Sara Palin

[Sonthert]

I fail to see why there is only the right-wing and the socialist conspiracy. You make it sound like Reagan's back in town. I don't think a single Democrat would ever support the nationalization of the means of production, so I fail to see your observation as being reasonable. As to your perspective of isolationism and nationalism, I completely agree. I'm sure there are quite a few Democrats that are not in favor of Globalization...I'm one of them, for instance.

If you think about it for a minute, the Communists lying in wait would pretend to be loyal and nationalistic. Probably militaristic. They would overly celebrate American values and pretend to go to Church and have religious values. They would be covering their intentions draped in a flag...sounds a lot more like the Republicans than the Democrats.

Some of your other points, johnp, are quite well taken. If you tone down the rhetoric, I think you will find you and Kyle have a lot to agree about.

I do from time to time appreciate the rhetoric of "they did it first", "they do it too" and attempts to blur the lines of obvious definitions. This is one of them.

Why is it you guys keep bashing Carter? You keep calling him an anti-Semite, although knowledgeable people contradict you...what evidence is there that he is Anti-Semitic or a racist? Or is this just a Hitler-esque 'If you repeat a lie enough, people will accept it as the truth' kinda thing?

[quote name='johnp'](the same party that argued to continue segregation in the 60's...yet somehow makes itself out to be the champion of minorities now...)[/quote]

Also, you forgot to mention the Southern racist Democrats left the party to join the Republican Party...Strom Thurmond? David Duke? Give me a break. A former Nixon strategist was quoted as saying:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are."

To me, negrophobe translates into racist.

At least you read what you're responding to...point in your favor.

I was under the impression that taxes used to be higher on the rich (AKA more progressive) prior to 1980 or so.

[quote name='johnp']How about the idea that if you make too much or are too successful the government is going to punish you or take over your industry, then "donate" your "excesses" to those who have done nothing to earn it?[/quote]

You seem to be opposed to income taxes. At least non-apportioned ones. The 16th Amendment was passed under Taft, a Republican, when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. A Constitutional Amendment couldn't have passed without the will and consent of the Republicans in that case. I would presume that the Republicans that are of the same opinion you are eschewing were...out to lunch at the time? Sounds like you are actually opposed to the Republicans to me.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Hippo_Master' date='29 January 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1264809033' post='448456']
[quote name='johnp' date='29 January 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1264744967' post='448304']
This topic would be more interesting if more people actually differentiated between the Tina Fey caricature of Sarah Palin on "Saturday Night Live" and Sarah Palin herself. If there is no media bias in favor of the democrat party (the same party that argued to continue segregation in the 60's...yet somehow makes itself out to be the champion of minorities now...) then why did all of the satire mocking President Obama or VP Joe Biden, et al... conveniently wait until after the election?

Why do people still seriously bring up the "I can see Russia from my house!" (Tina Fey) in serious discussions about Sarah Palin?
At least she doesn't need a teleprompter to speak to fourth graders, knows there aren't 57 states (where's the mockery, hmmm?) and never once suggested that somehow tripling our debt would somehow pay us OUT of debt. Even Pres. Bush didn't try to pull THAT one on us...yet President Obama does EXACTLY that...and gets a pass?


PLEASE.

Secondly, it's interesting to see people mock FOX news, when based on their statements it is quite obvious they have no idea what the network actually airs. If there is a vast conservative slant to the media, then why is it only FOX news is mentioned? Those of you with Socialist/Communist political leanings (no, I'm not name-calling...look up what those words mean, it might surprise you) have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the list goes on...so the math does not support your claim of a lean to the right.
FOX is the only network that doesn't toe the party line; doesn't mean their coverage is wrong, only that it doesn't follow your political leanings.

Finally, James "Jimmy" Carter, former President of the U.S.....is IMHO a traitor. There, I've said it. He gave away more strategic advantage to our enemies without even a nod to the people, than Benedict Arnold ever did. Panama Canal, China, 100 million dead, red brigades....back room deals....it all runs together somehow.... The fact that he is a racist, anti-semitic traitor is no surprise whatsoever.

Of course if you don't read his writings, and ignore what he's actually done or said, he's from most accounts a decent HFH carpenter.
At least Benedict Arnold won us some victories before turning traitor.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]


Bill O'Reilly & Glenn Beck. Case closed.

Fox News leans so far to the right that they are basically licking Rush Limbaugh's asshole. Your argument is that everyone who hates Fox News simply isn't a Conservative? Well of course, because only Conservatives listen to the crap on Fox News. Of course it is against all of our political views, but we are saying that Fox News is a terrible place to get news because it's impossible to hear anything not involving the word "Socialism" on that channel.

