture in fighting global warming, is an increasing tendency in both traditions.

Palin has a right to her religious beliefs, as do fundamentalist Muslims who agree with her on so many issues of social policy. None of them has a right, however, to impose their beliefs on others by capturing and deploying the executive power of the state. The most noxious belief that Palin shares with Muslim fundamentalists is her conviction that faith is not a private affair of individuals but rather a moral imperative that believers should import into statecraft wherever they have the opportunity to do so. That is the point of her pledge to shape the judiciary. Such a theocratic impulse is incompatible with the Founding Fathers' commitment to tolerance and democracy, which is why they forbade the government to "establish" or officially support any particular religion or denomination.

McCain once excoriated the Rev. Jerry Falwell and his ilk as "agents of intolerance." That he took such a position gave his opposition to similar intolerance in Islam credibility. In light of his more recent disgraceful kowtowing to the Christian right, McCain's animus against fundamentalist Muslims no longer looks consistent. It looks bigoted and invidious. You can't say you are waging a war on religious extremism if you are trying to put a religious extremist a heartbeat away from the presidency.

That was certainly interesting. Any chance of my voting Republican went completely out the window when McCain picked his running mate.

Original article above.

Anyone else caught the new anagram for this one? Sharia Plan

The lefties that make up this crap are something else. With the exception of her stance on abortion (and I'm haven't heard her articulate it, so I don't know what it is), the rest of the premise of the essay regarding Palin's views are false and have already been debunked. The GOP held both houses and the presidency for six years and made no attempt to overturn abortion. Even if Roe vs Wade was overturned, the decision would just return to the states. You think the right uses scare tactics, the left trots this out every election year even though there is no threat of national legislation regarding abortion.

So let me see if I got this straight: A candidate's religious beliefs don't matter if you're supporting him (Obama) but they do matter if you're not supporting him/her (Romney and/or Palin). I guess that's what makes our country, our country.
You guys crack me up!
(before you plop yourself down at your keyboard to rip me a new one, please note smilies)

George Schilling wrote:The lefties that make up this crap are something else. With the exception of her stance on abortion (and I'm haven't heard her articulate it, so I don't know what it is), the rest of the premise of the essay regarding Palin's views are false and have already been debunked. The GOP held both houses and the presidency for six years and made no attempt to overturn abortion. Even if Roe vs Wade was overturned, the decision would just return to the states. You think the right uses scare tactics, the left trots this out every election year even though there is no threat of national legislation regarding abortion.

this is my belief as well. I'm pro-choice, but i don't care if they overturn RvW, because it'd simply open it up for the state to choose. California will never ban abortion, so it wouldn't impact us at all.

overturning RvW isn't about who's right or wrong about choice vs. life , it's about taking away the supreme court's ability to legislate from the bench.

Jeff Shyu wrote:

George Schilling wrote:The lefties that make up this crap are something else. With the exception of her stance on abortion (and I'm haven't heard her articulate it, so I don't know what it is), the rest of the premise of the essay regarding Palin's views are false and have already been debunked. The GOP held both houses and the presidency for six years and made no attempt to overturn abortion. Even if Roe vs Wade was overturned, the decision would just return to the states. You think the right uses scare tactics, the left trots this out every election year even though there is no threat of national legislation regarding abortion.

this is my belief as well. I'm pro-choice, but i don't care if they overturn RvW, because it'd simply open it up for the state to choose. California will never ban abortion, so it wouldn't impact us at all.

overturning RvW isn't about who's right or wrong about choice vs. life , it's about taking away the supreme court's ability to legislate from the bench.

What's the point of the Court if there are no precedent decisions? How do you define legislating from the bench? Striking down a law that doesn't jibe with the constitution or precedent law? This isn't just about RvW.