Posted by rbmorgan (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree it is not clear why she is resigning. However, if I were to venture a guess it would be so she can cash in on her celebrity by going on a speaking tour. Unless she starts studying real hard, she has no chance at a presidential bid, and this move will make that even more difficult.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe she means what she says and thinks she can do more out of politics than in. Jimmy Carter has done a lot of real good since leaving politics maybe she will do the same. I realize that saying something like that isn't negative and doesn't make good journalism so no one would even consider it. Leave the woman alone for cryin' out loud.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How can you leave somebody alone that keeps interjecting themselves into the public dialogue?......I have a feeling nothing would upset her more than to be left alone.

What she does seem to want however is never to be questioned or challenged. That however is quite hard to achieve for someone who loves the limelight.

I'm a thinkin the governorship was about to become a drag on her presidental aspirations...so she's looking at making a lot of money with speaking engagements....maybe a lucrative stint on FOX News....then on to 2012.

Conventional wisdom would say she probably has shot herself in the foot....but she has come a long way bucking conventional wisdom. Who knows?

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's about time!!.. Good for Sarah! She was criticized for defending her family in the media,and now, she's being criticized for stepping down as Governor. Shame on the media!..Who have they treated worse than the Palin family?.
Someone on MSNBC said that Hillary was "pimping" Chelsea's help" during the campaign, and he was suspended for saying it.
I love that she held a press conference on Friday night, when the lower 48 states press couldn't get there. That was a well planned announcement. It was great listening to the press whine because they weren't included. They are so confused?.

How can anyone say that she is a quitter. when Obama, Clinton, Biden,and McCain collected a pay check in the Senate while running for office?..None of them were near the end of their terms?...Obama had less experience than Sarah Palin, answered fewer questions about himself, and we still know less about him than we do Sarah Palin.

For any women reading this...What would you do in her place, if the media had treated you and your family the way they have treated Sarah Palin?..What has she ever done to any of us?...She has a daughter that has a child, "out of wedlock"..she has a son with Downs Syndrom, and gets in trouble for traveling with her family.? John Kerry wishes it was Sarah Palin that disappeared instead of Governor Sanford?

Seems to me, I just saw the whole Obama family get on Air Force 1 heading to Russia..and, how about that Friday night "date night" in New York, or the family trip to France? Where was the outrage?

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well..All I can say is I hope if she ever becomes President she doesn't decide there's something else she would rather do then walk out with two weeks notice like she worked at McDonalds are some place.

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy- I understand what you're saying. I like that you said, "if" she ever becomes President. :-)

Maybe she will run for the Senate seat next year, and win...THEN, decide to run for President while she is still in her first term as Senator. (like Obama?). That would be acceptable?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State (in the middle of a war) with 4 years left on his term......... Obama ruled out running for Prez in 2008 in 2004, because among other things he believed in doing the job you were elected to do.

I have no clue as to what her future will be - but IF she decides to make a run, I think it would be 2016, not 2012. She'll be an ancient 52 by then.....

But then again, it worked for Obama..... Here's the transcript from January 22 2006 on Meet the Press with Tim Russert:

http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/05/oba...

"MR. RUSSERT: There’s been enormous speculation about your political future, Senator. The man you succeeded in the Senate, Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican, said this recently. “I think there’s a very good chance that Senator Obama is on the Democratic ticket in 2008 as the vice presidential nominee.” Do you agree?

"SEN. OBAMA: No. You know, I can’t speculate on those kinds of things. What I have said is that, you know, I’m not focused on running for higher office, I’m focused on doing the job that the people of Illinois just sent me to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But there seems to be an evolution in your thinking. This is what you told the Chicago Tribune last month: “Have you ruled out running for another office before your term is up?” Obama answer: “It’s not something I anticipate doing.” But when we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not."

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Am I missing something. Was Obama the only person in the history of our great country to ever say he was not going to run for an office and then run for it anyway. It happens all the time.She has not said one way or another.....but I guess that's alright as long as your name is not Obama.
Truth be know...Colin Powell may well have been fired as much as quit.....but even if he did quit.....cabinet positions are not necessarily eight year term.....and many cabilnet position are changed in the scond term.

But all that is beside the point.....my problem is the two weeks notice....My God...she wasn't working as a fry cook. And she apparently didn't even tip her successor that it was coming. I can't think of any high ranking elected official that has ever done that except in the event of quit or be forced out.

Posted by gooseylucy (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with biscuitboy. I find it scary that she is obviously not at all concerned about leaving her post with such short notice. Heck, even my job here in Emporia requires more than 2 weeks notice.

And gabby, anyone knows when you get into the political arena, you better be prepared. You have to expect to be under a microscope and yes, your family is "fair game". I'm not saying it's right, but that's just the way it is. If you don't think you can take it, don't get into the ring. And don't be pulling a Bret Favre i.e., is she running for president or not. (Yes she is, no she's not.) This isn't a game, this is serious business!!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My point wasn't so much that Obama changing his mind about running for office, it was doing the job he was elected to do. I'd actually prefer that people who run quit their job at the time, let someone else take over so the state isn't paying the salary for someone on the campaign trail full-time. But, she's not running for anything (as of yet). I guess I'll just have to be content with the reasons she's given. As much as I distrust politicians - LOL.

As for myself, yes, surprised by the slightly over 3 weeks notice (not 2, lets be accurate) - but then, thinking about it, what would have been served by giving, say 6 months notice? If that's truly not where your focus is, then the sooner you let someone else take the reigns, the better. From what I've seen she wasn't getting anything done but a full-time job battling all the ethics charges anyway (one of which was filed under the name of a soap opera character). Alaskans would probably be better served by someone who was able to....... serve.

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/731157.ht...

Anyway, she's not the first. Christie Todd Whitman resigned as governor of New Jersey in 2003 to "spend more time with her family". She later cited conflicts with the Bush admin as contributing reasons......

I can think of quite a few politicians I wish would resign right now....... for the good of the country, let alone their own state..... :)

Posted by pizza (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about Sebelius? She had no intention of fulfilling her term if she could suck up to somebody in Washington to get another job. She just used Kansas and fought the legislature. Oh, I forgot, she's a democrat so it's ok.

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can understand why everyone feels like they do about her. But, so far, no one is announcing they are running for President in 2012, so why do we need to know for sure if she is running?
I agree that if it's rough now, it will be 10 times more rough if she gets in the WH...BUT, I have never in my life seen anyone..(man or woman) and not even our Governor, treated, by the press,or bloggers, the way Sarah Palin is treated.
She has done nothing to anyone...She hasn't been caught in any big lies..She has a wonderful family, and I will not judge her because her daughter has a baby out of wedlock, when it seems that women all over the world are doing it. (Angelina Jolie?)...Her son is Down Syndrome, and adorable and so loved. David Letterman's remark about her other daughter was humiliating and disgusting, (even if he tried to make excuses) but, he's still on t.v. Don Imus, lost his show for making a tasteless, careless remark, and sincerely apologized, but Letterman is still on air, and, even laughing about it.
Where is NOW?..Where is the outrage by women? We're all so careful not to appear racist...what about sexist?.

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pizza.....Thanks!.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, people need to put the pitch forks away. It has been said by the libs that claim to be moderates on these forums that we should reserve judgement on Obama for atleast a year, some say even until his first term is over. These are the same people on here now bashing the stuffin' out of this gal who is not even in office(or won't be shortly) and has no intention of running for anything as far as we know. I'm sure there will be some quick self justification for why this is but it sure don't seem very consistant to me.

This mirror for the libs was provided by Seriously R. Folks.

Posted by Bryant (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Dr. Kelly.

The only thing I remembered from your class is your comment that the people in Iraq who were killing Americans were just "freedom fighters". So, please excuse me while I think you're just full of crap.

Posted by Bryant (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, wrong Kelly.

Posted by JohnDoe (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like we've reached the 15 minute mark in Palin's 15mins of fame. If she runs in 2012 it may be the biggest loss in election history. She had little experience before but atleast no one had any time to form a long-term distaste for her. Resume as of now... experience as Gov. of Alaska: 1. ran for VP while in office and lost 2. resigned.

Her running in 2012 is about as likely as the Detroit Lions winning the SuperBowl this year. Actually winning? ....same odds.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't see her running in 2012, nor do I think that is her intent. But then again I actually believed some of what Obama said on the campaign trail, so I'm just as big a fool when it comes to politics as everyone else - LOL. Plus maybe by 2016 she'll be "uglied up" a bit from what she is now, so that the same business suits and outfits she wears now that are trendsetting on others but slutty flight-attendant outfits on her will not have the same effect. Maybe she's going to have some cosmetic surgery to make her less attractive, it might take a few years so 2012 is out.

I've said it on here many, many times, seriouslyfolks. Alot of people here apparently don't own a single mirror anywhere in the house.....

I'll tell you exactly where NOW is, gabby. Palin is their poster child - an intelligent, successful, driven woman who has bucked the trend and stereotypes to be exactly who and what she chooses to be, and has managed to be successful at it in a male-dominated field. NOW's model spokesperson.

Oh, and she's also pro-life (and Republican to boot). So scratch what I just said, totally disregard it, my bad, my apologies.

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 1:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Letterman comment. His job is comedy, and shock comments. For all the whining and complaining that he should be fired for insulting that "poor defenseless woman's daughter", she has gotten nothing but attention about it. For some odd reason, even though she lost in the race with McCain, people still seem to think her every move is important.
As far as the press and her family, she is a politician of course they will be scrutinized. it wasnt that her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock, that happens to about sixty five percent of women now so not that suprising. I read the article published about her daughter and i cant tell you how nice it was to hear her whine and complain about how sex is a curse and if anyone else knew that it led to a screaming baby no one would ever have sex. Sweet thing for a mother to say dont you think? I'm a father and raising a kid is not difficult, just time consuming. I'd like to see her daughter twelve years from now ( the baby not palin's daughter) read that same article, and ask her mother why she decided to have sex when she was clearly not ready to be a mother. I trash the people who bring it on themselves. Believe me i have my skeletons but at least i own up to them and i dont blame the act of something. I blame myself. Maybe the Palins should try it once. But hey i'm just a regular guy, what do i know? Oh, and how old was palins daughter when she got pregnant? I think if she was at least fifteen then she should have known the backlash of sex, if not place some tin foil on her head so we know who to avoid!!!

