The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

5 Reasons to hate on Mccain's VP choice

Regarding the Palin "scandal", here is a snippet from The Washington Post's story today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082903598_pf.html)

The domestic dispute entered the public arena when the governor's sister filed for divorce from Wooten on April 11, 2005.

The same day, the governor's father, Chuck Heath, contacted state police with several allegations against Wooten: using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson; shooting a moose without a permit; and drinking beer while driving a patrol car.

Last night Keith Olbermann himself - no fan of Republicans or of female politicians - said that this "scandal" is a non-starter because when people heard that the trooper had tasered his own child they would want to taser the trooper themselves... I don't think it's a great idea to try to destroy Palin with this story, when women are already feeling dissed by the treatment of Hillary by the Obama campaign and the media, and are intrigued by Palin and willing to give her a chance. "But she tried to get her brother-in-law fired after he tasered his child!" doesn't really help...
 
There is no Palin "scandal". She fired an at will employee. End of story!

Maybe yes and maybe no. Sure sounds like no scandal and good judgment.

Questions have arisen over whether Palin used her office to try and fire her ex brother-in-law from a state trooper's position. Palin asserts the charge is untrue but the Alaska Senate this week approved the hiring of an independent investigator to look into the charges......

Palin has another problem. After Alaska's public-safety commissioner Walt Monegan was fired (Monegan has said he felt pressure to dropkick the trooper) Palin replaced him with the former police chief of the city of Kenai. But he quit after it became known that he received a reprimand after sexual harassment allegations were filed against him in his former post.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/mccainpalin_ticket_hits_iceber.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/palin-mccain-vp.html
 
Regarding the Palin "scandal", here is a snippet from The Washington Post's story today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082903598_pf.html)



Last night Keith Olbermann himself - no fan of Republicans or of female politicians - said that this "scandal" is a non-starter because when people heard that the trooper had tasered his own child they would want to taser the trooper themselves... I don't think it's a great idea to try to destroy Palin with this story, when women are already feeling dissed by the treatment of Hillary by the Obama campaign and the media, and are intrigued by Palin and willing to give her a chance. "But she tried to get her brother-in-law fired after he tasered his child!" doesn't really help...

Well that version of event doesn't make sense on its face.

If her brother-in-law had tasered his child, etc., why would Palin's office even need to have any involvement to get him disciplined or fired and yet it did.

If the idependent investigation commissioned by the Alaska legislature concludes that there never was any prima facie case, that conclusion and the costs would reflect badly on the legislature. So it's a reasonable assumption that it's not taking that risk and that there's at least reasonable cause to look into what happened.

I don't think the story, even it proves true, rises to the level of destroying her. It just doesn't reflect well on her ethical credentials.
 
Well that version of event doesn't make sense on its face.
If her brother-in-law had tasered his child, etc., why would Palin's office even need to have any involvement to get him disciplined or fired and yet it did.
If the idependent investigation commissioned by the Alaska legislature concludes that there never was any prima facie case, that conclusion and the costs would reflect badly on the legislature. So it's a reasonable assumption that it's not taking that risk and that there's at least reasonable cause to look into what happened.
I don't think the story, even it proves true, rises to the level of destroying her. It just doesn't reflect well on her ethical credentials.


If you go to it via the link provided (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082903598_pf.html), The Washington Post story makes clear why she felt the need to get involved (the trooper was punished, but not fired), and that the taser incident was admitted by her brother in law (he says the boy requested it). Here is a further snippet:

Monegan called Todd Palin back and said there was nothing he could do. A few days later, Gov. Palin called Monegan on his cellphone. "I explained to her there was no new evidence, the issue was closed," Monegan said. "She also was unhappy with that."

Wooten, reached at a trooper's office in Palmer, Alaska, declined to comment. Cyr said Wooten has "a spotless record" and no allegations in his file other than those filed by the governor's family.

Monegan and Cyr said that Wooten's wife had obtained a permit to hunt moose but balked when she saw the prey. She handed the gun to her husband, who killed it, Monegan and Cyr said, adding that the couple then took the moose to her parents' home, butchered it and ate some of it.

Wooten said he used the Taser on his 10-year-old stepson when the boy asked him to try it on him, Monegan and Cyr said.

The investigation into Wooten sustained the allegations regarding the moose hunt and the Taser. The drinking charge was unsustained in an initial investigation, but a police commander reversed the decision. Documents say Wooten was reprimanded and suspended. "Wooten was not a model trooper," Monegan said.
 