Sarah Palin was mocked because she was [i]so fucking easy[/i] to mock. Have you seen her Katie Couric interview? It's like she's retarded.

Not everyone who disagrees with Conservative views is a Democrat or a Nazi or from the U.S.S.R. There's a good amount of retarded things democratic politicians and citizens do, like drive around a Prius to use as a status symbol or give us empty promises. Yet democrats aren't NEARLY as awful as Conservatives. Conservatives push their religious doctrine, "family values" and vendetta against Socialism much harder than any non-conservative pushes their views. Like Rush Limbaugh. Why would you want to be affiliated with a thing like that? I never hear a dem preaching their views like the filth that radiates from Fox. All a non-conservative has to do is simply talk to a conservative or watch them on TV to know how undeniably pathetic and irritating it is to know Conservatives Exist.
[/quote]

For the uninformed... Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck are commentators who host an opinion show.

Not newscasters. Do we see a difference? Just in case you missed it... they comment on events/people, expressing their opinion. At no point do either claim to be newscasters... like the guy with the tingeing feeling in his leg.

Progressives push their warmer, greener, healthcare entitlement, anti-religion (well, unless it's Muslim/wican/freak), welfare, gay agenda, bush-derangement-syndrome, revisionist-history every chance they get, who are you trying to fool? If you haven't heard it, it's because you are supporting it, or live under a rock, because it's absolutely everywhere these days. Maybe that is why Fox had more viewers last friday, for Beck's show, than the rest of cable news had... for nearly all week.


As for jimmah not being anti-semitic... go read his own book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". very anti semitic spin to every page. Seems the ADL league agrees completely, as did the 14 Jewish members of his foundation that resigned in protest.
How about :
[indent]Hamas can be trusted, former US President Jimmy Carter said Monday, in an interview on NBC’s ‘Today’ show. Carter spoke with NBC’s Meredith Vieira about his perspective on the Middle East conflict, and his new book, “We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land.”

According to the former president, Hamas never deviated from their commitments as per the ceasefire agreement. He said that, during his meetings with Hamas leaders in Damascus and Gaza, he was promised that Hamas would honor agreements between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israel, as long as they were supported by public referendum.

Hamas did bad things. I’m not defending them. But they did adhere to the ceasefire fully, Carter maintained.





Please, hamas never found a cease fire it kept. History has shown over, and over, that Israel seldom fired first. Either carter is an idiot, or he's got his lips so stuck to hamas' collective ass they need to be surgically removed.

Then there is that whole BCCI disaster, jimmah continued to back/promote/support BCCI well after it was obvious it was completely an illegal operation, and supported both money laundering, and international terrorism funding.







[/indent]

[Sonthert]

Fox News has newscasters? Huh. Must be a new thing.

Your comments, Scotsman, regarding Carter do not answer my question. You accused Jimmy Carter of being anti-Semitic and/or racist. Him writing an anti-Semitic book does not make him anti-Semitic. I provided a quote from the Director of the ADL saying that in his opinion Carter was not anti-Semitic. So the ADL doesn't completely agree that HE is a racist. Carter's position regarding HAMAS doesn't have any bearing on him being anti-Semitic or prejudiced. Nor does him supporting a terrorist organization. Can you provide some useful data with appropriate quotes and sources to support your contention that Carter is either a anti-Semite or prejudiced? "History has shown over and over" is neither support nor compelling. Can you provide some pertinent quotes from Carter's book to support your allegations of its anti-Semitic nature?

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Sonthert' date='05 February 2010 - 06:24 AM' timestamp='1265372670' post='449873']
Fox News has newscasters? Huh. Must be a new thing.

Your comments, Scotsman, regarding Carter do not answer my question. You accused Jimmy Carter of being anti-Semitic and/or racist. Him writing an anti-Semitic book does not make him anti-Semitic. I provided a quote from the Director of the ADL saying that in his opinion Carter was not anti-Semitic. So the ADL doesn't completely agree that HE is a racist. Carter's position regarding HAMAS doesn't have any bearing on him being anti-Semitic or prejudiced. Nor does him supporting a terrorist organization. Can you provide some useful data with appropriate quotes and sources to support your contention that Carter is either a anti-Semite or prejudiced? "History has shown over and over" is neither support nor compelling. Can you provide some pertinent quotes from Carter's book to support your allegations of its anti-Semitic nature?
[/quote]

So, by that logic, me saying the grand-dipshit of the klan is a racist is also wrong, because that is based entirely on my opinion, that is stupid.

or wait, maybe like carter and hamas, if I find someone that is the grand wizard's best bud, and political supporter, and makes statements how oppressed the klan is, he isn't racist... just the wizard's friend.

