Sarah Palin spoke as eloquently as Obama but with knowledge and conviction and a poise and ease of presence that neither opposing candidate can ever expect to command. She was hard hitting and confident. She made an exciting and superbly convincing speech defining why she is the best vice presidential candidate and why the McCain ticket should go to the White House Let us see if she holds up in a one on one debate or responding to the media. I expect she will do well.
Oral Exam, Part II
-
Posted By: sampeters @ 09/04/2008 4:54:59 AM
-
Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/04/2008 8:48:40 AM
What did she say other than bashes against the Dems? Really? And how she didn't have a chef while governor...nothing of substance. Plus, on the superficial side, her nasaly whiny voice makes me want to claw my ears!
-
Posted By: HolyRoller @ 09/04/2008 9:01:40 AM
Clawing your ears, is a side effect of Kool-Aide O.D.
NOBAMA!!!
-
-
Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 09/04/2008 8:43:10 AM
she will be debating Biden and he's easy to debate!! He thinks everyone thinks like him and on his "side" except stupid people... which makes HIM stupid. I've listen to him talk for years... he refused to allow real crime control to proceed until everyone agreed that gun control was the best national policy to counter crime. Meanwhile everyone could keep getting robbed, beat, broke into or shoot and stabbed by vicious criminals at large which Biden was content to leave at large!
On his watch, legitimate crime control got means tested and debated to oblivion, but gun control schemes and scams of dubious worth (and often PROVEN worthlessness) got a free pass.
This is a viscous a$$ hole as all the while Americans were being hurt who might otherwise have been spared from being crime victims!
When he debates he will be confident in his narrow vision being perceived by Americans as "intellectual."
Biden is a moose in Sarah Palins headlights.
-
-
Posted By: RiversideWarrior @ 09/03/2008 1:00:37 PM
Has anyone noticed the difference in composition of those delegates actually attending the RNC and DNC conventions? The RNC version appears to be over 90% white and wealthy-attired. The DNC version seemed to have people from every color and background. The contrast is startling to me. One version seems to show our present and future, the other is a throwback to the past.
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 1:49:41 PM
I wonder if some were positioned there for the photo op.
-
Posted By: AskPlus @ 09/03/2008 1:52:44 PM
Why can't you just admit the truth. Old, rich, white, righteous, mean.
-
Posted By: Pallisor @ 09/04/2008 8:59:50 AM
And why can't you just admit the truth - you can't stand elderly, wealthy, white, and of course, anyone who is religious, as they must me righteous and mean.
-
-
Posted By: RiversideWarrior @ 09/03/2008 2:04:08 PM
It would have been tough to manufacture because i was looking at the more wide-angle shots of both conventions to obtain a better sampling of the crowd. The contrast is pretty stark between the two, something that may have ramifications come November.
-
-
-
Posted By: bosco123 @ 09/03/2008 11:49:03 AM
that deficet that socialist love to speak about is not entirely all his fault. what does the dolli-obama like to preach? 12 billion dollars a month to fight this war? come on, I for one thank president Bush for protecting my family for 7 years. freedon isnt free
-
Posted By: AskPlus @ 09/03/2008 11:56:11 AM
He protected your families oil companies in a useless war. The killers still roam free. And that was free.
-
Posted By: bosco123 @ 09/03/2008 11:59:36 AM
if hiding in a cave eating bugs is roaming free i guess that analogy is correct
-
Posted By: AskPlus @ 09/03/2008 4:26:34 PM
The sad part is that you actually used what you just wrote as a reply.
-
Posted By: Pallisor @ 09/04/2008 8:38:56 AM
bosco123 is dead on.
Your reply is the best you can do?
-
-
-
-
Posted By: brinder @ 09/03/2008 12:03:37 PM
Protecting your family from what exactly??? Do you honestly perceive some threat from Iraq or Saddam?
-
Posted By: urbanad @ 09/03/2008 12:10:37 PM
He has protected my family by keeping the terrorists away from America. Fighting them somewhere else and not letting them regroup to find someother way to attack America.
-
Posted By: mcgreen @ 09/03/2008 9:17:00 PM
He's protected your family from being overwhelmed by the improved lifestyle you might have had if our tax dollars weren't all being sent to Halliburton to pay their high dollar contractors and all the myriad of other very rich defense contractor firms reaping that 12 billion dollars a month.
You wouldn't want your kids overwhelmed with a better education, or a good job when they graduate. Better to keep it simple and stay happy. -
Posted By: brinder @ 09/03/2008 12:20:11 PM
Oh please. Look closer at the evidence. What terrorists were grouped in Iraq in 2003? Current intelligence reports that the number of active terrorist cells has gone up not down since then. So I repeat, in what way did war in Iraq help us?
-
Posted By: urbanad @ 09/03/2008 12:29:44 PM
So you are telling us that you read or have read intelligence reports since 9/11/01? I would like to know where you are getting your "intelligence reports", and breaking the law by discussing their content on a civillian blog. This nonesense is exactly why the american people are so missinformed. I love my goverment and I trust that they are reading REAL intelligence reports. By the way, the government does not share everything from those reports with the media.
-
Posted By: brinder @ 09/03/2008 12:40:23 PM
Actually, information on summarized intelligence, i.e. casualty counts, total spending, GENERALIZED TERRORIST ACTIVITY, is not classified. And has been used by the current administration to measure and publicize progress (or lack thereof).
