Posted by voyager on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 11:28 AM:
Sarah Palin supported Miller, a political novice, and took down Sen. Murkowski whose family has been a political powerhouse in Alaska for 30 years. Sen. Murkowski is known as a Republican moderate but during this election cycle has had less that approving thing to say about Obama.
All politics is local, Tip O'Neal once said. Maybe it was so in Alaska. Its been bad blood between Palin and the Murkowskis. Palin defeated Gov. Murkowski and now she's defeated his daughter.
So what do you say? A straw in the wind or a full blown political hurricane?
Replies (127)
Palin can't even type her own Facebook posts.
-- Posted by FriendO on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 2:35 PM
FriendO wrote:
"Palin can't even type her own Facebook posts."
Boy! She really gets under your skin, doesn't she? I have to wonder about that. The level of hatred that spews from her detractors is scary. Yet, they claim, it is she that is 'hate filled' and 'intolerant'.
Methinks they doth protest too much. Perhaps they are using her as the sounding board for their own frustrations with the one they elected?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 2:49 PM
I wasn't aware that we got to vote on the Vice-Presidential ticket, without having to vote for the guy at the top. Palin would win hands down over Biden, methinks. She's definitely the smarter of the two, and better looking. Unfortunately, voting for her required voting for Sen. McCain, and that lost a lot of voters.
Maybe we should press for an amendment to allow a seperate Presidential and Vice-Presidential ticket, much like Missouri does with the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. It might be an improvement...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 3:12 PM
She knew that the Vice-President was the President of the Senate. Joe sat in the Senate for years and didn't know that. I'd say that does not reflect well on Joe's knowledge.
If Sarah makes a goof, she's called stupid. If Joe makes one, he's merely 'gaffe-prone'.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 4:30 PM
No. My comment referred to her unsuccessful bid for the vice-presidency in 2008. Seems silly to brag on her ability to turn the tables in a alaska gop primary when she couldn't succeed when she was on the ticket herself.
-- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 2:59 PM
I think she has been a success win or no win.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 4:42 PM
Oh no someone used the "P" name and lefties have their undies in a twist. Again
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 4:58 PM
Boy! She really gets under your skin, doesn't she? I have to wonder about that. The level of hatred that spews from her detractors is scary. Yet, they claim, it is she that is 'hate filled' and 'intolerant'.
Methinks they doth protest too much. Perhaps they are using her as the sounding board for their own frustrations with the one they elected?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 2:49 PM
I think it has more to do with the fact that she is an easy target and the vehemence of her detractors is more of a reflection of their exasperation with the malevolence and glut of Obama detractors.
It seems that half the people who frequent speakout think Obama is a Muslim emigrant from Kenya and terrorist sympathizer. If you try to defend Obama from scurrilous attacks based on his name, religion, race, upbringing, birth certificate, hometown, speaking style, education, etc., you're called a sycophant. Yet a single mention of Palin in a less than positive light and; "The level of hatred that spews from her detractors is scary."
-- Posted by DADES on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 5:02 PM
But I have to admit that I do feel a certain amount of joy at seeing the righties get their "undies in a twist" whenever they have to defend a fellow conservative instead of their usual attacks on liberals.
-- Posted by DADES on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 5:13 PM
Dades wrote:
"It seems that half the people who frequent speakout think Obama is a Muslim emigrant from Kenya and terrorist sympathizer. If you try to defend Obama from scurrilous attacks based on his name, religion, race, upbringing, birth certificate, hometown, speaking style, education, etc., you're called a sycophant. Yet a single mention of Palin in a less than positive light and; "The level of hatred that spews from her detractors is scary."
Mr. Obama is in a position to work good or ill for the country. Ms. Palin is just a speaker. Surely you can see the difference?
There are many people, right and left, out doing the same thing that Ms. Palin does. Some of them are more radical, some left. Even so, Ms. Palin seems to frighten the Bejesus out of the left. I'm curious as to why.
The 'malevolence and glut of Obama detractors' is hardly worse than the malevolence and glut of Bush detractors, many of whom can't let go even now, over a year and half after he has left office. The ceaseless attacks on his past alcoholism, his service record, challenging the 'legitimacy' of his election were no less than Mr. Obama receives. It sort of goes with the territory, methinks.
Does not the 'fake but accurate' letter regarding his National Guard service equate to the questions surrounding Mr. Obama's birth record? Does not the questions regarding the 'legitimacy' of his election equate to the questions surrounding Mr. Obama's nationality and/or religion?
Ms. Palin is currently in no more position than you or I to do harm or good for this nation. She is merely exercising her right as a citizen to speak out, to petition the government, and to work for the election of candidates she supports. I'm curious what it is about those actions that make her so dangerous. Do you feel the same way about George Soros?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 5:14 PM
Oh no someone used the "P" name and lefties have their undies in a twist. Again
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 4:58 PM
Mowrangler,
I said on one of these threads yesterday if you want to get the left worked up, just mention Palin.
See how well it works.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 6:06 PM
Palin is the Sharon Falconer to Beck's Elmer Gantry.
A couple of "local yokels" making sweet coin off of the tired God+Country message.
Combine a simplistic rah-rah message with simple-minded people and you have a recipe for big dollars.
No wonder Palin quit on her state mid-term.
-- Posted by FriendO on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 6:10 PM
FriendO just proved my theory again.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 6:14 PM
I would suggest anybody interested in Palin to read the article by Michael Joseph Gross in Vanity Fair magazine.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 6:17 PM
"Ms. Palin seems to frighten the Bejesus out of the left."
She doesn't frighten us. She sickens us with her stupidity.
People cling to others who are like them - either she's dumbed herself down to condescend to her audience, or there really are that many slobbering idiots in the heartland after all.
I vote for a little of both.
No need to be afraid of air-headed charlatans who quit their jobs and sell out their constituents to make more money.
-- Posted by FriendO on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 6:31 PM
Not to mention we just finished eight years of putting up with a folksy cowboy moron. Some of us would prefer a breather in between high-profile Born Agains who don't read and couldn't find Iraq on a map.
