Palin's email hacked. Shocking news discovered.

Yes, it's true. She's BORING AS FCK.

Vague friends of friends of people whose dogs once met someone at Anonymous hacked her Yahoo! account a few hours back and posted all the stuff on Wikileaks. The revelatory messages show she does indeed have nothing whatsoever in her inbox that counts as interesting, even to the people who sent it. She is however the first vice-presidential candidate to run her office via a free email system that most 8th-graders wouldn't trust with their vacation photos.

Interestingly though, wikileaks exploded with the shock of it being so stunningly non-newsworthy, and has gone offline. Either that or the CIA have unplugged that little blue power cord in Nebraska labelled "OMG Teh Intarnet: Leave Switched On". Conspiracy theorists are as we speak trying to connect the story to J-Lo's mysterious appearance in a triathlon, simply so they can use the photos.

Needless to say, I would be upset if Government officials had the time to have interesting stuff in their Yahoo account.

By hacked, you mean they guessed her password, which was apparently 'popcorn'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForrestBlack

Needless to say, I would be upset if Government officials had the time to have interesting stuff in their Yahoo account.

---

Really? Frankly, I wouldn't want anyone in charge with the mindset to accept a job that left no time for an interesting personal life. People that don't practise individualism rarely maintain much respect for it.

cause all her skeletons are already airing out on the porch rather than sitting in her closets. her 17 yr old unmarried daughter is preggers, she's pushed for her state to secede from the US and can't handle a prickly reporter, though expects to be trusted with running the country when the old fart who picked her gives out on one of his innumerable kitchen tables that he bought to make up for not having one while in a POW camp.

and that sums it all up.

~K

Her daughter is her own person and I'd push to secede from the US if you guys got anywhere near me, so I can't really hold that against her. Frankly, I'm more concerned with the fact that she'd disagree.

The attacks on Palin play into McCain's hand. It gives the appearance of an "elite" attacking the underdog (Palin). McCain thus repositions himself as populist fighting the elite (Palin substitutes a "culture war" instead of "class war" to appeal to less affluent moderate to conservative voters.) She has certailled the social conservatives. I think the developments on Wall Street will moot this point. Still, I see Palin as a trojan horse. It was also a brilliant political move on McCain's part. He made this a race despite the republican brand floating in a toilet bowl, the economic woes, and an extremely unpopular President and 8 year admin + 6 year control of Congress. This should have been a blowout by the democrats.

OEC

no nekkid pics? she didn't send any scandalous shots to the "first dude"

damn....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Eyed Cat

The attacks on Palin play into McCain's hand. It gives the appearance of an "elite" attacking the underdog (Palin). McCain thus repositions himself as populist fighting the elite (Palin substitutes a "culture war" instead of "class war" to appeal to less affluent moderate to conservative voters.) She has certailled the social conservatives. I think the developments on Wall Street will moot this point. Still, I see Palin as a trojan horse. It was also a brilliant political move on McCain's part. He made this a race despite the republican brand floating in a toilet bowl, the economic woes, and an extremely unpopular President and 8 year admin + 6 year control of Congress. This should have been a blowout by the democrats.

OEC

---

It's not so one-sided. Every attack can be spun to serve a counter attack, every remark can be turned against its maker; but more often than not, the attack outweights the counterattack, and those that never make a move for fear of the ways it can be spun to make them look bad (ie, congress dems) always lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

It's not so one-sided. Every attack can be spun to serve a counter attack, every remark can be turned against its maker; but more often than not, the attack outweights the counterattack, and those that never make a move for fear of the ways it can be spun to make them look bad (ie, congress dems) always lose.

---

Given the post-convention boost McCain got, I think the attacks have backfired. I don't think it will matter come 11/4 due to the economic crisis. There is just no way McCain can run that far that fast from Bush (or even his own voting record). The congressional dems are another story. They will control both houses, but I don't see a blowout there either. The polls have tightened across the board.