-
Posted By: cajan @ 09/03/2008 1:02:47 PM
With you comments I can understand why no one asked you for input.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bosco123 @ 09/03/2008 12:10:02 PM
no sadam is dead and we are winning in Iraq.
-
Posted By: brinder @ 09/03/2008 12:15:54 PM
Do you mean that while he was alive, Saddam was a threat to your family? If so, you believe he had the means to hit us here? What does "winning" mean? What exactly was the point of attacking there? If there was a point, how do we know when we achieve it? Mr. Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" years ago. What does that mean?
-
Posted By: bosco123 @ 09/03/2008 12:31:49 PM
ok a little history lesson. I was in the first Gulf war. when Iraq invaded a little country Kuwait. that war never ended . we were in a cease firing position. everyday Iraq violated that cease fire agreement under president Clintons watch. when president Bush took office we were attacked on Sept. 11,2001
Iraq has always been known for training terrorist organizations. not to mention he had wmd's.
dont take my word it. Take a trip to your local vets hospital. you can and will meet men and women reduced to a vegatable state; sure he may not have had a nuke. however bio and chemical are just as much a wmd . AGAIN INSTEAD OF BUYING INTO THE SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA SEE IT FIRST HAND!-
Posted By: brinder @ 09/03/2008 12:48:24 PM
In the first gulf war, Saddam was successfully neutered by a meaningful coalition of allied forces. Thank you for your help in accomplishing that. Doesn't change that fact the at the time of the invasion, Saddam was still a whipped dog that wasn't even in full control of all of his territory. Without WMD of any kind, let alone the ability to delivery any if he had it. There were no ties to any fundamentalist terror groups. In fact, such groups were as much a threat to him as to us. So, I have to ask again, how has occupation of Iraq helped our country.
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 1:22:49 PM
It will unify a middle eastern country under a democratically elected government in joining the battle against jihadists who seek the destruction of the US and our allies. The rights guaranteed Iraqi citizens will set a standard that puts pressure on Iran to reform its non-secular government known for oppression (hanging gays, stoning women to death for ethics violations). The removal of Saddam cuts off a major funding source to the families of palestinian suicide bombers who target Israel (meaning that Saddam's regime was a state sponsor or terrorists, by the way).
There may have been little evidence that Saddam had WMD's, but there was little evidence proving that he didn't possess them either. That's where Saddam failed to turn over evidence to the inspectors to account for the materials they had origianlly claimed to possess. Saddam used WMDs in the war against Iran in the 1980s and against the Kurds after the 1st Gulf War in the 1990s.-
Posted By: brinder @ 09/03/2008 2:28:13 PM
I understand that that was the stated intent of the invasion, however, it has yet to nor is it likely to come to pass, notwithstanding our efforts. In other words, it was misguided. That Saddam was a criminal is a fact. However, there is not unified democratic Iraq now, and unlikely will ever be without another dictator. Funding for palestinian terrorist still flows in from Iran, as it always has. Our presence in Iraq has strengthened Iran's position in the region, and emboldened it to thumb their noses in our face. I see nothing that indicates we are in a better place viz a viz our influence in that troubled region in the world.
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 3:35:58 PM
Uless there is a coupe or another country invades iraq, the people will work out their differences enough for us to go home (sooner than later). But they are already engaged in the battle against terrorism, and will continue to do so after our troops go home.
-
Posted By: elizabethpaige @ 09/03/2008 5:08:16 PM
Sept. 11, 2001 to Sept. 3, 2008, seven years - where is Osama bin Laden? Apparently he's in Pakistan.
McCain and Palin will have to go in to Pakistan to get him.
Pro Life Palin is mighty handy with a rifle against defenceless wildlife and McCain counts his 5 1/2 years as a knows how to win wars, if you consider his 5 1/2 years as a POW a 'win'.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bosco123 @ 09/03/2008 12:52:05 PM
mission accomlished means that the military accomplished there main objective.giving the Iraqi people a chance at determining there own fate. I think the way you can measure success now is when the Iaqi's feel they no longer need us to assist in fighting there battles. which btw we are starting to here that calling.
iraqi wants us to stand down in 2010. thats the date they feel thay will be ready. of course as long as the situation merits (there words) I dont believe that it was a useless wars, however I am with you lets win and go home
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/03/2008 11:51:46 AM
Joining republicans to vote against bad bills is not the same as voting for bad bills. Like the one the democrats are pushing now that will eliminate secret ballots in union elections.
How American is that? I wouldn't want anyone to know how I vote.
I can only assume that this is an example of the kind of "change" we could expect with the democrats controlling both the Congress and the Executive branch.-
Posted By: AskPlus @ 09/03/2008 11:55:05 AM
The only fixed elections are the product of Rep bill passed in 2000. Why lie? The Dems wanted every vote counted locally, nationally and overseas. There are more progressive thinkers in those demographic.
-
Posted By: Pallisor @ 09/04/2008 8:35:27 AM
BS... the dems did NOT want every vote counted! They did everything they could to get Florida's votes counted before the military vote arrived. Stop crying, the election was not 'fixed".
-
Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/03/2008 12:32:11 PM
Go check out HR800. No more secret ballots. This is a bill the democrats are pushing that will become law if Obama is elected.
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 1:09:28 PM
I agree...go check out that bill. This opens up voters to harassment, hostility, and fear of reprisal.
