An Apostle of Alaska

« Return to Article

Discuss

  • Posted By: josemarti @ 09/12/2008 6:59:36 PM

    OK. Barry you gotta go all out. This is the home stretch. Can't count on knock out punch at the debates. (specially since you are the one who is more likely to get KO'd. I suggest you:

    1. Have Michelle attack Pallin. Have her point to Pallin' s lack education. Michelle could say something like: "Pallin thinks that a liberal arts college is where liberals send their children to learn art"
    2. Have father Pflagel mock Pallin with another one of his "I am white" routines. That will really get Catholics excited.
    3. Have some of your celebrity supporters deride Pallin. That will play well in Peoria. (Its a town north of Springfield. Real pretty. Lincoln gave a speech there once)
    4. Hit McCain hard on his age. That is sure to endear you to the seniors in Florida.
    5. Take another tour of Europe. That will really give you some momentum.
    6. Keep pointing out Pallin's lack of experience. Really good tactic.
    7. Continue to link McCain to Bush. That is really paying dividends for you. Keep those ads running.
    8. Hey. What about stumping with Nancy Pelosi? What about Representative Conyers? Rep. Frank?
    9. What about passing out free copies of your books Dreams from My Father at Detroit Redwing games? Maybe with a copy of Ellison's Invisble Man. Yep. Good ideat. Ain't it?
    10. Hey. I know throw out the first pitch at Wrigley Field on game 1 of the World Series. Go Cubs.

    • Posted By: star3 @ 09/13/2008 6:50:58 PM

      LOL Jose, whose side are you on?!? Sounds like sabatoge to me. Love it!

    • Posted By: Independant Voter @ 09/12/2008 7:14:35 PM

      Why not stick to the issues and let funny people do the comedy.

  • Posted By: Independant Voter @ 09/12/2008 7:07:08 PM

    I thought Newsweek did some good stories on Sarah Palin. I had never heard of her before 2 weeks ago - and was swept up in the excitement like everyone else. Her speech was amazing - but then as these stories came out I began to realize (sadly) that this is just another slick politican - working hard to say the things we want to hear. That Bridge to Nowhere is a classic example - not only was she for it - but she took $233 million for the bridge for other pet projects.
    After last nights interview with Charlie Gibson - I went from excited to terrified - she has no idea what the Bush Doctrine is and she thinks she can handle Russia because she can see their land from an island! This is ridiculous now - McCain has lost my respect and my vote because of this pick - she is unqualified. Why not pick Condi or Kay Hutchinson - women with the right background. I give Obama a lot of credit for picking a strongly qualified VP in Biden - and now they get my vote!

    • Posted By: star3 @ 09/13/2008 6:46:25 PM

      IV, did it ever occur to you that she may just possibly mean the things she says, and not just because someone in the voting world may want to hear it? Or could it be she is saying things YOU don't want to hear, so you have made up your mind to dislike her regardless of what she says, because YOU want Obama. O.K. thats cool, but at least be honest about it. But guess thats just the left's way, to tiptoe around the real reason, so as to pretend its all about how she presents her issues. Come on, get it out of your system, but truthfully, please.

  • Posted By: charliefromtexas @ 09/12/2008 4:59:14 PM

    Do you want ANOTHER 4 YEARS OF BUSH?

    Elect Cain and palin.

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 09/12/2008 5:38:42 PM


      Guess what? The McCain = Bush matra wasnt working much before Governor Palin was picked. Now that she is the VP on the ticket, that mantra is totally ineffective.. Two Reformers = McCain/Palin 2008

      • Posted By: Independant Voter @ 09/12/2008 7:15:54 PM

        What exactly do they reform? Sure looks like a Bush rerun!

        • Posted By: Pallisor @ 09/12/2008 7:21:05 PM

          How do you come up with that... please, take a minute to explain.

          • Posted By: geogaddi_17 @ 09/12/2008 10:34:38 PM

            Palin= Against teaching birth control, against abortion, against gay marriage.

            McCain=Pretty much the same thing, plus the fact that he proudly votes with Bush 90% of the time.

            • Posted By: Pallisor @ 09/13/2008 3:04:41 PM

              Wow. Three issues. 90 percent means he didn't vote with him 10 percent of the time. That's 10 percent more than Obama has bucked the Dem party. The only time he would ever do that is to make the party even more liberal than it already is.