OEC

Also, much of political spin-doctoring seems to be about convincing people that other people will or have taken a certain side on a current event. Telling an audience that 'X has come out looking good on issue Y' or 'Polls indicate that Z was seen as dominating the debate' seems to en- or dis-courage people in their support of a candidate as much as any appeal to their personal opinion might.

So, y'know, be careful buying statements like 'This will play into McCain's hand'. Their appearance of carrying the neutrality of a distantiated, spectator's point of view makes them less likely to trigger critical consideration, but at least the political minds of the US seem to think they're just as important.


ETA: I wrote this before seeing your response (this place needs a longer editing time window). I'll add that with all the things going on in the presidential race right now, it's very difficult to draw inductive conclusions about anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

Also, much of political spin-doctoring seems to be about convincing people that other people will or have taken a certain side on a current event. Telling an audience that 'X has come out looking good on issue Y' or 'Polls indicate that Z was seen as dominating the debate' seems to en- or dis-courage people in their support of a candidate as much as any appeal to their [i]personal[i] opinion might.

So, y'know, be careful buying statements like 'This will play into McCain's hand'. Their appearance of carrying the neutrality of a distantiated, spectator's point of view makes them less likely to trigger critical consideration, but at least the political minds of the US seem to think they're just as important.

---

I base that on aggregate polling in the states. I've seen political pundits argue it both ways. It's kind of moot now given the economic crisis.

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

Also, much of political spin-doctoring seems to be about convincing people that other people will or have taken a certain side on a current event. Telling an audience that 'X has come out looking good on issue Y' or 'Polls indicate that Z was seen as dominating the debate' seems to en- or dis-courage people in their support of a candidate as much as any appeal to their personal opinion might.

So, y'know, be careful buying statements like 'This will play into McCain's hand'. Their appearance of carrying the neutrality of a distantiated, spectator's point of view makes them less likely to trigger critical consideration, but at least the political minds of the US seem to think they're just as important.


ETA: I wrote this before seeing your response (this place needs a longer editing time window). I'll add that with all the things going on in the presidential race right now, it's very difficult to draw inductive conclusions about anything.

---

Anything can happen between now and 11/4. Was speaking to the Palin issue to the extent it resonated with voters. That window has been shut by the economy.

OEC

Meh, economics are boring. I guess that'll play into the repugs' hand as well tho, they've always been better at playing in to fear, no matter how much they caused the threat in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindgames

Yes, it's true. She's BORING AS FCK.

Vague friends of friends of people whose dogs once met someone at Anonymous hacked her Yahoo! account a few hours back and posted all the stuff on Wikileaks. The revelatory messages show she does indeed have nothing whatsoever in her inbox that counts as interesting, even to the people who sent it. She is however the first vice-presidential candidate to run her office via a free email system that most 8th-graders wouldn't trust with their vacation photos.

Interestingly though, wikileaks exploded with the shock of it being so stunningly non-newsworthy, and has gone offline. Either that or the CIA have unplugged that little blue power cord in Nebraska labelled "OMG Teh Intarnet: Leave Switched On". Conspiracy theorists are as we speak trying to connect the story to J-Lo's mysterious appearance in a triathlon, simply so they can use the photos.

---

wooo!!!
big surprise there!!!
*sarcasm*

fuck...........isn't reading other peoples mail still considered a real fucking shitty thing to do?

E-mail is so 00's. Pigeons are back in fashion. Hurray for retro style :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Karl

fuck...........isn't reading other peoples mail still considered a real fucking shitty thing to do?

---

Meh, it's one of those things that are 'rude' without being strictly harmful, so long as you don't misuse the information you gained. Anonymous doesn't care.

'Sides, she's a repug; they're constantly pulling shit to invade the US populace's privacy by reading mail, tapping phones, etc. I don't think having that populace check back on their supposed representatives is particularly disproportional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

'Sides, she's a repug; they're constantly pulling shit to invade the US populace's privacy by reading mail, tapping phones, etc. I don't think having that populace check back on their supposed representatives is particularly disproportional.