-- Posted by FriendO on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 6:42 PM
Poor ol FriendO has blown up. Wheels is right.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 7:04 PM
I refudiate this claim.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 7:48 PM
FriendO wrote:
"People cling to others who are like them - "
Again with the 'clinging' - right out of the Obama playbook. Clinging to guns and religion and so on and so forth. Leftists cling to cliche's like flies cling to flypaper.
I see you'll ignore my questions in favour of your senseless rant. You even had to drag President Bush into it, further bolstering my claims.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 8:07 PM
Not to mention we just finished eight years of putting up with a folksy cowboy moron. Some of us would prefer a breather in between high-profile Born Agains who don't read and couldn't find Iraq on a map.
-- Posted by FriendO on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 6:42 PM
So you are saying BO was the answer. Sorry but he was a mistake.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 10:40 PM
Funny!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 12:17 AM
Holy Cow, Ike and FriendO are really in high form lately! So objective and positive forward thinking, so kind and insightful, full of bright promise and uplifting words!
Well, it is the first of the month. Maybe their welfare checks finally arrived.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 7:50 AM
Good point, Rick. Personally Palin would not be my choice but can't understand those who are in such a frenzy asgainst her and hate her so. Like a whole bunch of Drag Queens running down the street, screeching Rape.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 8:17 AM
Voyager,
That is my point entirely. I think the Republicans can do better than her on the ballot. Romney scores higher than she in the primary polls right now, so she's not even the 'front runner', yet she garners so much vitriol from the left, it's uncanny.
Nor do I accept FriendO's argument that it's just because she's 'stupid'. There are lots of stupid speakers, left and right, that FriendO and Spaniard do not seem to have so much vitriol for, even though some of them are in positions to do a lot more damage than Ms. Palin current is. Sen. Franken comes to mind. And then there is Cynthia McKinney, although she's not currently announced for anything. Joe Biden I've already mentioned.
Perhaps its a sexism thing, they think she's not qualified because she's a woman, but their liberal leanings won't let them say so, so they make up the 'stupidity' excuse in order to discredit her. I don't know. I just find it curious...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 8:31 AM
I agreewith you, Hunter. I like Romney because his is not a hairbrain Rightest. I think we should watch Marco Rubio who exhibits some real powerhouse potential. It's early for 2012. Our focus should be this November's election to put the brakes on Obama.
May I add to your list of very dangerous people Henry Waxman of CA and Barney Frank of MA. Don't pay much attention to our little leftwing Triumvirate. Nothing dangerous about them, but it's fun to toy with them.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 8:55 AM
Spaniard wrote:
"Shapley, I do think she is stupid."
And she may think the same of you. I suspect that neither of you knows the other well enough to make that assessment.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 9:02 AM
Nor do I accept FriendO's argument that it's just because she's 'stupid'. There are lots of stupid speakers, left and right, that FriendO and Spaniard do not seem to have so much vitriol for, even though some of them are in positions to do a lot more damage than Ms. Palin current is. Sen. Franken comes to mind. And then there is Cynthia McKinney, although she's not currently announced for anything. Joe Biden I've already mentioned.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 8:31 AM
While mentioning stupid, you forgot Nancey Pelooooosi.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 9:14 AM
Have_Wheels_Will_Travel wrote:
"While mentioning stupid, you forgot Nancey Pelooooosi."
I think 'stupid' is too kind of a word...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 9:17 AM
Wheels, how could we possibly overlook her. But she is so obviously on the list, to mention her is redundant.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 9:20 AM
Voyager,
You should be ashamed of yourself parading Palin's name in front of these leftist folks on here. They cannot stand it. It is cruel. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 9:25 AM
I don't place much confidence in someone, anyone who has completed the 6th grade to not know who Margaret Thatcher is. Now you must admit that this is unbelievable. I don't think Palin is stupid so to speak. I think her followers are the ones being led off the cliff. As soon as the republican primaries are over in 2012, that will be the last we probably hear of her. By then she will have her pockets bursting with cash.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 9:29 AM
And unusual punishment,Wheels? Ike knows a moron when he sees one. Yes siree, takes one to know one (and appreciate one).
If he didn't have Palin to hyperventilate over, we would have had to invent her or find a stand in.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 9:32 AM
Howdy,
Apparently your vice president didn't finish the 6th grade. He didn't know his job was to preside over the Senate, even though he was a Senator.
You have to be careful when you start comparing intelligence levels of people, lest your own come into question.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 9:36 AM
Oh, it happens all the time.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 9:55 AM
Great Scot,Ike. Stop wasting our time.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 9:59 AM
Ike,
And?? Youe point is?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:03 AM
Ike that would be "your"
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:03 AM
I tried to not keep reading this, but it some funny funny stuff and really long talking about someone who is so inconsequential. Whistling past the grave yard comes to mind.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:04 AM
The dims tried their best to belittle and destroy her and they are bitter that they didn't get the job done.
Red is right, too much talk about nothing important.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:08 AM
Good morning Red,
I have to get off here as much as I hate to this morning. It has been kind of like taking a stick and running alongside a picket fence making that irritating noise to the owner of the picket fence.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:09 AM
Good morning Old John.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:10 AM
Goodbye, am taking an early lunch after which Trig and I are putting the top down and going tripping.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:14 AM
Spaniard,
If I read you correctly, you're saying that because modern Vice-Presidents rarely get involved in the Senate, therefore Ms. Palin is wrong in saying they can. The do hold the title of President, and as such have the authority to involve themselves therein. The current workings of the Senate are more a matter of tradition than constitutional duties, since the specific duties of the President of the Senate are not spelled out therein.
Mr. Biden's answer looks really stupid, by comparison:
"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous."
If Ms. Palin looks stupid by her answer, then Mr. Biden looks absolutely moronic. It would appear that Ms. Palin at least read the Constitution before answering. Mr. Biden, as always, just speaks 'off the cuff', and gets it wrong.
Mr. Biden doesn't realize that Article II defines the responsiblities of the Executive Branch, and that Article I defines the powers of the Legislative. However, he does get it right that the duties of the Vice-President are spelled out in Article I, he just doesn't realize which branch of government that article addresses. By his argument, the Vice-President is, in fact, a part of the Legislative Branch.
And you call Ms. Palin 'stupid', with this man only a heartbeat away from the presidency.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:34 AM
Old John, Voyager and Wheels,
Have a great day and holiday weekend.
