Palin chosen as McCain's VP

Well there's one thing, the air today is dirtier than it has ever been - and we use more oil than we've ever used.

Now when you're dirty - is your solution to get more dirty - or to take a bath? You don't throw your suit in mud instead of taking it to the dry cleaners - you know what I'm saying? Regardless of global warming debates, it wouldn't hurt anybody to start cleaning up - in fact get this - air pollution deaths are now in excess of traffic accident deaths.

Global warming or not, our atmosphere is getting FUBAR right now, and we need to solve the problem instead of denying that we can ever make any change in it.

Second, oil resources are finite. We've not discovered any new major oil locations since the 1960s, and most curent sites are at or near maximum production. Tapping the few undrilled areas (the reserves, ANWAR, etc) would only provide a gnats hair's worth of help to the current situation. The only practical things to do would to either use less energy in the first place (which would solve this problem, as well as the associated air problems) or find alternative sources for fuel.

No what I'm saying is, Nader gets car companies to put seat belts in their cars, Barr writes in sunset clauses for the Patriot Act to protect Americans civil liberties - and Palin has done what for America? She governs a state with practically no people in it, and has done nothing for the U.S........

I see where you are coming from although I disagree, however, in contrast what has Nader done since his old days (past) of being a consumer advocate? Zero in my book unless you want to give him credit for what happened during the 2000 elections. On the issue of Barr all he is doing is pandering for the possible which is a big if 3% of the nationwide vote he could get this November. He changed his tune on the Patriot Act by doing a flip flop and now regrets that he even voted for it regardless of the sunset clause provisions. Hypocrisy at its best. :runaround:

Bob Barr on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMxekGcAyRA)


and if she ever were in a position of power, given her stances and ideas she would royally screw the U.S. for perhaps decades to come by making bad decisions in the present.

:rolleyes:

Sheer speculation. Plus she is running for VP not President. However, isn't that what they said about Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan? I can just hear the but what if McCain dies argument. :lol:


You're the one trying to make a case for this schmuck, you should be supporting your claims. She has a very naive understanding of the U.S. energy needs, and apparently lacks any long term vision for our country on this front. If McCain gets elected, the most useful thing he could do for this country is protect us from Palin's horrendously misguided and illogical ideas.

Would it really make a difference to you if I did. You're already written her off. :lol: I really don't need to since her record speaks for itself. You can look it up just as easy as I can. Regardless of its population Alaska has a FY20098 $11.2 billion dollar state budget and she manages over 15,000 state employees. Meaning she makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of at least 500,000 people in her state, and that impacts crucial issues of national economic interest including the average American such as the supply and cost of energy to the United States. She has direct hands on leadership and experience with the military. The Alaska National Guard, many of which are deployed to Iraq and other countries in the Middle East.

In contrast to Obama who makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of his campaign staff and a bunch of liberal media traveling journalists. Whoop dee dooooooo!!!!!!!

On the TransCanada Corp. issue they were the sole AGIA-compliant ( Alaska Gasline Inducement Act ) applicant/bidder out of the companies that supposedly bid. :eek: It would make sense to award a company such as TransCanada Pipelines a license to build and operate the $26-billion-dollar pipeline to ship natural gas from the North Slope to the Lower 48 United States. Why because it would be through Canada and the company knows what it is doing including the environmental aspects. So this is not looking out for the welfare of other Americans, increasing revenue for the State of Alaska and keeping our northern neighbors happy. Plus she battled the oil companies by taking them head on by helping pass a tax increase on oil company profits. I don't buy your free market economy and capitalism argument on her. :grinno:

Palin: No foe of oil - no patsy either (http://www.zimbio.com/pilot?ZURL=%2FBristol%2BPalin%2Farticles%2F504%2FS arah%2BPalin%2Bs%2BAccomplishments&URL=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2008%2F08%2F29%2F news%2Fnewsmakers%2Fpalin_oil.fortune%2F%3Fpostver sion%3D2008083009)


Once in office, Palin took an aggressive stance toward the oil companies. Her nickname from high-school basketball, "Sarah Barracuda," was resurrected in the press. Early in her term, she shocked oil lobbyists when she was so bold as to not show up when Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson came to Juneau to meet with her. Palin, after scrapping Murkowski's deal, would not give Big Oil the terms they wanted, yet insisted that the companies still had an obligation under their lease to deliver gas to whatever pipeline Alaska built. She invited the oil companies to place open bids to build a pipeline, but they refused. A bid by TransCanada, North America's largest pipeline builder, was approved by the legislature in August.