Uhhhh I think the VP needs to be qualified. He/She will be in command if the President falls ill and dies or god forbid, gets assassinated. I think choosing a VP candidate with the qualifications to be leader matters a lot. And I don't think that it's an issue that should be taken lightly

Sorry, but you are not allowed to discuss the possibility of assassination of politicians on JUB.

Posts about plots even which the authorities do not deem credible will be removed.
 
If you go to it via the link provided (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082903598_pf.html), The Washington Post story makes clear why she felt the need to get involved (the trooper was punished, but not fired), and that the taser incident was admitted by her brother in law (he says the boy requested it). Here is a further snippet:

But my point is that her story doesn't make sense. It reflects a hindsight attempt to cover up her conflict of interest and abuse of power.

To believe her version of events, you have to believe, for a kick off, that she didn't think her brother-in-law was being treated severly enough so first she says neither she nor anyone from her staff had ever tried to press for more severe penalties and then she says that several members of her staff had made multiple calls to various state officials.

As I say, I doubt the Alaska legislature would want to commission a formal independent investigation without cause.
 
Marley wanted 5 reasons.

Well, I have someone else here, who can give you 10 reasons why she should have been picked over Sarah Palin.




Let's hope that the Momentum against this move keeps up as is. Most of the Democratic Women I see on forums from doing some browsing, aren't falling for this and see it for what it really is.
 
Re the Palin troopergate "scandal", yeah she's probably lying about trying to get the scumbag fired - is this really the fight we want to pick? The guy is a drunk cop who tasers his kid, and we are outraged that she tried to get him fired? Yeah yeah yeah, I get it - abuse of power blah blah blah. No matter how much you claim that all abuses are the same, no one will see this like lying about WMD or Watergate. Most people will say good for her, and why are the Democrats once again protecting dirtbags (the trooper)? Aren't there plenty of good reasons to attack the McCain-Palin ticket without this?#-o
 
Opinions are good. Smearing each others candidate is not good.
Why not just look at the experience balance on each side McCain and Biden, vs. inexperience Obama vs. Palin.

Then ask which position is experience more important?

The answer is self-evident to anyone who can think for themselves.....but therein lies the rub.
 
Opinions are good. Smearing each others candidate is not good.
Why not just look at the experience balance on each side McCain and Biden, vs. inexperience Obama vs. Palin.

Then ask which position is experience more important?

The answer is self-evident to anyone who can think for themselves.....but therein lies the rub.

As we've seen, not all Experience equates to "good experience", and nor does it mean that you will demonstrate good judgment or be an effective leader.

It's one of many factors to consider ... not the know-all, be-all factor you may want to make it out to be.
 
VPs don't generally alter people's Presidential votes. But, I'm sure the Dems will hammer away at the desperate recklessness of McCain's gamble on Palin, who, by the way, he's apparently only met once or twice and barely knows.

Or in fact they won’t.

Do you honestly believe that the party who just nominated someone who hasn’t even completed a full term as a Senator (and has spent half of his first term campaigning for President) for President has any room to ‘hammer’ McCain for picking a Governor who hasn’t served a full time in office for Vice-President? They can’t afford to hammer Palin on ‘lack of experience’ because they’ve just spent the past year telling us that experience isn’t an issue. They can attempt to hammer McCain for not knowing whether or not he wants experience on his ticket or not but I believe that will play into Republican hands, because they want to hammer home the difference between Palin’s and Obama’s records.

Is she really the best qualified candidate for VP in the whole country? How sad is that.

By the same token is a one term Senator (who's spent half his time in office campaigning) really the best qualified choice for President? There’s no way the Democrats can attack Palin’s lack of experience without it spectacularly blowing up in their faces because the top of their ticket is so inexperienced.

I don't think people, who don't already support McCain, see him as a "respected voice on foreign policy". He's constantly mispeaking in this area and he's perceived as another bring-'em-on George W. figure, who wants keeps troops in Iraq forever.

You’re incredibly mistaken.

On the subject of Russia in particular McCain is a largely respected voice and in reality what McCain wants to do in Iraq is make sure that when troops are withdrawn the country doesn't implode and that is smart foreign policy. If you believe the US reputation has been damaged by going into Iraq that's nothing compared to the damage that'll be done if you get the withdrawal wrong.

