Thread: Feminists Appalled by Palin

Originally Posted by wvpeach

And I am concerned about that five month old son of hers and a rather young looking daughter I saw with her.

I am sorry the woman is trying to set a bad example for all women with families.

We are not super women , we can't go 24/7 without something giving.

Its not like the woman is applying for a regular job she is applying for one of the toughest jobs in the world and something would have to give.

I am afraid it would be her infant and young daughters.

You have every right to voice your opinion and to vote accordingly. Don't vote for that ticket.

As for setting a bad example. No way. She is intelligent and committed to public service. I don't agree with her politics, but why shouldn't she be able to do what she wants? Unless she is abusing her children, how they are raised is none of our business.

Originally Posted by communityDISorganizer

Just curious, can anyone substantiate this claim that Palin backed Ron Paul? Their ideas don't really jibe from where I stand.

My understanding from an article posted on this site earlier today was that she called Ron Paul "cool". She had also called Obama "neat".

My question was whether or not she'd refer the the President of Iran as "squirrelly".

Originally Posted by wvpeach

And conservatives are not happy with this woman. I know a lot of conservatives and they are fit to be tied about this.

Palin just passed legislation she wrote for a wind fall tax on oil companies in Alaska. hardly what the conservatives want to see. She has them afraid MCCain will do the same .................And they are right.


Hot Air Blog Archive Palin backed Alaskan windfall-profits tax

John McCain and nearly every economist agrees that a windfall-profits tax on the oil industry would drive away investment, increase prices to consumers, and make Americans more dependent on foreign oil. If anyone wants to see that in microcosm, they only need look at Alaska. With the backing of Governor Sarah Palin, the state managed to drive away investment in development by hiking taxes on oil companies drilling on state lands:
Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska’s Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared. …
BP Alaska, which runs Prudhoe Bay, said earlier this year that it had delayed the development in the western region of the North Slope as a result of the tax. ConocoPhillips cited the same reason for scrapping a $300 million refinery project.
“What the tax has done is take away all the upside,” said Doug Suttles, president of BP Alaska. The U.K.-based oil company paid more than $500 million in taxes to Alaska last quarter — far more than it earned in profits from Alaskan oil, according to Suttles.
Investment dollars are flowing instead to places that have a better return, like the massive deep-water projects offshore in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, where ConocoPhillips said the government take equals less than 50 percent of the barrel.
In fact, Palin’s plan looks similar in concept to Barack Obama’s plan. The state gave Alaskans $1200 checks from oil revenues as a one-time bonus to pay for increased fuel prices, a move Palin pushed. That echoes the Obama plan to send one-time rebates to taxpayers, funded by similar levies on oil companies.
However, the results in Alaska should warn the rest of the country about pursuing this policy. Already oil companies have stopped drilling on state lands, thanks to the tax burden Alaska imposes. It should be cheaper to drill and extract from these areas, but the oil companies have decided to focus their investment instead on the Gulf, where the costs and risks would normally be higher. In Alaska, the government takes 75% of the price on a barrel of oil at current prices, which gives them no incentive to work there.
If this plan gets pushed across the country in an Obama administration, then we can expect similar disincentives to curtail domestic production all across the nation. Oil companies will explore other parts of the world, but American oil companies will not have the access they enjoy here. Our own companies will be weakened in international competition, and we will have to both buy more oil from abroad, and more from state-owned companies, while American investors lose significant ground.
Palin has been a strong voice for opening ANWR to reasonable and planned development. Perhaps she needs to rethink her approach to overtaxing oil companies for their work on state lands while encouraging the use of federal lands, too

What is wrong with letting the people of Alaska keep some of the money that comes directly from their state?

Also, I am struggling to figure out how you can use this as a criticism when Obama clearly supports this? You did know that, didn't you?

Originally Posted by jan

My understanding from an article posted on this site earlier today was that she called Ron Paul "cool". She had also called Obama "neat".

My question was whether or not she'd refer the the President of Iran as "squirrelly".

Oh God, she should be giving tours at Please Touch museum, never mind running on a national ticket.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

And I am concerned about that five month old son of hers and a rather young looking daughter I saw with her.

I am sorry the woman is trying to set a bad example for all women with families.

We are not super women , we can't go 24/7 without something giving.

Its not like the woman is applying for a regular job she is applying for one of the toughest jobs in the world and something would have to give.

I am afraid it would be her infant and young daughters.

if she can handle it - more power to her.

my issue is that people like her (in general) seem to think their situation is the same as everyone else's.

if they get health insurance through work and can afford a devcent plan - everyone can.

if they have partners who have time for their children when they are busy - everyone else must have that too.

if they are a female who can be paid less than their male counterparts - all other women can deal with that situation if it arises.

if they don't need a daycare at work - no other parent will.

if they can raise a special needs child - everyone else can too

if they can and want to cut down on maternity leave (and would never consider paternity leave, for non-physical reasons) - than everyone else should feel the same.

It's because Republicants are such hypocrites; and have screamed "Socialist!' and "You gotta Problem with capitalism, Libtard?" every time somebody suggested that big Oil was greedy and should pay more taxes, "Dahling"....

Originally Posted by jan

Palin's McCain's front woman for trying to gain the female vote simply because she wears a skirt. I'm amazed she can't see she's being used as a pawn.

Politics is her game... she's a barracuda, remember... she's in it to win.

Better to be a pawn and be on the board, that not to play at all... Right, Ms. Palin?

my issue is that people like her (in general) seem to think their situation is the same as everyone else's.

I agree with this statement, but I don't think it necessarily applies to Palin. She seems very ordinary, like someone who has actually struggled and can empathize with everyone else. That's one reason I dislike her. I wanted someone erudite who has accomplished MORE than the average person. Joe Biden's net worth is $300,000. That should raise a few eyebrows. Obama was practically poor before writing a book. The voters should view prosperity as a positive. I'd say a person who has earned fewer assets is less apt to run a solvent government.

Originally Posted by communityDISorganizer

I agree with this statement, but I don't think it necessarily applies to Palin. She seems very ordinary, like someone who has actually struggled and can empathize with everyone else. That's one reason I dislike her. I wanted someone erudite who has accomplished MORE than the average person. Joe Biden's net worth is $300,000. That should raise a few eyebrows. Obama was practically poor before writing a book. The voters should view prosperity as a positive. I'd say a person who has earned fewer assets is less apt to run a solvent government.

So Obama is better than McCain because he's earned more from working than McCain.

So Obama is better than McCain because he's earned more from working than McCain.

No sir, you are attempting to obfuscate here. I said "less apt" implying that the person already had an established level of aptness derived from other factors. Also, when you say Obama is "better" than McCain, that is a sweeping generality about the Presidency in spite of the fact that the exchange in this thread was pertaining specifically to financial stewardship. Obviously, the job is more nuanced than that. John McCain and Barack Obama's ability to be a competent executive is untested at the current time.

Finally, how has Obama earned more from working? Writing a book about the notoriety he gained as a result of being a rhetorician is hardly earning a living. Obama's entire life is closer to being a movie about how to live than a patently defined success.