I know it is a tempting easy target, but I have found sometimes the easiest way to annoy someone is just to ignore them.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:37 AM
Ms. Palin is currently in no more position than you or I to do harm or good for this nation. She is merely exercising her right as a citizen to speak out, to petition the government, and to work for the election of candidates she supports.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 5:14 PM
Unfortunately she is in a position to do "more harm or good" than you or I. Obviously because she is essentially being paid to say things that her target audience wants to hear, she reinforces only her own view of issues that are not one-sided.
The question that should be asked is what if Sarah Palin came out and stated that President Obama was not terrorist-coddling, was not a warmonger, was not a Wall Street lover, was not a socialist, was not Godless, was not born outside of the United States and was not a Muslim. Note that all of these things are 100% correct and factual, but if Ms. Palin came out and said them her audience would disappear and speaking fees diminish. It would appear that truth and facts have little to offer her.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 11:39 AM
commonsensematters,
By what you're saying, the people are only listening to her because she affirms what they alreadly believe, so it seems that she's not doing any harm.
She has some stature as a celebrity, which is why people pay her to speak, whereas you or I would probably command little or no commission on our words, but she's still just talking. She's not inciting riots, she's not advocating violence, she's not promoting insurrection, she's just talking about voting and electing candidates for office who aren't terrorist-coddling, warmongering, Wall-street loving, Godless foreign-born Muslim Socialists. How are you, Spaniard, FreindO, or anyone else harmed by that?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 1:01 PM
Ms. Palin is currently in no more position than you or I to do harm or good for this nation. She is merely exercising her right as a citizen to speak out, to petition the government, and to work for the election of candidates she supports. I'm curious what it is about those actions that make her so dangerous. Do you feel the same way about George Soros?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 2, 2010, at 5:14 PM
And yet, here we are on a thread dedicated to voyagers belief that her support "took down Sen. Murkowski whose family has been a political powerhouse in Alaska for 30 years." If she is such a non-entity, or just a speaker as you put it, then why dedicate a thread to her? Why take the time to rebuke those who are less than enamored with her?
_______________
Shapley said: "Even so, Ms. Palin seems to frighten the Bejesus out of the left. I'm curious as to why."
I of course can't speak for the masses, but I can give you my impression of Mrs. Palin. That being, based on what little I know of her she seems like someone more suited to Jerry Springer's couch than the White House. I may be wrong, she may be just what this country needs, but to date I have not seen that from her. And I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about her and this is just my initial impression. I think she might be a hoot to sit and have a beer with, but I don't know that I want her anywhere near the White House.
______________
Shapley wrote: "The 'malevolence and glut of Obama detractors' is hardly worse than the malevolence and glut of Bush detractors, many of whom can't let go even now, over a year and half after he has left office."
And Obama has been in office for over a year and a half and the daily topic of conversation is still Obama. I read an article the other day, if I could find it I would post a link to it, but it put Obama's popularity at just above that of Reagan and Clinton at the same point in their Presidencies. However, if all you read were the posts on this forum you would think that Obama is certainly the worst President, if not person, in the history of the universe.
I agree though that Bush and Obama both faced their unfair share of misinformed critics. I personally attribute this to the emergence of the Internet as many peoples primary news source.
Some people follow politics as a hobby but many others only follow when major events are happening or when they are unhappy with their representatives. If you are happy with the way things are going then you are probably more worried about the sports scores or stock markets than some random article about the President. However, if you're dissatisfied then you are much more likely to click on that article, especially if it has a negative slant. More clicks means more revenue for the website. Which means similar articles are sure to follow. The increasing number of negative articles just adds fuel to the fire for people like voyager and we regret, they take the plethora of anti-Obama articles as affirmation of their prior tenets. Independents and those who are less interested in politics and primarily just skim headlines see the onslaught of negative articles and assume the President must be doing a poor job, in effect causing them to be more dissatisfied. Meanwhile, those who supported Bush or Obama are left to marvel at how the sheep march to the misinformation and spin put out by the mainstream media. I don't claim this to be a conspiracy, just the workings of the economy.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
-- Posted by DADES on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 2:30 PM
"America is ready for another revolution and you are a part of this."
Yeah she is harmless.
-- Posted by FriendO on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 2:37 PM
Dades,
Methinks you have a weak memory. Yes, Mr. Obama's popularity is comparable with Mr. Reagan's and Mr. Clinton's at this point. As I recall, Mr. Reagan lost his Republican Majority, and Mr. Clinton lost his Democrat Majority, at this same point, as well.
Mr. Reagan was daily blasted as being out of touch, a warmonger, a lovable baffoon, and an imbicile. Mr. Clinton fared no better. There is nothing new to this. As I said, it goes with the territory.
I suspect that your sense of history is not that bad, so you realize that Mr. Obama, like President Reagan and President Clinton before him, stands a strong chance of being handed an electoral defeat this November. Like many others, you're wanting to put the blame on 'hate mongers' and 'ill informed voters' stirred by 'rabble-rousers', rather than simply admitting that Mr. Obama has done a poor job, either in improving the national situation or in explaining why the national situation doesn't seem to be improving. Whether in action or in communication, he has failed to perform, and will likely suffer at the polls this November because of it.
Sarah Palin, for her part, has sensed the direction of the tide, and is riding it towards bolstering her credentials, even as Mr. Obama continues to swim against it. Who, then, is the less informed?
I, myself, feel about Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden the way you feel about Ms. Palin. I don't want them anywhere near the White House, but it's too late to do anything about that. All I can do, as Ms. Palin is doing, is to work to weaken their power.
It may be that no President could do much to improve this economy, but they can do things to improve our perception. Mr. Obama has clearly failed in that regard. Instead of touting his successes, his followers are left making excuses for his failures.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 2:47 PM
Ah! Well. Time to go put some horse steaks on the grill. We've pretty much tenderized this one, I think it'll do...
Ya'll have a good weekend.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 2:49 PM
Shapley, you put the laughter in horse slaughter.
-- Posted by DADES on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 2:54 PM
Geez..... Come home from work and you guys have Ike, Dades, howdy, etc. screaming for mercy. Poor whittle fellas. They voted for a loser and the only thing they can do is beat up someone that is not running. What a bunch of whine bags.