Posted by HillsReader (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Zoe:
How do you write women so well?

Melvin Udall:

I think of a man and take away
reason and accountability.

–As Good As Is Gets
--
Palin needs to stop giving Hollywood more reasons to write lines like this.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 4:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So Palin ran for the vice-presidency while she was still in office and that was alright....she did this while McCain was running for the Presidency while still serving in the Senate....and that too was alright. But Obama's run for the presidency while still serving in the senate was cheating the taxpayers.

Sebelius may, or may not, have never planned to finish her term.....but she at least stayed with her first job until she got another. Then we prefer that a democrat....read Obama....have done the job he was hired to do.......but we praise the republican....read Palin....for walking off of hers.

Talk about you double standards......
The conservative mind is an amazing thing.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 5:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes

You cited Christie Todd Whitman's resignation for family....then a later announcement of contributing reasons....

I can't wait to hear the contributing reasons here that I'm sure will be forthcoming. Anybody that really believes this diva is going to quietly retreat into the background to love her family.....well I've still got that Chase County ocean front property for sale. lol

Posted by create (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah Palin says in her latest CNN interview that the government of Alaska is paralyzed as long as she is governor because "we spend most of our day fending off all the frivolous lawsuits." But in the same interview, she claims to be "wired for public service" and that her resignation is an "unconventional way of getting things done." Now we have to guess what that means.

The CNN reporter conducted his interview with Palin while she was out minding their family fishing business. He introduces his interview by describing Palin as "stepping off the boat looking rugged and strong." I found it strange that she was also in full makeup albeit in waders. Of course, she has always gotten by on looks and flash. That's why I believe she's up to something.

Frankly, I don’t believe the Governor of Alaska is President of the United States material. "I'm not a quitter, I'm a fighter," she claims. In view of massive economic problems, this is not the time for governors to abandon their states. If anything, this makes her look very weak.

She quit her last state office as chair of the Alaska OIl and Gas Conservation Commission.

The town of Wasilla came close to launching a recall of her when she was mayor.

She complains of being scrutinized yet she accused President Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists." She accused city people in the lower 48 of not being "real." She used her Christian background to take a superior moral stance over other religions. And she's complaining about politics being a "blood sport"? And all the while she's enjoying being right in the middle of the ring. Even now, even in resigning, she is raising the stakes.

All this hoopla of resigning while trying to keep it low key is working just as she planned -- keeping her right directly in the public eye. She's up to something, and this "unconventional way of getting things done" will soon be made more clear. My guess is that she will now make moves toward getting Alaska to secede. Yup, you heard it here first. I really think that's what she's up to.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Her husband has reportedly had close ties to an Alaska secessionist group in the past.
Since secession is akin to tearing the country apart....I wonder if that makes it akin to "having ties to terrorist." lol

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Seriously: "Jimmy Carter has done a lot of real good since leaving politics" Like what? All the guy does is go around and the world and validate terrorists and dictators. If he has done any good, it is far outweighed by the damage.

Sarah Palin should have finished out her term as governor. I think this was a very bad move on her part.

I don't think she would have had a chance at being president even if she had stayed governor. There are too many people like some on this message board who listen and take at face value what the MSM tells them, no questions asked.

Besides, although she has more experience than Obama at running things it is simply not enough. Now we can see firsthand the damage that can be done by placing someone in the presidency with little to no experience.

Don't get me wrong, I like Sarah and the conservative principles that she represents but Mitt Romney is a much better choice. The Republican party can no longer afford to pander to the left. They tried placing a neutral figure in John McCain up for president. McCain is probably the most center candidate ever and the Democratic response was to put their most left-wing candidate up, all the while screaming that the Republican party is too far right.

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes - I agree with you that she won't run in 2012..She's still young (and way too attractive) so she still has a few more years to consider it. Hopefully, she won't use botox, she'll put on a few pounds and, let herself go a little.

By the way, I have never heard Sarah Palin announce she was thinking of running for President in 2012...The Media has been saying that!...but, she does have a political future, and that's what scares the Obama fan club.

Someone tell me...WHEN, has President Obama been treated by the Media, in any way they have treated Sarah Palin..."before or since" he became President? Even the President, himself, jokes about "being in bed with the press!".
And, when have they written about his family...unless, it was in glowing terms?

-romano.. You're a father?..and you say, raising a kid is not difficult?...I wonder, do you actually live with your kid?..you have one kid? and, you say it is just time consuming?....
biscuitboy ---I think I know the person that will buy your ocean front property in Chase County? :-)

and, romano...I think introducing your family to the whole world, and opening them to criticism to anyone that wants to take a shot...is "owning up to it.".

Create- I've read a lot of your posts lately and you quote a lot of the press. Do you have any original thoughts of your own? Or do you just believe anything you hear on CNN or read in the newspapers? I saw the interviews in Alaska this morning and I thought the best part was when she looked in Andrea Mitchells face and said..."You aren't listening to me!".

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Someone tell me...WHEN, has President Obama been treated by the Media, in any way they have treated Sarah Palin..."before or since" he became President?"
I think I can answer this one. People believe that Obama has been treated harshly by the media. They just think that he is THAT good and deserves all praise and admiration and the media is not giving him enough, so in their eyes he is getting treated pretty badly. It's all a matter of perspective. They see Sarah Palin as the embodiment of evil so she deserves what she gets and probably more but you know there's only so much time in a day. Obama on the other hand is super groovy and deserves 24 7 praise. The media obviously can't do both at the same time, I don't envy their job.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

create,

President Obama DID in fact pal around with terrorists. That is a FACT. If you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore it then that is fine. Personally, I think it was an important subject that should have been talked about but your beloved CNN and others simply blew it off. Bill Ayers actively tried to blow people up! I don't care how long ago it was, I would NEVER associate myself with someone like that. But of course, Obama needed the money and we see no sign that he doesn't agree with the left wing marxist tactics of Bill Ayers and the like. Let's talk about that.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I did not mean to imply that I was singling out Obama for running for office while neglecting his current job, I was using that example for those talking about her reasons for leaving. I said: "I'd actually prefer that people who run quit their job at the time, let someone else take over so the state isn't paying the salary for someone on the campaign trail full-time". That goes for everyone, both parties. And why shouldn't it?

"Then we prefer that a democrat....read Obama....have done the job he was hired to do.......but we praise the republican....read Palin....for walking off of hers."

If you read closer, you would have seen I prefer that both do the same. And I am not putting it out there as "praise", just that I'd prefer not to pay someone's salary for not doing that job.

In view of massive economic problems, I'm guessing saving the state alot of $$ on frivolous lawsuits, and not having them pay your salary to do absolutely nothing for the state while you pursue other ambitions is better for the state economically than the alternatives. Not saying it is the preferred outcome over all, but I can see the point. Or I guess she could campaign for senate or something, like all candidates (McCain & Obama both) do for the next year and a half, (doing zero for Alaska) - all the while drawing a paycheck, and costing the state alot of $$ for the lawsuits. How exactly is that being a good governor in times of economic duress again????

Create, you forgot to mention - she only won 58% of the vote her first term as mayor.... and after the "near recall"... she won re-election.... with 74% of the vote....... you might have missed that. I doubt our current President would win as much of the vote as his first go-around if a re-election were held at this exact moment.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Chairwoman Sarah Palin said Friday she is resigning amid frustration that she is being forced to keep silent about ethics allegations against Republican Party of Alaska chairman Randy Ruedrich.

"I'm forced to withhold information from Alaskans, and that goes against what I believe in as a public servant," Palin said in a Friday interview.

Ruedrich, reached on his cell phone, wouldn't discuss Palin's resignation.

Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski appointed both Ruedrich and Palin to the state commission last spring. In November, Ruedrich resigned the $118,000 commission job in the face of mounting criticism that his job and his party position presented a conflict of interest.

As a top party official he was raising political funds from the same industries he regulated as a commissioner. In addition, allegations surfaced that Ruedrich was doing party business while he was on the state job as an oil and gas commissioner.

Palin has deflected numerous questions from the press about the Ruedrich affair in recent weeks. The Alaska Department of Law has told her that she cannot talk about the ethics allegations against Ruedrich, even after she resigns."

Let's tell the whole story, shall we? And isn't that terrible? Yep, I'd MUCH rather have a public servant that just keeps their mouth shut and stays in line and screws Joe Q. Public over. That's what we elect them for, right???? Gosh.... going against your own party for what is right..... how terrible.... good thing we've got straight party people in power now. I'd hate to think of a bi-partisan Pelosi & White House. Where would we be without good-old entrenched Chicago-style politics? "A new kind of politics".... not the "old-guard"....... "Change"........ right........ admit it.... it seems nobody TRULY wants that...... they just like to say it....

As has been said.......Talk about your double standards......
The liberal mind is an amazing thing.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I too am just totally amazed on how much we and the media keep concentrating on Palin. It almost smells like....... fear...... fear from the left, that they actually deep down believe she might have a shot someday. Otherwise, they'd be rooting as hard as possible for the candidate they thought had the least chance to win. And fear from the right, because.... she has bucked the party line and the system in the past. They want someone they can control, and they're afraid they might not be able to. You know, the kind of person everyone says they really want but then always vote just the opposite? LOL

Then again, she might just hit the talkshow circuit and raise her kids. Everyone needs to just ease back off the ulcer medicine for awhile and see what happens...... might be a good move, might be a stupid one. Time will tell. Or shall we all give it the "year" that the amazing liberal mind has demanded we give Obama and his policies? :)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I just watched the interview on the web. Unkempt hair, a t-shirt and chest waders. Flash! Yep, that's exactly what my date wore to the prom!!!! LOLOLOLOL....

I think she had to know she is going to be hounded by reporters for awhile. Create, I'll bet if you were in her shoes right now you wouldn't leave the house without at least putting on some makeup. Think Pelosi or Mrs. Obama are ever caught outside the house without any? Heck, I might even try to cover up some wrinkles if I know CNN is coming..... anything to help me with the 25-70 female demographic....... LOLOLOL

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

seriouslyfolks...You're right...but, the President, himself, admits that the press is in bed with him.
and, I'm sorry but I haven't heard anything that makes the personal attacks balance out.

Political attacks, I understand...but, when the press actually investigates ACORN, the truth about Obamas relationship with Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers, I might agree they are trying to be fair.

The media controls what we are told.
Unfortunately, Sarah Palin, doesn't have the luxury of reviewing her questions before they are asked, so she can prepare a reply...unlike, our President.
Thank goodness, Helen Thomas got it!-after 40 years.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In the past, I've always thought of the press as a full-time watchdog, sentry, keeping government accountable and in line by always sniffing around and exposing any and all improprieties, keeping the public informed. Actually the press should be not "liked" by ANY public official, because they should know that the press is the only thing keeping what they do open and transparent to the public.

Now we have white house spokespersons saying:

"At the White House, as we always like to say, we LOVE MSNBC."

And that only bothers roughly 1/2 of the country. Amazing.

Yep, Helen Thomas finally gets it. Funny how much hoopla O'Reilly got for saying her voice sounded like the witch of the west...... and I hardly hear anything about her blowup at the staged town hall meeting......... again....... amazing.......

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The only fear I have of her is how much furthur she will sink the GOP ticket if she runs, she is almost the the frontrunner by default with all the marital scandals on the right as of late(why personal affairs make people any less qualified to run a state is beyond me but everyone else seems to cry wolf). Her and ole' Mitt are it currently, and with that kind of competition you can just rubber stamp Obama for another term, I would love to have a real choice in the matter, but she belongs on TV with the rest of the Queens out there not in position of power. She has done next to nothing besides take on her own party to get elected, yet you would Alaska never existed without her by the way she talks, it's funny because it is.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think a person's character and values can be a big reflection and barometer on how they run their affairs in public office. Someone who is a liar and a cheat in their personal life I don't really trust all that much to govern me. (Why people don't seem to consider that with qualifications is beyond me).

When you say "next to nothing"..... you might try getting your news from more than one source.......a quick search and a short list just in her first couple of years is:

"The bills involved a new arrangement for building a natural gas pipeline, higher taxes on oil companies, and new ethics rules covering the governor’s administration and the legislature.

Those were her major initiatives. Next on Palin’s list of priorities were maintaining the solvency of the pension program for teachers, cutting spending in the state’s capital budget, and assuring that parents who home school their children aren’t discriminated against by state regulations"

All terrible, terrible things I'm sure.

But to be fair, Obama got some things accomplished as Senator also. I'm not impressed with some of them, though.
According to the NY Times, he has missed 70% of Senate votes & the votes he actually bothered to show up for were marked present.. He voted for a bill that made it nearly impossible for ordinary people to sue giant corporations who rob & defraud. He voted for President Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. He voted to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent.

It's funny because it is. Agree with ya there :)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Crack, you're not pushing for a marmalade ban now, are you? Please say it isn't so! :)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I should add, that searching left-wing sites gave Palin zero accomplishments, right-wing sites a long list, just as left-wing sites gave Obama a long list, and right-wing sites zero or only the negative.

That's why one should always try to get news from more than one source. (Like conservatives do) - LOL

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Assumption much? The pipeline is still in its infancy; it was her pet project and something she could have sold herself on. When in fact it’s a huge mess at the moment and both sides of the isle up there are not optimistic about the chances of it breaking ground anytime soon. Oh yea she sure got a heck of a lot done in 2 years. You really want to start dredging stories lets get to it; I have a file of bookmarks when I researched her back when McCain first tapped her up until now.

I do check conservative and liberal sites and media when checking into someone, both have pretty much the same consensus here, she is loony. Sure there are supporters there always will be, but that is trumped by her divisiveness. The reason she was able to effect anything at all in Alaska is because at one time she WAS an excellent bipartisan. She showed her true colors in the presidential campaign and in doing nothing but throwing mud and acting liking rabid dog she lost all credibility, now who was saying that she always maintains her convictions? Obama a terrorist? By that logic so is her husband (secessionists are also domestic terrorists in my and the FBI's book).

Facts are facts, if she can't handle the media and the pressure now, how could she ever do it as president? My money is that she is going to cash in and sit on the sidelines, and for our sakes I hope I am right.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes,

CAE doesn't "tell people what to do in a mean, petty way, they tell them in a kindly way, to keep them out of danger."

The quote is from a movie called "The Golden Compass". Nicole Kidman is explaining to a child that it is okay for the Magesterium (religious authority) to dictate to others how to live. The movie was based on an anti-religious book of the same name. I thought this was fitting of the CAE and could have been their motto as well.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny. I have a long list of bookmarks on Obama as well.

I wonder how well Obama would have handled the media...... if he didn't have the media already "handled"...... LOL

Funny how she currently enjoys (easily) the highest favorability ratings among republicans..... but yet the "consensus is she is loony". That's a good one. Who's "consensus" exactly? I guess I could say there is a "consensus" about Obama among many people...... and you don't want to hear what it is.......

I've said before. I don't see her doing anything for 2012. Nor do I think she should. If ever. But not 2012.

under_score, sometimes it just doesn't work to tell the kids in a kindly way to not touch the hot stove :). Especially when Sesame Street (MSNBC version) just told them it was full of goodies....... LOL

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Last I checked the topic was Palin, not Obama, funny how you always seem to manage to bring him into when in reality this has nothing to do with him. It is also funny how she enjoys favorable approval ratings among Republicans(which makeup around 32% of the demographic of which she enjoys about 70% which comes out approximately 21% of everyone, when you figure it in with independents and Dems, funny indeed.

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 12:49 p.m.
Facts are facts, if she can't handle the media and the pressure now, how could she ever do it as president? My money is that she is going to cash in and sit on the sidelines, and for our sakes I hope I am right.

To:
-goodoleboy- I'll bet you biscuitboys Chase County ocean front property, that if she had been treated as well as President Obama by the press, she wouldn't have considered resigning.
And, I'll bet any other property biscuitboy has, that you're wrong about her cashing in, and sitting on the sidelines. :-)

I can understand not agreeing with someones idiology, or even being critical about the job they are doing, but to go after family-especially children- is crossing the line. The media has crossed the line with Sarah Palin. Some of the accusations have been so unfounded about her, that the FBI has stepped in to defend her, by saying there is no truth to them.

Again..go ahead..someone tell me, who, in politics, has been treated more cruelly than Sarah Palin and her family? Remind me..please?
As much as people disliked President Bush, they didn't go after his daughters.
No one dared to say anything about Chelsea Clinton(still don't).
The Kennedy's problems get mentioned one day, and after they enter rehab. the story's done....etc. etc. etc.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I think a person's character and values can be a big reflection and barometer on how they run their affairs in public office. Someone who is a liar and a cheat in their personal life I don't really trust all that much to govern me. (Why people don't seem to consider that with qualifications is beyond me)."

So if hypothetically if someone conservative, liberal, whatever came along and just did a phenomenal job, but cheated on his/her spouse then that would be cause for them to resign? Because they made a poor personal choice? Lets just judge everyone by a moral standard and not a performance standard, yeah that’s a great way to run a more efficient government.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gabby,

She gets treated like it because she reacts to everything. I have seen worse said about politicians and public figures but they "gasp" ignore it and guess what it goes away! There are always going to be those kind of people in life that thrive off the misery of others, and in reacting as she has she just feeds the fire, and encourages more of it. Do you seriously think for a minute people would be pushing her buttons if they knew they could not get a response?

From her interview with CNN today:
"She resigned because of the tremendous pressure, time and financial burden of a litany of ethics complaints in the past several months, she said. The complaints were without merit and took away from the job she wanted to do for Alaskans, Palin said."

Pressure? Time? And she could be president? LOL! Ethics complaints have followed her since her Wasilla days, where there is smoke there fire, some are BS, some could be legit, we'll let the judges decide. She said she would be a "lame duck" governor and it would be a waste. What she does not realize is that she brought it on herself with her campaign antics. What would she do with a liberal house and senate that would not cooperate with her if she were president? resign because she would be a lame duck? LOL

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, she quit politics so she can be left alone now, right?

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy, That's too hypothetical for me..you are assuming there are still any politicians that do a phenomenal job.

I am not judging Sarah Palin ...I am asking, what has she ever done to any of us, that makes it right to make fun of her family, and, make other accusations that are proven untrue?

Is this how you want people to judge you?.
And, how is it that so many people say she isn't smart? Smarter than who, or what?
President Obama's words are written by a 26 year old man, and read from a teleprompter....His answers are prepared before a press conference. He didn't debate any more than he had to during the campaign, because he couldn't speak without a teleprompter.
I heard today that someone criticized her speech over the weekend...well, I've yet to hear President Obama speak that long without a teleprompter, or without say ..uhhhh...uhhh.....uh....
OKay..I'm done...I'm drifting into Obamaland...off limits.

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

seriouslyfolks..Nope! she didn't quit. Stay tuned! :-)

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I'm drifting into Obamaland...off limits."
That is funny but at the same time it ain't no joke. When a discussion is about Obama people always say but "what about Bush", now there is a discussion about Palin and it has to stay on track and only about her. Wow it is so confusing to try to figure out how all this works.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're right, we've got a cabinet full of people who didn't pay their taxes, and nobody seems to care, right?

I still look at a person's character and integrity when they are a public figure. If you choose not to, that's fine. If someone has a history of lying, being deceptive, etc, then I will take that into account when I cast my vote. I never said anywhere that anyone who does a great job but cheats should be cast out of office. But I WILL take it into account when weighing my next decision. Besides, you've got to define "phenomenal job" to me a little better. Lots of people think Obama has done that so far. Lots of people disagree. Lots of people think both ways about Palin's term as governor. Phenomenal means..... they did everything YOU agree with? Even if they put a zillion skeletons in the closet behind the scenes to accomplish it? As in...... the ends always justify the means?

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy,

Can you name a something specific that Sarah Palin did that would be considered mud slinging?

The liberal definition of mud-slinging is saying something truthful about a liberal that may not be popular with the general public. For example, Sarah said that Obama was friends with terrorists. In fact he was/is.

Is that your example? Is that your only example? I eagerly await your reply.

Obama is injected into conversations about Sarah Palin when someone comes on here and crticizes her ability and experience. The reason? She has more experience than Obama in leadership roles and so far she has been more successful. At least I don't think she bankrupted Alaska like Obama is doing to the US.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah I'll come out and say she is not smart, it took her 6 years and 5 schools to get a bachelor's in journalism, which is not hard to being with. There are also a virtual plethora statements out there she has made that would make Quayle blush(and I am not talking about the Africa comment).So as a journalist you would think that she would know a little something about what to expect and how to prepare and react with the press.

And again with Obama? Do you really think no on writes her speeches, or that she does not read from a teleprompter, or was tutored en masse for her VP debate? Gimme a break, every politician out there does these things. Obama did in fact write his acceptance speech, and it was good enough to merit credit from even staunch conservatives. Her speech this weekend was panned by critics on both sides, just an FYI.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy,

People who are smarter than you:

Sarah Palin
Dan Qualye
George W Bush

I'll bet money on it.

If liberals were half as smart as they think they are they'd be conservatives.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

under_score

As for her ability to govern, lets start with terms as mayor, in a town with a population roughly 1/8th the size of Emporia

When Palin took over as mayor, Wasilla had zero debt; when she left office 6 years later it had $20 million in debt ($3000 per resident).

She proceeded with construction on the sports complex without closing on the land, ultimately costing the city $1.5 million.

Palin was the first mayor of Wasilla with a full-time city administrator.

A long time borough official said, "The borough takes care of most of the planning, the fire, the ambulance, collecting the property taxes. And on top of that she brought in a city manager to actually run the city day to day."

Palin refused to share an emergency dispatch operation with Palmer, Wasilla's town rival, so she got earmark money for her own system. "Now we have 2 expensive emergency systems and both are losing money", according to a borough official.

It's not rocket science," Palin said in describing her mayorial job to the Frontiersman. "It's $6 million and 53 employees."

Apparently her version of rocket science is very different than ours. More to come, will cite sources if needed, omitted them to try and get everything to fit.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And Dems only make up a mere 6% more of the population than Repubs right now... 38%.... so I guess the same logic would apply to Obama and pretty much every single public figure out there, right?
So lets see, 21% is just the Repubs, but yet, overall, she has a 45% favorability rating (Latest Pew rating, actaully slightly higher than her numbers last October). Let's see..... 45-21=24... meaning... the other 24% came from Dems & Independents....... funny, indeed!!!!!! :)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

now as governor:

The Alaska budget is growing at a rate of 10% per year and the $1,200 payouts due to Alaskans in September are not consistent with restraining government growth

She allocated $500 million subsidy for a gas pipeline project awarded to a Canadian company, TransCanada, rather than negotiate with an existing private venture to save money.

Palin deceived Americans by saying she put a state jet on Ebay when in fact it failed to sell three times and was eventually sold through a Broker, also a Palin supporter, at a $600,000 loss

Do I really need to go on? There is more, but why bother, she quit. She pals around with terriosts too, and has dabbled with socilistic policies as they benefited her agenda. Losing argument, give it a rest.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I saw Palin's teleprompter. It was floating in the water by the fishing boat. Disguised as a buoy :)

I'd love to see Palin in a debate with alot of people who consider her an idiot. All the former mayors, governors, and VP candidates who frequent this board included. As for me, I think I could hold my own with Biden - LOL

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And Dems only make up a mere 6% more of the population than Repubs right now... 38%.... so I guess the same logic would apply to Obama and pretty much every single public figure out there, right?
So lets see, 21% is just the Repubs, but yet, overall, she has a 45% favorability rating (Latest Pew rating, actaully slightly higher than her numbers last October). Let's see..... 45-21=24... meaning... the other 24% came from Dems & Independents....... funny, indeed!!!!!! :)

Problem is that the independents and dems actaully favor Obama quite a bit and her not so much at all? Want to compare polls? Again with the Obama comparisons? You really want to go there? People are even holding Bush in a higher reguard than they do her based on recent trending. It is funny

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can only hope the republicans run her for president. We need a liberal president for eight years to offset the damage done by the previous administration.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"goodoleboy,

People who are smarter than you:

Sarah Palin
Dan Qualye
George W Bush

I'll bet money on it.

If liberals were half as smart as they think they are they'd be conservatives."

Problem is I am not a liberal, just to much for you fathom how an independent works, or perhaps you suffer the from the delusion that everyone in politics is intelligent lol, I know an idiot when I see one, and if IQ score was precursor to politics then I doubt any of the people you listed above would ever have left home, and you can add Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and quite a few others to that list. But I would bet the farm that I am in fact more intelligent than the names listed above on an IQ standard, it does not take a smart man to realize this=)

Posted by wildcatnurse (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Palin is a disgrace to every real woman in politics. Get a brain, and have a real thought. Everything that comes out of that woman's mouth is a joke and if it isn't...it quickly becomes one.
The only good thing about Sarah Palin is Tina Fey's impersonation of her.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did she say she SOLD it on EBay or she PUT it on EBay? (I already know the answer). Let's at least get the spin right. And the jet only brought $2.1 million. And was costing $62,000 quarterly (quarter of a millon per year). So, now she has the power to determine what people will pay for things? Hey, I want $20 million for my car!!!!!!

Maybe someone could point me to all the states that are doing just fine these days. I had no idea Alaska was the only other "California" in the nation..... LOL

But, as they say, there's always more to the story, such as Wasilla.....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy:

Thank you, we'll call that exhibit A of why Palin has more experience than Obama.

What was he doing during that time period? Probably organizing something?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I'd love to see Palin in a debate with alot of people who consider her an idiot. All the former mayors, governors, and VP candidates who frequent this board included. As for me, I think I could hold my own with Biden - LOL"

Judging from what I know, even some first hand knowledge from a friend that lives in the Meadow lakes area in proximity to Wasilla I think anyone with a good education, common sense and decent knowledge of politics would embarass her, I would love to be proven wrong but there are already the interviews that exist that are evidence to the fact she cannot think on her feet and question the very basics of her knowledge.

As for Biden, I think he would say something stupid, but I think he has been around long enough that he can at least "scrap" a bit. But thats not saying much, and to date him being her only competition in a national debate setting does not exactly say much for her fotitude either. Pretty sure Obama tapped him for entertainment value=)

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

wildcatnurse, aren't you the jew hater that was posting on another forum? I have yet to hear you say something intelligent.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy:

Thank you, we'll call that exhibit A of why Palin has more experience than Obama.

What was he doing during that time period? Probably organizing something?

Oh I dunno? Making money as a lawyer, teaching law, writing books, just generally being successful, instead of crowing how he ran a town of 6,000 into the ground and succeeded in peeving them off in the process. Unlike her he had a through understanding of our legal system and current events, what was she again? A sports anchor?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I said, I eagerly await the debates between those who know idiots when they see one, and the idiots they see.

By the way, google "Einstein idiot". Lots of links. Lots of people know one when they see one. But I didn't find nearly as many links as when I googled "Obama idiot". (But don't worry, I didn't bookmark all the links). Hmmm..... I'll have to google my name and idiot...... Hey, it worked!!! I found links! LOLOLOL :)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If 74% re-election is peeving someone off, (20points higher than original election) I'd hate to see what happens if you make someone happy.

Yeah....I'm real sure Biden got tapped for his entertainment value..... most people voted on that fact also I'm sure......but then again.... Al Franken....... so I guess you've got a point there....... :)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"An idiot would never know the value of debate because for one, he's ... "

And I wonder why I come here at times, with the exception of a few folks.....

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem is with Palin's 45% approval comes an almost equal 44% disaproval. Love or hate, there seems to be not alot of middle ground. Which shows.

But then again,

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/p...

Obama's latest approval ratings in Ohio are.... 49% approve.... and 44% disapprove......... gee...... I wonder what that means? Can't say he's an idiot.... can't say he's divisive..... can't say his popularity is sinking like a rock....... or maybe I can, I just gotta spin it the right way. But then again..... who cares about Palin anyway? :)

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who would name a human Track?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If 74% re-election is peeving someone off, (20points higher than original election) I'd hate to see what happens if you make someone happy."

They were looking to recall here into her first year until she settled down:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/po...

I was gonna bet if she ran for governor again she would lose, too bad we will never know.....

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's already been covered, goodoleboy.

But I'm curious. So, you're saying I wouldn't know the value of debate because I'm a......?

Ah..... the old I'm always right and you're always wrong attitude...... got it..... says alot......... about true intelligence......

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The problem is with Palin's 45% approval comes an almost equal 44% disaproval. Love or hate, there seems to be not alot of middle ground. "

This is what truly fascinates me about her, she was VERY good at getting everyone on board early on and appealed to everyone dem and republican early in her term as governor. What happend? Cat is out the bag now either way.

"Obama's latest approval ratings in Ohio are"

Stop right there, we can play that game all you like, lets try Texas LOL. His national approval rating is really all that matters if we are gonna talk his ratings, else I can pcik a state and spin it too hehe.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And Joe Biden's daughter's middle name is......Blazer...... sounds like a romance in the making with Track!!!! :)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"But I'm curious. So, you're saying I wouldn't know the value of debate because I'm a......?"

No I said:

"An idiot would never know the value of debate because for one, he's ... "

And I wonder why I come here at times, with the exception of a few folks.....

Which leaves room for a few folks, feel free to discern where you fall.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You have brought up Palin's approval rating, statewise, city-wise, repeatedly. I brought it up as an answer to "your game". National approval ratings are dropping for pretty much everyone these days, even those we're "not supposed to mention on this thread anymore" ..... as are city and state debts rising for pretty much everyone...... is spin only allowed on one side?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"And Joe Biden's daughter's middle name is......Blazer...... sounds like a romance in the making with Track!!!! :)"

Think more along the lines of Jackson's kid blanket lol.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seeing how I was the person referring to wanting to see a debate, it isn't hard to figure out. You've stated yourself loud and clear, and given some valuable insights into just how exactly you think of opposing views regardless of where you claim to stand. Good to know. Bookmark.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"You have brought up Palin's approval rating, statewise, city-wise, repeatedly. I brought it up as an answer to "your game". National approval ratings are dropping for pretty much everyone these days, even those we're "not supposed to mention on this thread anymore" ..... as are city and state debts rising for pretty much everyone...... is spin only allowed on one side?"

Is her performance relevant or in need of being measured outside her own district at this point and time? Especially now that she is not even really worth measuring anymore until she announces her intentions for her future? The only facts that truly matter about her in my opinion is how the people she served grade her, not what Joe Sixpack in Texas thinks, she has had no real effect on him as of yet. She quit, Obama hasn't. We can spin Obama state to state all day but his approval on a national level is the only real way to measure his overall job performance to date, would you not agree?

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like Sarah Palin. She seems to be alright. Didn't think she was ready for the lower fourty eight though. We are a picky bunch down here. Sorry to see her family attacked by the press. I still wonder why everyone is still focused on her.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think she was ready for the lower 48 either, YY4U, but I didn't think Obama was either. But I think we've figured out why certain ones are still so focused on her. Kindof similar to why some people continually question and debate with people when they consider them idiots beneath them. Wisdom owns many mirrors, fools disdain them.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well...after wading through all of this there isn't too much left to add so I'll just point out the obvious..... Sarah Palin.....you either love her or hate her. Out of the past eighty three post I only saw one that appeared more or less neutral. More seemed to love her here than hate her.....(sorry goodoleboy, I was at work and not available to help out).

But that would be expected here in good ole republican kansas.....I can only hope and believe that cooler heads will prevail when she grabs for the brass ring at the national level. That I fear would be the biggest disaster to ever hit this country if she were by some fluke chance to win....Then I would probably start wanting to seceed.

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy....We are experiencing the biggest disaster!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kindof like where we're just about at now, isn't it? :)

Posted by create (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gabby, go back and read my post again. I wasn't quoting the press, I was quoting what Palin herself said in the CNN interview. After all, I did watch her being interviewed. Where else do you want me to get my news? Did you want me to go to Alaska myself? Or would you prefer I just say "I heard" like so many others do, or post links to news articles, or just plain spout off with no background info like so many others do? It's clear you don't like references. Or should I just watch FAUX news?

I repeated what the reporter had to say about her appearance, but then again, I was watching it at the time and could see that she was all made up. Why do you say I am quoting the press? I know what I heard, and I know what I saw. Strange comment, gabby.

under_score, Bill Ayers? Yes, but I wouldn't call that "palling around." That was all discussed already, yes on my precious CNN. So what do you want already? You want him to resign for attending one meeting? How long ago did this occur?

Back during the Vietnam era, I was a dyed in the wool hawk and got myself involved in some real nasty run-ins with some low life hippie war protesters who were throwing balloons filled with blood at cars coming out of the Marine Base where we lived. I'm talking very nasty run-ins. But that was a long time ago, and according to your style of thinking, I should still be held in a cell somewhere. So are you going to hold that against me and call me names now? Or are you going to let me go because I was battling the likes of Bill Ayers types and other similar long-haired terrorists? Get real here!

As far as Palin being so concerned about all the pressures in her office, Truman said it best: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 9:34 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

create,

Look at the people Obama associated himself with and don't look it up on Huffington Post. If Dick Cheney associated himself with someone who tried to blow up a Code Pink headquarters would you dismiss that as well?

I doubt it.

You can stick your head back in the sand now.

Posted by create (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You mean Dick Cheney the Halliburton war profiteer who demanded total secrecy for the doings of his office? Of course let's not dismiss the fact that he defended water boarding and other types of torture. So I'm guessing you agree with torture too since people being tortured are sure to spill important beans and not just because they want to stop the pain.

Apparently, as long as I don't agree with you, I've got my head in the sand. And I must only go to sites that you approve of. Pretty heady demands there, bud.

When you always agree with others, that becomes your prison. Choose your jailers carefully. You, under_score, are not my jailer!

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ahhh, yes, how did Dick Cheney profit from the war again?

The United States does not torture people. We use enhanced interrogation techniques. Water boarding is the most severe of them and was only used on a few prisoners. The information that was retrieved was responsible for stopping additional terrorist attacks according to the CIA.

That said, under the Geneva Convention, the United States could have executed these people on the battlefield if they would have liked. They were non-uniformed enemy combatants.

No, I respect your opinion if you disagree with me. What I don't like is when people ignore facts when it suits them. Obama has ties to Ayers above and beyond a single meeting and if we were talking about a Republican you would be all over it. You like to make up stuff about Dick Cheney but when we have real evidence on Obama you let it slide.

It's just like goodoleboy saying that Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be VP. But when you look at her experience vs. Obama she is the more qualified. He doesn't want to make that comparison, he would rather just rip her record or say she is stupid. I don't care if she failed at every leadership role she had, at least she led.

Personally, I don't think either are qualified but if you want to say she isn't qualified to be VP then you have to connect the dots and say he isn't qualified to be Pres.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

under_score

Look at damn near any politician out there, in fact name one, I guarantee at some point and time they have associated with someone who was or turned out to be a "terrorist" by some means. Gimme a break.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

under_score wrote:

" don't care if she failed at every leadership role she had, at least she led"

Really? So your saying that you vote for an idiot that cannot lead just because he/she led? Amazing, your words, not mine.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People that voted for Obama love him and as long as Bush and gang are in the history books that will never change. If you try to disagree with Obama they will just say "What about Bush?" thus justifying everything Obama does in their minds. Essentially to Obama voters, he can do no wrong. What is disturbing about this is the fact that Obama's peeps are "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President." There is really no one left to stop this from happening since Obama's party controls everything. This is great news if you're a liberal but not so much for the rest of us. Since people that voted for him will always have Bush to bash they will never change their minds about Obama because "Hey, he's not Bush." So they will just keep voting for him and he'll keep winning and winning and winning.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy, I think the national poll numbers matter inasmuch as politicians generally look at their numbers when deciding on what moves to make next. Or whether to make moves at all. And yes, you can bet that Obama's staff will be paying attention to individual states when it comes time next year for him to hit the campaign trail in support of fellow party members. None of it may matter as much to us personally, but you can bet it all matters to them.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy,

""terrorist" by some means" is not the same as a terrorist who blows things up and kills people. Obama associated with the latter.

"Really? So your saying that you vote for an idiot that cannot lead just because he/she led? Amazing, your words, not mine."

Nice spin. What I'm saying is if you voted for Obama then YOU voted for someone who has NEVER led anything. From one side of your mouth you infer you want someone with experience by arguing that Sarah is incapable of the job for lack of experience and from the other side of you mouth you promote someone (Obama) who has less experience. Then when that argument is lost, you turn to "her mud-slinging" during the campain. When asked to provide the mud, you cannot and turn to the most liberal of all fall back arguments. She's stupid.

If you read what I said, I said both lack the experience to be President. Especially on foreign affairs. But if you were looking to vote for the person with the most experience, you would have voted for McCain. If you were concerned that McCain would die in a week after becoming President and you then compared his potential VP with the alternative Presidential candidate, still looking at experience as a guidline, you would have picked........McCain.

For lack of foreign affairs experience, see American response to Honduras situation.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

seriously R folks,

Perhaps a motive for our response in Honduras?

create, you like conspiracy theory, what do you think about this one?

While your at it, we still haven't seen a birth certificate.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The excuse that is currently being used is "It's only been six months" or "We need more time". Right now time is on their side but when Christmas comes and santa is still broke as a joke, many of the believers will start to come around to reality and realize that Obama is no different that Bush or any other politician. I'm a democrat and I believe in term limits. I don't think that the U.S. could have survived another four years of Regan, Clinton or "W". What we really need is term limits for congress.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have seen no sign of any Obama supporter looking at anything he does objectively so I can't really see that changing in the future. It is never to early to start questioning what the most powerful man in the world is doing especially if you live in his backyard. The wait and see thing is a joke, people say reserve judgment on Obama but are bashing Palin and she(as far as we know) has no plans on ever running for anything again. We are supposed to judge the one that doesn't matter yet not question the one that does? INSANITY!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Agreed, YY4U. Maybe the aim is to ruin the economy so that later (closer to election time) small improvements can be capitalized on? I remember the stimulus bill was to prevent unemployment from ever going above 8 or 8.5 percent, something like that. Now that it's headed to double-digits, maybe around election time they will be able to trumpet the fact that their policies lowered it from 11.5 to 11?

What's kindof ironic about it all is that people claim they want a different kind of politician, they're sick and tired of the same old entrenched goodoleboy network (no reference to posters here :), someone who will be more beholden to the people of their state or country than to the party. But when reality check time rolls around they go just the opposite direction. I'm so sick of politics-as-usual (on both sides) these days I actually like to see someone who has some people in their own party riled up against them. Good. Shake up those fat lazy lifers a bit. Remind them who they are supposed to be beholden to. If "conventional party wisdom" says you should stay on and just milk the taxpayer $$ for no good reason then I got no problem with deciding to do the opposite. And as she said herself, if she dies because of it (politically), then so be it, she dies.

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy...yeah...ditto to all that under_score said. :-)

I'd like to add to the Bush remarks though.

Blame George Bush if you want, but, don't forget Pelosi, and Reid. Isn't it a coincidence that Bush still gets blamed for the crap that's happening today?....
He started it, you say? then, why is it that "so much" of what Bush started is being continued by Obama?...Hmmm, could it be that the current President has Pelosi and Reid with his administration? Coincidence? I think not. Or could it be that George Bush just didn't make so many BAD decisions?

Create- September 11th, was a walk in the park, compared to what, I believe, we are in for in the future. So, if we capture someone that we know has information we need, to save our country, short of killing him, I am for doing what is needed to get the information....If that's waterboarding...go for it!...and if they can't find anyone to do it.....they can call me!!!! Just don't send my sons, daughters, or grandchildren over to fight a war, that we could have prevented with a little " inhanced interrogation"

LOL...I swear to you, I wish I would have used that term to threaten my teenagers with, when they were growing up....
"Tell me now!!! ..or I will use "enhanced interrogation" on you! I'm sure they would have confessed anything. :-)
They'd think I was threatening to spank them.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No spin, those are your exact words. Hard to spin them. What is comical is that we cannot examine Sarah Palin, the debate always turns to Obama, or McCain, or Bush, etc. I grow tired of arguing with you, you ask for proof she was an incapble leader I give it to you, and I can give it to you from right wing sources, now you want proof she was slinging mud? Are you serious? Do remember all she did in the elections was attack the other side, "McCain's attack dog' is what she was referred to. I can copy and paste all day if I thought it would change anything, but it won't. Sarah Palin's resume just got worse, so as experience goes I would hedge bets she is again on the low end if she runs in 2012.

gabby

I never said a word about Bush, at least not in this thread. And I did in fact name Pelosi and Frank as idiots on the same level as Palin. Our government is more akin to an aircraft carrier than a speed boat when turning, it will take awhile for anything Obama does to take effect, more than 6 months, I am not making excuses for the man, just stating a widely reguarded fact that both sides will agree on, it is just too early to judge the man, no matter how much you want to.

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry goodoleboy :-(...I re-read and I was wrong...Actually, I wasn't directing that at anyone inparticular, I just saw random Bushbashing, and wanted to make a comment.

HOWEVER, What do you mean that Pelosi and Frank are idiots, on the same level as Palin?
I agree Pelosi and Frank are idiots..but they are on an idiot level of their own.
You may not like Palin, goodoleboy, but, she's done nothing to harm our country, as much as Pelosi and Frank have?

I don't approve of namecalling though, goodoleboy, but for Pelosi and Frank I make exceptions. Idiot, is the nicest one I can post though.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why examine Palin at all, SHE QUIT! ? ! ?
Obama is the president.
What kind of sense does it make to rubber stamp everything the president does without any thought what so ever and pick apart everything that Palin(the never was) does?
Even if she is as dumb as people like to believe I'm pretty sure she could figure out that that kind of thinking is flawed. I guess what I am feeling is ................. pity................... yeah, that's it.

This one goes out to people who think too highly of Obama, Bush, Palin, Clinton, JFK, Reagan etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBN...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The reason (when examining anyone, not just Palin) that the conversation always turns to others to compare against is not always so much as comparing them directly, but comparing how people interpret how and what they do differently. As I've mentioned, deficits, and experience is another good one. Two people can do similar things but when it is viewed so differently people obviously question why it is interpreted so differently. (The excuse given is usually a pretty lame one, too - for BOTH sides). Everyone's "filter" is obviously skewed to a point, and we need to have honest debate and input from both sides - but when one has the attitude that just because someone voted McCain/Palin that they have "lost all credibility" (along with 60 million other Americans) - then regardless of what that person claims to be open to or motivated by....... it becomes extremely transparent what the true mindset is.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy,

Liberals called her McCains attack dog. If you want to call pointing out someones shortcomings as mud-slinging then I guess she was a mud slinger.

Like I said before, I use Obama as a counterpoint to your arguments to prove that they make no logical sense.

open_eyes,

The republicans offered up someone this last election who is as close as you will ever get to bipartisan. He was rejected and someone from the far left was elected. I did not like a lot of what McCain stands for but if you were looking for someone to begin to clean up Washington politics he was your man.

gabby,

Don't feel the need to apologize to goodoleboy, he is one of the biggest Bush bashers on here. I think I've even heard him repeat the old "finish what his daddy started" line when referring to Iraq.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I did not like a lot of what McCain stands for but if you were looking for someone to begin to clean up Washington politics he was your man."

He at the heart of the deregulation efforts in the late 90's, something that helped contribute a great to what happened in the meltdown, he was also involved in the Keating scandal, remember? Yep good clean-cut guy ready to "clean" up Washington.

"Liberals called her McCain’s attack dog. If you want to call pointing out someone’s shortcomings as mud-slinging then I guess she was a mud slinger."

At least you admit it now, thank you. If you really need proof that she engaged in mud slinging then by all means google it up and be amazed, you don’t need me to do it for you. Does Fox News qualify as a right wing source that used the term "McCain's attack dog"? I seemed to hear it mentioned on more than a few shows there, also read an interesting article by Ed Rollins on her stating that, curious.

"Like I said before, I use Obama as a counterpoint to your arguments to prove that they make no logical sense."

Logical sense?
Palin took 5 schools and 6 years to get a BS in journalism and then was a sportscaster, major of a town much smaller than our own, then governor for approx 2 years, but its all ok because pass or fail she led right? Awesome credentials indeed. What is so illogical about being skeptical of her?

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Was McCain convicted in that Keating scandal or acquitted of all charges, I can't remember?

Did McCain or Frank or Clinton or Bush hold a gun to peoples heads and force them to take out bad loans? How about taking some personal responsiblity. I am not my neighbors keeper.

I'll ask you again, what mud did she sling? Please name me something that she said that wasn't true. Regardless of what people call her or the role that she played let's get some data to back up what your idea of mud-slinging is. If saying that Obama liked to pal around with terrorists is your idea of mud slinging that is fine with me. You can call it mud slinging. I'll call it what it was, the truth.

Obama and Biden didn't need to act as attack dogs. They had the media for that. You don't like Fox news b/c you say they are right wing. I assume you don't like MSNBC b/c they are left wing?

You seem to spend a lot of time researching Sarah Palin and John McCain. You also claim to be an independent who is open to voting for a Republican or Democrat candidate. How much time did you spend researching Obama and Biden? Did you find anything on them that you didn't like or was it all good?

Posted by wildcatnurse (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

under_score
I do not hate Jews. I have no problem with Jews. I don't even know anyone Jewish. I do however hate our relationship with Israel. It is our foreign policy regarding Israel that has caused the majority of our problems in the Middle East. If we would stay out of Israel's business, others would stay out of ours.
You tell me? Why must we run to Israel's rescue every time they need it? Why are they allowed to have nuclear weapons and yet every country around them cannot?

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, I'm also a registered Independent but I'll concede that a Democrat will probably not be getting my vote for a very long time. I mean, they did try to lose the war in Iraq for political reasons.

Also, I know you don't like to talk about Obama on a Sarah Palin forum. But Patrick Kelley hasn't written a lot of critical op-eds on Obama lately so lets give the people a little wiggle room to voice their opinions.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

wildcatnurse,

Israel is one of our few and closest allies in the middle east and in the world. We don't get involved from a military standpoint other than to provide them arms to defend themselves. They really don't need our help other than to do what we've been doing. Every conflict they've entered in with the Arab world has resulted in the state of Israel becoming a little bit larger as a result of the land they take after they are attacked.

Shouldn't we treat allies like allies and adversaries like adversaries?

I don't agree that if we allow Israel to be wiped off the map that all our problems with the middle east would go away. The problem is oil. They have most of it and the rest of the world needs it. Until we can come up with alternative fuel sources and let the middle eastern countries sink back into poverty where they should be we will have problems.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

under_score
In my opinion, we lost the war in Iraq the day we invaded. We lost the war in Iraq again when we occupied it. I would really like to know what a “Win the War in Iraq” is.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U,

You are looking at it now. Brutal dictator gone, democratically elected government in. At this point we have done all we can for the Iraqis, the rest is up to them.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

History always repeats itself. Remember that.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And Obama was very involved with ACORN and forcing banks to give bad loans....something that "contributed a great deal to what happened in the meltdown"..... but he's not being held accountable in any way for that. Let's hold them both accountable for their actions. But when it came time to correct it...... I only saw one of the two working to take action.

wildcatnurse, I think that's the common fallacy mindset about Israel (IMO). I'll tell you why they are allowed to have nuclear weapons when everyone around them isn't. First of all, the are a democracy, while those around them are a bunch of suicidal fanatics who actually openly want WWIII to usher in the "last imam". Secondly, they do not openly advocate completely wiping any other ethnic group off the face of the earth. Third, if they did not have that ultimate deterrent of defense, they would soon cease to exist. And by the way - look around the world in many places where Muslim fanatics are not only fighting, but riots such as we had in France awhile back - you'll find many of those countries have nothing to do with "Israels business". Do you truly believe, that if we completely abandoned Israel, that all the fanatics would just "leave us alone"? Why? They haven't left anyone else alone............ I'll make you a great deal on a bridge.........

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is a good link that talks about John McCain's role in the Keating 5 scandal.

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/arti...

I know, I'm going to be blasted by goodoleboy for the Ann Coulter link but she does her research.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since history repeats itself..... I'm guessing that Nazi Germany and Japan (Iraq) will someday be close allies and democracies, major leaders and friends in the free democratic world?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SORRY.... posted on the wrong thread... my bad.....

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OOPS.... no I didn't...... ok... I'm a flip-flopper...... never could juggle more than 2 eggs at once..... LOL

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was talking about Iraq, Iran and history of that place on this planet. http://www.scn.org/wwfor/iraqhist.html

Remember, muslim fanatics will never accept a leader who gets our support. They will call him a puppet and oust him and in his place we will have a dictator. Watch and see. Then cry for the mothers and fathers brothers and sisters sons and daughters wives and husbands of American Soldiers killed in action in Iraq.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Was McCain convicted in that Keating scandal or acquitted of all charges, I can't remember?"

Well Micheal Jackson was aquitted yet people still call him a pedophile. OJ was aquitted yet people still call him a killer. Which way you want it? Are they guilty or upstanding citizens?

"Obama and Biden didn't need to act as attack dogs. They had the media for that. You don't like Fox news b/c you say they are right wing. I assume you don't like MSNBC b/c they are left wing?"

I'll take Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. In the age of DVR its pretty easy to cover them all to get broad perspective.

"You seem to spend a lot of time researching Sarah Palin and John McCain. You also claim to be an independent who is open to voting for a Republican or Democrat candidate. How much time did you spend researching Obama and Biden? Did you find anything on them that you didn't like or was it all good?"

Quite a bit actually, but in this last election there were only 2 real candidates, McCain and Obama, I picked Obama because I thought him the lesser of the 2 evils, not some Messiah like the loons make him out be, just the better of the 2.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"You are looking at it now. Brutal dictator gone, democratically elected government in. At this point we have done all we can for the Iraqis, the rest is up to them."

And we get to pick up the check and incur the lost lives, yippeee!

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I picked Obama because I thought him the lesser of the 2 evils, not some Messiah like the loons make him out be, just the better of the 2."

Thou doth protest too much.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Here is a good link that talks about John McCain's role in the Keating 5 scandal.

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/arti......

I know, I'm going to be blasted by goodoleboy for the Ann Coulter link but she does her research."

Plenty of sources out there without having to degenerate to Ann Coulter, come on man, Bill Maher is well read and knows his events too, but we don't need far reaching spin from either direction to know what happend. A few of us were even around back then=)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U, you have a very good point about puppet governments in Muslim countries. However, I don't think that in the past, we have truly installed a democratic government (i.e., Shah of Iran) in the manner that we have now. There is a muslim democracy (of sorts) that is even in NATO - Turkey. So I don't think this is quite the same situation. We've already seen some seeds of restless democracy blooming in Iran. I think it's the preferred alternative to just shooting every one of them as fast as they can be churned out, try to change the source so that they are not just a fanaticism factory that we do endless battle with. There are good reasons for pessimism as well as good reasons for optimism, but, as with most things....Time will tell.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy,

How do you think the president has done on the economy so far? We have an almost trillion dollar stimulus bill and a loss of millions of more jobs. Bailouts to auto companies that went bankrupt anyway. Firings of Inspectors General to protect Obama donors. Screwing over bond holders to pay the unions. Scripted town halls. Scripted press events. Disregarding the constitutional process in Honduras to back a constitutionally dismissed socialist president backed by Hugo Chavez. Taking over the census. Appointing czars for everything to circumvent congressional accountability and transparency. Breaking campaign promises on Iraq, Guantanamo, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, lobbyists in the White House, etc, etc.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

seriouslyfolks, I picked McCain because I thought him the lesser of 2 evils, not because I was a big fan also. Of course, in the eyes of some, I "lose all credibility" because of that choice, but that's ok, sticks and stones....... if that's the basis for credibility............ no thanks...........

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I voted for Obama because he talks real good. Didn't matter anyway, McCain/Palin won Kansas.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"How do you think the president has done on the economy so far?"

Impossible to measure at this point, reserving judgement one way or another (note I have never said he has succeeded or failed) until more time has passed, it is my belief that reguardless of who was elected president we would still be in about the same situation we are in now as it is unavoidable and attributed more to past actions.

A few things:

787 billion is not a trillion, nor even close, if we are going to talk defecits lets talk about what we started with. Also you seem to be happy about the trillion spent in Iraq, I would much rather have seen it kept here.

Scripted town halls. Scripted press events- this is a new thing? What was that "mission accomplished" flight suit deal? LOL

As for the rest? You seriously want me to respond? This thread is not about Obama, you want a thread about Obama to complain in then I suggest you write editorial and we will all have a go there.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not sure about Bill Maher. I think he's completely lost it. He used to be funny though.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't believe we would be in the same situation in quite a few ways. Would McCain have asked for the second half of TARP? I doubt it.... since he voted against it.........Would McCain have pushed thru a 787 billion pork bill when he is one of the few Senators who says no to pork? Maybe.... but I doubt it.... again, since he is one of the most anti-earmark Senators we have.

Incidentally....787 billion is 78.7 percent of 1 trillion........ nearly 4/5. I think that's fairly close.........

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You don't want to talk about deficits do you? Have you seen the Obama projected deficit numbers? Obama makes Bush look like a penny pincher.

The war in Iraq is and will accomplish a lot more than the stimulus will. The markets would have and will correct themselve without blowing hundreds of billions of dollars. Most of that money will go into creating more government beauracracy.

Who cares about Palin? Obama is the one spreading all of the confusion. He is getting back to fiscal responsibility by.....printing money!

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Incidentally....787 billion is 78.7 percent of 1 trillion........ nearly 4/5. I think that's fairly close........."

Call me conservative but I think 223 billion dollars short is quite a bit....role swaps, lol.

By most estimates 85-90% of the stimulus has not even made it's way out yet. Hard to judge anything about an act that is only 10-15% complete, /shrug.

"Would McCain have asked for the second half of TARP?"
You say no I say yes, his stance has been: no,yes,no on it thus far so who knows what he would have done. But either way I don't think its a stretch at all to say that we would be in about the same place with either of them at this point, and I STRESS at this point.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama the president isn't responsible for the current mess but Obama the Senator and Obama the community organizer played a big role.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And the age of the universe is but a tiny speck compared to eternity........ its all relative. Sorry, but I think nearly 4/5 of something is pretty close. If I fly 4/5 of the way to China I've still got an awful long walk ahead of me....... but most people would consider having 4/5 of the trip done to be a pretty significant percentage of the trip done........

McCAIN OPPOSES RELEASE OF ADDITIONAL $350 BILLION OF TARP FUNDS
January 15, 2009
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today issued the following statement with respect to the Senate vote to release the additional TARP funds:

“I oppose releasing the remaining Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP) funds because I have seen no evidence that the additional and substantial taxpayers’ money will be used for its intended purpose,” said Senator John McCain.

TARP was created to allow the Treasury Department to purchase up to $700 billion in “toxic assets” from financial institutions in order to help homeowners facing foreclosure and to stimulate the economy. Instead, the Treasury Department has used TARP funds to prop up the banking industry and to guarantee securities backed by student loans and credit card debt.

Senator McCain said, “The misuse of the first $350 billion of TARP funds combined with the lack of transparency promised by Secretary Paulson should be reason enough to oppose releasing additional funds. But most troubling to me has been the use of TARP funds to help bail out the domestic auto industry – in direct defiance of Congress. Last month, after extensive discussion and debate, the Senate rejected a plan to pump billions of federal dollars into the domestic auto industry because we saw no evidence of serious concessions from the industry and no assurance of the domestic auto manufacturers’ long-term viability.”

“No further TARP funds should be released until we are able to impose strict standards of accountability and ensure that the money is spent only as intended by Congress – to purchase mortgage-backed securities and other troubled assets and provide help to homeowners who are on the brink of losing their most important investment and roofs over their heads.”

But you say yes, that's fine, we'll agree to disagree. I guess when you look at Obama's broken promises one would tend to think a politician is going to pretty much do the exact opposite the very next day, that's understandable.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The war in Iraq is and will accomplish a lot more than the stimulus will."

Explain please, last I heard Americans died and paid over a trillion dollars for a war we were lied into taking part in, where is our upside? Better yet when did we take on the job of defending democracy in the world? I searched the constituion and laws, having a hard time finding them.

"The markets would have and will correct themselve without blowing hundreds of billions of dollars. Most of that money will go into creating more government beauracracy."

Ahh yes, leave the markets to themselves, let them regulate themelves and let the free market determine, exactly part of what brought us to this point in the derivatives market, genius.

"You don't want to talk about deficits do you? Have you seen the Obama projected deficit numbers? Obama makes Bush look like a penny pincher."

First off bush and penny pincher do not belong in same sentence. Bush left us with a massive defecit, Obama or McCain were screwed either way. I'm not happy about the defecit Obama is running up either, the guy is far from perfect, but at this point all we can do is see where he leads us.

But yeah your right, I really don't want to talk about this anymore, I'll wait for your editorial and we can talk about it there, deal?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Obama the president isn't responsible for the current mess but Obama the Senator and Obama the community organizer played a big role."

So did quite a few others, McCain also played large role with his deregulation in the 90's, guess we were getting a crook either way right? LOL

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Or an idiot? Even I know what happens when you give loans to people who can't pay them........... bet even Sarah knew that.......

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And the age of the universe is but a tiny speck compared to eternity........ its all relative. Sorry, but I think nearly 4/5 of something is pretty close. If I fly 4/5 of the way to China I've still got an awful long walk ahead of me....... but most people would consider having 4/5 of the trip done to be a pretty significant percentage of the trip done........

Everything is relative LOL, guess next time someone wants 200 billion for something I'll just shrug and say its relative and we can round off the recovery act.

McCain first was againist the idea, then suspends his campaign to help write it, then changes his mind again, all in a period of about 6 months? Sounds about par for the course for a politician, and leaves me no doubt that there was good chance he would change his mind at least one or two more times lol.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Or an idiot? Even I know what happens when you give loans to people who can't pay them........... bet even Sarah knew that......."

No silly, she just builds on land without even paying for it in the first place LOL.

http://wizbangblue.com/2008/09/08/sarah-...

Thanks for getting the thread back on track though!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And if its 999,999,000,000 (999 billion, 999 million) then it's still NOWHERE close to a trillion because the difference is still more than I'll make in decades...... I understand........

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One of the things that's become quite evident to me is that there really is no middle ground with Sarah Palin. People either love her or hate her.

I find some of the hate somewhat amusing and disappointing at the same time. A lot of Emporia's "great minds" have let go with the broadsides on this forum for some time now. I am certain they consider themselves the most reasonable, gentle, civil, objective people around Lyon County. I suspect, however, that whenever Sarah's face appears on TV, the veins in the necks and temples of these gentle souls come close to exploding from the hate and venom within. But..........they seem to find a way to believe they wouldn't hurt a fly, a la Norman Bates on celluloid.

Self deception is a very powerful tool.

I suppose there's something to be thankful in that. The soon to be former governor has done something to aid their venting and hopefully provided and ongoing avenue of free catharsis, thereby saving them "shrink" fees.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting. Sounds like quite a bit got screwed up.... and by more people than just one......

In 2001, a federal district court judge ruled in Wasilla's favor. ..........In a March 2002 referendum, residents approved the mayor's plan by a 20-vote margin, 306 to 286. The city cleared roads, installed utilities and made preparations to build.......Later that year, Ms. Palin's final one as mayor, the federal judge reversed his own decision......... After Ms. Palin left office, the city decided to take 80 acres of Mr. Lundgren's property through eminent domain. An Alaska court confirmed the city's right to do so and ordered that an arbitrator determine the appropriate price.

And the city also voted for the 5mil+ in road improvements. Should the mayor veto what the people vote on? When a town votes to borrow and spend x amount of dollars, is the mayor then to blame? Is a town in "shambles" when a voter-approved referendum to raise sales tax .5 cents is able to be dropped 2 years earlier than projected because of economic growth?

Of course, every town has its share of supporters and detractors of the local governments performance. (Check out Emporia, KS). Maybe we should let Snopes check out the validity of what some Wasilla residents said about her and the failure she was as mayor?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/s...

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

787 billion is the loan amount after interest it surpasses one trillion

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent point, YY4U. Forgot about that. With interest it wouldn't surpass 1 trillion if the original amount wasn't already...... "close"..... :)

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

netloafer
That was the coolest thing I've read on these forums. Thank you.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I voted for Obama because he talks real good."

LOL
You ain't alone in that.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This guy talked pretty good too:

"Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change." Robert F. Kennedy

Oh, I forgot, Sarah wasn't a man.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

true, netloafer. Like I've said...... not a mirror in the house......

I voted for Palin cause she's sexy.......er... uhm.... I meant because McCain is sexy.....uhm.....yeah..... well, I don't remember the real reasons, but the media told me to. Or was it just voices in my head?

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I knew that Obama beat McCain, but didn't Sarah Palin beat Joe Biden?

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who's Joe Biden?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

She beat him senseless with a hockey stick I think. But got off on a technicality - he thought hockey sticks hadn't been invented yet or something like that.

Thanks for the JFK quote, YY. He put so well what I tried to stumble thru in at least 3 posts or paragraphs above - cause I don't talk real good lotsa times :).

Right or wrong, smart move or dumb...... I wonder if Obama would ever have the conviction to make a choice that could possibly end his political aspirations if he felt it was the right one - in Palin's own words: "You know, politically speaking, if I die, I die. So be it".

Nah. I don't really wonder about that. I pretty much know the answer.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Like I said earlier, come Christmas, if Santa is still broke as a joke.......It is easy to talk real good when people are singing your praises, bet he starts to stutter when he is called the Grinch

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, YY4U, things will be looking up by then. Either unemployment will be dropping from 11.5 to 11%, or the rate of jobs lost will be slowing from 600,000/month to 500,000/month. And our projected deficit will drop from 2.12 trillion to 2.07 trillion. Happy Days ahead!!! :)

(Sigh) - I REALLY wish I had posted my predictions for the coming year back when I suggested it. My double-digit unemployment guess is about to come true. Of course I can say anything I want now, I have no proof, so that's a moot point. But they were rather pessimistic. I'm just stunned at how many of them are coming true......

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would predict that is Sarah Palin was to hold a raffle and sold tickets for one dollar for a chance to go on a date with her, she would raise enough money to pay off Wasilla's debt and still have some left over for shopping.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shes hot......until she starts to talk. Something about the sound she makes hurts me in the same place that fingernails across a chalkboard does.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lots of women have that effect on me (your first sentence)........... oh good lord, I've shot myself in the foot now. I apologize already, gabby!!!! LOL

I don't watch Hannity as much anymore now that Combes is gone, but I did catch part of it the other night when they listed his top 101 wasteful "stimulus spending" projects. (Suddenly bridges to nowhere are now all the rage, apparently - even if it costs 8 million to create 30 jobs - temporarily). The check to the dead woman........ skateboard parks (that will create or need zero jobs after finishing)..... basically alot of money to pay people to dig a hole, then pay them again to fill it back up. I only caught parts of it, but after just seeing even a few, I realized......... Wasilla residents suddenly spent their money a whole lot smarter than we thought....... at least they got to find out what they were voting on first....... always a good idea, in my humble opinion.

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes...
I'll let you dig your own grave with remarks like that. :-)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, I figured that project was "shovel-ready" as soon as I said it - LOLOLOL :)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know of next to no one out there that did not predict doom and gloom for 2009, I stand by what I said that reguardless of who was at the helm right now we would be in about the same place, undoing what was done will take more than 6 months.

Far as the letters from Wasilla go, for each positve one I can find a negative, in fact there has been quite a bit published about her antics there, so there is no need for me to cut and paste it all, everyone will just dismiss it anyways as the media being "mean" to her. I take more away from a good friend of mine that lives appox 20 mins from Wasilla( die hard republican) and she has never had much good to say about her, to each their own.

"One of the things that's become quite evident to me is that there really is no middle ground with Sarah Palin. People either love her or hate her." -Netloafer

The above quote is why she likely never be president in my mind. She won't appeal enough to independents.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"And if its 999,999,000,000 (999 billion, 999 million) then it's still NOWHERE close to a trillion because the difference is still more than I'll make in decades...... I understand........"

Rationalize it anyway you choose, can we tack on the interest to the cost of the war to while we are at it? Lets just start rounding everything up shall we, and lets quantify the interest by who spent it, sounds like great idea! I have to get down to payroll about "rounding up" my check, it's close enough right? Or next time I code an app to make a calculation I'll just round it up because it is close enough, yeah...

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on July 8, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"One of the things that's become quite evident to me is that there really is no middle ground with Sarah Palin. People either love her or hate her.

I find some of the hate somewhat amusing and disappointing at the same time. A lot of Emporia's "great minds" have let go with the broadsides on this forum for some time now. I am certain they consider themselves the most reasonable, gentle, civil, objective people around Lyon County. I suspect, however, that whenever Sarah's face appears on TV, the veins in the necks and temples of these gentle souls come close to exploding from the hate and venom within. But..........they seem to find a way to believe they wouldn't hurt a fly, a la Norman Bates on celluloid.

Self deception is a very powerful tool."

Most worthy of a repeat.

Posted by gabby (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy..Obamas numbers are dropping, big time, because the Independent's are realizing that he is further left than he pretended to be when he was campaigning.
I'm one of those Independents, but I figured it out before I voted.
I am not a McCain fan either, so, it's hard for me to defend him. As long as Pelosi and Reid are in office, it's not going to be any better. And, as long as Congress keeps signing bills that "no one" reads, and millions of dollars of earmarks are added, the debt will continue to rise.

Whether you like her or not, Sarah Palin isn't going away any time soon. :-)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I suspect, however, that whenever Sarah's face appears on TV, the veins in the necks and temples of these gentle souls come close to exploding from the hate and venom within. But..........they seem to find a way to believe they wouldn't hurt a fly, a la Norman Bates on celluloid."

I am confident the same could be said about our current president, but contrary to what you might think, although I blog my dislike of her I would not waste my time getting physically upset about the women, waste of time.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The difference is that the pres can actually do things and Sarah Palin quit politics and could never do anything that affects us on these forum except maybe be an annoyance. So again I ask, what is the point of just letting everything the pres does go and focusing on a soon to be private citizen? It doesn't make sense, does it? Please explain.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"goodoleboy..Obamas numbers are dropping, big time, because the Independent's are realizing that he is further left than he pretended to be when he was campaigning.
I'm one of those Independents, but I figured it out before I voted.
I am not a McCain fan either, so, it's hard for me to defend him. As long as Pelosi and Reid are in office, it's not going to be any better. And, as long as Congress keeps signing bills that "no one" reads, and millions of dollars of earmarks are added, the debt will continue to rise.

Whether you like her or not, Sarah Palin isn't going away any time soon. :-)"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121511/Obama-...

According to recent polling this is due more to declining support among Republicans than Independents since his rating among Independents has only dropped around 3 points. Not sure what information your basing your statement on but his ratings have not been "dropping bigtime".

As I said earlier, Pelosi and Reid need to go, total agree with you there, in fact I am sure there are quite a few others that we could come to a consensus on. I agree Palin won't go away, the people who love her are as fanatical as the Obamites, but unless she changes her stance on a variety of topics she won't appeal to a broad enough base to be president. But she is a politician, so anything can happen...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the math lesson, goodoleboy. Based on that I didn't realize how wildly popular Sarah was among Democrats. 17% would be likely to vote for her for Prez, lets see, 38% of 300 million X 17% = over 19 million, (not even counting indys). I'll keep in mind that is a miniscule insignificant amount next time I write some code, I'll only introduce 19 million errors since it isn't enough to get upset about, waste of time. Or maybe if we lost 19 million soldiers in the war it might be enough to get physically upset about.

Isn't math fun when half the time its significant, and the other half of the time it isnt, depending on your spin? Math Rocks!!!!!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Or 3 points times 38% of 300 million = 3.4 million. I'll keep in mind this is a tiny insignificant amount either next time the IRS says I owe that much, or N Korea shoots a bomb into S Korea and kills that many.

Remember "Conjunction Junction" - sometimes I can't get that song out of my head...... can't remember what the old math song was growing up......... LOL

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The difference is that the pres can actually do things and Sarah Palin quit politics and could never do anything that affects us on these forum except maybe be an annoyance. So again I ask, what is the point of just letting everything the pres does go and focusing on a soon to be private citizen? It doesn't make sense, does it? Please explain."

What does not make sense is that out of all all the anti Obama crowd not one has written an editorial where we can properly debate the topic. /shrug Could you please post a list of articles here that are not relevant so I can save some time? Appreciate it!

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Thanks for the math lesson, goodoleboy. Based on that I didn't realize how wildly popular Sarah was among Democrats. 17% would be likely to vote for her for Prez, lets see, 38% of 300 million X 17% = over 19 million, (not even counting indys). I'll keep in mind that is a miniscule insignificant amount next time I write some code, I'll only introduce 19 million errors since it isn't enough to get upset about, waste of time. Or maybe if we lost 19 million soldiers in the war it might be enough to get physically upset about.

Isn't math fun when half the time its significant, and the other half of the time it isnt, depending on your spin? Math Rocks!!!!!
"

Tune in next time for variable vs. fixed, I think you will like it!

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a little info to chew on and ponder.

Answers - America's Economy & Debt

"[President] Obama's faith doesn't compare to issues like America's economy & debt."

Let's consider those issues, starting with America's debt and economy.

America's national debt is $11 trillion. Add in unfunded Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the like and America's debt obligations ("America's debt") exceed $60 trillion; America's debt is more than 3 times larger than the combined debt of the rest of the world, and 5 times larger than America's economy (see below). Every man, woman and child in America is burdened with $200,000 of America's debt.
You will need to go to the website, http://www.godvoter.org/Barack-Obama-rat... and click on " undisclosed economic truth " to see a comparison graph of " Government Obligations versus GDP". This may be an eye opener .

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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

There you go open_eyes. There were many math songs but, hey 3 is a magic #.

goodoleboy
Why does one have to write an editorial in order to talk about Obama? Why did you not answer my questions? Seriously, why talk about Palin? I know some people don't want to believe it but she is done.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tune in next time for common sense and phrases that even the lawmakers themselves use, and silly nitpicking, I think you will like it! (PS - Interest is variable and comes with the territory)

methusla - you waste your time. Even the most violent vein-necked screamers about Bush's deficit on here are now calm sheep patiently telling us to just give things time. Just give it time. Our grandchildren will eventually get it all paid off I'm sure.

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on July 9, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Moved to a forum:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...