-
Posted By: AskPlus @ 09/03/2008 4:25:05 PM
Okay. What "secret" ballot?
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: mccainsupporter @ 09/04/2008 8:29:30 AM
Governor Sarah Palin supports John McCain in the fight against terrorism and his support for our efforts and the surge in Iraq.
Some Democratic leaders including Obama but not Joe Leiberman have asked what have we accomplished in Iraq? John McCain was right in his support for the Iraq surge. Iraq today is in relative peace and is no longer hostile to the United States. Iraq is currently producing two and a half million barrels of oil a day and is capable of producing four and half million barrels a day. At $120 one hundred and twenty dollars a barrel Iraq has current oil revenues of $300 three hundred million dollars a day. Those revenues can grow to $500 million dollars a day with increased production. Thanks to the John McCain support of the war and the surge $300 million dollars a day are not being funneled to enemies of the United States to support terrorism around the world and to buy missiles and nuclear weapons that can be used against the United States. With an income stream of three hundred million dollars a day, Iraq was capable of purchasing hundreds of nuclear weapons. Our current progress with North Korea on nuclear issues is a result of cutting off the money flow and purchase of missiles and nuclear technology from North Korea to Iraq.
-
Posted By: mccainsupporter @ 09/04/2008 8:29:04 AM
Democratic leadership under Barack Obama wanted to cut and run in Iraq just before the surge and today just as Democratic leadership wanted to cut and run in Vietnam before our 1200 POWs came home in 1973. John McCain realizes he would not be here today if the Democratic leadership had their way back in 1972. Because he spent early years in Indonesia, Barack Obama may not be the Democratic Presidential candidate today but for our efforts in Vietnam in 1972. Richard Nixon a former Navy officer who served before John McCain years in the Navy understood that North Vietnam never returned any of the captured French POWs after their defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Only the week long bombings of Hanoi including Christmas day in 1972 with our B52 bombers finally convinced North Vietnam that we wanted our 1200 POWs back now. The bombings also convinced the South Vietnamese that we would support them in the future under the Paris Peace Talks agreement. Although the United States lost in Vietnam are efforts there gave other countries time to develop their fragile democracies. Indonesia today is a democratic country today that is friendly to the United States and has a population of nearly two hundred million people, the fourth largest in the world. Barack Obama spent his early childhood in Indonesia attending school with his mother and step-father during the time of the Vietnam War. It has been reported that the former President of Indonesia stated that our efforts in Vietnam although we lost allowed Indonesia to fight off communism and develop as a democratic country. Our efforts in Vietnam bought Indonesia time. Barack Obama could have been caught up in a communist insurrection in Indonesia during his early childhood if the United States had cut and run and had not tried to slow or stop a rapid North Vietnam takeover of South Vietnam. All of Southeast Asia including Indonesia could have rapidly gone Communist if the United States did not at least make a stand to resist the rapid expansion of communism and stand by our ally South Vietnam. Ironicallly both John McCain and Barack Obama would not be the men they are today and John McCain would not be here if we had followed Democratic leadership to cut and run in Vietnam before our POWs were returned.
-
Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 09/04/2008 7:51:07 AM
it's funny i watched the speech on cnn and would flip to msnbc and fox after ir all was said a done all 3 major news networks said that she did a great job on the speech and that she is going to be a tough v.p. canidate for joe biden to debate ! but here on the leftist liberal blog they say she more or less failed one even claimed that he/she was a republican that will now vote for obama because of the palin speech give me a break !! she did great on the speech but she still has many more tasks to go through before she will be accepted by the american public as a contender but she did great and obama said so and so did biden ! so all you left wing liberal nuts go pound salt and get ready for the pit bull w/lipstick !!
-
Posted By: LudwigVanBeet @ 09/03/2008 7:42:07 PM
Just watched Charles Gibson interviewing McCain. I am a registered Independant. I am telling you that there is something deranged about McCain, even his eyes looked crazy. Check for yourself. He told Charlie that Palin was more qualified then Pawlenty, Romney or Ridge, The man is crazy as a loon.
-
Posted By: fishergran @ 09/03/2008 8:58:33 PM
Ludwig,
I agree with you that John McCain seems deranged these days. I am 71 years old myself and I know many people my age who are still quite with it mentally. I also have friends who are losing it and have difficulty keeping facts straight and keeping coherent thoughts during a conversation. I believe John McCain fits the latter group. His not knowing how many homes they own, mixing up Sunnis and Shias (when he has been to Iraq so many times), having to check with campaign aides to get a response to his views on insurance payments for birth control pills, (that was also his reply about the houses) indicate to me that he is having great difficulty keeping his thoughts together. Also, I see him aging before our eyes. He is slower, walks in more of a stoop, seems to have difficulty walking sometimes and other signs of rapid aging. Now he has picked an unknown as his VP running mate who is a radical far right conservative and who might end up being the President sooner rather than later. This woman didn't even know what a vice president does all day. Does that indicate someone ready to govern? Has she not been following Bush/Chen ey all these 8 years? Cheney has been practically running the whole government. Why would she not have noticed? It scares me to think that there are many Americans out there who think these two are capable of being the next President and Vice President in these dangerous times. Neither of these people understand the danger the present to this country. God help us if they win.-
Posted By: Pallisor @ 09/04/2008 7:40:11 AM
Cheney has been practically running the whole government? You are deranged. And being deranged, you have have no memory and have forgotten why McCain walks the way he does. The rest of your nonsense isn't worth commenting on.