Palin also raised taxes on oil companies after Murkowski's previous tax regime produced falling revenues in 2007, despite skyrocketing oil prices. Alaska now has some of the highest resource taxes in the world. Alaska's oil tax revenues are expected to be about $10 billion in 2008, twice those of previous year. BP says about half its oil revenues now go to taxes, when royalty payments to the state are included. Earlier this week, Palin approved gas tax relief for Alaskans, and paid every resident $1,200 to help ease their fuel-price burden.


What about Barr and Nader? Your turn to convince me why I should vote for them. :rofl:

He changed his tune on the Patriot Act by doing a flip flop and now regrets that he even voted for it regardless of the sunset clause provisions. Hypocrisy at its best. :runaround:
Making a new decision based on new information is not hypocrisy. :loser:

Plus she is running for VP not President.

As I have already pointed out...:p

Would it really make a difference to you if I did. You're already written her off.

She has written herself off.

:lol: I really don't need to since her record speaks for itself. You can look it up just as easy as I can. Regardless of its population Alaska has a FY20098 $11.2 billion dollar state budget and she manages over 15,000 state employees. Meaning she makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of at least 500,000 people in her state, and that impacts crucial issues of national economic interest including the average American such as the supply and cost of energy to the United States. She has direct hands on leadership and experience with the military. The Alaska National Guard, many of which are deployed to Iraq and other countries in the Middle East.

Which means diddly squat to the rest of the United States, since most of us don't live in Alaska. Honestly? 500,000 people? The mayor of Denver's decisions effect more people, and he's not about to be nominated for VP.

What about Barr and Nader? Your turn to convince me why I should vote for them. :rofl:

Their records speak for themselves, they have more experience, and have done more for our country than Palin and McCain combined (and Obama combined too). Nader especially so has done more for the well being of the average American than any of the other candidates, probably in all likelihood he has done more than any president of the U.S. since T. Roosevelt for the safety and well-being of Americans.

Let's see here, Nader has likely saved millions of American lives - whereas Palin and McCain have - well uh - not saved millions of Americans lives.
Nader has started over two dozen non profit organizations - helping truckers, the disabled, the elderly, women's rights, etc. Whereas McCain and Palin have done what?
Nader - clean water act, OSHA, etc. - McCain and Palin?

The truth of the matter is that Nader has done a whole hell of a lot for this country, and continues to do a lot - whereas McCain and Palin have done essentially nothing for this country as regards the well being of the general populace.

Making a new decision based on new information is not hypocrisy. :loser:

The truth of the matter is that Nader has done a whole hell of a lot for this country, and continues to do a lot - whereas McCain and Palin have done essentially nothing for this country as regards the well being of the general populace.

:rolleyes:

It never ceases to amaze me. Still rambling on. :lol:

The real truth of the matter is Nader's track record of idiocy stands for itself. He knows nothing about domestic policy other than his vague anti-capitalist philosophy, knows nothing about foreign policy, knows nothing about politics or how to actually make policy. The only thing he knows is that Corvairs are bad cars. He is an egotistical old man and loser who can't stand being out of the limelight. And his followers are just as nutty. :screwy: You know as well as I do he doesn't even have a ghost of a chance of getting elected....period! and thats the bottom line. I only see one loser here. :loser:

You = Rambling.

How about some sources to back your rambling up?

How about some sources to back your rambling up?

Obviously you failed to read my prior posts. I already did and it appears to be waste of time with you. Have fun being in the category of loser in November. :loser:

And this was before the MCain/Palin uptick. :rofl:


Barr 5%, Nader 2%
Source: Zogby poll
August 30th, 2008

An online Zogby poll of 2,020 likely voters across the U.S. conducted August 29-30 (+/- 2.2%) shows Libertarian Bob Barr at five percent and independent Ralph Nader at two in a four-way race. Barr draws two percent of Democrats, four percent of Republicans, and 11 percent of independents; Nader draws one percent of Democrats, one percent of Republicans, and four percent of independents.

In the four-way race, Barack Obama takes 44%, John McCain 43%; but if Barr and Nader are omitted, McCain leads Obama, 47% to 45%.


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/lizzywiz/mccain_palin.jpg

You never presented any achievments of McCain & Palin that are greater than those contributions to Americans made by Nader or Barr.