New toy this weekend. I might as well spend some before Obama gives it to someone else.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 4:35 PM
Sweet Regret. Should be a nice weekend to try it out.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 5:05 PM
She has some stature as a celebrity, which is why people pay her to speak, whereas you or I would probably command little or no commission on our words, but she's still just talking. She's not inciting riots, she's not advocating violence, she's not promoting insurrection, she's just talking about voting and electing candidates for office who aren't terrorist-coddling, warmongering, Wall-street loving, Godless foreign-born Muslim Socialists. How are you, Spaniard, FreindO, or anyone else harmed by that?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 1:01 PM
Shapley that wedgie they get when they just hear her name has to be doing some harm to them. I dont know, maybe cutting off the blood flow so they can't reproduce? Well maybe it's not harming them after all.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 5:11 PM
"...she's just talking about voting and electing candidates for office who aren't terrorist-coddling, warmongering, Wall-street loving, Godless foreign-born Muslim Socialists."
-----------
In accordance with that statement, she would be supporting the re-election of President Obama.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 5:41 PM
Don't think so, Common. No, I'm pretty sure of it. In fact, I'm positive of it.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 5:58 PM
We Regret To Inform U,
Very nice bike and coming up on the best time of year for riding too.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 7:47 PM
"As I recall, Mr. Reagan lost his Republican Majority, and Mr. Clinton lost his Democrat Majority, at this same point, as well.
...so you realize that Mr. Obama, like President Reagan and President Clinton before him, stands a strong chance of being handed an electoral defeat this November.
...rather than simply admitting that Mr. Obama has done a poor job, either in improving the national situation or in explaining why the national situation doesn't seem to be improving."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Based on the above statements the most obvious conclusion is that both President Reagan and President Clinton must have done a "poor job" also. On the other hand, possibly President Obama is not doing a "poor job" anymore than Presidents Clinton or Reagan were doing a "poor job" except in the eyes of their detractors and political opponents.
Actually President Reagan had an advantage in not having opposition in Congress that said no to every initiative, whether it was beneficial to the people or not.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"...Sarah Palin, for her part, has sensed the direction of the tide, and is riding it towards bolstering her credentials..."
Claiming that clinging to a "just say no" mentality is "bolstering her credentials" is a bit of a stretch. Ms. Palin has a well rehearsed diatribe (per the Limbaugh / Beck mold) that she replicates relentlessly for the purpose of making money. Bolstering credentials in my opinion is one of the furthest things from her mind.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"...but they can do things to improve our perception. Mr. Obama has clearly failed in that regard. Instead of touting his successes, his followers are left making excuses for his failures."
There is no question that "perception" is in the eye of the beholder. Your opinion is apparently that President Obama has "failed" whereas I have a different opinion. I understand the various reasons for the current state of the economy and realize that this is the essence of much of the disappointment of some independents. Most conservatives give him zero credit for accomplishments and stand in the way even when they are blocking actions that are in the best interests of the American people.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"It may be that no President could do much to improve this economy..."
That I agree with, but at least President Obama has taken steps to prevent the economy from becoming worse.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 8:15 PM
CSM,
Actually, I misspoke. President Reagan did not lose his Senate majority until 1986. They lost a few seats in 1982, but retained the majority.
So, I guess, you're wrong. President Reagan was a more effective president. Particularly since he was able to pass much of his agenda despite the house being held by the opposition party.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has difficulty passing his agenda even with both houses firmly in Democrat hands.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 9:51 PM
CSM wrote:
"Most conservatives give him zero credit for accomplishments and stand in the way even when they are blocking actions that are in the best interests of the American people."
Actually, that's not true. If Mr. Obama put forth something that was, in conservatives view, in the best interests of the American people, they would support it. He has proposed no such moves.
I would point out that it was primarily Republicans, not Democrats, the supported his decision to employ a 'surge' strategy in Afghanistan. Conservatives agree with him that we have to be committed to winning the war, and have supported him in his efforts.
On his other issues: raising taxes on the wealthy, imposing an unconstitutional health-care plan on the people, spending a trillion dollars we don't have on pork-laden 'stimulus' projects, etc., conservatives do not agree that these are in the interests of the people, and thus do not support them.
Nor can he be trusted by the Republicans. Even now he calls for them to support his efforts to reform spending while blasting Republicans on the campaign trail for supporting a non-existent 'privatization plan' for Social Security. While Republicans have supported partial-privatization efforts in the past, there is no current such plan in the offing, and the previous plan could not get passed by a Republican majority. Even so, Mr. Obama is trying to scare senior citizens with tales of such a Republican effort. (For my part, I wish there was such a plan, but alas, there is none.)
Mr. Obama himself said when he established his bipartisan commission on deficit reduction that 'everything is on the table, including entitlements'. What he says on the campaign trail runs counter to what he says 'ex cathedra', it seems. The conservative sense is that he cannot be trusted. Methinks they are correct.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:05 PM
CSM wrote:
"That I agree with, but at least President Obama has taken steps to prevent the economy from becoming worse."
What steps are those?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:06 PM
I see no one has stepped forward to defend Mr. Biden. I take it, by your silence, that you agree that he is more stupid than Ms. Palin.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:08 PM
Theorist wrote:
"Exactly how I feel about your posts concerning the President of the USA."
Which posts are those?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:10 PM
You may as well. I have tried to remain respectful of Mr. Obama, even though I disagree. I do not believe I have called him 'stupid' or otherwise denigrated him personally. If you can show me where I have displayed a level of vitriol comparable to that heaped upon Ms. Palin, I would like to see it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:22 PM
"It may be that no President could do much to improve this economy..."
That I agree with, but at least President Obama has taken steps to prevent the economy from becoming worse.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 8:15 PM
Like the health care bill? That has almost stopped small businesses from expanding om it's own. Until the small business persons feel like there is a stopping point so they know what the damage will be they will continue to set on their nest eggs. There is a lot of cash out there that is not working.
Unlike the politicians small business doesn't have the luxury to take peoples money by force so they have to budget. Obama boasting that he is going to loosen more loan money to help small business will not work. Smart business persons are NOT going to make a venture without knowing what it is going to cost them in government interference and liabilities.