-
-
-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 09/04/2008 1:57:00 AM
Palin will be the first woman VP of the US. Count on it! Bama and Biden are scared. HaHa. Keep your change to Raise those taxes Obama and have tea with Chavez from Venezuela chump!
-
Posted By: Marvin11 @ 09/04/2008 1:32:23 AM
Palin's speech may resonate with the emotion and confidence of someone who talks to the world as if she is talking to a small town - because she's from a very small town and has frankly never been cut down to size by living in a larger metropolis of millions of people like many Americans - and the reality is she lacks the gravitas, foreign policy experience, and national experience to protect the welfare of 301,139,947 people.
Any high school teenager who has no concept of his or her vulnerability in the world (because he's never been out there, let alone out of the state) could have delivered that speech confidently.
Palin simply has no concept of the scope of what is at stake. If she did, she couldn't possibly even accept the position in good faith. There are thousands of Americans who have more foreign policy experience than Palin. And she doesn't have the support of international leaders like Obama has, two national bestselling books discussing domestic and international issues like Obama has, and even a graduate degree for that matter.
Senator Obama was very gracious when he urged people to leave Palin's family out of the public square. He was very gracious when he said on 60 Minutes that he wished Palin luck, but not too much luck, with a smile. Palin frankly was not gracious - which is particularly surprising from a new comer to national politics
-
Posted By: KPTYA @ 09/04/2008 1:14:03 AM
PFFFFT! I love all these "republicans" who now *suddenly* decide to vote Obama.
No - you were going to vote Obama all along.
Please ... it's just embarrassing. Ha!
-
Posted By: FREETHINKINGAMERICAN @ 09/04/2008 1:09:55 AM
Newsweek is cutting the Republican Convention speakers a lot of slack compared to the comments on the Democratic Convention speakers, which were often barbed and unfair.
This is hardly a critique. No analysis at all, just a tepid summary with no critical analysis of the speeches at all. No critique of Palin's speech, just a lot of advice and some praise
Whose side are you on?
Declare your prejudices openly instead of disgusiing it as "objective analysis.
-
Posted By: jwtrotman @ 09/03/2008 12:00:37 PM
How very uncanny, losers like Guiliani, Thompson and Lieberman seem to have ALL of the answers for America now. As for turncoat lieberman one only has to ask Al Gore about him. Lieberman was the MAIN reason the democrats lost in 2004. With a weak, spineless jellyfish like him on the ticket, how did Gore ever expect ot win? The one and only thing lieberman is good at is telling those worn out meaningless jokes about his wife. If he's so well informed and patriotic, just what claim to fame has he for America? What has he done to improve the quality of life and many varied conditions in this country? Like his grandfather mccain, he's been in the senate ever since there was one, collecting a fat paycheck and DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO EARN IT..
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 1:06:55 PM
And who was the presidential nominee in 2004 again?
Oh, yeah.
That's why the democrats lost the election.-
Posted By: paramount @ 09/03/2008 9:16:33 PM
No my friend we as Americans have all lost since leaving the decisions up to the Republicans and the current administration. Wake up and help to reform this nation with Obama or just settle for the Mcsame old garbage tactics that put this country in the economic crisis it is in
-
-
Posted By: cajan @ 09/03/2008 12:59:27 PM
At least these so called "losers" are known for thier trying and are very well known for the advancments they have helped create. Let's examine this, with all you smart how come no one knows who you are?
Maybe because the term loser is applied to the wrong person. Maybe since the shoe fits you should wear it.-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 1:56:15 PM
Let's see...Kerry: no advancements
Gore: Advancement of manmade global warming theory that has earned him over $100 million in income while simultaneously ignoring other scientific evidence that suggests warming is a natural environmental cycle and is not man-made. Knee-jerk reaction address the "unavoidable" disaster of global warming has caused food shortages in over 20 countries and caused the price of gasoline to rise causing hardship on hundreds of millions of people around the world.
Bush: liberated 50 million people from under the governance of tyranical dictatorships; has had more of an effect battling HIV/AIDS in Africa than any other person in history.-
Posted By: brinder @ 09/03/2008 2:18:59 PM
Except for maybe Bill Gates.
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 3:31:53 PM
The Gates' have done incredible philanthopic work.
I left out bush's effort to prevent malaria, also.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: cjwohio @ 09/03/2008 12:02:39 PM
Why is it all we hear about is how McCain was a POW? How would that make him a better president? It's not like he CHOSE to be a POW. If he wasn't a POW would that make him a bad choice for president? Who cares if he was a POW except maybe for the other POWs. And how would the democrats taxing big business raise the prices of food and goods? Last I checked under the current administration gas was still $3.80 a gallon, milk $4.00 a gallon, and the cost of healthcare is rising. How hypocritical.
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 12:50:41 PM
Simple, Raise the expenses on a business, and they raise prices to offset the cost of doing business to maintain the same profit margins. If you make businesses less profitable, their stock value will also decline (affecting the millions of Aericans who invest in the stock market through their 401k and other retirement programs). This works in the socialists' favor because socialist policies create a need in the population for government support.