Likely because there are none.

So how does being elected Governor automatically impart “direct hands on leadership and experience with the military”? Simple answer, it doesn't. A more thoughtful answer, it still doesn't. Palin has never so much as signed an executive order or legislation regarding the Guard and has not served. Her duties so far have been titular, not “direct hands on leadership and experience with the military” and I would shudder to see what would happen If she became president and really had to lead.

A more thoughtful answer is :meant: moot issue. The attacks on Palin are not working. The Obama campaign is rethinking its attack plan and talking points. The last time I checked they decided to concentrate the attack on McCain not Palin which is what really counts. I guess you did not get the message on that. But if you insist.

What direct hands on leadership or managerial experience with the military either Federal or State National Guard does Obama have or any real executive experience for that matter? Obviously less than Palin. :eek:...........:rofl:

Toting the party line and talking points. How original! :rolleyes: Leadership and managerial is one and the same. Whether she signed any executive orders or operational orders is in dispute. The only real issue in dispute is whether being Governor of Alaska and being the "Commander in Chief" of the Guard gives her any foreign policy experience by default. Get the facts straight.

I would shudder more to see Obama as "Commander in Chief". :grinyes:


Commanding the Alaska National Guard is hardly an insignificant job, military officials say. Still, they acknowledge that it provides little, if any, foreign policy experience.

Overseeing a state Guard is a "chief executive role" with real management responsibilities, said Mark Allen, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau, the federal office that coordinates state National Guards.

National Guard officials said visits such as Palin's trip to Iraq may be important because state officials can lobby the federal government for better training and more equipment if they are needed. There is no indication that during her trip Palin found major problems with how the Alaska Guard was trained or equipped.

Closer to home, the bread-and-butter duties of most state National Guards are natural disasters. During Palin's 21 months in office, there has been one declared disaster: widespread flooding in June and July this year. Palin quickly signed a disaster declaration, officials said. The Guard's role was limited to providing two water tanks and 30,000 sandbags to local authorities.

The Alaska Air National Guard, with 1,946 service members, is involved in an exceptional number of search-and-rescue missions. Since Palin became governor in December 2006, the Air Guard has flown 521 missions, saving 200 lives and assisting with the rescue of 77 more people, said Kalei Brooks, a spokeswoman for the Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.

"Our rescue squadron is the busiest in the nation," she said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-guard6-2008sep06,0,4238012.story



From the horse's mouth, the Alaska National Guard Adjutant General:


FOX

As governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin has commanded the Alaska National Guard. Joining us live is Major General Craig Campbell from the Alaska National Guard. Major General, tell me, how long have you known Governor Palin?

MAJ. GEN. CRAIG CAMPBELL, ALASKA NATIONAL GUARD: Governor Palin? For about 12 years.

VAN SUSTEREN: Now, what was her job as governor in terms of the National Guard? What was her -- what did she have to do as governor in relation to the Guard?

CAMPBELL: Yes. Governor Palin is in charge, the commander-in-chief for the Alaska National Guard, and she plays the same role that all governors in all 54 states and territories play, running and managing and operating the Guard day to day for the states that they're responsible for.

I'll tell you, in the last few days, I've been watching the press, and I've not been very pleased with what I've been seeing about the chastising of the National Guard by having it diminished by the insinuation that a commander-in-chief of the National Guard doesn't really control the military. The National Guard has 500,000 people in it around this great country, serving in states and overseas. National Guards are state military forces run by governors, and Sarah Palin does it great.

VAN SUSTEREN: Now, I understand -- I was doing a little research. We've been coming through everything we can find out about the governor. I understand that she went to Kuwait a year ago to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard. By any chance, did you go with her, or do you know anything about that trip?

CAMPBELL: I did not, but I do know about the trip because right after she got elected, when she was sworn in as governor, one of the first things at one of our briefings, she asked me, Where are our soldiers deployed, and how can I go see them? I told her they were in Kuwait. She asked to go. We worked with the Pentagon and got her over there. And the key result of that was when she came home to Alaska, she brought ideas about what soldiers' desires were, what family needs were, and implemented those into law the following year. That's what a commander-in-chief does, is take care of soldiers and airmen, and she does it exceptionally well.

Click here (http://msunderestimated.com/2008/09/05/ak-national-guard-maj-gen-campbell-on-palin-video/)



I'm a little confused on why you support Palin. Let me see if I have this straight.....