Jobs bought by government only makes things worse.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:27 PM
Ah some more Palin Paranoia... from Theorist this time.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:41 PM
I keep hearing about all these low interest loans to help business and farmers and who knows who.
I thought rates were low. Government loans to small business seem to always have strings attatched as in compliance and mandates.
I see low interest government loans more of hinderence than helperence.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 11:02 PM
"So, I guess, you're wrong. President Reagan was a more effective president. Particularly since he was able to pass much of his agenda despite the house being held by the opposition party.
President Obama, on the other hand, has difficulty passing his agenda even with both houses firmly in Democrat hands." Per SH with a minor correction.
President Reagan was faced with an opposition party in a totally different Congressional atmosphere than exists today. He could count on support from common sense members of Congress from both parties. President Obama does not have both houses "firmly" in hand with the "modern day" filibuster weapon.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"If President Obama put forth something that was, in conservatives view, in the best interests of the American people, they would support it." Per SH with a minor correction.
In spite of your opinion as to Constitutionality, the health care initiatives are in the best interests of the American people by including features such as extending family coverage to 26 year olds, ending policy cancellation due to severe illness, elimination of coverage denial for pre-existing conditions, provided state-based insurance exchanges for individuals, and extended coverage for uninsured Americans. The cost of this program is less than the Republican "do nothing" alternative. As I mentioned many times before, had there been honest cooperation from a sufficient number of common sense republicans, the program could have been improved.
A related issue is tax breaks for small business that the Republicans claim to support but it appears that their leadership will not let them vote for it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"That I agree with, but at least President Obama has taken steps to prevent the economy from becoming worse."
What steps are those?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 3, 2010, at 10:06 PM
These include support for small business, aid to the unemployed, the stimulus money that has gone to construction projects and to continue employment of teachers and policemen, etc. Every dollar spent turns over many times and prevents the economy from becoming worse. You may not agree with this but the people who still have jobs (that would not have had them without stimulus) would vehemently disagree with you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I see no one has stepped forward to defend Vice-President Biden. I take it, by your silence, that you agree that he is more stupid than Ms. Palin."
Per SH with a minor correction.
Vice-President Biden operates behind the scenes as a VP should, without the string pulling attributed by some to Vice-President Cheney. In my opinion the less one hears about Vice-President Biden, the better job he is doing.
As for Ms. Palin, I do not believe she is stupid (and have never said so) but she has displayed painful ignorance of many national and international issues. She is obviously an effective entertainer, has a demonstrated ability to make money (which is my personal opinion as to why she quit as Governor of Alaska) and generates audiences that can consistently count on her to tell them what they already believe.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 5:52 AM
Yes, we understand, Common. The less we hear of Biden the better for him. The more we hear of him, the worse it gets.
I don't give two hoots about him or Palin, As of now I favor Romney, but lets wait and see how Marco Rubio comes along. Kind of a unusual name, but Heck, what about the current WH occupant?
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 8:01 AM
So respectful and mature. Thank goodness I am not from your side...
Well thank you for the compliment Theorist. I promise I will try and find something nice to say about you someday someway somehow. You have a wonderful weekend.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 8:11 AM
voyager,
unusual name? what, do you mean not a typical white name?
-- Posted by futile_rant on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 10:02 AM
What do you think I mean? How many Marks co pared to Marcos do you know. How may Baraks compared to Barrys do you know. Forget some of the crazy contrived show biz names. I'm talking about real people's real names.
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 11:12 AM
CSM wrote:
"President Obama does not have both houses "firmly" in hand with the "modern day" filibuster weapon."
Are you saying the filibuster did not exist during President Reagan's term.
The issue, as I see it, is that President Reagan presented common-sense measures that the people support. When the Congress did not get behind him, he went on the air and spoke to the people. He wasn't called "The Great Communicator" for naught. This, as I've said, has been a failing of the current president - the people do not see his agenda as 'common sense' measures, and he is unable or unwilling to communicate with them the reasons why they should be regarded as such.
"In spite of your opinion as to Constitutionality, the health care initiatives are in the best interests of the American people by including features such as extending family coverage to 26 year olds, ending policy cancellation due to severe illness, elimination of coverage denial for pre-existing conditions, provided state-based insurance exchanges for individuals, and extended coverage for uninsured Americans. The cost of this program is less than the Republican "do nothing" alternative. As I mentioned many times before, had there been honest cooperation from a sufficient number of common sense republicans, the program could have been improved."
I totally disagree. First, the concept that insurance is a right to which people are entitled is absurd, on the outset. If the intent is to fix the cost of health care, forcing people to buy finance packages to pay for it is clearly the wrong approach. Insurance is not health care, plain and simple. There is a very basic difference in principle between the Republican approach and this concept, and that is why few Republicans would sign on for it. Expanding entitlements is not the answer at a time when we're being buried in entitlement debt.
"These include support for small business, aid to the unemployed, the stimulus money that has gone to construction projects and to continue employment of teachers and policemen, etc. Every dollar spent turns over many times and prevents the economy from becoming worse. You may not agree with this but the people who still have jobs (that would not have had them without stimulus) would vehemently disagree with you."
I do not agree that these are good for the economy, and that is the whole point. Continuing the employment of teachers and policemen indicates the focus of the this administration is on preserving the government over preserving the citizenry. Every dollar spent may turn over many times, but if you have to borrow that dollar, it will take several turns just to break even.
"Vice-President Biden operates behind the scenes as a VP should..."
Where is that written?
"...without the string pulling attributed by some to Vice-President Cheney."
I thought we were talking about Mr. Obama. Why is it necessary to slip in an unproven allegation about the previous administration? Can not Mr. Biden stand on his own merits?
"As for Ms. Palin, I do not believe she is stupid (and have never said so) but she has displayed painful ignorance of many national and international issues."
In which I say she is hardly unique among political figures. Thus, my question of why she, in particular, earns so much vitriol remains unanswered.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 11:23 AM
You know the answer, Hunter. You are asking a rhetorical question and those who are trying to bait you know it to.
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 11:30 AM
Theorist wrote:
"Palin asked her town librarian if the library "could live with censorship of library books." (It appears she DID fire the librarian, but then re-hired her after an outcry)."