    • Posted By: Pallisor @ 09/12/2008 6:18:16 PM

      You do know Bush isn't running in this election.......

  • Posted By: MrsRJB @ 09/13/2008 2:17:22 PM

    Wow. If I knew Newsweek would pick and choose comments. My first 2 comments were so much better, but said so much more - about the article, the writer, etc. Someone chose not to let my comment post? I'll send another one. I SUBSCRIBE. I wasn't cursing, or even insulting - and they didn't post my comment. I was only saying the writer should refer to people as "down syndrome" but as having Down's Syndrome. And that it seems like it's Palin against Obama. Not Palin against Biden. My comments must have hit a nerve - they must have been true. I'll resend it and hopefully share with the other subscribers - who pay for newsweek.

  • Posted By: romye @ 09/13/2008 11:19:51 AM

    Palin is Dubya all over again: very light resume and programmed to mouth soundbites that get the media's attention. But the real redo is the insult the GOP is again heaping on the American people. The American voter fell for this game before supposedly to restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse after Monica . . and then to protect us from Osama bin Laden. We do deserve the leader we get if we fall for this game again.

  • Posted By: semicynic @ 09/12/2008 11:46:56 PM

    Direct quote from interview with Charlie Gibson, Sarah Palin says; "???I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it???s not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their congress or congressman and congresswoman to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure."

    Will somebody smarter than I please explain to this highly experienced, pit-bull *** hockey mom, aspiring P.O.T.U.S. that what she described in this circular explanation of her actions as mayor/governor constitutes supporting [GASP!] EARMARKS which she so ardently opposed in her teleprompted speech at the RNC.

    I gregariously await the upcoming VP debate(s)! Talk about fallen star....you can call this one Palin's Comet.

    e*

  • Posted By: Holly Gray @ 09/12/2008 6:44:26 PM

    Here's an article I won't set aside for my husband. I'm a Democrat, an Obama supporter, a liberal. I read Newsweek cover to cover every week, and happily tear out articles for my conservative Republican husband. These articles are evidence that the source for much of my information is fairly unbiased. "See how intelligent Zakaria is," I'll say. "And here's one by Karl Rove." But "An Apostle of Alaska" is embarrassing. I started reading with the hopes that I would, indeed, learn more about the real Sarah Palin, as the sub-title promises. Instead, I learned that this magazine is incapable of looking fairly at a person who clearly poses a huge threat to the favored Obama campaign. It boasts a long list of "reporters" stationed all over the country, but I got the feeling it was more an editor's piece than a report. I don't know the magazine business, but I do know when editorializing destroys the integrity of content (Michael Moore comes to mind). Why add the attitude when the facts are enough? When my husband complained last week that the liberal media was attacking Palin on the grounds that she can't be VP candidate and still claim to be a good mother, I was appalled. I chalked it up to the cracks at MSNBC, or those say-anything bloggers. And then to see that my own favorite magazine was guilty of that very thing! "A devoted mother, Palin is now running for national office, exposing her young family to the warping effects of international scrutiny." Does this mean that Obama is warping his children too? I don't think I've heard that from you. And, didn't your own magazine ask the media to stop using the "gate" suffix? "Plamegate," you claimed, could never compair to the seriousness of "Watergate." Is "Troopergate" really necessary? The man Tasered his child (although you give him leniency since it wasn't at full strength). You call her "a politician of epic ambition who is running against a Washington establishment that, if elected, she will inevitably join, and even rule over." Isn't that what Obama is as well? We welcome him, as Democrats, because he's ambitious enough to think that he can become President despite his lack of Washington experience. He's also running against the Washington establishment, and will rule over it if he wins. How are they different in that regard? I hope to see something better in future issues. Back when I was in college, Newsweek was always on my professors' lists of approved reference sources. My husband would argue that this was because the college was liberal. I've always thought it meant that Newsweek was fair. Am I wrong?

    • Posted By: loafsta @ 09/12/2008 9:11:08 PM

      So strange that people are getting so upset about this article. Its point is clearly to highlight her contradictions, but not clearly to do so in a purely negative way. It's demonstrating that she's a complex person, with strengths and weaknesses. She has a humble background and has been driven to great achievement. She opposes corruption because she feels it hurts the communities she represents, but she may have had ethical lapses herself for the same reasons - because she wants to protect her family and surround herself with people she loves and trusts. I just don't see how anyone can think this article is wildly biased. It tells the same sort of folksy, loving mother, but tough governor story the McCain campaign is trying to tell, it just does it with less hyperbole.

