Sarah Palin

[rampau]

Ok, so old McCain got himself a female running mate. That's it? He is now a definite winner of the election?

If this move will earn him the presidency then Americans have got to be the strangest and stupidest people on the planet. 8 years of Bush bashing and then to elect McCain, which means another 4 years of Bush, is a move only the most gullable will make.

This year's election is in the Democrats' hands!

Vote Obama!

 

[Drederick Tatum]

Ok, so old McCain got himself a female running mate. That's it? He is now a definite winner of the election?

If this move will earn him the presidency then Americans have got to be the strangest and stupidest people on the planet. 8 years of Bush bashing and then to elect McCain, which means another 4 years of Bush, is a move only the most gullable will make.

This year's election is in the Democrats' hands!

Vote Obama!

That's such liberal garbage.

 

[don_equis]

Seems like the change that the Dems were talking about....little experience vs little experience, then againg W had all the experience and that really worked out...NOT!

 

[hedonis]

new rule

No more Palin threads without a close up of her snatch.

I personally cant seem to think of anything else she has that might be worth anything:thumbsup:

Wow- it must be cool to be as cool as someone with the coolness level of your coolness... :bowdown:

H

 

[Member2019]

As if ...

That's such liberal garbage.

As if the Republicans don't throw their own?

Remember when Palin state's proximity to Russia was a joke about her foreign policy?
Now you've even got McCain spewing that, as "fact."

This election is about Boomers and Generation-Y, whereas the "meat'n potato" breadwinners of those of us in Generation-X don't have a vote that means squat.

Generation-Y is clearly behind Obama, who has offered absolutely no meat on Iraq, much less the same'old, same'old, failed energy policies since the '70s -- total ignorance.

The Boomers is what I can't figure out, and this election will show. Are they old enough now that they start leaning left for Social Security? Or are enough still working that they will boost the vote for the independent, Libertarian-Capitalist Generation-X that are entering the prime incoming earning years and pretty much despise the "I want my expensive car, big house, etc... fresh out of high school/college" Generation-Y?

In any case, this election is so dumbed down that 2004 and 2000 make Kerry, Gore and even Bush look like they were open and honest about everything.
So, frankly, although I'm going to the polls to vote for other offices, without a single candidate even offering any reality to me (not even the Libertarians), I'm abstaining.

Not that my vote as Generation-X makes that much difference between the Boomes and even larger Generation-Y that is starting to vote.
I'm not totally sure about 2008, but I'm definitely sure that 2012 will be Democrat -- because most Boomers will be retired and most Generation-Ys will be 18+.

 

[lkc2much]

Here we are involved on political debate again???

Believe me: I'd love to debate with those of you here that, after 8 years in which YOUR OWN economic situation (your pockets, your bank accounts, retirement accounts, income, equity in your home, prospects for the future) has gone to hell, still would vote for the same party. You should vote against it even if the other option was a three-legged dog on peyote with less experience than Obama. You should vote against it just as a matter of principle. Just fire them. Kick them out of the job. You would do the same with your mechanic, your gardener, your......

Here's some pictures. Give Sarah a facial.

http://wizbangblog.com/images/2008/...h_mccain_vp_search_team/sarah-palin-thumb.jpg

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/16/sarah_palin_2.jpg

 

[Paraniod]

Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!

Vote Obama!!!

 

[Friday on my mind]

They will never get away with claiming they are the party of "change".The country would need total amnesia of the last 8 years, forgetting who was in charge for that to be viable.But yet Palin and McCain are out proclaiming "change is on the way".There right but the change is not them as republicans can't represent change at this point .Hope they keep saying that it just reminds everyone that "change" is desired.

 

[bodie54]

A neighbor of Sarah Palin's who has known her very well for many years composed an open email giving her perspective on Palin:

http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/about-sarah-palin-a-letter-from-anne-kilkenny/741/

An interesting read.

 

[jdb67]

I love the fact that she likes to hunt.... Sarah Palin gives me a Stiffy!!!:hit:

 

[YMIHERE]

A neighbor of Sarah Palin's who has known her very well for many years composed an open email giving her perspective on Palin:

http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/about-sarah-palin-a-letter-from-anne-kilkenny/741/

An interesting read.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today’s surplus, borrow for needs

Excess financial leverage is he very essence of Bush's economic policy. She is W Bush in a dress. :eek:

 

[Friday on my mind]

Excess financial leverage is he very essence of Bush's economic policy. She is W Bush in a dress. :eek:

That kind of nonsense started with Reagan(deficits don't matter) just borrow and spend.It is anything but conservative as used to be defined and everyone knew was not sustainable.We are going to hit the wall soon.