I'm confused as to why you support Obama. :confused:

1) He does not have any significant experience on foreign policy or economic policy.

2) He does not have any executive experience.

3) Palin has some executive experience which is more than Obama.

4) Palin is not a socialist wealth redistributionist toward big government like Obama.

5) Palin has no racist churches, Islamic or Black Liberation Theology in her personal and political support and upbringing.

6) Palin has no domestic terrorists in her past.

7) Obama had to get a McCain-like person to be his VP (Biden) to gain some foreign policy credentials. Somebody who voted for the war.

8) Obama has accomplished very little as a US Senator. Name any major thing he did as US Senator?


In closing other than carrying on your party's talking points aka rhetoric which is clearly misplaced you have no understanding of what a Governor does relative the State's National Guard whether it is in a state role or when called up to Federal duty. For example we just completed getting the New Jersey National Guard trained for deployment to Iraq. The Governor of New Jersey the Honorable Jon S. Corzine (D) visited his troops here back in August. We had a big dog and pony show as a result. Now why would he do that if he was not in charge of his state's national guard under his direct or indirect control. See press release at link below.

Click here (http://www.newjersey.gov/governor/news/news/2008/approved/20080801a.html)

Not that I'm taking sides...., but on the topic of applicable experience just out of curiosity... I wonder how many times a governor gets to vote "present" when it comes time to make difficult decisions? Seems to be a luxury that a lot of senators take advantage of.

I was preparing to make a post but Bob you pretty much cleared it up on post #69. :lol: Well done.

I'm confused as to why you support Obama. :confused:

1) He does not have any significant experience on foreign policy or economic policy.

And what exactly does Palin or McCain have over him on that? Other than McCain voting for a war that's killed thousands of Americans? (because getting Americans killed is a good thing apparently) Or arguing with Rumsfield over just how many more Americans should be sent into harms way?

2) He does not have any executive experience.

3) Palin has some executive experience which is more than Obama.

This is really kind of one point not two, for all practical intents and purposes Palin has nil experience either.

4) Palin is not a socialist wealth redistributionist toward big government like Obama.

Prove it.:rofl:

5) Palin has no racist churches, Islamic or Black Liberation Theology in her personal and political support and upbringing.

In practical terms how would this effect anything for any of us? Also, prove it. You're really grabbing at thin air here.

6) Palin has no domestic terrorists in her past.

Again is there any practical effect? Or are you just really desperate?

7) Obama had to get a McCain-like person to be his VP (Biden) to gain some foreign policy credentials. Somebody who voted for the war.

Ones for the war, the others for the war - what's the difference, other than you like one and not the other?:lol:

8) Obama has accomplished very little as a US Senator. Name any major thing he did as US Senator?


Name any major thing McCain or Palin has done? They couldn't even out do goody two shoes Nader. That's a pretty dismal record!:lol2:
If you want to talk about doing good for this country, Biden, Obama, McCain and Palin are all neck and neck for being thoroughly useless.

McCain has had a lot of good intentions - but he keeps tripping over his own party as the republicans race to get their heads up their own asses faster than the democrats. The result being - no results - he's done practically nothing for the country other than to try to be well meaning.

Take for instance his want to increase anti smoking ads, or reduce green house gasses - shot down by his own party. He did however sponsor the federalization of airport security - because the republicans are so against big government (yeah, my ass).

If McCain grew a set of balls and ditched Palin, he'd have my vote in an instant.

And what exactly does Palin or McCain have over him on that? Other than McCain voting for a war that's killed thousands of Americans? (because getting Americans killed is a good thing apparently)<--- :screwy:

McCain and Palin held their beliefs on the Iraq War regardless of the reasons we got in to it and are willing to see it through so maybe the 4157 service members that gave the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq to date over the past 5 years will not have died in vain and once the Iraqis get their act together they will have a real democracy. Not nice to make ridiculous comments or trivialize their deaths. :nono: You might wait until the final chapters in the history books are written before passing judgment. In contrast and looking back on history what about the 58,000 American troops that died in Vietnam under predominantly Democratic watch. :eek:

At least McCain and Palin are fairly consistent in their ideology and beliefs. Whereas flip flop Obama? He sold out his liberal supporters just to get nominated and now supports the troop surge.