Several factors influence the cost of gasoline, supply and demand, ethanol, speculation. But increasing tax on gasoline will ultimately increase the cot of gas, as well.-
Posted By: mcgreen @ 09/03/2008 9:13:08 PM
If a republican administration was so good for the american people why has the income gap between the super rich and us averages schmoes widened so much? Since big corporations come with big money, I have no fear that their requirements are being served by the government. Its the widows and orphans sir. The lower middle class and the poor in this country are under-served by their government. It's about a good education for their kids and health care you rich guys take for granted.
-
-
Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/03/2008 12:47:09 PM
Taxes are treated as costs in corporate accounting. Costs are passed on to consumers. Do the math.
-
Posted By: brinder @ 09/03/2008 1:01:25 PM
Actually, corporations are only able to pass on any additional costs if they operate in a monopoly, or a market where they can control the PRICES. In most cases, any additional costs (such as increased taxes) are more likely to be accounted against PROFITS, not increased prices. In an era of record corporate profits, that doesn't seem unfair to me. In the end, the economy will rise and fall with the middle class. It has been so since Mr. Ford started making cars. It's seems the prudent thing for all of us (corporate and citizen) to adopt policies that strengthen that sector of the population.
-
-
Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/03/2008 12:46:26 PM
actually, he did choose to remain a POW instead of accepting special favors.
Go read the book before you criticize the man.
-
-
Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/03/2008 8:14:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg: Interesting take on the Palin pick from two GOP pundits.
-
Posted By: kle5507 @ 09/03/2008 9:30:17 AM
What's wrong with Muslims? Are all Muslims bad? Are there good Muslims? Is King AbdullahII of Jordan a good Muslim and a friend of the united state. Is King Abdullah of Saudia Arabia one of our Friends? If not then why is Bush Sr. and Jr. so tight with this family?If we don't like them, then why are we giving them all this money for their oil? The WingNuts have taken this forum.
-
Posted By: GD38 @ 09/03/2008 9:43:50 AM
Common GOP flag wavers? Respond? Give a good reason why the Bush family is so close with Arabs? Protecting their investmens? And this is not a criticism of their having a relationship this is a comment to the unrelenting hypocracy and "holy than thou" I'm so tired of the Right spewing time and time again.
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 10:19:01 AM
As an American flag waver, I don't have any problem with Arabs or other middle easterners in general. I would say that if those leaders cooperate with us on the war on terror, have honest business dealings with us, and don't threaten us, then they should be considered allies.
All Muslims are not bad. Most of them just want to work, provide for their families, and be able to worship their religeon without fear of reprisal.-
Posted By: GD38 @ 09/03/2008 10:30:40 AM
OMG I just got back a little bit more faith in my fellow countrymen. Thank you Texas Conservative (seriously) - NH Liberal
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 10:58:11 AM
I totally disagree with the religious attacks. last I checked, Americans were guaranteed freedom of religion.
If the Muslim comments are racially motivated, then that, too, demonstrates ignorance, no matter which political party voices it.
Let's debate the issues and matters of substance, not the ignorant ranting of hatred.-
Posted By: AskPlus @ 09/03/2008 11:52:16 AM
Why don't you post this to your friends as they post their hate? Reps are kind of notorious for that kind of hate right?
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 2:27:22 PM
Actually, I see more hatred coming out of the libs, personally. They are constantly bringing up age, race, gender. These are liberal talking points. Most republican comments I see on this board are attempting to discuss issues. Go through and check for yourself.
(of course, the ignorant muslim references above should be included, too...there's one tally mark I can't stand to see)-
Posted By: AskPlus @ 09/03/2008 6:36:30 PM
Age yes. Race, gender, no. Especially race because we "libs" have so many. How about you guys?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: latenight113421@yahoo.com @ 09/03/2008 9:24:14 AM
I may be wrong, but as i recall, a president was impeached by republicans regarding a family matter. Under those circumstances whatever is going on in Sarah Palin's life and her children's is fair game.
-
Posted By: striker49 @ 09/03/2008 9:46:29 AM
You are wrong. The reasons for impeachment were: perjury, false and misleading testimony under oath and obstruction of justice...all impeachable offenses. Why don't you follow you own candidates proclamatation that Sarah Palin's family life has nothing to do with the issues of the campaign. Lay off. and stick to the issues.
-
Posted By: baybluv @ 09/03/2008 10:33:33 AM
This woman is not fit to run the country, she can't even run her own household. If her household is a mess, disfunctional and in distress, what makes you think she can run the country and keep things in order. Judge a man by his fruit and her fruit is immortal. Do we really want to endorse pre-marital sex by placing this woman and her immoral daughter in a place of leadership for all young girls to see. I think NOT.
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 11:06:43 AM
Do we instead prefer to condemn teenaged girls for their natural behaviors?
Parenting isn't an authoritarian dictatorship. Children (teens) assert their independence as a matter of natural human development. maybe the daughter and her fiance are actually in love. THe democrats frequently say that they want the government out of their bedrooms (sme sex marriage, homosexuality), but when it suits their political purposes, they are more than willing to drag a teenaged mother through the mud because of her own private life.
So I, for one, and more than supportive of Palin and look forward to having an honest politician in Washington for a change, one that likes to clean house (challenging special interests, earmarks, and excessive spending) is a bonus.
Let's focus on the real issues of policy and experience.-
Posted By: elizabethpaige @ 09/03/2008 6:02:02 PM
Gov. Palin 'outed' her daughter's pregnancy. Sen. Obama's response is that 'families and particularly children are off limits."