As his Iraq war decision shows, what Obama lacks in foreign expertise he makes up for in judgment and intelligence. Plus, as you say, now he has Biden on the ticket.

Joe Biden won’t be President and any foreign policy decisions made won’t be his, his experience and knowledge aren’t being transplanted into Obama. And all the questions you have about McCain when it comes to foreign policy can be asked just as much of Biden who has made some startlingly crazy statements and decisions over the years.

Your judgment and intelligence argument take huge blows with his stance on Iraq, Iran and Russia.

I just don't see that and hopefully most Americans won't either. McCain's experience is off point and outdated. If you owned a troubled company, you'd never hire someone like McCain as a Chief Executive.

Your comments regarding McCain’s experience being ‘off point’ and ‘outdated’ are wrong, incredibly so in fact and suggests that you’re either unaware of the real problems facing the next President on foreign policy or McCain’s really strong points on foreign policy.

Uhh, and the FEDERAL charges against John Mccain and his campaign funding, do you acknowledge those as much as the ghost funding scandals I'm welcome to hear about but have yet to hear of?

If you bothered to read the entire post I wrote you'd notice that my point was, and this is a quote The assumption that Obama (or any politician) is clean of scandal is a mistake to say the least... Again to assume anyone is free of scandal is a mistake.

Experience is a fluff word. Experienced in what? What does his experience entail? What does his resume look like? Respected voice on foreign policy? The dude doesn't even know the layout of the middle east, and would LOVE to go to war for 100 years. I could fill up this forum for days with videos of Mccain lying and contradicting himself and contradicting himself and lying about the situation over there.

And there are more videos of Obama doing exactly the same thing.

There isn’t US politician who has an especially strong iron fist grasp on the Middle East, which is why the situation over there is such a mess. The Democrats are just as clueless as the Republicans. Personally I think McCain’s stance on the Middle East is a much better and clearer than Obama’s, primarily because Obama seem to know what he wants to do.

People also need to wake up to the fact that Russia is a much bigger issue than the Middle East on foreign policy and McCain is incredibly knowledgeable and respected when it comes to handling Russia, which is why everyone (Obama and Bush included) altered their position on the Russia/Georgia situation after McCain made his statement on the conflict and was completely at odds with everyone else.

No real or clear understanding of foreign policy? So I guess he was playing Jump-Rope Around The Middle East when he made his trip over there, he must've been playing Uno or Poker with the Iraq's reconstruction management office, and he must've picked Joe Biden cuz of his striking good lucks, not his expertise in foreign affairs.

I’ve said it once already in this post but I’ll repeat it again now Biden's experience and knowledge aren’t being transplanted into Obama, he didn't name Biden his VP nominee and suddenly become an expert on foriegn policy. It should also be pointed out that visiting Iraq doesn't add up to having a clear or real understanding of foriegn policy. I've been to China once that doesn't make an expert on China and I've been to France at least ten times but I'm not an expert on them either.

Balance out? Yeah, if you squint with one eye and don't look out there other, you might see balance. Four completely different people, different ways of doing things, to call the tickets "balanced" is a 3rd grade explanation for a post-grad exam.

The two tickets balance out nicely right now and as much as it may pain Democrats to hear that it’s true.

Both tickets have long serving Senators who’s primary expertise is in the field of foreign policy and our both largely respected politicians. Both tickets also have two relative unknowns who have yet to complete a full term in their current jobs and both of whom have stood on the platform of changing the political system they’re entering into and cleaning that system up, both also happen to be very young in terms of politics. It takes a special kind of denial not to see how balanced out the tickets are.
 
Re the Palin troopergate "scandal", yeah she's probably lying about trying to get the scumbag fired - is this really the fight we want to pick? The guy is a drunk cop who tasers his kid, and we are outraged that she tried to get him fired? Yeah yeah yeah, I get it - abuse of power blah blah blah. No matter how much you claim that all abuses are the same, no one will see this like lying about WMD or Watergate. Most people will say good for her, and why are the Democrats once again protecting dirtbags (the trooper)? Aren't there plenty of good reasons to attack the McCain-Palin ticket without this?#-o

There are. But one of Palin's strong points is her high ethics in public office credentials. So, obviously, the fact that she's subject to an independent investigation commissioned by the Alaska legislature involving her possible conflict of interest, abuse of power and lying is of some relevance.
 


