Sister, Sister

Palin' (sic) a fast learner? She still doesn't know what the VP does, she thinks the authors of the Bible "forgot" to mention dinosaurs in Leviticus and that business about Siberian proximity giving her foreign policy experience. Siberia is where they sent people because it didn't matter. Real America.. palling with terrorists...Communist...? She is permanently damaged goods. I'll bet Senator Murkowski is praying Palin doesn't end up in the senate with her.

A former Newsweek reporter admitted in an article this week that he has no objectivity and imagined disabling Rudy Giuliani so he wouldn't run in the presidential primary race last year.
Michael Hastings wrote in GQ magazine that he had a "recurring fantasy" that he could somehow stop the former New York City mayor in his tracks.
"I quickly realized Rudy was a maniac. I had a recurring fantasy in which I took him out during a press conference (it was nonlethal, just something that put him out of commission for a year or so), saving America from the horror of a President Giuliani. If that sounds like I had some trouble being 'objective,' I did. Objectivity is a fallacy," he said.

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_7484&pageNum=2

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/55_say_media_bias_bigger_problem_than_campaign_cash

55% Say Media Bias Bigger Problem Than Campaign Cash

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080819.asp

Media Credibility Plummets, Just 30% Believe 'Most Trusted' CNN

If the Republicans had the power to do all this evil themselves, without the support of the legislative branch of our government, I would be very surprised. Perhaps if the members of the legislative branch of government voted something other than ... let's see.... PRESENT ... or stop all this BIPARTISAN bull .. maybe something more productive could have been done. Must be nice to collect a fat paycheck and not have had to do anything but show up. Where's the accountability in that?

I am certainly more comforted with the thought of Sarah Palin leading our country, than I am with the opposition of Obama and Biden. In just a few short weeks, she has stepped up the plate rather well. She is bright, demonstrates the ability to learn quickly and has the ability to regroup well when allowed to be herself.

It is comical that some find the thought of her with a rifle in her hand next to a dead grizzly bear, repulsive, certainly have forgotten how our country was forged, not so long ago. Many of us, educated, good looking, mothers and career women, DO hunt, own weapons, are members of the Armed Forces, and have been in combat zones. No powder puff barbie could ever stand up to the pressures of a political life, unless it's on the arm of some fillandering creep who just uses her for show and tell.

Sarah Palin is honest, hard working, fearless, and level headed. I believe she would be far more instrumental in getting our financial straights back on track than that of the opponents.

However, if you prefer to live in a world where all your hard earned dollars are redistributed to those who "haven't been as fortunate" or where you just can't wait to see what new tax has been cooked up for you next by the Obamanites -- like a tax for every stock transaction, or then there is the tax on the capital gains from your home sale (eating up all of what might be left from your hard earned eqity) or whatever else lies lurkiing in the shadows .. if that's for you -- go to Obama.

This woman doesn't strike me as anyone who will take crap ... and the fact that she disagrees with John McCain is okay too ... nobody likes a "yes" (wo) man.

We'll get our money's worth with Sarah Palin. Give her the job ... if you're afraid ... get a dog!

I have worked with women my entire professional career. I am currently in charge of a large compliment of modern women and I truly respect them for their individual competence. However, I cannot give them any quarter, because when the hammer comes down they must be as good as the next person or they do not function. We need more women in leadership positions, but not as replacements for men. They need to be just who they are... women! They need to be able to look at a situation, analyze it with their own female perspectives, and then take into account the perspectives of others. This is the rational for any leader to work out a crisis, and I would not expect anything less from a woman who leads. The Microcredit projects in many third world countries have found that they lend their money 90% of the time to women. That is because most men have no concept of the family foundations that keep a family and a country together. Men are usually selfish, and frequently do not involve their families in what they view as their own success. We as a people have a lot to learn from that piece of information.

Bush was just as incompetent to lead when he was being interviewed back in 2000 as Palin is today. He had no concept of real government or the responsibilities of a true government leader despite his being the Governor of Texas. (Texas has one of the weakest Governors constitutionally, and Bush had a mere 138 people that reported to him directly.) He was a figurehead for some "king makers" and served his masters well. He has gotten this country into the worst mess I have seen or read about in all of our history, mainly because he had no idea what he was supposed to do.