Palin brought this on herself because of her holier than thou nutty conservative 'religious' views.
Unfortunately, her daughter has made a fool of her. -
Posted By: baybluv @ 09/03/2008 12:23:41 PM
How well she runs her home is a real issue. If her home is a mess, disfunctional and in disarray, GOD help this country if something happens to McCain and she get in the White House. Again I say that she doesn't even have the natural instinct to protect her own daughter from all of this media mess, what makes you think she can protect this country. No telling what kind of long-term damage this will cause this young girl. Also, who is going to provide for the new family? She's 17, he's 18, no education. These kids should be going away to college not getting married. Let the nanny keep the grandbaby, one more won't matter. They are both immature and shouldn't have been having sex in the first place. Something her "MOTHER" should have taught her.
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 3:41:14 PM
With that perspective...
Why didn't hillary keep her husband in check (Monica, paula, etc...)
And the kennedy's have a sordid history as well....
So are you saying that they shouldn't have been presidents because their familial relationships were dysfunctional or not "well-managed?"-
Posted By: elizabethpaige @ 09/03/2008 5:51:03 PM
The Kennedys and the Clintons never ever preached conservative religious nonsense.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: elouis @ 09/03/2008 10:49:03 AM
Who do you think is responsible for the "Soap Opera" politics of America? Ronald Reagan? George Bush? Bill Clinton? Or, Conservative Republicans who talk trash about everyone in America until they get caught in their own hypocrisy. We all make mistakes, but to say that one sin is greater than another (sin is sin no matter who the sinner is) is the worst kind of leadership. The Republican party has fallen off their "pride" because they are aren't honest with God, with themselves and with other Americans! These people have got this country into debt, in a war we cannot win and in a nasty verbal war against ourselves. They don't deserve another four years of leadership!
-
-
Posted By: Senator Snort @ 09/03/2008 10:29:01 AM
Latenight,
Clinton was impeached because he perjured all over himself...he lied under oath. -
Posted By: swirlly59 @ 09/03/2008 9:43:17 AM
Hey latenight, there is a substantial difference regarding the fair game opinion you hold regarding a 'family matter'. May I kindly remind you that the impeachable President you refer to was the guilty party, not his family. And he lied about it repeatedly! And the subversion was committed in the workplace with an intern who worked for him. No powerball goin' on there?? It's convenient to say she was consenting. Hardly the same as a 17 year old getting pregnant. I'm sure the girl did it just to garner the attention of the nation. Stupid comparison. Try harder.
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 9:32:43 AM
Actually, a president was impeached for lying under oath. Paulin didn't commit adultery in the white house with an intern (the reason an investigation was launched in the first place).
Governor Palin didn't do that. Her daughter, like 100s of thousands of other teenagers, had sex before marriage. That doesn't make Governor Palin a criminal.-
Posted By: kle5507 @ 09/03/2008 9:41:36 AM
This proves that abstinence as pushed by the Bush Administration failed. Bush had spent Billions on this regilous program and the results is that there are more teenage pregnacies today then under the Clinton Administration which pushed for Sex Ed. in schools. The Bush Administration have failed in so many ways. More teenage pregnacies, more abortions. The Right Wing is doesn't get it. By not talking about it will not make the problem go away.
-
-
-
Posted By: mstyff @ 09/03/2008 1:37:37 AM
It's truly amazing how we all hear something different from the same words...funny how they are throwing the Pro Life message around...Pro War and Pro Life just does NOT go together...hello, does anyone hear someone yelling H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S
-
Posted By: elizabethpaige @ 09/03/2008 5:53:56 PM
Absolutely correct..
-
-
Posted By: bijonforsale @ 09/03/2008 9:35:57 AM
Tonight was sad and a replicate of the RNC trying to outdo the DNC of last week. I can not understand, Laura Bush was a druggie, who sold drugs for her boyfriend and she ended up becoming the 1st Lady. George W. Bush was an inexperienced Governor from Texas who tampered with ballots in both elections to become President of the US. Bush has managed to turn a surplus into a hugh deficit and this is change at a valuable example to the American people. Now, the RNC is celebrating the status of Palin as McCain's running mate to clasp hold of votes from women they feel were ignored by the DNC. Palin's record is similar to Bush's, less than 2 years in office although she's a beauty queen and that was exploited. Palin is having serious family issues along with being investigated, not qualities of a servant running for public office. The RNC must brainwash themselves into believing that the citizens of the US are just plain stupid and are unable to assess and make decisions that in the last 8 years our country is worst off than ever. The RNC give no solutions to resolving high crime, jobs being transferred offshore, low wages, high foreclosures, high unemployment among other issues. Just protection, create war as a means towards reform! The RNC still does not get it!
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 9:57:24 AM
Didn't Obama admit to being a druggie?
What executive experience does Obama have?
0 years.
The country isn't worse off than ever. There was the great depression, WW2 where around 400,000 US military deaths occurred. WW1 with over 50,000 deaths. There was the Civil War. There was slavery.
Put things into perspective. Right now we have a mortage mess created by lenders writing mortgages for people who can't afford them which has caused property values to drop in some markets, an undervalued dollar that is partly caused by the Chinese who fix the value of their currency rather than letting it float with the market like our other trading partners do, we have a war that we are winning in Iraq, another war that continues in Afganistan.