Wow -- excellent article! ..|

And, in addition to defending a formal ethics' investigation, she herself says she has no idea what being a Vice President involves:

So?
No one knows what being a Vice President involves, because each president makes it up anew. Cheney spent his time being nearly invisible, manipulating and choreographing events behind the scenes, and generally being evil. Gore did quiet work on a number of issues, and got sent in Clinton's place as a representative for the U.S. on occasion. Other Veeps have sat on their asses wondering if anyone even knew who they were. What being Vice President means this time around will depend on who is elected president.

As I say, I doubt the Alaska legislature would want to commission a formal independent investigation without cause.

So do you believe that the Republican Congress has "cause" to mount that massive investigation of Clinton?
The cause that really matters in these things is politics. Palin has pissed off her state's Republican power structure, and for politicians, that's more than enough cause.
 
Or in fact they won’t.

Do you honestly believe that the party who just nominated someone who hasn’t even completed a full term as a Senator (and has spent half of his first term campaigning for President) for President has any room to ‘hammer’ McCain for picking a Governor who hasn’t served a full time in office for Vice-President? They can’t afford to hammer Palin on ‘lack of experience’ because they’ve just spent the past year telling us that experience isn’t an issue. They can attempt to hammer McCain for not knowing whether or not he wants experience on his ticket or not but I believe that will play into Republican hands, because they want to hammer home the difference between Palin’s and Obama’s records.

Obviously, it's a Republican talking point that Obama has no experience. But, after seven years as an Illinois Senator and three plus years in the Senate, Obama has a good legislative pedigree that Palin simply doesn't:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/dear-chris-matt.html


By the same token is a one term Senator (who's spent half his time in office campaigning) really the best qualified choice for President? There’s no way the Democrats can attack Palin’s lack of experience without it spectacularly blowing up in their faces because the top of their ticket is so inexperienced.

My previous comment applies here as well. Lack of experience was a phony Republican war cry, which somehow I don't see them using successfully after Palin's nomination.

You’re incredibly mistaken.

On the subject of Russia in particular McCain is a largely respected voice and in reality what McCain wants to do in Iraq is make sure that when troops are withdrawn the country doesn't implode and that is smart foreign policy. If you believe the US reputation has been damaged by going into Iraq that's nothing compared to the damage that'll be done if you get the withdrawal wrong.

McCain's position of Russia is seen by many people as a throw back to the cold war and/or just more bring-'em-on Bushism and/or influenced by the payments Georgia made to McCain's chief foreign affairs adviser.

No one's suggesting that we should get out of Iraq in the wrong way. But, before Obama started talking about short term withdrawal strategies, McCain's vision was US troops being left in Iraq for the foreseeable future.


Joe Biden won’t be President and any foreign policy decisions made won’t be his, his experience and knowledge aren’t being transplanted into Obama. And all the questions you have about McCain when it comes to foreign policy can be asked just as much of Biden who has made some startlingly crazy statements and decisions over the years.

That's exactly why you need someone with intelligence and good judgment like Obama. He got it right on the Iraq war, while near-bottom-of-his-class-angry-man McCain would be far more likely to get us into yet another war.

Your judgment and intelligence argument take huge blows with his stance on Iraq, Iran and Russia.

Better Obama/Biden's diplomatic, working with allies, war as a last resort approach than McCain's impotent or punch first ask question after rhetoric.

Your comments regarding McCain’s experience being ‘off point’ and ‘outdated’ are wrong, incredibly so in fact and suggests that you’re either unaware of the real problems facing the next President on foreign policy or McCain’s really strong points on foreign policy.

Or maybe you're misconceving the solutions to those problems and over-estimating McCain's ability in foreign affairs, given his repeated gaffes an' all.

Your comments then reply to another poster's comments, which he can follow up, if he wants to.

Ultimately, it'll, obviously, be up to the voters to decide who they prefer and, since many of them seem to make their decisions based on who'd they'd want to have a beer and a burger with, the relative balance between the tickets is a meaningless academic exercise.

As you'll have gathered, I happen to think that the Obama/Biden side has intelligence, judgment and relevant experience, whereas the McCain/Palin ticket has a self-avowed George W. Bush clone, now placing all his bets on an unqualified partner, who would never have been on the ticket if she were a man.

Balanced tickets? Well maybe if you like moose burgers.
 
Back
Top