Yet Obama has voted for all of the president's war funding requests since coming to the Senate, and is poised to vote in favor of the latest request when it comes to the Senate floor this spring. Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/



AP
Thurs., Sept. 4, 2008
LANCASTER, Pa. - Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Thursday that the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq, which he had opposed, has succeeded in reducing violence "beyond our wildest dreams."

Earlier Thursday, in taping a segment for Fox's "O'Reilly Factor," Obama said the surge of U.S. troops has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26550764



If McCain grew a set of balls and ditched Palin, he'd have my vote in an instant.

Yeah sure. :rolleyes: You vote for McCain and Republican? Thats a good laugh. :rofl:

:bs:

Obviously you are a liberal and do not have an ounce of conservative in your bones! :runaround:

And your buddy Nader is a moron that needs to be put out to pasture.

If McCain grew a set of balls and ditched Palin, he'd have my vote in an instant.

It's funny you say that. When I first found out that McCain was running for office, I thought to myself how crazy it was that I might actually be voting for a republican. I always had the utmost respect for McCain, and his ability to work with democrats to get things done and improve our country. His moderate stances on taxes, abortion, and environmentalism were very encouraging and refreshing for a repub. But then he announced his candidacy, and he started to flip. And THEN he flopped. And then he zig zagged and pitched and dove until he became the god damned token republican candidate, devoid of the identity that made him so appealing, even to admittedly liberal voters like myself.

And Palin...oh man Palin. She is the most fake, misrepresentative, least substantive, and downright ridiculous candidate that I could conceive of. Any possibility of me voting for McCain went straight down the toilet with the announcement of the asshole that is Sarah Palin. I guess you really can't become president without being a partisan politician these days, something that I find to be truly sad. If only we still had the John McCain of 5 years ago...maybe paired with Michael Bloomberg. If only...:banghead:

Looks like Bnaylor's bought into the party line hook, line, and sinker. So much for individual thought, just another Republican sheep heading off to the slaughter.

Digby puts it well when discussing the womens point of view:

This is one of the things that is making liberal women crazy about Palin. They recognize that her achievement to become governor of a conservative state and a GOP VP candidate represents the fruits of a couple of generations of feminists who fought for her right to be there. And yet her political principles would have ensured the opposite. I guess when you open doors you can't guarantee that everyone who walks through them deserves to, but it's galling nonetheless.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/feminist-icon-by-digby-sarah-palin-was.html

Bnaylor's a ramblin' man.:icon16:

You're just upset because the people you like don't do anything good for the country.

As for McCain and Palin holding their beliefs on the war - you know eventually even the Catholics conceded the Earth was round. :grinyes:

FYI, I generally vote Rep. on the local and state level. I'm a pretty reserved person granted, and so typically am more swayed towards the right side of things than the left. But I'm not blind, I can see the facts about air pollution - and anybody can write them off - but it doesn't change the fact of the matter. I know oil is a finite resource - and anybody can say it isn't - but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

McCain isn't stupid, he sees there is a problem too. Unfortunately he's paired with a complete clod who thinks that oil is the answer the shrinking oil supplies, and that man made pollution is not an issue, despite the fact that more people die from air pollution each year than from auto accidents.:shakehead

Bnaylor's a ramblin' man.:icon16:

You're just upset because the people you like don't do anything good for the country.

Kids, do you want to get along? As far as I have seen from both sides, regardless of what I think, each has done their part in presenting their side. Though there were times I thought that a statement could have been presented better on someone's part and/or was presented to appear fact when in fact was an opinion, each person was presenting their side of the debate. I enjoy thoroughly reading these debates as I believe it gives an equilibrium to our ideologies. However, that sounds like something I would hear from a 3rd grader who was arguing the fact of whether or not the color blue is cool. While one the same side, I don't know if I would have written, "you will be in the losers section" (rough translation), but at least that is a true hold fact. Go ahead and find something that should be omit that was posted by me, as I am sure anyone can do hear as they have no problem expressing that about anyone else. I would just say, try to express yourself in a way in which you sound credible.

I'm just taking his words and spitting them back at him.:tongue:

He says I'm rambling when I bring up observations of practical work done by the candidates for the United States - but he can't seem to bring up any major contributions to our society from his own favorites.

So in short, Palin, McCain, Obama and Biden have done nothing of importance for us compared to Nader (and maybe even Barr).
You can say what you want about Palin's near total lack of experience, or McCain's good intention but failure to deliver, or Obama, etc. - but practical results are really the only thing that matter.