  • Posted By: charliefromtexas @ 09/12/2008 4:55:55 PM

    Sarah Palin = a young female George W/ Bush

    • Posted By: Pallisor @ 09/12/2008 7:46:03 PM

      You're behaving like you're 15 years old Charlie. I'll ask you again, please tell us this isn't all you've got.....

  • Posted By: charliefromtexas @ 09/12/2008 4:56:53 PM

    A cocky wacko Sarah Palin = Rove & Bush combined.

    • Posted By: Pallisor @ 09/12/2008 7:22:08 PM

      This is becoming laughable... please tell us you have something better than this.....

  • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 09/12/2008 12:54:26 AM

    Bump:

    Hey CareerDayTrader, I actually agree with whoisrite (at least in part) on this one. Not sure where u stand on this. I say screw Freddie and Fannie! And all the other private companies/ businesses that are going under. I SAY NO TO ALL BAILOUTS! PERIOD!

    The mortgage meltdown is a healthy thing. A necessary evil if you will. It's like any other correction. I'd ask our govmt not to intervene on this issue. We gotta hit bottom b4 we can REALLY start to mop up the mess that was created by lax lending standards. Why prolong the inevitable? It's time to pay the piper! Let the chip fall where they may. Your thoughts on this CTD ...


    • Posted By: careerdaytrader @ 09/12/2008 11:42:16 AM

      I don't claim to know everything nor do I have an opinion on everything. I haven't yet made up my mind on this issue. On the one hand I do not believe in welfare whether it is for individual citizens and especially not companies.

      On the other hand I think we need to look at what will cause the MOST HARM.

      What will the costs be both in money and pain in American's lives if we DO NOT BAIL OUT these firms?

      Then again what will it COST US TO BAIL out these firms and what is the likely longer term consequences?

      It also creates a dangerous precedent on one hand but we did successfully bail out Chrysler in 1979 with 1.5 billion in loan guarantees. I'm not sure if those loans were ever fully paid back but it did save the company and its employees.

      Keep in mind one of the reasons for the US dollar rallying is due to the view that US authorities are at least trying to do something about the financial crisis and the economy.

      I'll have to study this issue a lot more before I'll say whether I'm for or against it, it all depends on what will cause the LEAST HARM for the US economy and the lives of American's.

      If the cost of the bailout isn't much more than the cost of letting it go under yet millions of American's can keep their homes and lending improves than I'm all for the bailout even though it is a socialist thing to do.
      I'm not as radical right wing as I may appear to be.

      • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/12/2008 11:51:38 AM

        The mortgage crisis started when lenders lowered their lending standards. They created interest only and teaser rates, then they lended enormous sums of money to people with low incomes and poor credit. This falsely inflated home values, prompted greed by lenders and lendees, and the process snow balled.
        When the house of cards fell, the affect was immediate and dramatic.
        I don't know what the remedy is, but I know what the cause was. Personally I hold Greenspan somewhat responsible. I also hold our leaders responsible for not having spoken out forcefully about this years ago

        • Posted By: careerdaytrader @ 09/12/2008 1:07:59 PM

          I heard that Bush had set a goal to help minorities reach the dream of home ownership and asked banks to lower lending standards. I don't feel we can blame the rush of minorities on the run up of prices, it was all the greed of people buying and flipping homes that most likely caused this but a GOOD INTENTION and a liberal idea definitely helped cause this BIG MESS.

          The problem is so few lower income earners can afford a house if they have to put down 20%. Maybe even 5% down payment is hard considering so few American's save money anymore! BUY BUY BUY, NOW NOW NOW. We're an instant gratification country.

          I was poor and suffered not having what I wanted for almost 5 years to build my company and now I can almost buy anything I want. We need to return America to a place where people realize you have to PAY THE PRICE for success, its not instant, its not easy but definitely possible and achievable.

          Obama's anti business policies while INTENDING to help the poor and middle class are going to just enslave that group to that level forever. I believe Obama cares about that group, I even like him as a person, hard not to like HIM, but his policies are so ridiculously stupid.

          • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/12/2008 1:30:42 PM

            Absoltuely true about the flippers.
            The process may have started off with good intentions, but by 2006 and 2007 lenders were loaning money to very high risk borrowers with the assumption the housing market would keep rising

            • Posted By: JohnPolitico @ 09/12/2008 6:11:13 PM

              Bailouts and Gov. Oversight

              Generally speaking, I too am for smaller government. However, I also believe that Govmt needs to play a vital role in enforcing REASONABLE rules/regulations pertaining to Govmt backed businesses, quasi Govmt Biz's (e.g., Fannie & Freddie) and Big Corps. As we all know, w/o the proper oversight things happen ... greed and corruption creep in. In fact, there are some that would argue that Bill was partially responsible for the Tech Wreck of the '90's (Dot.Com boom/bust) and W's responsible for the current Mortgage Meltdown and credit crunch of today. Sometimes it seems like Big Gov. hires guys like Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles and Jose Feliciano as Big Gov (and quasi Big Gov) Watch Dogs to oversee (well overblind) various important agencies. It's the old see no evil ... hear no evil. And with Bill it was "DON'T ASK ... DON???T TELL." Remember that? And that didn't just apply to a certain group of folks in our military trust me. Continued ...

              • Posted By: JohnPolitico @ 09/12/2008 6:26:44 PM

                The only difference between Bill and GW is/was a smile and a smirk:

                Bill screwed over a lot of unsuspecting people (Dot.Com Bomb Era) while he sported that charming smile of his. It was all about Uncle Sam getting his dirty little Capital Gain taxes. He didn't care about all the shenanigans that were going on behind the scenes. Enron? WorldCom?? Hmmm ... that's just to name a couple. (Hillz is no different! As they say ??? the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.)

                GW did it with a smirk. Sadly enough, GW took cronyism to a new level. And yes! The rich got richer under his reign: No bid, Big Gov. contracts being dished out to all his buds during this war/occupation, big time tax loopholes for oil companies, Execs over at Freddie's and Fannie's house banking away boo-coo bucks until they ultimately collapsed, Political (unjustified) firings of US Attorney's. Sheesh, the list goes on and on. And guess who's gonna freakin' pay for all this crap?! Yup, yup, you guessed it: The good ol'??? reliable American taxpayer. But! If you don???t think the C'tons did the same type of crap while they were in power ... well ... I got news for you. Trust me! They're no different. And that's precisely why I don't care for either family anymore! They've had their time at the helm. I've had enough of them already. It's time for some fresh blood. Thank God ol' Hills was defeated!!

                • Posted By: JohnPolitico @ 09/12/2008 6:36:42 PM

                  Cont: Next defeat is BO. Now as far as McC goes ... well ... he's the best this country has to offer right now. The pickins 'r' slim folks. But when it comes to McC, I sense that he really & truly cares about this nation. I believe him when he says Country First! Now he may not be as charismatic, charming or as eloquent as Sen. Cool, but I'll take substance over style any day. Sure, generally speaking, the Repub platform favors the rich when it comes to tax loopholes. Not taxes! But tax loopholes/shelters folks. But hey, I don't see the Dem's doing anything to change things. And they got control of the house right now. No excuses!

                  The truth is the Democratic politicians or no different than the Repubs when it comes to power-hunger and greed (mucho dollaro???s). In fact, they all take care of each other when it comes to making and retaining money (tax loopholes/shelters). The two party's just act like they're different so as to fool us all. Each party just spends a poop load of our tax dollars on their party-line pet projects. If a Dem's in the W. House they spend boat loads of money on Social programs and BS (wasteful) public services/jobs. Heck, they make-up jobs just because ...

                  Cont:

                  • Posted By: JohnPolitico @ 09/12/2008 6:48:31 PM

                    When Repubs are in office they spend and/or dish out a poop load of money on wars and/or military buildup, lucrative gov. contracts to a select few, etc. Heck, GW's laughing right now:

                    "Deficits meficits ... who cares?! I'll just pass it on to the next Dem Pres and blame it on him. (Lol!) We wanted ol' Hill in there, but we know that this 'Bama Kid will do his job of raising taxes on all you suckers out there. Yeeehhhhaaa!"

                    Bottom line, we're all gonna have to do a whole lot of praying over the next couple/three years. Again, regardless of who gets elected, our current mess is gonna require lots and lots of praying. BTW, did you happened to see Obama's Freudian slip the other day on the George Steph' show? Where he started talking about his Muz faith ... oops my Christian faith. Oh Georgy Porgy had to correct him. I don't know exactly why ... but I get this weird feeling about Sen. Cool. He's a little too charming if you know what I mean. And the way he plays to the world, instead of just to us (American people), has me scratching my head. C'mon folks ... a trip to Europe???