Your logic completely falls apart.

Go read his damn book, it's not an analysis of facts, as he claims, but hatred. Maybe it's only something you can see from a Jewish prespective. Hard to explain, in a way, when you read something you know is factually incorrect, and written in a manner biased against the Jewish people, it's by that very nature anti-Semitic. what else would you call it? a valentine? When jimmah says “worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa.” when talking about Israel, he is saying the Jews are out necklacing Palestinians, Burning Palestinians in the street...alive, chopping them down with machetes as they try to flee, Police armored cars running down anyone that stands on the streets in protest. You don't see Israeli soldiers going into Palestinian schools and gang-raping the girls, yet is was a common practice under apartheid. Hmmm... I can post you pics of each of those happening in SA under apartheid... if you dispute the events. Yet your hero jimmah dares to say Israeli treatment of Palestinians is [u]WORSE than SA's apartheid[/u]. And you say that is not anti-semitic. Wake the fuck up!

More of jimmah in action?
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1238
Want to hear how uninformed your pillar of virtue is? http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=14&x_article=1252
He repeatedly gets facts completely wrong, I contend this is not an error, but an attempt to mislead people about the true historical facts. Just another attempt, however weak, at revisionist history meant to skew the debate against Israel.

Moreover, listen to his misinformed, genuinely stupid bible lecture cd's. The fool, just like his whole presidency, is talking out his ass-
http://antisemite.org/


and look into BCCI's ties to saudi-based anti-israel terrorist funding. No way that was taking place under his nose, and he not knowing a bit of it.


The event that best sums up jimmah is the great "attack of the killer bunny"
If he's your hero, you are damn lacking.

[Rani]

Where on earth is everyone getting their definitions? Objecting to something the Israeli government does does not make one anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism is based on racial beliefs not government actions. You can't even say that since it's the Israeli government it's Semitic. Israel may be predominately Jewish just as the US is predominately Christian or Saudi predominately Muslim, but the Israeli government isn't automatically consigned or isolated to the Jewish faith. One of my favorite people of all time is an Israeli expatriate who currently lives in Manhattan Beach, California. Not only is he an expatriate, he's of the age where he was an small child when the Israeli nation was created in the 50's, and he was some kind of high ranking officer of paratroopers during the 7-day war. He's Jewish by religion. Pretty much counts as an expert on what could possibly qualify as anti-Semitism. He's the first one to say that being anti-Semitic is about religion and heritage, not government. He's also the first one to point out the Israeli government is far from innocent in the Middle Eastern problem. They're at war. People generally are not terribly logical, kind or compassionate during war. Carter's objections were about the government, not the Jewish people, therefore I don't think he can be logically be automatically assumed to be anti-Semitic.

'Rani

[Sonthert]

Fox news style!

Your quotes are not pertinent to my question. I don't think a bible Lecture and his interpretation of the book makes him anti-Semitic. I'm sure there are plenty of anti-Semitic points in the bible. Merely quoting or analyzing passages of the bible does not constitute anti-Semitism. Pointing out errors he's made regarding his analysis of the Israeli conflict does not constitute evidence he is anti-Semitic either. Does he quote Mein Kampf? Does he denounce Zionism? Does he burn flags of Israel? Give me something to work with here. I don't want to read Jimmy Carter's book. Since you are so critical of it, you must have read at least part of it, so I wanted your personal insight into it.


I must say, you are doing wonders proving that Jimmy Carter ISN'T anti-Semitic. If you wanted to prove Hitler was anti-Semitic for instance, it would be easy. You wouldn't need to dig through bible lectures he'd given. Of course absence of evidence isn't...yeah you know the rest.

From Wiki: "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, or religion. While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, since the term was invented it has been used to refer exclusively to hostility toward Jews.".

Even if Jimmy Carter doesn't like Israel, it is not anti-Semitism by definition. If he doesn't like Israel, it doesn't mean he dislikes the Jewish people within Israel. He may be anti-Semitic, but disliking the State of Israel isn't proof of that. I don't know if Jimmy Carter likes Israel or not, I'm just pointing out that line of reasoning isn't going anywhere.