Palin doesn't have serious family issues. She has a pregnant teenaged daughter....just like hundreds of thousands of other pregnant teenaged girls before her. That's not a serious family issue. Palin has 5 children. One more child in the house isn't going to suddenly overwhlm her, especially since the child is her daughter's.-
Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/03/2008 10:29:02 AM
Pregnant teen: Obama's mother.
-
Posted By: sjpersonal @ 09/03/2008 11:48:43 AM
18 and married pregnant teen!
-
Posted By: loriw @ 09/03/2008 2:27:31 PM
sjpersonal,,,I have heard that Obama's father was still married to another woman when he married Obama's mother. Is that true?
-
Posted By: elizabethpaige @ 09/03/2008 5:49:31 PM
"I have heard" from where?
-
-
Posted By: cajan @ 09/03/2008 1:21:43 PM
In Alaska 16 is the age of legal consent.
-
-
-
Posted By: NBG75 @ 09/03/2008 1:50:05 PM
Didn't Palin also use illegal drugs? She admitted as much in her supposed vetting process. Part of the seventy questions that qualified her, as far as McCain is concerned. But, that's a whole other issue, we'll just ignore that. It's much easier to call Obama a druggie.
Her teenage daughter is pregnant. Kids, forget about that abstinence nonsence. It is now fashionable to practice unprotected sex, specially before marriage and preferably before you finish high school. Hey,
children go forth and procreate to your little hearts content! What kind of leadership message is that? Oh, I get it - do as we say, NOT as we do.
Your perspective needs some fine tuning! Whom do you think opened up the gates that encouraged the lenders to become creative? I'll give you a clue his initials are GWB. As far as the Chinese are concerned we sold them our country to finance the wars. Where do you think the $10,000,000,000.00 per month is coming from, your rich friends? And, who do you think is pocketing the vast majority of this money - does Halliburton, et al, mean anything to you, or do we conveniently ignore that too?
I have a suggestion. All that voted for GWB/Cheney, and now support McCain should hop a plane and go directly to Iraq to relieve the troops. You lake war go for it! And take Palin with you she can show you how to shoot an assault rifle. For that matter take McCain with you too, he can instruct you on how to act should you become a captive.
Hey, what if I stood in front of the mirror and practiced speaking out the side of my mouth, do you suppose I too would qualify to be second in command?-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 2:18:25 PM
sure, Haliburton et al are pocketing most of $10 billion a month.
Let's see you back that up with a source. -
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 2:15:16 PM
Actually, have sex but use protection seems more like permission to me, but hey....
Palin may have used drugs. Obama admitted to using drugs.
Clinton and Bush both used drugs.
That doesn't meant they are not now opposed to drug use/abuse or would support drug cartels. I think drug use 20+ years ago is a moot point when debating policy and voting records should be the issue.
-
-
-
Posted By: navymom06 @ 09/03/2008 9:50:27 AM
The worst thing about this Palin thing is yes that yes her daughter's personal probelms are hers but as her mother she had to know this was going to happen and she did not care enough to spare her daughter this I think her judement was just as bad as McCain . She should have said Thanks But No Thanks , her family should have come first this time not her own desires . Sometimes being a good mother means putting your agenda aside .
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 10:14:12 AM
And sometimes you know your child well enough to know they can handle the responsibility with your support, and you put the needs of your country before your own. That is far from selfish.
Governor Palin is one of two parents. If your child got pregnant, would you quit your job to care for them?
I wouldn't. And if I was offered a better job, or one where I thought I could bring positive change about for a large number of people, I would take that job. That wouldn't make me a bad parent so long as I thought my daughter was capable of handling the responsibility.
Governor Palin's daughter and the father of the child intend to marry, so the child has two parents, an arrangement many children don't have.-
Posted By: baybluv @ 09/03/2008 10:27:42 AM
Most people jobs don't require that they sell their child down the river to get ahead. This woman is young enough where she could have waited another 4 or 8 years to run for Vice-President or even President. Instead, she put her own selfish wishes before that of her daughter who needs her now more than ever. It's bad enough when everyone in town knows you are pregnant but to put her private life before the world for her own career goals is just sick. This woman is not fit to protect and run this country, she doesn't even have the natural instinct to protect her own children. I feel sorry for all of them. I guess the new baby will be thrown to the nanny along with the rest of them. It's apparent she never bonded with any of these children.
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 10:44:16 AM
How rediculous to think that politicians sell their babies down the river. That is just totally naive.
And it is the media and liberals who are trying to make a big deal out of her daughter's pregnancy. They are the truly disgusting people who want to try and harm the daughter and child.
I guess the clintons abandoned Chelsea when they had careers in politics, too. She sure turned out to be a loose cannon (not!). I guess it's okay when the democrats do it, but when a republican does it it's reprehensible. just like celebrating as historical Hillary's run for the white house, but somehow it's insignificant that Palin is running for VP. One is a dem, one is a repub.
And the republicans are accused of hypocracy.-
Posted By: baybluv @ 09/03/2008 12:15:24 PM
No they didn't abandon her, because she didn't get herself pregnant. Also, the Clinton family doesn't profess being such holy rollers and give people free choice (or will) to decide what to do with their life (Oh, my gosh, I think that what Jesus would do as well - free will). This is why people have to be careful what they preach because just like in the Palin case, it came back and bites you in the A!!.