Bnaylor's a ramblin' man.:icon16:

You're just upset because the people you like don't do anything good for the country.

:shakehead

If you want to play childish games continue rambling on. I'm all ears. :tongue:


FYI, I generally vote Rep. on the local and state level. I'm a pretty reserved person granted, and so typically am more swayed towards the right side of things than the left. But I'm not blind, I can see the facts about air pollution - and anybody can write them off - but it doesn't change the fact of the matter. I know oil is a finite resource - and anybody can say it isn't - but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

Based on that oxymoronic explanation you're more of an enigma than I originally thought. :lol: Regardless, from what I see you are not a true Conservative/Republican so it doesn't make sense why you vote Republican or shift more to the right than left. More like a confused wannabe but if I were in your shoes I would rethink my political ideology or identity. :2cents:

So what do you think? Is it wrong for McCain to give more precedence to the facts about energy and air pollution, than to his party which maintains there is no problem?:confused:

I don't see what's wrong with respecting a man for not being blind.

I also think you should spend less time writing about nothing, and maybe bring up some practical solid reasons why you're voting for McCain - instead of just resorting to that he's less worse than Obama.:tongue:

:shakehead

If you want to play childish games continue rambling on. I'm all ears. :tongue:



Based on that oxymoronic explanation you're more of an enigma than I originally thought. :lol: Regardless, from what I see you are not a true Conservative/Republican so it doesn't make sense why you vote Republican or shift more to the right than left. More like a confused wannabe but if I were in your shoes I would rethink my political ideology or identity. :2cents:

There are people who don't vote strictly along party lines...hard to believe, I know. Some of us vote for who we think is going to make the world a better place regardless of political association, rather than what letter they have behind their name in parentheses on CNN.:uhoh:

I also think you should spend less time writing about nothing, and maybe bring up some practical solid reasons why you're voting for McCain - instead of just resorting to that he's less worse than Obama.:tongue:

:shakehead

I could really care less what you think and I don't have to justify to you or anyone else the whys or who I vote for. I vote for the Republican Party based on my political beliefs, ideology, upbringing, way of life, education, and social views. And from what I can see unlike you or others stay consistent in that. Unfortunately the reality of politics and life in this country is we have a two party system that has been with us for a while and here to stay. If you can't accept that fact then that is not my problem. Go ahead and piss away your vote on Nader.

So basically you vote for who you do because you don't care. If you're only justification for voting for McCain is that he's republican - that's really, really sad. More so because he's broken with the party on many issues in the past, and will probably do so in the future.

Don't tell me I'm pissing away my vote when the only reason you vote for the people you do is because they're the same brand you always use.

There are people who don't vote strictly along party lines...hard to believe, I know. Some of us vote for who we think is going to make the world a better place regardless of political association, rather than what letter they have behind their name in parentheses on CNN

Some of us, remarkably, aren't the kinds of people who only wear one size fits all clothing, or go to a buffet just because we want four servings of french fries. Some of us utilize our freedom of choice, and put it to good use.
Voting for one party, and only for the people within one party is as stupid as buying everything in your house from one store.:2cents:

:rofl:

And KustmAce, it's HILARIOUS! Didn't you get a kick out of all those millions of pictures that made fun of George Bush? The ones that made him look like a monkey etc? And all the skits played out to make fun of him? Give me a break...

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1130/big983420wp6.jpg http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3280/big978002cm0.jpg

Wow this thread took a turn.

So many threads about this election, maybe we could keep each on its titled topic? Hm?

BACK ON TRACK:

The more I have been reading about Palin lately, the scarier she is turning out to be. Like a Cheney reincarnate.

Oh so many things to talk about:

-Troopergate. It is disconcerning to me that a gubernatorial candidate rallies on the "hold me accountable" cry, and then when it comes time to hold her accountable, she, and all her people, back away. No one has showed up to the hearings. Even her own husband ignored his subpoena. Hey, that sets a really good example for America. If I think the charges are baloney, I'll just ignore the subpoena. If she is innocent, why are they delaying the investigation? Why is no one testifying? She is corrupt.

-Forcing a library to ban books she deems objectionable? And then trying to fire the librarian when she says no? The is reform? Thanks...but no thanks...