Those around him were just doing what was right for their own personal interests, and they took the American people for a ride into the abyss. Sarah Palin is in the same situation. She has absolutely no concept of what she has to do to be functional in her position as even Vice-President, let alone President; even though she has been the Governor of a state that has 640,000 people. There are more people in the City of Jacksonville, Florida.

Fortunately, she could be as most vice-Presidents have been and be simply a footnote in history. However, there is a significant potential that with McCain, being as old as he is and as sick as he has been recently. Therefore, Palin's potential to become President of this country looms large before us, and she is in no way she is ready. Certainly not because she is a woman, but simply because she is in no way prepared for the grueling set of decisions that will face the next President, no matter who they may be. Whoever gets the reigns of government in this election will be under the worst scrutiny of any President since FDR. There are only hard decisions ahead, for both the leaders of this country as, well as the American people. United we stand, divided we will fall. History is full of powerful nations that are now third world countries.

I have worked with women my entire professional career. I am currently in charge of a large compliment of modern women and I truly respect them for their individual competence. However, I cannot give them any quarter, because when the hammer comes down they must be as good as the next person or they do not function. We need more women in leadership positions, but not as replacements for men. They need to be just who they are... women! They need to be able to look at a situation, analyze it with their own female perspectives, and then take into account the perspectives of others. This is the rational for any leader to work out a crisis, and I would not expect anything less from a woman who leads. The Microcredit projects in many third world countries have found that they lend their money 90% of the time to women. That is because most men have no concept of the family foundations that keep a family and a country together. Men are usually selfish, and frequently do not involve their families in what they view as their own success. We as a people have a lot to learn from that piece of information.

Bush was just as incompetent to lead when he was being interviewed back in 2000 as Palin is today. He had no concept of real government or the responsibilities of a true government leader despite his being the Governor of Texas. (Texas has one of the weakest Governors constitutionally, and Bush had a mere 138 people that reported to him directly.) He was a figurehead for some "king makers" and served his masters well. He has gotten this country into the worst mess I have seen or read about in all of our history, mainly because he had no idea what he was supposed to do.

Those around him were just doing what was right for their own personal interests, and they took the American people for a ride into the abyss. Sarah Palin is in the same situation. She has absolutely no concept of what she has to do to be functional in her position as even Vice-President, let alone President; even though she has been the Governor of a state that has 640,000 people. There are more people in the City of Jacksonville, Florida.

Fortunately, she could be as most vice-Presidents have been and be simply a footnote in history. However, there is a significant potential that with McCain, being as old as he is and as sick as he has been recently. Therefore, Palin's potential to become President of this country looms large before us, and she is in no way she is ready. Certainly not because she is a woman, but simply because she is in no way prepared for the grueling set of decisions that will face the next President, no matter who they may be. Whoever gets the reigns of government in this election will be under the worst scrutiny of any President since FDR. There are only hard decisions ahead, for both the leaders of this country as, well as the American people. United we stand, divided we will fall. History is full of powerful nations that are now third world countries.

Nins , what is your name, French for "moron"? You know nothing of what you speak.
The only mistake Bush made was not rounding up ALL Muslims in the USA and putting them on ships back to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I never met one Muslim that had any real business being in the USA. All of them have loyalties first to Islam, next to to their native country, and last of all to the USA. We have no need for a million traitors like that.

What was McCain supposed to do, pick a typical Democrat-style woman, some fat lesbian like Andrea Dworkin or Madeline Albright or Barbara Mikulski or Cindy Sheehan or the like? Are we Republicans supposed to grovel and apologize to you liberals that our women are not hideous fat warthogs like your women? Are we supposed to be sorry that our women are pretty and feminine, as well as bright and poised?

Buchanan is 100% right. Regardless of the amount of experience a woman had, the left would try to tear down and destroy ANY woman who was pro-life, pro-family, NRA member, etc. Period. The left despises any woman who isn't part of their pro-abortion, socialist , tear-America-down agenda.