-
Posted By: Texas-conservative @ 09/03/2008 2:24:54 PM
You misundersand religious people. We don't think we are "holier than thow." We have moral standards we strive to live up to. We fail, just like every person alive doesn't live fully up to their expectations. Nothing has come back to bite her. Her daughter got pregnant. So what? I am sure they both wish circumstances would have worked differently, and i imagine that if the daughter feels shares her mom's religious views (because beliefs aren't dictated, they are developed through interaction and reflection) she may feel some guilt about it. She opted for having the baby instead of terminating the baby. I'd say a good choice, personally.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: BexHi @ 09/03/2008 10:04:06 AM
bijonforsale - show me where Obama has any experience what so ever - more than anyone else to lead this country. After all Sen. John McCain has not only experience he has also shown to help the country. Obama has done NOTHING to do that - all he did was to be a senator of a state where he only raised taxes - he did not resolve anything there locally such as resolving crime and helping the unemplyed. If he couldnt do it as a senator for his local state then what makes you think he can do it for the whole country. He has no experience whatsoever So why are you bashing Palin when in her short time in office she has actually helped and made a difference as well as she is not going to be president, Sen. McCain will be and he has all of the experience in the world we need.
Btw, Bush has NOT turned a surplus into a deficit - there was no surplus and interestingly enough working in the finance industry shows our country is doing better than it was 8 years ago!
Also, Palin is NOT havig "serious" family issues - if her daughter decides to get pegnant at the age of 17 has nothing to do with Palins running the country and does not call for a "family issue".-
Posted By: raddave @ 09/03/2008 11:41:11 AM
Bush did indeed turn a $600 million surplus into a record deficit.
-
-
-
Posted By: LudwigVanBeet @ 09/03/2008 11:46:55 AM
If YOU the Voter, want ,More War, More Debt (it's over 10 Trillion), Lies, Torture, Spying on You, trying to Scare you every other day, Investing YOUR Social Security, then by all means vote for McCain and Palin and you will get just what you asked for. America ,Please Wake Up.
-
Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/03/2008 12:42:16 PM
Obama's real position on the war:
"We need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice I say 'reduce' and not 'fully withdraw.'" Barack Obama, Nov. 22, 2005
"I believe that we should have all our troops out [of Iraq] by 2013 but I don???t want to make promises." Barack Obama, Sep. 26, 2007-
Posted By: elizabethpaige @ 09/03/2008 5:10:38 PM
Do you want the troops out sooner? Then say so.
-
-
Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/03/2008 12:45:04 PM
Obama's real position on tax breaks for corporations:
Obama has lambasted lobbyists and moneyed interests who "have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play."
"It's an entire culture in Washington -- some of it legal, some of it not," the Democratic hopeful told a New York crowd in June. But last year Obama introduced nine separate bills exempting foreign chemical company Nufarm from import fees on a range of chemical ingredients it uses in the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides.
Nufarm wasn't the only beneficiary of Obama's efforts to reduce customs fees and duties. In early May of 2006, two Washington lobbyists registered to work on behalf of Astellas Pharma, a Japanese-owned drug company which also has offices in Illinois.
Together, Obama's obscure measures -- known as tariff suspensions -- steered more than $12 million away from federal coffers, according to government estimates.
While legal, Obama's bills on behalf of Nufarm and other companies are part of the special treatment machine Washington rolls out for special interests, say good-government watchdogs. With a dozen tariff suspension bills to his name, Obama stands out as the most prolific of any presidential hopeful on the topic. Sen. John McCain introduced none.
"If you have a company...there's a whole factory set up to help you get these suspensions," said Steve Ellis, president of the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "It's a pay-to-play system you have to rev up and work." Hire the right lobbyist, pay the right fee, and you can save millions, he explained.
Some say the tariff suspension process isn't how Washington should operate.
In his speeches, Sen. Obama seems to agree: "We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich well-connected friends and high-priced lobbyists, but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American," the candidate said in his June speech. "That's the kind of president I intend to be."
But his actions speak louder than his words.
Junker defended tariff suspensions as good for American businesses. "It's nothing to be embarrassed, ashamed or suspicious of," he said.
justifying the breaks for Nufarm to import a chemical known as 2,4 D and other ingredients by claiming they would "eliminate these unnecessary and avoidable...costs to [Nufarm's] consumers."
But the company's financial reports, issued just two months after Obama introduced Nufarm's numerous tariff-lifting bills, indicate Nurarm was making more money than ever before in North America because it had increased its prices on its U.S. and Canadian customers, predominantly farmers, in particular on "phenoxy herbicides," a family which includes 2,4 D.
Economics aside, some medical researchers have purported to find a link between high exposure to the chemical and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a type of cancer.
http -
Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/03/2008 12:43:29 PM
Obama's real position on retirement funds: raise the capitol gains taxes retirees pay on their fixed income investments. They don't need the money.
-
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
-
- Slate V: Reviews of: The Road, Ninja Assassin, and Old Dogs
- The Slatest: Thanksgiving Edition
- The case against Thanksgiving leftover recipes.
- Slate's Culture Gabfest on Bob Dylan's Christmas album, sprinter Caster Semenya, and the new documentary Le Danse.
- How the gun lobby groped its way into the health reform debate.
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
- I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have to say. Holder on terror trialsREUT
Discuss