 

[Member2019]

That kind of nonsense started with Reagan(deficits don't matter) just borrow and spend.It is anything but conservative as used to be defined and everyone knew was not sustainable.We are going to hit the wall soon.

And the Democrats have reversed this ... how?
Need I bring up Clinton's own 1994-2000 Budgetary Sheets before the Republicans swept Congress back?

Let alone the "real wealth" that was basically "re-enforced" after the "false wealth" was eliminated from the farce that we called the .COM boom?
Gutted industry, nothing left, blind believe in a tech economy that produced absolutely nothing.

I agree with you on the "Reagonomics" but it's dominated both sides of that fence.

The only thing I agree with on "Reagonomics" is reduction of taxes, which actually increases revenue.
But you also don't spend 3x of the revenue that is increased, which has been our problem.

 

[mikejohnson]

I would never vote for a Republican.

 

[Jagger69]

I would never vote for a Republican.

Although I understand and agree with your bias in this case, I most certainly would and have voted republican on a number of occasions....just not going to do it for this ticket. Change? Give me a break. If American voters are dumb enough to swallow this crap....well, I guess we get what we deserve.

The choice is clear. Status quo or a new direction. I know which way I'll go.

By the way, garroisonjj's original post, as usual, is oh-so-predictably idiotic. McCain and crew are hoping that more low-information voters like him will turn the tide for them. Sadly, it just may happen.

 

[Friday on my mind]

And the Democrats have reversed this ... how?
Need I bring up Clinton's own 1994-2000 Budgetary Sheets before the Republicans swept Congress back?

Let alone the "real wealth" that was basically "re-enforced" after the "false wealth" was eliminated from the farce that we called the .COM boom?
Gutted industry, nothing left, blind believe in a tech economy that produced absolutely nothing.

I agree with you on the "Reagonomics" but it's dominated both sides of that fence.

The only thing I agree with on "Reagonomics" is reduction of taxes, which actually increases revenue.
But you also don't spend 3x of the revenue that is increased, which has been our problem.

You mean to refer to the Clinton budgets of 92-94 (94 being the year the republicans took the house back on the so called "contract with america") I beleive.Your inference is that from 94 till the end of his presidency the budgets were more reflective of the republicans and were not as much the budgets Clinton proposed.I just don't think that was the case.If it was what happened when the republicans took over everything in 2000 and the budgets were just as big if not bigger.I think overall the budgets for the Clinton years were ones he was comfortable with more than most republicans were.He actually reduced the growth in defense spending which most republicans opposed and had a policy called "pay as you" go for everything else which meant you eithier had to cut spending somewhere or raise taxes to pay for anything new.There was no big fights between the republican controlled congress and Clinton over budgets except for maybe the one time that republicans "shut down the govt".The republicans ended up losing that fight when the public decided they were all fault for the impasse.But I'm not here to say eitheir party has really done enough to be fiscally responsible.Or that even the people themselves are not at fault for not being serious enough and willing to make choices and pay the bills and taxes neccesary.I would also say that while of course you can have taxes so high that it becomes oppresive on an economy the idea that you can just cut them to lower and lower levels and just cut spending is also sometimes very irresponsible.We need a lot of investment in structural things in this country and it is more fiscally responsible to pay for them to then to run deficits.The tragedy is we have huge deficits and haven't gotten the investments anyway.American needs to realize you can't spend 500 billion a year on defense which doesn't even include the off budget spending on the wars,bail out corrupt finanicial corporate types,fund social programs and keep taxes where they are and just keep borrowing from China and others to fund it indefinately.We have to make some choices cause somethings got to give.It's why I support Universal health care so strongly.Not for the admitted nice benefit that everyone would be covered but because the way we do it now is just so expensive.All you hear is we can't afford a universal system and I think just the opposite, its the current system we can't afford.Fact is all other developed countries have universal systems and spend 1/2 per capita what we do on health care.Private enterprise does some things efficently and well( but they need to be regulated well or you get these bail outs ) but things like basic essential services like health care is not one of them.

 

[xtremekajaker]

Shes a VPILF!

 

[LBP 76]

Shes a VPILF!

well a VPILF nominee.

 

[lkc2much]

well a VPILF nominee.

lol :glugglug:

 

[lkc2much]

...a tech economy that produced absolutely nothing.

... reduction of taxes, which actually increases revenue.

On the tech economy not producing anything, well, it brought us Freeones!!! :nanner:

About reduction of taxes increasing revenue, that's an impossibility. You reduce taxation to X and revenue can only increase with taxation somewhere else. Someone is paying more, net, in taxes or your revenue would not increase (maybe that someone is you). Face it: taxes are ABSOLUTELY necessary in XXI century societies. Every single country in the world has some form of taxation. What people should be concerned about is how the public money is spent. It'd be nice if it were spent in your own country, for starters....