After all the rhetoric, and in the final analysis, I think Sarah Palin was chosen by default. McCain had noone else to energize the base - which didn't like him. While some of his other choices would have been, in my opinion, far more qualified to be "one heartbeat away," he was going for the win. That being said, he and Sarah Palin have shown themselves to be beneath contempt in their "pull out the stops" campaigning and mud throwing. Sarah has proven herself a willing partner and even instigator. I'm just waiting for her to tell us what "anti American" is and who gets to decide. That stupid woman from Minnesota. Good Lord, I'm simply amazed at what we elect to represent us. I agree with the comment that criticism of Sarah rolls off her because she considers herself superior to her critics. Too bad she doesn't take an occasional moment to listen to them. But then, that would be demonstrating curiousity - a trait she seems to be sorely lacking.

Why all this nonsense about feminism, sexist and all the other labels apropos to females? The world I know consists of PEOPLE; not just women, not just men, but PEOPLE! As a male I am COMPELLED to pay the EXACT same price for a gallon of gasoline for my vehicle as ANY OTHER MAN, WOMAN OR "PERSON"! Beauty or whatever is in the eyes of the behoder. Pray tell WHAT DOES BEING SEXY, BEAUTIFUL, MALE OR FEMALE have to do with the moral or economic condition the US is so deeply and desperately now entrenched in? EVERYONE occasionally endures sickness, pain and grief. Is it reserved strictly for women? Is it reserved just for men? I THINK NOT , PER THE PRECEDING. All of us have a reservation with the cemetery and grave. Being male, female, beautiful, unattractive, ad infinitm, is not going to alter, cancel or change that REALITY one tiny bit. What is this fixation on being female or male? GET REAL AND A LIFE PEOPLE. WE ARE ALL HERE BY ONE AND ONLY ONE REASON; THE GRACE OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People on these bogs are fond of saying that the current economic meltdown was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriting bad mortgages. While Fannie and Freddie obviously are guilty of writing bad mortgages, and worse, guilty of lobbying Congress to allow them to do so with impunity, their actions are just a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to determining who (or what) caused the financial crisis we face today.

In 1929 the stock market crash caused the banks to fail, because the banks were in bed with the stock market. Back then, banks owned investment houses, so when the stock market fell, the banks fell too. This triggered the Great Depression. So in 1933 the Congress wrote laws that regulated banking, making it illegal for banks to own investment companies, mortgage guaranty companies or insurance companies. The idea was to keep key industries separated by a fire wall, so that if one industry failed the whole economy would not go down in flames.

But the Republicans under Bush deregulated the banking industry. Senator Phil Gramm wrote legislation (the Gramm Rudman Act, the Gramm Leach Biley Act, etc.) that stripped away the regulations in the financial and insurance industies. He pushed them through the Republican Congress and they were signed into law by Geo. W. Bush. John McCain voted in favor. Everybody said how great it is to deregulate and create free markets.

Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch each gave over a million dollars to Senator Gramm's re-election campaign.

The economic collapse that happened later was a direct result of the deregulation, and here's how: the banks wrote bad mortgages, then bundled the mortgages into investment vehicles that they sold all over the world, and they even got firms like AIG to insure the investments. It was all a house of cards.

If there had been no deregulation, sure we would have had a bunch of bad mortgages, and the mortgage guaranty and real estate industries would have suffered, but there would not have been a global financial meltdown, since the problem would have been contained in one sector of the economy. You can thank Geo W. Bush, Sen. Phil Gramm and Sen John McCain for the meltdown, since they were strong proponents of deregulation.

Furthermore, although Fannie and Freddie are now holding the bulk of these bad mortgages, Fannie and Freddie did not originally write most of these mortgages. They bought them after the fact, bundled by banks/investment companies. Fannie and Freddie got screwed by the Wall Street fat cats. And so did you, if you pay taxes.

What is Phil Gramm doing today? He works as a lobbyist in Washington, trying to make it legal for the Swiss bank he represents to sell Death Bonds in the United States. Nice guy, Phil Gramm. Incidentally, John McCain has said that he wants to appoint Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary. Some people just can't learn from their mistakes.

After 9/11, the US government started rounding up Muslims without cause and without due process of law, like we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII. The Bush administration called it's main internment camp Guantanamo Bay. While there are certainly many guilty terrorists held in Guantanamo, there are also many innocent American citizens who have been held illegally for years without even being charged with any crime. They have been tortured by our government. Some of them have died.

Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration in the matter of Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court Justices were NOT on the side of the terrorists. They were on the side of the Geneva Convention, that says you can not torture POWs, and on the side of US laws that state you can not imprison a person without charging them with a crime and bringing them to trial. I'm sure that like most Americans, the Justices who voted against the illegal, immoral doings at Guantanamo didn't feel sympathy for the terrorists. They felt sympathy for the laws of AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where even rat finks get a fair trial.

Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the Bush administration is busy trying to build a smokescreen to hide the CRIMES they have committed. Those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Just think, the National Debt went up over 6 trillion dollars under Bush. More than 2 TRILLION of it went directly into the pockets of Halliburton, a corporation owned by the Cheney family. Halliburton is now a DUBAI corporation and therefore is not subject to US taxes. All that money they took out of the US Treasury is going into the coffers of a MUSLIM country.

Did you hear about how the US government is being charged millions for Halliburton deliveries of sand into Iraq from Kuwait? Sand. Like there is a shortage of sand in Iraq? Another contractor shipped sand from Idaho to Iraq at our expense. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz discusses these and other excesses of our current government's out of control spending in Iraq.

Your grandchildren will be working like slaves to pay off this debt, so that the Bushes and Cheneys can live the high life in Dubai.

Yeah, they're patriots, Bush&Co. They wear flag pins. And hide the money they stole from America in Dubai.

And they want me to believe that Obama is a socialist. Right.

In case you think McCain is any different than Bush, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w

Will someone please ask Bay Buchanan on what planet women who compare themselves to pitbulls are considered "extremely feminine."

Then, please send Palin there. She is not wanted on Earth.

Who "Joe the plumber" may be is not the issue, though it's easy to see why the Dems want it to be. That's because the real issue is what Obama's comments to him revealed about Obama. In the exchange with "Joe the plumber" we find out that Obama really is as radical as his early political acquaintances, Davis, Ayers, Wright, etc., and that he is into the failed economic policy of wealth redistribution. Obama's tax and spending plans alone would be bad enough, but add Reid and Pelosi to the mix, with the three of them controlling both houses of Congress and the executive branch without any effective restraint, and you have something that should causes concern even among moderate Democrats.
See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

And whether McCain won or lost the third debate is also not relevant. He succeeded in the first half hour to plant the seeds of a Reagan style wipeout. Reputable historians and economists overwhelmingly agree that the taxation imposed by Hoover and FDR, and the "stimulus" spending and public works programs of FDR, actually deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. It was the production demands of WWII that got the economy going again. And when the war was over, the economy promptly went into recession.

See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/03/opinion/main4499465.shtml
And
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Point is, Obama's programs are to tax, and it does not really matter who he taxes, those taxes are going to be passed through the economy. He has to tax, because it is they only way he can pay for his massive social engineering experiments. Any first year economics student knows that taxation is a tool used to contract an economy experiencing inflation, because it reduces demand by reducing the amount of money individuals and businesses have to spend. It is contractionary, which is exactly what you do not want to do when the problem is that the economy is contracting already into recession. Like Hoover and FDR, Obama's plans will only make it worse for longer.

Look and listen for yourself. Hear Obama in his own words discusses his links to both ACORN and the mortgage meltdown, and praises bundling and securitizing mortgages by banks as a means to float loans to the poor. Never mind the link commentators point of view, just listen to what Obama says in his own words. A picture is worth a thousand words. Maybe more in the case of the last half of the second link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

See also:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=808692&boardsparam=Page%3d2

This is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

And the link below describes how some Democrats in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

what a terribly misleading title. i was expecting some legitimate conversation of sarah palin and all i got were a few quotes and some harping on hillary clinton.

McCain is connected to Nazi supporters and Central American death squads.. so says
FoxNews and Washington Post (two Republican news publishers)

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/07/attention-ayers-renew-focus-mccains-iran-contra-connection/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100700025.html

The old guy has a long infamous past.