So says a Democrat party member in Sitka. The librarian has not commented. No list of books or periodicals to be 'banned' was ever submitted, and no effort was made to ban any.
The firing of the Librarian appears to have been a part of a purge of former city workers. I have found nothing that indicates the reason behind the move, but a wrongful termination lawsuit brought about by purge was rejected in courts.
And, no, I wasn't crying out about censorship, to the best of my knowldedge. I have supported the right of the Missourian to enforce its rules, if that is the incident you were talking about. I also believe communities have the right to set standards for their public forums, including Libraries, although I don't favour putting that in the hands of single individual.
Libraries used to have 'censorhip boards', although they called them something else, that screened potential books for appropriateness of content. We survived as a nation for more than one hundred and fifty years with such things, with only the radical sixties and beyond bringing about the idea that 'anything goes' when it comes to library content.
Remember, I'm the one who says that the First Amendments' wording that "Congress shall make no law" specifically limits the prohibition spelled out in that amendment to the federal government. Alaska has its own constitution that spells out the limits of the State, and most cities have charter spelling out the organization, powers, and limits of the municipal government within the framework established by law.
Many cities have removed items for library shelves. Sarah Palin rails against censorship of political speech. For all I know, she may have been suggesting removing 'Playboy' from the periodical department.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 2:18 PM
Theorist,
That was reported to the New York Times by a Democrat Committeewoman. The New York Times could not confirm that with the librarian, who quit the job some time after being rehired.
I don't know if it actually happened, or happened as the Times says it happened, but the story is a bit one-sided at this point.
However, as I've said, she reportedly made no attempt at such a ban, merely asked the question. She did submit a list of what was to be banned, no one thus far involved in the story has suggested what it may have been, if anything, that she might have sought to have banned.
Now, you're free to read into this anything you may want to, but at this point it appears to be more feathers than meat.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 3:11 PM
Palin asked her town librarian if the library "could live with censorship of library books." (It appears she DID fire the librarian, but then re-hired her after an outcry).
Now Voyager, Shapes, and Wheels et.al. weren't you the ones who were against censorship on a thread about a month ago?
Palin's ambition for personal gain borders on tragic. As seen by her choices, it seems as if she really cares only about her own advancement, not the Republican Party,(gasp!) Alaska, not about the environment,(but certainly for 'big oil') and definitely not about her family. My personal opinion only...
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 1:49 PM
Theorist,
It "appears" she DID fire her... or she DID fire her. Which is it?
Regarding censorship and being for or against it... could you get a little more specific where I was involed? Not quite sure what you were referring to in your generalities.
So far as Palin goes, I do not think you will find anywhere on this thread where I was promoting her. I am just having a ball watching you left wing loonies go nuts every time her name is mentioned. It was only two days ago that I suggested to someone if they wanted to get you, as in the far left wing loonies, fired up just mention Palin's name
Sure enough Voyager did and you took off like a rocket. Good job Voyager!!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 3:22 PM
Wheels,
Like some other maladies, those who suffer from "Palin Derangement Syndrome" don't actually realize they have it.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 3:35 PM
Red,
I have mixed feelings on Palin. I see decent qualities and some that make me nervious as hell.
But it was eye opening to see the far left go to full out hate and to do it so quickly. And that... before they even knew her.
Palin Derangement Syndrome is a fitting name for it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 3:53 PM
Theorist
The thought crosses my mind... did you give even 10% of the thought and time to researching the man you voted for in the last election as you have to researching Palin since the election?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 5:54 PM
Pretty interesting thread. And Wheels knows that "... if you want to get [Mom] the left worked up, just mention Palin." ~grinning~ Wondering, though, how many people here really know all that much about her ... pro or con?
It sort of amazes me to see so many people who support her or who don't support her ... having little or no real, solid reason for either stance ... Neither of the above seem to WANT to know the facts contained in them, so how do they form their opinions?
PS: I cut this down from one full page ... Know y'all appreciate that! ~laughing~
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 6:09 PM
Wheels ... May I answer your question to Theorist?
No, I didn't devote enough time to Obama during the campaign as I did to Palin ... and I can't justify that, really. Not as much background on Obama from the time he entered politics as there was on Palin ...
But that's no excuse. What I think now is ... We really had a couple of lousy choices for president ... But it's the American Way ...
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 6:14 PM
Mom I certainly was not pleased with our choices. Never liked Mccain from his previous run. But I liked Obama even less.
We can only hope a fit candidate steps to the plate between now and 2012.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 6:33 PM
Rick, I understand that and then this country goes and elects someone less qualified, not for vice president, but for president. That still baffles me. Hope and change rhetoric and America fell for it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 7:26 PM
Can't think of anyone who has been sort of mentioned as a possible candidate for the presidency so far who really impresses me ... although I admire some of what some of them seem to stand for.
Funny, though ... I can think of several people I might like to see as president ... none of whom have the power and/or wealthy 'friends' in order to succeed. You know, the ones like Palin appears to so many to be ... average, hard-working, common-sense citizens?
As it is, thinking that most of our politicians are actually 'bought' by special-interest groups ... Without their backing, both monetary and emotional (unions & organizations like AARP come to mind) ...
Has anyone read "Feeling Your Pain ..." or "Attention Deficit Disorder" by James Bovard?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 7:32 PM
Theorist:
From your source:
"Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed.
Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.Books may not have been pulled from library shelves, but there were other repercussions for Emmons."
In other words, there is no evidence to support the claim. As I said, a Democrat has been circulating the story, sans supporting evidence, to news reporters apparently hungry for anti-Palin newsstories. I wouldn't put too much stock in it at this point.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 7:35 PM
Theorist,
You are worrying about someone unanounced for nothing, way back to 1996, yet you have no concern apparently about going back and checking a man who rode the freebie education roles in this country as a foreign student, traveling to a country where Americans were forbidden to travel to, on obviously a foreign passport. None of that seems to have surfaced in your thorough vetting of him I suppose.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 7:45 PM
Mom,
You are correct, there is nobody that particularly excites, I kind of like Huckabee, but I don't see him making it.