-"I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that Bridge to Nowhere,"

Really? Did you now? Seems to me you lobbied hard for it. Seems to me once it started taking flak, you flopped, turned on your fellow supporters, and denounced them as porkbarrel spenders. Seems to me, you didn't give the money back either...

-And how about the $15 million dollar hockey rink. Maverick huh? I guess it takes a maverick to break ground on a site that doesn't even belong to you yet. Takes a maverick to drive up the cost additional millions in court fees. Now, what were you guys saying about how shes fought pork spending?

-Speaking of pork spending, how about the thousands she spent on giving her office a make over. Unapproved.

-Finally, why is the GOP keeping her so quiet? Why hasnt she addressed any of these issues? What in the hell is she hiding? Or is it because every interview she has done, she looks like a complete, and utter, idiot.

I can and will cite all of this information on request. I don't do it right away because the blind right-wingers will denounce any article that criticizes any republican in any way as "biased liberal media", so it seems rather moot to provide any sources.

And I am sure that someone, actually I am pretty sure I know exactly who, will just declare that I am spouting biased liberal left wing talking points. But open your eyes man. This shit really happened. She did these things. She is a liar, she is a crook, she double-crossed her own party and supporters, many times. She is NOT a reformer. She is NOT a maverick. All she is, is a master of spin. That is all.

-Finally, why is the GOP keeping her so quiet? Why hasnt she addressed any of these issues? What in the hell is she hiding? Or is it because every interview she has done, she looks like a complete, and utter, idiot.

Where have you been? Isn't there a debate between Biden and Palin coming up? She was in New York last week with the United Nations. What about the interviews with Katie Couric and CBS? No worse than "put your foot in your mouth" Biden. :lol:



I can and will cite all of this information on request. I don't do it right away because the blind right-wingers will denounce any article that criticizes any republican in any way as "biased liberal media", so it seems rather moot to provide any sources.

:rolleyes:

The problem is anything you could post up to support your position comes from the liberal media or similar sources so what do you expect. But if you insist bring it on!


And I am sure that someone, actually I am pretty sure I know exactly who, will just declare that I am spouting biased liberal left wing talking points. But open your eyes man. This shit really happened. She did these things. She is a liar, she is a crook, she double-crossed her own party and supporters, many times. She is NOT a reformer. She is NOT a maverick. All she is, is a master of spin. That is all.

Sure sounds like liberal left wing talking points to me. No better or worse than Obama. :thumbsdow

Where have you been? Isn't there a debate between Biden and Palin coming up? She was in New York last week with the United Nations. What about the interviews with Katie Couric and CBS? No worse than "put your foot in your mouth" Biden. :lol:

Exactly the reply I expected. Where have I been? I have been waiting for her to speak up. She has done TWO public interviews now. Wow. Biden has done what now, 80 since being nominated? No BNaylor, it is much worse that put-your-foot-in-your-mouth Biden.



:rolleyes:

The problem is anything you could post up to support your position comes from the liberal media or similar sources so what do you expect. But if you insist bring it on!

HAHAHAHAHA. Thats the most blatantly blind ludicrous right wing rhetoric I have ever heard. "Anything that supports your position comes from liberal media" :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Ok then, what sources are not "left-wing". Ill cite these stories from there, because like I said, this isnt the left wing propaganda, these are true.



Sure sounds like liberal left wing talking points to me. No better or worse than Obama. :thumbsdow

Is that it? I keep scrolling down hoping you have written more. I thought you would have addressed my points. :smooch:

HAHAHAHAHA. Thats the most blatantly blind ludicrous right wing rhetoric I have ever heard. "Anything that supports your position comes from liberal media" :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Ok then, what sources are not "left-wing". Ill cite these stories from there, because like I said, this isnt the left wing propaganda, these are true.

My vision is 20/20 and I was old enough to vote in the last election. :tongue:

Instead of copping out post what you have. Don't expect us right wingers to do the work for you. :shakehead

My vision is 20/20 and I was old enough to vote in the last election. :tongue:

Instead of copping out post what you have. Don't expect us right wingers to do the work for you. :shakehead

HA! All your telling me is there are no media sources that you wouldn't call "liberal".

Well Kustm, I propose you post up your sources and let everyone decide. It is pretty obvious who is a more liberal source and who is a more conservative source of information. And to be honest, that is a fair concern to see your sources when you do in fact have not a conservatice idea that I have ever seen you post. Which if you are 100% lib across the board that is fine, it's your choice. We'd just like to see where the sources are coming from.