quote:

Originally posted by The17sss How about Couric's question with inherant bias, "What do you read to stay informed?" I agree that Palin came off bad in that interview though, but my problem is more with Katie Couric in general; in her interview with Biden, when he said �When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn�t just talk about the princes of greed, he said, �Look, here�s what happened.�� FDR wasn't President when the stock market crashed, and he didn't get on TV until a decade later... but Couric never called him out on it. Yet, she was more than happy to ask Palin 3 times for specific examples on things McCain wanted more regulation on.

So you're having trouble discerning between a historical innacuracy and the inability to recite specifics of the platform of your running mate for President, the very office that Palin would subsequently have held should something have happened to McCain? And furthermore, the inability to name a single newspaper or online source?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Yet, as of today, he still says he does not regret bombing NYC police HQ, the Pentagon, etc.... and he says he "wishes I could have done more."

Well, I don't usually use or trust wikipedia, but since what you said is word for word taken from the wikipedia article about Bill Ayers, let's continue reading:

quote:

Ayers protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."

quote:

First of all, Mitt isn't talking about the kind of spending that's happening now. Mitt actually understands economics and if you think he would be making the same spending decisions Obama is, you're dreaming.

No? Well he certainly sounded like he was talking about this kind of spending in a guest appearance on the Morning Joe show before Obama took the oath. At that time, Mitt said, now is not the time to reduce spending. He said that the government had to spend now and had to spend BIG to reverse the damage. He said cuts could come later. When he said it, the biggest concern (according to him) was the global recession, the downward spiral. He outlined where spending was necessary and basically he covered everywhere that Obama is spending. I heard it with my own big ears. Now, he and others sing a different tune. But then of course, they have an agenda.

quote:

If you're so outraged over the spending of the Iraq war and the budget under Bush, I wonder how you feel that Obama has QUADRUPLED that deficit in the first 6 months already, spending more than all previous presidents before him combined.... what's worse- a $500 billion deficit when Bush left office, or the $12 trillion projected deficit under Obama in the next 10 years, NOT including the Cap and Trade bill and the Trillions a new health care system will cost?

Bush cut taxes. Then he increased spending every where he could. So what does this mean? It means your people want everything. They want it all. But they don't want to pay for it? Everything has a price.

Cap and Trade appeals to me. For those who didn't thumb their nose at the global community and the climate, the earth, for the last 8 years, it poses no imposition. For you guys, it might be a bit difficult at first but you're going to create new jobs as you come up with solutions to deal with your problems. You have great minds to lead the way. Why are you afraid of change? Why are you afraid to better your behavior? Insecure people are afraid...what makes you insecure?

One of the biggest problems facing your nation right now is the fact that so many of your people do not have any kind of health insurance. Not just poor people. Not just the unemployed. Not just minorities. Many of your employed, white people don't have health insurance.

When a person is sick, he can't go to the doctor. He stays home and gets sicker. Finally, he goes to the emergency room and the state that he lives in absorbs the cost of his care. Instead of a $100 doctor visit, the state pays a $1200 for emergency care, alone. But wait. How can they? The people don't want to pay the state to absorb these costs...OMG what what what can you do?

quote:

How about Couric's question with inherant bias, "What do you read to stay informed?" I agree that Palin came off bad in that interview though, but my problem is more with Katie Couric in general; in her interview with Biden, when he said “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed, he said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’” FDR wasn't President when the stock market crashed, and he didn't get on TV until a decade later... but Couric never called him out on it. Yet, she was more than happy to ask Palin 3 times for specific examples on things McCain wanted more regulation on.

What, pray tell, is so offensive about the question, "what do you read to stay informed?"

Biden made blunders. Obama made blunders. McCain made blunders. We've all made blunders.

Are you saying that you felt all Palin did in her interviews during the campaign was make a blunder or two? You can compare her to everyone else in the campaign and she comes up equal?

I think not. You make yourself look silly by even attempting to put forth such a thought.

Really, I can't keep playing back and forth with you. I'm not an economist nor even a political scientist. But before you type, please think.

___________________

Nu skal jeg betro dig min hemmelighed. Den er ganske ligetil:
kun med hjertet kan man se rigtigt. Det væsentlige er usynligt for øjet.

quote:

Originally posted by JonnyFIVE Obama does hang around with known terrorists. Also the media & katie couric kept throwing trick questions at her. McCain/Palin would have been the best thing for this country in this time of crisis. Instead Obama has weakend our security, put our children in debt & taken the american dream away for a long time.

either you're a troll or a fucking moron, either way get out

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt

is a photoshop, thanks for playing

quote:

Originally posted by supersaw abuse either you're a troll or a fucking moron, either way get out is a photoshop, thanks for playing

Real or fake...She still looks like an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss How about Couric's question with inherant bias, "What do you read to stay informed?"

What "bias" is in that question? A pro-print bias? How horrible!



Palin gave fruit fly research earmarks as an example of government funded programs that have "nothing to do with the public good," when that research has been crucial to advances in genetics, including advances in understanding disabilities like autism. She is a fucking moron.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Why is it ok for someone to post a column on the Huffpo about her planning to run in 2012 on a "Retardation" platform, when you know damn well what would happen if say, the Politico ran an op-ed saying something like "Obama's daughters ask for fried chicken flavored ice-cream, throw tantrum when they don't get their way"..... or something. It's just been a sleezy new level of tastelessness a politician has ever been subjected to; I'd be saying the same thing if it was happening to a Democrat female.

You do know the difference between a blog and a newspaper though, right?