Our current president leads the pack of possibles that I do not want to see as President next term.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 7:56 PM
Note...you didn't comment on facts that I did present, perhaps you are in denial?
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 4:12 PM
Note, I have not said I support or would vote for her, I just find it amusing how easy it is to push someone's buttons on someone like Palin.
I knew Gurusmom could not resist, but she has shown restraint.
There are a lot of people in office or running for office I disagree with, but don't find myself foaming at the mouth by the very mention of their name. (Laughing)
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 7:56 PM
What matters is what she wanted to do? Kind of like saying it may be fake but could be believable if it was real.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 8:04 PM
There are a lot of people in office or running for office I disagree with, but don't find myself foaming at the mouth by the very mention of their name. (Laughing)
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 7:56 PM
Red,
That is what I find so blasted funny. And foaming at the mouth describes it well.
Theorist is one of those who does not recognize that she has Palin Derangement Syndrome.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 8:04 PM
Their
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 8:09 PM
Theorist:
Stay with me on this: Nothing was banned. Nothing was proposed being banned. There is no evidence that the events unfolded in the manner you are presenting them.
Nor was the librarian fired and rehired, according to your link. She was 'asked to resign' in a letter at the same time as other City Employees who had campaigned for Ms. Palin's opponent. However, in the face of widespread support for her, the request was rescinded. There is, again, no evidence that the firing ever took place.
"Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.
Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.
Emmons survived the loyalty test and a second one a few months later. She resigned in August 1999, two months before Palin was voted in for a second mayoral term.
Palin might have become a household name in the last week, but Kilkenny, who is not a Palin fan, is on her own small path to Internet fame. She sent out an e-mail earlier this week to friends and family answering, from her perspective, the question Outsiders are asking any Alaskan they know: "Who is this Sarah Palin?"
Kilkenny's e-mail got bounced through cyberspace and ended up on news blogs. Now the small-town mom and housewife is scheduling interviews with national news media and got her name on the front page of The New York Times, even if it was misspelled."
You're willing to buy the story as Kilkenny is selling it. I'm sensing another 'fake but accurate' moment in the Times, noted for running false stories in the past. (Remember Jayson Blair?)
"foaming"...
You got that right. Democrats are frothing at the mouth in their efforts to discredit Ms. Palin.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 8:23 PM
Only reason you were corrected Theorist was because you were such an *** about correcting someone else the other day.
Doesn't bother me if you correct me... I make a lot of typos.
I didn't think it would set well. Didn't when I caught my teachers in school making an error and then being dumb enough to point it out either.
Difference here you cannot make me stay in during recess.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 9:00 PM
"Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla -- that amounts to $3,000 per resident. She argues that the debt was needed to fund improvements."
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 9:02 PM
The voters approved it! Just more of the lefts BS. It was about the same as the Water park here. Just a bunch on winners that are mad because the money isn't used to keep them from looking for work.
"Much like New York now has a new stadium for the Yankees, Sarah Palin pushed through a much needed sports complex to improve the lives of the people of Wasilla.
Nearing the end of its first full year of operation, the Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex is boasting 20 to 50 percent increases in off-ice uses offered at the 102,000 square-foot facility.
Wasilla voters agreed in 2002 to a half-percent increase in the city sales tax to pay off a $14.7 million bond to build the multi-use facility. The project "was completed on schedule and under budget," Mayor Dianne Keller said, and the complex opened its doors March 6, 2004.[4] Sales tax revenue, which can only be used to pay the bond, is coming in faster than expected. Keller said she believes the facility will be paid off at least two years ahead of the 10-year schedule."
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 9:56 PM
Regret, I thought I saw your new toy parked upfront of Walmart today. The young lady that came from the store to get something from one of the storage compartments said her dad bought it just short of a year ago. As I returned to my car, there were several older folks admiring the bike and dad was gleaming while answering the expected questions about the ride.
Regardless of the success of government big projects designed to create revenue, I just have a feeling that if needed private concerns would see the needs and meet them in a much better for all way.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 10:20 PM
Nope, can't make you stay in...but I sure can make you wish you were outside!
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 9:04 PM
Theorist,
I pointed out to you a long time ago that My wife had 6 sisters and a sister in law. All but 2 of them tried what you suggest. It didn't work then and it won't work now.
But feel free to give it a try.
That was Voyager if you will remember.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 4, 2010, at 10:41 PM
Rick
Don't know about being anti Obama... I think more people are becoming that every day.
What we need is the antidote for Obama and the damage he has done.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 10:56 AM
Whee4kls, lets keep our eyes on Marco Rubio in Florida. We may just have found the antidote.
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 11:00 AM
"Palin Derangement Syndrome" now we have a name for it. Wheels I hope your working on a cure. In my research I've found people with PDS also suffer from "Bush Blaming Syndrome."
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 1:36 PM
Hopefully those who oppose President Obama will not follow suit with a similar malady. I am in opposition to just about everything he has done since taking office, but try to keep it in perspective. One day at a time.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 1:46 PM
Mowrangler,
I think as Obama said regarding when life begins... it is beyond my pay grade. And then he went on to prove to all of us that the whole presidency gig was above his pay grade.
I'm afraid people would want to hurt my body if they put me in charge of finding an antedote and then administering the same. ☻ ☻ ☻ ☻
Red,
I agree that is a serious worry. The last thing we need in the White House is another clueless rock star. And by clueless I mean trying to lead the majority of Americans to a place they do not want to go.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 2:55 PM
"Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job..."
Does anyone actually believe that a newly elected mayor has the right to demand letters of resignation from bona fide city employees because they are of a different political party?
Where in the Constitution does it say that that is the right thing to do?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 2:56 PM
Common,
You really think the Constitution addressed what a city in a soverign state would do.
Would you want to have a bunch of department heads working against your newly elected administration.
What do they do on the Federal level for Pete's sake. They simply dismiss most of the department heads and bring in their own. Do you think that is constitutional?
Your Palin induced malady is getting the better or your judgement. Perhaps you need to take the rest of the weekend off with FriendO. I think this Palin discussion has been too much for you far leftist's mental state.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 3:09 PM
Dang it, I spelled "sovereign" wrong and I hit an r instead of an f in "of your judgement".