                    May God Bless America. Please dear lord, put the right man in the Oval Office.

  • Posted By: charliefromtexas @ 09/12/2008 5:33:05 PM

    George folled us in 2000. We said 'Shame on you George!'
    George fooled us again in 2004. We said 'WTF is wrong with us. How stupid are we to get fooled again?'
    Goege (the Cain Pain) is about t fool us yet again. "We the stupid people"

    • Posted By: Pallisor @ 09/12/2008 6:43:24 PM

      Exactly how did George "fool" us in 2000? Don't tell me you're still crying over that election...

      Exactly how did George "fool" us in 2004? Don't tell me you're still crying over that election...

  • Posted By: charliefromtexas @ 09/12/2008 5:04:05 PM

    President Sarah!

    Commander in Chief Sarah. All generals must listen to her.

    Sarah waging war against Taliban and Al Quaeda.

    Sarah the chief will fire any of her oppononent from public job.

    • Posted By: Pallisor @ 09/12/2008 6:23:55 PM

      Your first point, yes. But only if she's president.

      Your second point, I sure the hell hope so!

      Your third point, you are full of it on this one.

  • Posted By: josemarti @ 09/12/2008 12:52:33 PM

    Barry. Why did you not choose Hillary? Why? Why? You could have won this thing. She made her interest in the VP pretty clear. You did not even vett her. Why? And now you are running to Bill asking for his support. Barry, you knucklehead. You don't deamonize someone and then ask for their support.

    • Posted By: charliefromtexas @ 09/12/2008 5:09:12 PM

      Obama not choosing Hillary as VP was the greatest mistake he made -- it could and would likely cost him the presidency.

      Obama was more worried about AFTER he is elected, than Getting elected.

      Obama and his VP vetters (Caroline Kenedy et.al.) though it will be a easy thing to get Obama elected. Well, I said then and I say again, it is almost impossible to get elected president as a Democrat.

      Obama + Hillary was not a dream ticket. It was a MUST ticket .

      • Posted By: josemarti @ 09/12/2008 5:47:46 PM

        Yep. I wonder what role Solis-Doyle played in all this. She went over to the Obama campaign after she got fired by Clinton. Did she discourage Obama from choosing Clinton? Did she encourage him? Can't wait to read the post mortem on Obama's campaign.

  • Posted By: charliefromtexas @ 09/12/2008 5:01:18 PM

    This Cain Pain combo is the tWIN VERSION OF BUSH CHENEY COMBO.

    wANT ANOTHER 4 YEARS?

    Vote Cain Pain or Mccain palin..

  • Posted By: charliefromtexas @ 09/12/2008 4:54:28 PM

    Palin = a Cocky Wacko

  • Posted By: josemarti @ 09/12/2008 12:46:49 PM

    Barry. Here is more advise (advice). You have to dump Biden. Get him off the ticket NOW. Tell him to feign some illness. Have Bill Clinton call up Columbia Presbyterian and arrange for Biden to be admitted to the private floor of the hospital for an extended work up. If Biden won't resign, dig up some dirt on him and MAKE him. Then you can choose Hillary which is what you should have done in the first place. Why did you not choose Hillary? Hubris?

    • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 09/12/2008 4:44:39 PM

      JoseM,

      Like others here, I too have a hard time figuring you out at times. I know you like to interject humor and sarcasm, but you're a little hard to figure out sometimes.

  • Posted By: sillymono45 @ 09/12/2008 12:55:50 PM

    As an undecided voter I believe that the worst thing about this election is the ease with which the media has abused its role in politics. By this I mean simply that instead of simply reporting the news in a fair and balanced way that allows people to come to their own conclusions; the media has instead, and I use this article as the example, been simply unable to contain their bias. The title, the placement of ads, the injection of the reporters own opinion into the article all of it points to the general tone of mockery toward Palin. The only issue this election has clearly exposed it the there is no integrity in journalism anymore. Newsweek has become the latest victim in this epidemic and whether you are a republican, democrat, or just undecided like me I hope that you will turn to periodicals such and the Economist for a more balanced approach to journalism. The best Newsweek can offer is sensationalized crap, which in the end benefits none of us.

    • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 09/12/2008 4:35:57 PM

      I concur. Well said!

  • Posted By: timrogers @ 09/12/2008 3:57:58 PM

    Image is everything and Gov. Palin has a great image at the moment. Before we crown her as queen of the Republican party we should remember that her biggest asset besides charm, is that nobody knows much about her. We all know what to expect from John McCain. Call it change or call it more of the same; either way his record over the past three decades predicts what he will or will not do. We know little about Gov. Palin. Love them or hate them, the media will change this in short order. No matter how well coached and protected she is, Gov. Palin will have a hard time concealing what she does not know. It already started in her latest interview with ABC. The spotlight has been her friend so far, but it is very difficult to hide in the spotlight. Maybe she is qualified to be President even though her experience seems a little light. We elected the last President in part based upon his excellent resume, and look how that turned out.

  • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 09/12/2008 3:48:04 PM

    Re: A current Video that's making its rounds

    "The Audacity of Deception by McCain-Palin???"

    A top McCain adviser said that "this election is not about issues." He is right. It's not about issues. It's about our lives, our freedom, and our privacy. Watch this video to see the dangerously anti-choice facts -- in John McCain and Sarah Palin's own words -- that the campaign is trying to sweep under the rug. And if McCain and Palin's dangerously anti-choice record scares you as much as it does us, then click here to donate $10.87 or more.

    Puleeeze!!! Give me a break! Regardless of who gets elected, PRO-CHOICE is here to stay. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion and >>EVERYTHING<< to do with economics. Neither party wants more welfare baby's trust me.

  • Posted By: careerdaytrader @ 09/11/2008 1:29:14 PM

    Keep in mind Democrats that this race is close and whether people vote on the issues (my post below shows why anybody with an ounce of intelligence would vote for Mc Cain) Obama is going to lose.

    Keep in mind about 12% of Pennsylvania DEMOCRAT voters didn't vote for Obama in the primaries BECAUSE HE IS BLACK.

    These are 12% of DEMOCRAT voters who were racist. Very few Republicans will vote for Obama and 12% of his base won't either due to racism.

    Palin will also steal 20% of his women vote.

    He has NO CHANCE!

    • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 09/11/2008 5:43:12 PM

      You know my parents who are in their late 60's agree with you that there is no way that Obama will ever win because as they put it "Master will never allow a slave into THEIR house" I understand their analogy because I absolutely believe that there are entirely too many AMERICANS such as yourself who will never permit this country to grow racially speaking. I have read your posts and lori's posts and sharenews and holy and the rest of you and it really has nothing to do with his politics! You are a bunch of really really evil and hateful people! I sincerely hope that all of this hate and racial intolerance that all of you are spewing comes back at you big time.

      But fortunately there are genrations of children growing up who will not listen to their parents rant about how if a person does not look like you or believe as you do then they are less than human.

      Eventually your breed will die out, unfortunately it will not be in my lifetime .

      Bye the way this sentence that you posted, be real it is a total lie

      "I have NEVER been racist but Obama is turning me into one."

      • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 09/11/2008 10:27:51 PM

        SJP, Puleeeeze....

        Spare us the typical Bamanite bleeding heart "everybody hates me" spill. Like CTD has asked: Challenge him solely on the issues and leave out the bleeding poor me stuff. Respectfully.

        • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 09/12/2008 2:55:23 PM

          NEITHER YOU NOR YOUR OPINION ARE OF ANY CONCERN TO ME!

    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/11/2008 3:13:34 PM

      While I agree that since McCain is moderate and Hillary got most of the moderate votes during the primaries, McCain stands to get a numebr of independents and "Reagan Democrats."
      However, Obama's biggest problem is his lack of experience, arrogance, and hubris. Very few democrats voted for Hillary with racist motivations

    • Posted By: cincinnatimom @ 09/11/2008 1:51:46 PM

      Dude, you need anger management.

      • Posted By: careerdaytrader @ 09/11/2008 2:55:01 PM

        Maybe but $107,000 was ENOUGH taxes for me to pay last year and the $150k to $160k I'll pay this year is ENOUGH.

        I hate, absolutely HATE lazy, good for nothing, non educated, unintelligent UNsuccessful people who do not pay THEIR fair share of taxes telling those of us who are smart, educated, hard working and ultra successful to PAY MORE.


Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse