Sarah Palin?

[James48843]

Jimbo,

Does what his preacher of 20 years/mentor says make a difference to you at all?

I think I was pretty familiar with what was actually said by the preacher, and what context it was said in. And, as a result, I do not give much weight to it at all. I try to look beyond the soundbite of the day.

In short- I've examined the claim, found it to be less important to me that it is to those making the claim, and rejected it's relevance to the Office of President of the United States, and the campaign. The preacher isn't running for President.

How about his wife saying that she had never been proud of her country and that is a down-right mean country?

Just curious.

First- I would look at that quote in context too. What she said was that at a particular time, that she had neven been prouder of her country. And, to the extent of the second part of your quote- can it be mean? Yes, darn tootin'. This campaign shows that there can be "meaness" out there.

We're all just people. And people are not perfect. But those who work with an attitude of "vendetta" turn me off. Period.



But one more thing- I am not voting for the first lady. I am voting on who is going to be the person to control "the button", and lead the nation. And, besides that, who is going to be the number two person in case the number one person is not able to fulfill those duties.

This election- it won't just be "life experience" that we should take into account. It also has to be "life expectancy". Being 73 when sworn in is a lot different that being 55 and being sworn in. So the number 2 pick in my book has a higher calculation in that equation to consider.

Again- the candidate's wife isn't running for the Office of the President. The Candidate is. So no- it has no relevance.

So- I've answered your question- you have not yet answered mine.

If all what is written in that letter is true, does it make a difference to you?

 

[McDuck]

So- I've answered your question- you have not yet answered mine.

I certainty don't have a problem with her having the mayor's office refurnished. That is nothing compared to Barrack Milhouse(we can't use his real middle name) Obama having his $1.3 million house paid for by a slum lord.

 

[rokid]

That is nothing compared to Barrack Milhouse(we can't use his real middle name) Obama having his $1.3 million house paid for by a slum lord.

If you're talking about Tony Rezko, your statement is incorrect.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

'A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.'

So did Rezko do Obama a favor? Probably. Were Obama (and Michelle) part of Chicago's Democratic Machine? Most certainly. Did Rezko buy Obama's house? No. Should Hillary's campaign (and the national press) have pursued the Obama/Rezko connection more aggressively? Yes.

Who says Obama doesn't have a lot of relevant experience? He sounds like an excellent Chicago politician! :nuts:-----Jim

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

 

[McDuck]

\

What if all of it was true?

Jimmy,

The drive-by media makes stuff all the time and gets away with. For one example, the New York Times published articles by Jayson Blair for years where he made-up all the facts while sitting in his apartment or his local Starbucks.

The truth means nothing to liberals.

 

[McDuck]

ZOGBY: MCCAIN-PALIN UP 4%...

 

[Show-me]

So did Rezko do Obama a favor? Probably. Were Obama (and Michelle) part of Chicago's Democratic Machine? Most certainly. Did Rezko buy Obama's house? No. Should Hillary's campaign (and the national press) have pursued the Obama/Rezko connection more aggressively? Yes.

Who says Obama doesn't have a lot of relevant experience? He sounds like an excellent Chicago politician! :nuts:-----Jim

That is what scares me as a neighbor to Illinois.

 

[CountryBoy]

My brother and sister in laws live just south of Chicago and it scares them to death the thought of someone with Obama's background and experience may be Prez. They've seen him up close and personal and know all the poop and they are pretty liberal dems, but won't be voting for Obama. Just a data point from somone who's seen obama in action.

CB

 

[Show-me]

My brother and sister in laws live just south of Chicago and it scares them to death the thought of someone with Obama's background and experience may be Prez. They've seen him up close and personal and know all the poop and they are pretty liberal dems, but won't be voting for Obama. Just a data point from somone who's seen obama in action.

CB

That is the feeling of a lot of folk around Illinois.

 

[SkyPilot]

I don't know if we need to lock it, but I agree it is kind of a futile discussion at this point. I think most of us have already formed our opinions and won't be changing anyone's minds.

So, use this thread to talk possible strategy, but I think the mud slinging can stop.

New topic:

If the Reps win, Palin will have a brand new TSP account! The new TSP rules put her money in the L-funds by default. Where should she put her money? Which TSP funds are Barrack, John, and Joe in?

I glad to see the mud slinging has stopped

 

[SkyPilot]

Jimmy,

The drive-by media makes stuff all the time and gets away with. For one example, the New York Times published articles by Jayson Blair for years where he made-up all the facts while sitting in his apartment or his local Starbucks.

Here, here!

 

[Miss_Piggy]

A Little Humor on the Topic

Clash of the Titans

By Maureen Dowd September 7, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist
ST. PAUL
You know what I’m thinking, because you’re thinking it, too.

If Barack Obama had chosen Hillary Clinton as his running mate, we would now be looking forward to the greatest night in the history of American politics: the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate between Ma Barker and Sarah Barracuda.

Now, alas, we’ll have to wait until 2012 when the two fiercest competitors on the trail will no doubt face off in the presidential debate, with Palin still riding high from her 2008 field-dressing of Obama (who’s now back in the Senate convening his subcommittee on Afghanistan).

The two women are both aggressive pols who take disagreement personally, accruing a body count of rivals, and who have been known to exaggerate their accomplishments. But in ideological terms, the gun-toting hockey mom and the shot-swilling Warrior Queen of the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits are opposites.

By 2012, the 76-year-old John McCain will be on his way out. His vice president will wear him down, making him change the name of the White House to Rouge Cou — the name Sarah licensed in 2005 in case she ever got into business — and turn Camp David into a caribou hunting ranch. Then she’ll scare him, informing him that if he tries for a second term, she’ll challenge him in the primary.

“How would you like this pit bull grandma to clean your grandfather clock?” she’ll tell President McCain in her flat “Fargo” accent. He’ll confide in his pal Joe that being a P.O.W. was nothing compared with being trapped in the White House with “that woman.”

It’s delicious imagining the Debate of the Century between Big Mama, as Bill’s male aides called Hillary, and “Hottie Granny,” as People magazine will doubtless dub Sarah. ESPN will want in.

PALIN: Before we start, Hillary, I want to honor your achievement in 2008. You nicked the glass ceiling. But in the end, as my friend Cheryl Metiva from Wasilla Bible Church said, I was more of a woman and more of a man than you, so I was the one who actually busted up the old boys’ club. Sorry I called you a whiner about sexism. That was before I realized how handy the victim card can be against the press wolves. In Alaska, we just gun down wolves from the air.

CLINTON: I do give you and John credit, Sarah, for following my blueprint to reveal Obama as all cage, no bird. But now the Democrats have crawled back to me and I will close the deal. So pack up your snow boots and antlers and backwoods brood and scram.

PALIN: I’ve got a little news flash for you, Hillary. Your night-shift, blue-collar-waitress, boilermaker routine didn’t fool me. It’s in your polls but it’s in my D.N.A. I’ve actually been up at 3 a.m. — gutting moose. While you got to go to your snooty Wellesley, I had to switch colleges six times in six years. While you got to go to Yale Law, I had to enter beauty contests and turn my back to judges in a bathing suit to get scholarship money.

CLINTON: I’ve got a little news flash for you, Annie Oakley. Dinosaurs disappeared a lot longer than 4,000 years ago. I admit you’ve had a profound influence on America, and I’m not just talking about all the women wearing up-dos and rimless titanium $375 Kazuo Kawasaki designer frames. You and John are now at war with four countries — Russia, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, even as Osama bin Laden has opened a storefront in a strip mall in Pakistan to make TV ads.

PALIN: Those wars are tasks from God.

CLINTON: You said you wanted to help women, but you’ve only hurt them with your silly mantra that women can have it all if they just work harder and pray harder. You put Medicare on eBay. You cut funding for special-needs children. The Dobson Supreme Court has outlawed abortion, evolution and gun control. With sex education banned, baby bumps in high schools are rampant. And the head of your Abstinence Outreach Program, Levi Johnston, has failed to force any other teenage fathers to marry their prom dates.

PALIN: Life is always welcome. Unless it’s on four legs.

CLINTON: When it comes to Big Oil, you make Dick Cheney look small bore. You had secret energy meetings to eliminate polar bears. You’ve turned Alaska into Kuwait without the sand. Gas is $50 a gallon and global warming has changed the Rose Garden into the Palm Court. Your only energy plan is to give tax credits to people who put do-it-yourself oil rigs in their backyards. You created a Department of Drilling and More Drilling and put double-dipping Todd in charge.

PALIN: You’re chiding me about nepotism? At least I know how to control my First Dude. If you think that fake sniper fire in Bosnia was bad, wait till you get a load of my hunting rifle.

CLINTON: Adios, Sister Sarah. You’re tough, but I’ve been tougher longer. Slide out of town on that oil slick you made on the Mall. And take that Grizzly throw with you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/opinion/07dowd.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print

 

[McDuck]

That is the feeling of a lot of folk around Illinois.

Do they all feel as passionately about it as the Rev. Jesse "I'd like to cut off his nuts" Jackson ?

 

[McDuck]

Re: A Little Humor on the Topic

By Maureen Dowd September 7, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist
ST. PAUL
You know what I’m thinking, because you’re thinking it, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/opinion/07dowd.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted =print

"I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won ," the late film critic Pauline Kael is said to have observed after the 1972 election. "I don't know anybody who voted for him." Pick up the New York Times 32 years later, and it's obvious that big-city liberals are as out of touch as ever.

(My addition, Nixon won 49 of the 50 states in 1972. That was back before we had 57 states like we do now)

from the Wall Street Journal in 2004

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005849

 

[rokid]

I've never been much of a Joe Biden fan. However, he was great on this morning's Meet The Press. Tom Brokaw challenged him with tough questions about his relationship to MBNA Bank, his support of the bankruptcy bill, whether or not the surge has worked, and when does life begin. On the last question, Biden, a Roman Catholic, quoted St. Thomas Aquinas, who argued that life begins 40 days after conception. Biden, unlike John Kerry, effectively articulated the position that a person could believe that, as a matter of faith, abortion is wrong and still think banning it is bad public policy.

Biden knocked Brokaw back on his heels.

I can hardly wait for the Vice Presidential debate on 2 Oct! :nuts:

P.S. What's the deal with the preemptive arrests of potential protesters in St. Paul MN? In addition, according to news reports, the RNC bought liability insurance for the police. Sounds like Chinese communist tactics. Arrest people so they can't protest and hold them in jail without charges until the event is over. I guess I'd better raise my ACLU monthly contributions. They're going to be real busy if the Republicans win again.

 

[JTH]

P.S. What's the deal with the preemptive arrests of potential protesters in St. Paul MN? In addition, according to news reports, the RNC bought liability insurance for the police. Sounds like Chinese communist tactics. Arrest people so they can't protest and hold them in jail without charges until the event is over. I guess I'd better raise my ACLU monthly contributions. They're going to be real busy if the Republicans win again.

Are you refering to the riots with kids breaking glass and jumping on police cars? Or are you refering to the folks whose house was raided and they happen to have buckets upon buckets of urine collected with the excuse that it belonged to the guy without any plumbing?

Are you pointing to a particular news artical?

 

[rokid]

Well here's a particular news article.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/27695244.html

If you'd like to see more, just Google "St. Paul police raids".

From the article: "On Saturday afternoon, law agents surrounded 951 Iglehart Av. in St. Paul where members of I-Witness Video, a New York-based group that monitors police conduct during protests, were staying. They were detained and handcuffed but eventually freed without charges."

So WHY did the police surround the house, prevent the occupants from leaving, handcuff them, arrest them, and then not charge them?

Answer: They wanted to prevent them from exercising their right to free speech. Who does that sound like? Russians? North Koreans? Iranians? Chinese? Americans? ----Jim

P.S. John Stewart: "If McCain is a qualified leader because he was a POW for 5 years then that must make Guantanamo a "leadership academy.":laugh:

 

[tsptalk]

P.S. John Stewart: "If McCain is a qualified leader because he was a POW for 5 years then that must make Guantanamo a "leadership academy.":laugh:

Funny, but probably true. If they get out, they'll likely be the new leaders of Al Qaeda. I hope they are being treated right.

 

[JTH]

OK let me get this straight.

These anarchist have a website in which they are giving instructions on how to thwart the efforts of police to sustain peaceful protest. They are advocating illegal acts and have every intention of harming public property?

My only disappointment is that they weren't charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit crime.

There is a difference between the protest we saw during the DCN and the riots we saw during the RNC and I certianly don't approve with the latter.

 

[rokid]

OK let me get this straight.

No, you've got it wrong. The police are supposed to arrest people after a crime has been committed. If they police can arrest people, whenever they feel like it, without probable cause, then we're living in a police state.

The 1st amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

These people were in a private residence. Although they could have been assembling to engage in or promote illegal activities, which isn't protected by the 1st Amendment, the police didn't charge them with anything. Therefore, my conclusion is that they weren't guilty of anything. Except, perhaps, for the audacity of thinking about exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

In addition, the fact that the RNC purchased insurance for the city, indicates that the city was planning on doing something, e.g. preventative detention, that might be subject to lawsuits. Hopefully, the insurance company will have to pay.----Jim

P.S. The Minneapolis police were upset by the St. Paul preemptive raids. They know that the police need the cooperation of the community to be effective. If people feel harassed by the police they won't cooperate.

 

[JTH]

No, you've got it wrong. The police are supposed to arrest people after a crime has been committed.

Last I checked, conspiracy to commit a crime, is a crime. Where we can agree is that if the people were detained, then they should have been charged with something. But that doesn't mean any laws were broken in the process. Depending on the states laws, people can be detained for a certain period of time before they either have to be charged or released.

I'm not saying it's right...