The Director of the ADL is quoted as saying he thought Jimmy Carter wasn't anti-Semitic. I'd be willing to bet the Director of the ADL knows Jimmy Carter slightly better than you do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/magazine/14foxman.t.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1&ref=magazine

[quote name='Abe Foxman, Director of the ADL']“I didn’t call him an anti-Semite.”[/quote]


Allow me to rephrase:

Your comments, Scotsman, regarding Carter do not answer my question. You accused Jimmy Carter of being anti-Semitic and/or racist. Him writing an anti-Semitic book or prayer lecture doesn't make him anti-Semitic. I provided a quote from the Director of the ADL saying that in his opinion Carter was not anti-Semitic. So the ADL doesn't completely agree that HE is a racist. Carter's position regarding HAMAS doesn't have any bearing on him being anti-Semitic or prejudiced. Nor does him supporting a terrorist organization. I don't think him being wrong on one or more points makes him anti-Semitic. Can you provide some useful data with appropriate quotes and sources to support your contention that Carter is either a anti-Semite or prejudiced? Can you provide some pertinent quotes from Carter's book to support your allegations of its anti-Semitic nature?

You know what bugs me the most about anti-Semitism? It's a lot of loose charges, rumor, innuendo. Its propagated by people who don't check their facts, just repeating what they've heard, read or what they want to believe. So, in a sense, if each one of us checks and verifies any negative claims about somebody, we're doing our part to stop ignorance like anti-Semitism...or bashing people in general. In the least, we don't have to repeat them as facts until we have checked them out.


Good diversion from the Sarah Palin is an idiot thread, though. Still an idiot. For that, you get a point. We're unfairly judging Sarah Palin, we don't know her...she might be a genius. She seemed like an idiot to me, but that's just my perception of her during the Vice-Presidential debate. Its an opinion, not a fact. You might have taken a very circuitous route to get to your point, but its yours. Whether you ever answer my questions regarding Jimmy Carter or not.

[Sariél]

Yes, back to the original point; is Sarah Palin Electable?

I wish to God I could say no, but I didn't think that people were stupid enough to re-elect Bush. I must admit to total confusion over how anyone could consider her fit for public office.

But then again, I don't get reality TV, boy bands, or Borat, either.

[Chreees]

After Bush being re-elected, it would seem anything's possible...

[Codename067]

If her time comes, then her time comes.

None of our votes count, the people that will be "leading" this country in the future have already been chosen, and the fate of this country has already been written for who knows how many decades ahead.

This is no game, the Elites have priorities and interests that must be maintained and executed in a timely passion..there are people to mind control, countries to invade, inflicting terrorism on one's self and blaming it on other countries in order to invade them and steal their natural resources while telling people that they are fighting for "Freedom"...we will see a lot of this in the future.

[Codename067]

[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' date='07 February 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1265574673' post='450214']
After Bush being re-elected, it would seem anything's possible...
[/quote]

Bush was never re-elected. He was re-chosen by those behind the curtain..

[Chreees]

[quote name='Codename067' date='07 February 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1265603274' post='450260']
If her time comes, then her time comes.

None of our votes count, the people that will be "leading" this country in the future have already been chosen, and the fate of this country has already been written for who knows how many decades ahead.

This is no game, the Elites have priorities and interests that must be maintained and executed in a timely passion..there are people to mind control, countries to invade, inflicting terrorism on one's self and blaming it on other countries in order to invade them and steal their natural resources while telling people that they are fighting for "Freedom"...we will see a lot of this in the future.
[/quote]

[quote name='Codename067' date='07 February 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1265603431' post='450261']
[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' date='07 February 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1265574673' post='450214']
After Bush being re-elected, it would seem anything's possible...
[/quote]

Bush was never re-elected. He was re-chosen by those behind the curtain..
[/quote]

I pretty much agree with you on all that.

Wow... Sarah Palin came to Nashville yesterday for her tea party convention... She had notes written on her hand...I now find it very hypocritical that she bashed Obama for using a teleprompter...

[lumpypoptarts]

That fact that she was even nominated for vp doesn't make sense. I dont understand how someone can be in that position knowing less than the average person about the USA.

[Chreees]

[quote name='lumpypoptarts' date='08 February 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1265614302' post='450305']
That fact that she was even nominated for vp doesn't make sense. I dont understand how someone can be in that position knowing less than the average person about the USA.
[/quote]

Well, she was a last ditch effort by the Republican party to gain popularity.... They said, "Oh shit, the Dems have a black guy... We need a woman VP!" They realized that people were ready to have either a black man for president or a woman for president, so they knew that made Obama's "Change" campaign even more attractive. Palin was their effort to throw something new into the mix as well... For example, I had several friends who voted for McCain just because of this: "I think I'd rather have a woman VP before we have a black president..." I tell you, racism and sexism still runs rampant... This is my philosophy now: Don't look at if they're a woman or a man, black or white, or if they're a Republican or Democrat... See where they personally stand on the issues that matter to you, and vote for them based on that. The party-bias crap is getting really out of hand, if you ask me... I liked how Obama talked about that at the Republican's Retreat...

Also, Republican's wanted to gain senior citizens' votes by having the old white guy to vote for... Also, I think it's safe to say that most old white people would also prefer a woman VP over a black president... I know my grandparents were like that, and all their friends... They say they're not racist, but they don't act like it... Guess it's just because they're old and "from the old days."

EDIT: If you can't tell, I'm not too crazy about the Republicans... But my feeling on Dems is they don't really have backbones. Once they grow backbones and show the Repubs a thing or two, then we'll be in business.

[Rani]

[quote name='Codename067' date='07 February 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1265603431' post='450261']
[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' date='07 February 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1265574673' post='450214']
After Bush being re-elected, it would seem anything's possible...
[/quote]

Bush was never re-elected. He was re-chosen by those behind the curtain..
[/quote]


You know, I almost feel sorry for the poor schmuck. He was put up for election by his daddy's cronies who completely bulldozed and buried the Florida outcome and forced him into the presidency against the popular vote.

9/11 came along and bolstered him, and while I have never agreed to the theory that it was allowed intentionally by a certain fraction of our government, even I have to admit a moment of doubt lurking in the back of my mind because it was very damned conveniently timed to bolster his tainted presidency, wasn't it? So sometimes I have to wonder if the conspiracy loonies might just be like the broken clock that's right at least once. I doubt we'll ever know.

George W. didn't have a chance in hell to ever be his own man. Daddy's buddies had a hold on him from ground zero and those are the very same guys we have every reason to suspect are involved in government in order to further line their own pockets at the expense of the working citizen of this country. You can't blame any President for the state of the country at any given time because basically all they are is the charismatic focal point for their party. The accutal blame needs to be placed squarely where it lies - in the hands of our Congress who have absolutely no clue what it takes to be a working class American. I'm convinced none of them are working in our best interest - only their own. They simply don't get it or maybe they do and don't care.

However, back to the general topic of the thread, Palin doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected even if she runs. She's a loose cannon. She can't keep her mouth shut and the powers that be will never allow her to be the spokesperson for their agendas because they can't control her. I do have an idea who just might end up being the first woman president - John's daughter, Megan McCain. She's politically active, she's literate and a published author on politics, she's a Republican who supports some Democratic movements and has some Democratic support...... If she continues to be the darling voice of reason and the working American, she has a very strong chance of making it into office in 10-12 years. The Republican party would champion her and many, many Democrats would support her. It certainly won't be Palin - not after aligning herself with the racist organization that calls itself the Tea Party where she lambasted Obama for using a teleprompter and a camera shot caught her with notes written on her hand. Can you possibly be more juvenile?

'Rani

[LZ22]

"This is my philosophy now: Don't look at if they're a woman or a man, black or white, or if they're a Republican or Democrat... See where they personally stand on the issues that matter to you, and vote for them based on that. The party-bias crap is getting really out of hand, if you ask me... I liked how Obama talked about that at the Republican's Retreat..."

Its ironic because Obama and his democrat friends are just as party-bias as the next person, only shrouded by his rhetoric that he is not. Don't be fooled. Washington always has been and always will be the same circus that does not care about you and me.

Its also hard to vote for someone based on where they stand on issues, because 80% of those issues they will flip flop once elected. They only tell the people what we want to hear in order to get elected, then go off on their own agenda....that is, until the next election year.

[Chreees]

[quote name='LZ22' date='08 February 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1265667613' post='450455']
"This is my philosophy now: Don't look at if they're a woman or a man, black or white, or if they're a Republican or Democrat... See where they personally stand on the issues that matter to you, and vote for them based on that. The party-bias crap is getting really out of hand, if you ask me... I liked how Obama talked about that at the Republican's Retreat..."

[b]Its ironic because Obama and his democrat friends are just as party-bias as the next person, only shrouded by his rhetoric that he is not.[/b] Don't be fooled. Washington always has been and always will be the same circus that does not care about you and me.

Its also hard to vote for someone based on where they stand on issues, because 80% of those issues they will flip flop once elected. [b]They only tell the people what we want to hear in order to get elected, then go off on their own agenda....that is, until the next election year.[/b]
[/quote]

To the first bolded statement, I have yet to see any evidence of this. It's only been a year, and he has a huge mess to clean up. I've seen more bias crap from the Republicans so far... On the other hand, he's been asking the Republicans to get along so they can actually get stuff done. Really, take a look on youtube at the GOP Retreat and watch closely not only his speech but the question/answer part. While I watched this, it made me proud that I had voted for him. I'm just hoping the Republicans can set aside their crap so we can get out of this recession. For those saying he hasn't gotten anything done, it's because of two reasons: It's only been a year, and change doesn't happen quickly. Also, the Republicans are fighting him every step of the way.

To the second bolded statement, Bush is the epitome of this... I remember how high gas prices would get, then how low they sunk when election time came around... And the many things our dear Bushy said he'd do, we never saw get done...

[Rani]

[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' date='08 February 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1265688657' post='450505']
[quote name='LZ22' date='08 February 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1265667613' post='450455']
"This is my philosophy now: Don't look at if they're a woman or a man, black or white, or if they're a Republican or Democrat... See where they personally stand on the issues that matter to you, and vote for them based on that. The party-bias crap is getting really out of hand, if you ask me... I liked how Obama talked about that at the Republican's Retreat..."

[b]Its ironic because Obama and his democrat friends are just as party-bias as the next person, only shrouded by his rhetoric that he is not.[/b] Don't be fooled. Washington always has been and always will be the same circus that does not care about you and me.

Its also hard to vote for someone based on where they stand on issues, because 80% of those issues they will flip flop once elected. [b]They only tell the people what we want to hear in order to get elected, then go off on their own agenda....that is, until the next election year.[/b]
[/quote]

To the first bolded statement, I have yet to see any evidence of this. It's only been a year, and he has a huge mess to clean up. I've seen more bias crap from the Republicans so far... On the other hand, he's been asking the Republicans to get along so they can actually get stuff done. Really, take a look on youtube at the GOP Retreat and watch closely not only his speech but the question/answer part. While I watched this, it made me proud that I had voted for him. I'm just hoping the Republicans can set aside their crap so we can get out of this recession. For those saying he hasn't gotten anything done, it's because of two reasons: It's only been a year, and change doesn't happen quickly. Also, the Republicans are fighting him every step of the way.

To the second bolded statement, Bush is the epitome of this... I remember how high gas prices would get, then how low they sunk when election time came around... And the many things our dear Bushy said he'd do, we never saw get done...
[/quote]


Maybe the public needs to create and send an email petition to all Republican congresspersons (or Congress in it's entirety because the Democrats aren't doing much better themselves at conciliation rather than bipartisan politics) stating that we need them to quit with the politics as usual and work together with the current administration to improve things for the citizens they're sworn to serve. I'm not an expert on online petitions but the one we signed for the tobacco tax continues to build, maybe one demanding they "act right" would generate millions of internet signatures, rather than the thousands we helped generate over a minor issue. Suggestions?

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Rani' date='09 February 2010 - 09:22 AM' timestamp='1265728941' post='450549']
[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' date='08 February 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1265688657' post='450505']
[quote name='LZ22' date='08 February 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1265667613' post='450455']
"This is my philosophy now: Don't look at if they're a woman or a man, black or white, or if they're a Republican or Democrat... See where they personally stand on the issues that matter to you, and vote for them based on that. The party-bias crap is getting really out of hand, if you ask me... I liked how Obama talked about that at the Republican's Retreat..."

[b]Its ironic because Obama and his democrat friends are just as party-bias as the next person, only shrouded by his rhetoric that he is not.[/b] Don't be fooled. Washington always has been and always will be the same circus that does not care about you and me.

Its also hard to vote for someone based on where they stand on issues, because 80% of those issues they will flip flop once elected. [b]They only tell the people what we want to hear in order to get elected, then go off on their own agenda....that is, until the next election year.[/b]
[/quote]

To the first bolded statement, I have yet to see any evidence of this. It's only been a year, and he has a huge mess to clean up. I've seen more bias crap from the Republicans so far... On the other hand, he's been asking the Republicans to get along so they can actually get stuff done. Really, take a look on youtube at the GOP Retreat and watch closely not only his speech but the question/answer part. While I watched this, it made me proud that I had voted for him. I'm just hoping the Republicans can set aside their crap so we can get out of this recession. For those saying he hasn't gotten anything done, it's because of two reasons: It's only been a year, and change doesn't happen quickly. Also, the Republicans are fighting him every step of the way.