Sure hope Theorist doesn't catch me.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 3:14 PM
Yeah Wheels I guess your right. Unless you can find a way to sneak it in "the koolaid."
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 3:35 PM
"You really think the Constitution addressed what a city in a soverign state would do."
Of course not, but some characters are so paranoid with "it's against the Constitution" that I thought I'd throw it in. And there are others who may not realize that Alaska was not a sovereign state when the constitution was written.
However, even at the Federal level it is only the political appointees that are routinely replaced (with the exception of the current SecDef). At the municipal level the police chief, the public works director, the librarian and the finance officer are not routinely replaced, except maybe by individuals that have so little confidence in their own abilities and intelligence.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 4:05 PM
At the municipal level the police chief, the public works director, the librarian and the finance officer are not routinely replaced, except maybe by individuals that have so little confidence in their own abilities and intelligence.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 4:05 PM
Common,
You suppose they are replaced at the Federal Appointive level for the same reason... little confidence in their own abilities?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 5:51 PM
No, they are replaced because they are appointees, i.e. positions that change with new administrations. Police officers and engineers do not fall into that catagory. What part of that don't you understand?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 6:02 PM
I took a job once and the CEO said he would call a company wide meeting the day I started and fire everyone. He said it would take about a day for everyone to turn in an application and those I rehired would retain all status and tenure.
I decided to forgo that pony show and take over with no major changes until I could become familiar.
Worst mistake I ever made.
After 10 years I decided to let the backstabbers have it. The company is no longer a family contolled business and employee wages have declined.
The bright side is they look forward to government medical insurance.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 6:09 PM
I think this Palin discussion has been too much for you far leftist's mental state.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 3:09 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 3:55 PM
Teacher, I want to include 'all you all', so you just go ahead and move that funny little upside down comma if you would feel better about it. I will try to do better in the future.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 6:24 PM
No, they are replaced because they are appointees, i.e. positions that change with new administrations. Police officers and engineers do not fall into that catagory. What part of that don't you understand?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 6:02 PM
I understand it perfectly Common. Even the dumb azzed part where you tried to make it a constitutional issue and then excused yourself with the I just threw it in comment, when I questioned you on it.
My point was if a Mayor is questioning the hire by a previous Mayor, in this caser Palin, she is incompetent.
If a President does it, because he is allowed to, he is brilliant. That goes for any Mayor or any President.
Not really defending or accusing any one, just trying to point out the hypocracy of the left on this issue
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM
Theorist,
How does "just about" confuse you?
My son was doing counter terrorism work before and after 9/11. He later joined the Army and served in the 82nd Airborne so I really don't want to go down that road with you.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 7:35 PM
"Not really defending or accusing any one, just trying to point out the hypocracy of the left on this issue"
I can see you are still having problems distinguishing between political appointees and city employees. Somewhat sad but OK if that's the limit of your comprehension.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 9:18 PM
Common
Who cares? Palin isn't running. If those few things are all you have, you are spinning your wheels. Most of them have been proven to be lies already.
Now for Ther, she is just as good as a government employee. She wants to see the wealthy lose because she knows she is stuck in a dead end job with a wage ceiling.
Oh I don't want to forget about Ike. He sure hates her because she want to see people that are able bodied to work instead of setting at home and waiting for a handout.
Now Friendo is still green behind the ears and wonders how that 60 year old guys have a boat, motorcycle, a 401K, and make a good wage. He knows it had to be a conspiracy.
If he would realize that you can acquire a lot of stuff in 45+ years of working and making good long term decisions. Also it helps if you don't let the lazy, green eyed jealous people talk you into being a loser. Remember ... misery loves company.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 9:26 PM
I can see you are still having problems distinguishing between political appointees and city employees. Somewhat sad but OK if that's the limit of your comprehension.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 9:18 PM
Common,
If you could not understand what I said in my last post, there is no point discussing it further.
Go ahead, keep thinking it is unconstitutional, for a Mayor to ask an at will employee to resign if said employee gives an indicsation that he/she will not render loyal service.
Good night, spinner of fairy tales.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 5, 2010, at 11:19 PM
I will come off looking condescending.
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Sep 6, 2010, at 7:32 AM
Too late, laughing really hard.
-- Posted by Alt Ctrl Del on Mon, Sep 6, 2010, at 7:54 AM
Sure did, still laughing.
-- Posted by Alt Ctrl Del on Mon, Sep 6, 2010, at 8:10 AM
Nay Theorist,
You came off as condescending the very first time I had contact with you. Why would you want to change now?
Always thought a person had to be superior to be able to be condescending... Did I make yet another mistake?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Sep 6, 2010, at 9:40 AM
Just listen to you guys! You are taking Theorist seriously when she has nothing of any substance to offer but hot air. Why don't you see her for what she is. She's just baiting you.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Sep 6, 2010, at 9:58 AM
Voyager, baiting goes both ways; nothing serious.
-- Posted by Alt Ctrl Del on Mon, Sep 6, 2010, at 10:05 AM
Yeah, Alt, but some of us are better at it than she.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Sep 6, 2010, at 10:11 AM
Ah yes, but I lack the artifice and guile of others.
-- Posted by Alt Ctrl Del on Mon, Sep 6, 2010, at 10:14 AM
Come now, Alt, you surely jest. Don't be so modest and hide your obvious talents under the basket.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Sep 6, 2010, at 10:22 AM
Gotta go; family on the way, have a great Labor Day.
-- Posted by Alt Ctrl Del on Mon, Sep 6, 2010, at 10:23 AM
In other words, has no answer.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Sep 6, 2010, at 10:31 AM
Looks like about a three-and-half day shelf life on this thread.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 7, 2010, at 8:53 AM
They have been beat Shape.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 7, 2010, at 6:34 PM
Menu
Sarah Palin supported Miller, a political novice, and took down Sen. Murkowski whose family has been a political powerhouse in Alaska for 30 years. Sen. Murkowski is known as a Republican moderate but during this election cycle has had less that approving thing to say about Obama.
All politics is local, Tip O'Neal once said. Maybe it was so in Alaska. Its been bad blood between Palin and the Murkowskis. Palin defeated Gov. Murkowski and now she's defeated his daughter.
So what do you say? A straw in the wind or a full blown political hurricane?
Replies (127)