---

rest assured that in Europe the governments there monitor everything as well... they just do it better and don't get caught as much... how do you think we caught 2 of the guys behind the 9/11 fiasco at the Holiday Inn in Sarajevo shortly after the attacks... strangely enough there is sometimes more freedom from monitoring in the US...

damn... i'm probably going to go on some government list for typing this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

By hacked, you mean they guessed her password, which was apparently 'popcorn'.


Really? Frankly, I wouldn't want anyone in charge with the mindset to accept a job that left no time for an interesting personal life. People that don't practise individualism rarely maintain much respect for it.

---

Baby Sinead posted an SNL clip recently which this password made me think of: http://www.babysinead.com/2008/09/06/safe-words/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonny.illuminati

rest assured that in Europe the governments there monitor everything as well... they just do it better and don't get caught as much... how do you think we caught 2 of the guys behind the 9/11 fiasco at the Holiday Inn in Sarajevo shortly after the attacks... strangely enough there is sometimes more freedom from monitoring in the US...

damn... i'm probably going to go on some government list for typing this

---

True, but our surveillance isn't usually caused by your republican party, so it didn't really tie into my argument.

Or is it?

shes' a dumb redneck, which seems to have a big appeal to other dumb rednecks. that's about as far as it goes, no more no less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

True, but our surveillance isn't usually caused by your republican party, so it didn't really tie into my argument.

---

our surveillance isn't caused by our republican party either. it is cause by a need to protect our country. all countries engage in surveillance of some sort or another both internally and externally... when Clinton was in office we were doing it as well... so does that make it the Democratic party's fault? The reason we hear so much about it is because it is election time. honestly not much has changed in the last 10 years from Clinton to Bush except the way the media reports it.

on a side note. the US has an extensive cooperation agreement with the Netherlands to share INTEL/equipment and sometimes personnel... so perhaps it is caused by our Republican party. I have personally worked in Amsterdam on more than one occasion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

Or is it?

shes' a dumb redneck, which seems to have a big appeal to other dumb rednecks. that's about as far as it goes, no more no less.

---

i'm still hoping for nekkid pictures to surface... "git er dun!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonny.illuminati

i'm still hoping for nekkid pictures to surface... "git er dun!"

---

I don't get it.

I don't think she's attractive at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Friendly

I don't get it.

I don't think she's attractive at all.

---

Yeah. She kind of reminds me of the joker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Eyed Cat

Anything can happen between now and 11/4. Was speaking to the Palin issue to the extent it resonated with voters. That window has been shut by the economy.

OEC

---

I'm telling you...Wait for the debates for thinking that our next president is already picked (Not you OEC, but that's how people are already acting). The Republicans can spin shit as much as they want but sooner or later, the truth rises from all the ashes. I think that truth will finally show up during the debates. If it doesn't, than I say Obama wasn't such a great speaker after all. How can you really hide 8 years of all the shit that's gonna come up in the debates and then still keep a straight face saying that THIS time it's all gonna be different even know you're still in the same party that the current president is apart of.

The real sad part to me is I really think if Obama what 100% white, he'd already be a shoe-in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonny.illuminati

our surveillance isn't caused by our republican party either. it is cause by a need to protect our country. all countries engage in surveillance of some sort or another both internally and externally... when Clinton was in office we were doing it as well... so does that make it the Democratic party's fault? The reason we hear so much about it is because it is election time. honestly not much has changed in the last 10 years from Clinton to Bush except the way the media reports it.

on a side note. the US has an extensive cooperation agreement with the Netherlands to share INTEL/equipment and sometimes personnel... so perhaps it is caused by our Republican party. I have personally worked in Amsterdam on more than one occasion...

---

The republicans are the one pushing for less privacy protection under the guise of national security. The PATRIOT act and the phone tap scandals are from well before this election time. I don't doubt that these practises continue under democratic administrations, and I certainly don't hold them blameless - from my perspective, both parties are dreadful right wing conservatives anyway - but it's always the repubs that go out and advocate it.