To the second bolded statement, Bush is the epitome of this... I remember how high gas prices would get, then how low they sunk when election time came around... And the many things our dear Bushy said he'd do, we never saw get done...
[/quote]


Maybe the public needs to create and send an email petition to all Republican congresspersons (or Congress in it's entirety because the Democrats aren't doing much better themselves at conciliation rather than bipartisan politics) stating that we need them to quit with the politics as usual and work together with the current administration to improve things for the citizens they're sworn to serve. I'm not an expert on online petitions but the one we signed for the tobacco tax continues to build, maybe one demanding they "act right" would generate millions of internet signatures, rather than the thousands we helped generate over a minor issue. Suggestions?

'Rani
[/quote]

The republicans??? Come on... as I recall, even with a supermajority the dumbocraps couldn't pass their own agenda.
The republicraps were irrelevant until the people of Mass decided it's time to toss the dems out, and they lost the 60 vote majority.

Hell, Rani, even with a supermajority in the senate, a strong lead in the house, and a progressive-lib president they had to resort to openly bribing their own democrook-party members to try to pass anything at all. How is any republican to blame for the 300 million Louisiana purchase, cornhusker-kickback, the 283 million bribe for Louise Slaughter (d-ny) to overlook vetrinary use of antibiotics. A biofuel tax, (which reid is trying to sneak through in the "jobs" bill. Anyone that reads the bill knows it's a democrazi grab for everything they can get, the people have figured it out, and the democrazis are trying to enlist the repubs to share the blame.

All last year the repubs couldn't stand in the way of a weak-fart, much less even get into a meeting about any bill the Dems wanted to pass. Yet:
1)you (and the messiah-in-chief) say the GOP stood in the way????? Please, explain that logic (and the math) to us. I smell a bullshit-spin-storm from the dems!
2)They locked the GOP out of the room for debate when they had a supermajority... now the public is whole-heartedly suspicious of much of their agenda as a result of the secret meetings, yet, they want the GOP to co-operate? What kind of stupidity is that?
3)No politicians give a crap about some BS petition... they will go forward with what [u]they[/u] want to do regardless of what the people they represent want. Get used to it... it's been going on since, well, Woodrow Wilson. Hell, they didn't give a damn about around 2 million 9/12 protesters in Washington... Any silly paper petition/letter is just going in the bin by the hand of some intern. your elected rep isn't even going to hear about it-
but knock yourself out if it makes you feel good.

The reason the dems want the GOP on board is that they don't want to own their own bills, and they don't want the voting public to blame only the Dems for force-feeding us some garbage 60%+ of the voting public is against. What idiot wants to go attend a bi-partisan meeting about a bill that won't ever pass without reconciliation? Even the repubs aren't dumb enough to go from the side supported by the majority of Americans... and a position they own, to the unpopular side supported by the dems?!?!? If the GOP has a functioning brain among the lot of them, they will tell obummer to shove his meeting, and tell him it's start-over, or unanimous opposition. When you are winning, and the underdog, why give an inch?

Block the nominees, and make him take recess appointments. obummers nominees are so flawed & corrupt they will give the conservative press many weeks of fodder. The dems did it to bush, why do they think they shouldn't get the same treatment? Remember al the dems hiding like a bunch of teenage-girls to avoid going on record for a vote during curious-george's admin?The general public is seemingly sick of political trickery like fake transparency, outright lying, pork-barrel-bribery, reconciliation, the blame-game, and recess appointments. obummer does an end run around congress, and the fate of the dems is sealed for 2010, and 2012.

Is this bipartisan on the part of your lovely democrat majority?????
ttp://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/white-house-says-reid-move-to-scrap-bipartisan-jobs-bill-doesnt-violate-presidents-push-for-a-new-bipartisan-spirit.html Bet you won't hear about the "our way or the highway" positions the dems actually take, while lying about bipartisanship.

[johnp]

[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' date='08 February 2010 - 09:59 AM' timestamp='1265641187' post='450382']
[quote name='lumpypoptarts' date='08 February 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1265614302' post='450305']
That fact that she was even nominated for vp doesn't make sense. I dont understand how someone can be in that position knowing less than the average person about the USA.
[/quote]

Well, she was a last ditch effort by the Republican party to gain popularity.... They said, "Oh shit, the Dems have a black guy... We need a woman VP!" They realized that people were ready to have either a black man for president or a woman for president, so they knew that made Obama's "Change" campaign even more attractive. Palin was their effort to throw something new into the mix as well... For example, I had several friends who voted for McCain just because of this: "I think I'd rather have a woman VP before we have a black president..." I tell you, racism and sexism still runs rampant... This is my philosophy now: Don't look at if they're a woman or a man, black or white, or if they're a Republican or Democrat... See where they personally stand on the issues that matter to you, and vote for them based on that. The party-bias crap is getting really out of hand, if you ask me... I liked how Obama talked about that at the Republican's Retreat...