And while your and our intelligence 'services' may cooperate, your politicians don't push to change the law to favor their techniques here, so I imagine that the republican party's ability to influence local monitoring efforts is limited at best to increasing spending for the US so we can borrow cooler equipment. It's really sortof beside the point though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Eyed Cat

Given the post-convention boost McCain got, I think the attacks have backfired.

I base that on aggregate polling in the states. I've seen political pundits argue it both ways. It's kind of moot now given the economic crisis.

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26763744/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

Polls taken after the Republican convention suggested that Mr. McCain had enjoyed a surge of support — particularly among white women after his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate — but the latest poll indicates “the Palin effect” was, at least so far, a limited burst of interest.

The contest appears to be roughly where it was before the two conventions and before the vice presidential selections: Mr. Obama has the support of 48 percent of registered voters, compared with 43 percent for Mr. McCain, a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error, and statistically unchanged from the tally in the last New York Times/CBS News Poll in mid-August.

...

But the Times/CBS News poll suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection has, to date, helped Mr. McCain only among Republican base voters; there was no evidence of significantly increased support for him among female voters in general. White women are evenly divided between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama; before the conventions, Mr. McCain led Mr. Obama among white women by a margin of 44 percent to 37 percent.

---

Apparently the attacks helped, and only needed time to settle in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26763744/



Apparently the attacks helped, and only needed time to settle in.

---

No. The economic disaster is something he can't run from. Palin was a bubble that shored up evangelicals. The bubble burst as Wall Street did. He should not even be within 10 points of Obama under these circumstances.

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajax Knucklebones

I'm telling you...Wait for the debates for thinking that our next president is already picked (Not you OEC, but that's how people are already acting). The Republicans can spin shit as much as they want but sooner or later, the truth rises from all the ashes. I think that truth will finally show up during the debates. If it doesn't, than I say Obama wasn't such a great speaker after all. How can you really hide 8 years of all the shit that's gonna come up in the debates and then still keep a straight face saying that THIS time it's all gonna be different even know you're still in the same party that the current president is apart of.

The real sad part to me is I really think if Obama what 100% white, he'd already be a shoe-in.

---

Obama will win based on the economy ... but just barely. McCain can't run from this. If this hadn't happened, I think McCain wins based on fear of Obama.

Ok, now you're just quoting everything anyone says and declaring 'economy!' at it. :P

Looks sortof fun, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

Ok, now you're just quoting everything anyone says and declaring 'economy!' at it. :P

Looks sortof fun, actually.

---

This last week kind of changed things. Just a bit :thumb:

OEC

Meh, this has been happening for a while. Even if you're right and the most recent developments are of more actual practical significance, its effects on public opinion will be filtered through the usual psychological mechanics. People are partially desensitized, partially distracted, partially convinced by official voices that tell them not to worry.

More spectacular things than this have been burried in the layer between media and public; I wouldn't expect anything to become the sole deciding factor in the election before people start dying in the streets. Or one of the candidates has sex the wrong way, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

Meh, this has been happening for a while. Even if you're right and the most recent developments are of more actual practical significance, its effects on public opinion will be filtered through the usual psychological mechanics. People are partially desensitized, partially distracted, partially convinced by official voices that tell them not to worry.

More spectacular things than this have been burried in the layer between media and public; I wouldn't expect anything to become the sole deciding factor in the election before people start dying in the streets. Or one of the candidates has sex the wrong way, of course.

---

If this isn't a wake up call, we're beyond fucked. You are right that no one factor decides an election. In an election this close, the default "winner" after an economic crisis is generally the opposition party. Another factor we haven't mentioned: It's called the Bradley effect (Tom Bradley was a black California candidate for Governor) According to exit polls (people flat out asked *after* they voted, he had won). He had, in fact, lost the election. So: Then we're back to McCain. I guess that's why this election fascinates me. I'm a gambling man and I can't handicap this race.

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

Ok, now you're just quoting everything anyone says and declaring 'economy!' at it. :P

Looks sortof fun, actually.

---

Economy!!

(Yea, that was kina fun!)