Also, Republican's wanted to gain senior citizens' votes by having the old white guy to vote for... Also, I think it's safe to say that most old white people would also prefer a woman VP over a black president... I know my grandparents were like that, and all their friends... They say they're not racist, but they don't act like it... Guess it's just because they're old and "from the old days."

EDIT: If you can't tell, I'm not too crazy about the Republicans... But my feeling on Dems is they don't really have backbones. Once they grow backbones and show the Repubs a thing or two, then we'll be in business.
[/quote]

Just thought I'd point out, the Dem's weren't the only ones with "a black guy", and for what it's worth, Obama shares no solidarity with people whose ancestors endured slavery here under the good old red white and blue-his entire U.S. ancestry is white.
While I think Palin might would be electable what is frightening is whether she would just be more big government/globalist just like Obama or Bush (both of them) or Clinton. Also take care when blaming everything on Bush-it is true the downturn (which was inevitable perhaps) began under his watch, but it is equally true that it did not start until 2006-which is precisely when the Democrats took control of Congress. He didn't make the legislation allowing much of the insanity-they did. Did he read each bill before he signed it into law? I doubt it, but then again, it has been recently demonstrated that most of the Congressmen and Senators voting on bills couldn't be bothered to read them, either... so blame Bush for what he is to blame for, but there is PLENTY of blame on the DEM side of the aisle. Pots calling Kettles black.
What I fear is that our election system has been hijacked by those who own the media, etc. and trickling down, the parties themselves. Bush did not get re-elected because "Americans are just that stupid" but simply because the people have of late been getting (IMHO) manipulated by [someone]. They are forced by the parties (and whoever controls who they run) to choose between bad and worse these days all too often. The democrats are at fault for running a candidate who was not only boring to watch, but is remembered as a traitor by far too many voters who are still alive. So of course, voters held their noses and voted for his opponent, who at least [i]said[/i] the right things.

Likewise this election. On the conservative (and I'm bunching libertarians, anti-globalists such as myself, nationalists, etc together) side, there was no candidate running. A few looked possible as contenders but then bowed out due to upper echelon politics (in the Republican party) meanwhile media coverage almost guaranteed a vote for a third party would be wasted. This same coverage treated Mr. Obama as, well, the savior from all things "Bush".
Nevermind that Bush wasn't up for re-election. McCain? people in his own party won't vote for him. He has promised one thing to his constituents only to go "across the aisle" and support the views of their opponents all too often. Voters do not forget betrayal very well if they're actually paying attention. McCain was playing for the Democrat party almost as often, perhaps more often, than his own.
So voters who would have voted for a conservative or at least a candidate holding views holding his own country first....simply did not vote.
Polls have recently said the greater majority of Americans consider themselves to be "conservatives". If McCain were perceived as a conservative-he would have won by a landslide. Obama, in spite of having more spent on his campaign than any President in US history, still did not win by the enormous margin it follows that he should have.
I believe there are other powers at play-otherwise why have we had to either choose none-of-the-above and not vote or the lesser of two evils, for quite awhile now....

bad is not the solution to just-as-bad, IMHO and in spite of how it's played in the media, the voters know it.

There must be something intoxicating about the halls of power which goes to most politicians' heads... they start forgetting the citizens, and think they should rather start pleasing their opponents (in some desire of appearing magnanimous?) or even worse, citizens of other countries. I could care less if GERMANS love our president-or Russians-etc etc...so long as he is looking out for US, not seeking approval elsewhere. If he (or someday she) does this-and other nations like our President as well-such would be fine and good.

[StreetBob]

I find it amusing how the loons are still bitter and try to rewrite history.

[Tyler]

I for one hope that Luis Fortuño runs for GOP.

[newjacksm]

I see my self more libertarian then I do see my self republican. Eh I guess I am more right then left. But hell NO would I vote for Sarah Palin! She seems very unsuitable for the job, sort of like the guy we have in office now!

[Tyler]

[quote name='newjacksm' date='17 February 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1266463001' post='452058']
I see my self more libertarian then I do see my self republican. Eh I guess I am more right then left. But hell NO would I vote for Sarah Palin! [b]She seems very unsuitable for the job, sort of like the guy we have in office now!
[/b][/quote]


QFT

[Tyler]

I'll just leave this here: [url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll"]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll[/url]