___________________

Also, I like this politicized version of Echo.

quote:

Originally posted by Echo of Silence Well, I don't usually use or trust wikipedia, but since what you said is word for word taken from the wikipedia article about Bill Ayers, let's continue reading: No? Well he certainly sounded like he was talking about this kind of spending in a guest appearance on the Morning Joe show before Obama took the oath. At that time, Mitt said, now is not the time to reduce spending. He said that the government had to spend now and had to spend BIG to reverse the damage. He said cuts could come later. When he said it, the biggest concern (according to him) was the global recession, the downward spiral. He outlined where spending was necessary and basically he covered everywhere that Obama is spending. I heard it with my own big ears. Now, he and others sing a different tune. But then of course, they have an agenda. Bush cut taxes. Then he increased spending every where he could. So what does this mean? It means your people want everything. They want it all. But they don't want to pay for it? Everything has a price. Cap and Trade appeals to me. For those who didn't thumb their nose at the global community and the climate, the earth, for the last 8 years, it poses no imposition. For you guys, it might be a bit difficult at first but you're going to create new jobs as you come up with solutions to deal with your problems. You have great minds to lead the way. Why are you afraid of change? Why are you afraid to better your behavior? Insecure people are afraid...what makes you insecure? One of the biggest problems facing your nation right now is the fact that so many of your people do not have any kind of health insurance. Not just poor people. Not just the unemployed. Not just minorities. Many of your employed, white people don't have health insurance. When a person is sick, he can't go to the doctor. He stays home and gets sicker. Finally, he goes to the emergency room and the state that he lives in absorbs the cost of his care. Instead of a $100 doctor visit, the state pays a $1200 for emergency care, alone. But wait. How can they? The people don't want to pay the state to absorb these costs...OMG what what what can you do? What, pray tell, is so offensive about the question, "what do you read to stay informed?" Biden made blunders. Obama made blunders. McCain made blunders. We've all made blunders. Are you saying that you felt all Palin did in her interviews during the campaign was make a blunder or two? You can compare her to everyone else in the campaign and she comes up equal? I think not. You make yourself look silly by even attempting to put forth such a thought. Really, I can't keep playing back and forth with you. I'm not an economist nor even a political scientist. But before you type, please think.

___________________

"Alaska's Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski issued a surprisingly harsh statement late on Friday, ripping Gov. Sarah Palin's decision to leave office at the end of the month. "I am deeply disappointed that the Governor has decided to abandon the State and her constituents before her term has concluded," Murkowski wrote."

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Ahem...A huge part of the current deficit comes from the fact that Obama is including the cost of both of Bush's wars IN THE BUDGET as opposed to off-budget as had been done in the previous years. Dubya hid the true war cost with supplemental spending requests and other off-budget trickery. Obama has simply brought their cost out in the open..and even if we ignore the depression he inherited from Dubya, that alone would double the deficit.

Inherited a depression? Dude if spending was the problem, why are you not condoning Obama spending $787 billion on a stimulus ($1.2 trillion with interest included) which, by the way, is working fabulously + the other billions in bailout money he authorized for other institutions? Yes, the mess started during Bush's term. BUT, if you want to be honest, why won't you discuss the housing bubble bursting which was due to Clinton's "affordable housing act" giving unqualified people mortgages... which was pushed further by Democrats Chris Dodd and Barney Frank? The economy started going south after the Democrats got control of congress in 2006... let's be honest. Bush also tried 17 times to enact regulatory legislation on Fannie/Freddie which the Democrats rejected after saying there was no reason to, and no impending crisis (yes, I have the link if you don't believe me). I can't believe you're trying to say Obama is not responsible at all for what's happening right now... he owns the economy, and has put no policies in place that are making spurring growth.

hahah what a fucked up press conference seriously
there was like 5 people there including children

___________________
http://www.soundcloud.com/gera

quote:

Originally posted by Echo of Silence Well, I don't usually use or trust wikipedia, but since what you said is word for word taken from the wikipedia article about Bill Ayers, let's continue reading:

I'm not talking about 2001... I know that when he said it then, it was in the morning before the 9/11 attacks occurred. I'm talking about last year, in interviews after the election was won, when he specifically said he did not regret it wished he would have done more. And, I didn't copy anything from Wiki.

quote:

No? Well he certainly sounded like he was talking about this kind of spending in a guest appearance on the Morning Joe show before Obama took the oath. At that time, Mitt said, now is not the time to reduce spending. He said that the government had to spend now and had to spend BIG to reverse the damage. He said cuts could come later. When he said it, the biggest concern (according to him) was the global recession, the downward spiral. He outlined where spending was necessary and basically he covered everywhere that Obama is spending. I heard it with my own big ears. Now, he and others sing a different tune. But then of course, they have an agenda.

Yeah I saw his semi-endorsement at the time, but included in that was his point that it's necessary to, at the same time, keep the tax cuts and increase them for businesses to inject the economy with jobs.... none of which Obama is doing.

quote:

Bush cut taxes. Then he increased spending every where he could. So what does this mean? It means your people want everything. They want it all. But they don't want to pay for it? Everything has a price.

Right... so then why are you fine with doubling down on even more crazy spending, putting us deeper in debt and exponentially increasing the deficit? Look at the chart for god's sake. This doesn't include Cap and Trade or healthcare spending:

quote:

Cap and Trade appeals to me. For those who didn't thumb their nose at the global community and the climate, the earth, for the last 8 years, it poses no imposition. For you guys, it might be a bit difficult at first but you're going to create new jobs as you come up with solutions to deal with your problems. You have great minds to lead the way. Why are you afraid of change? Why are you afraid to better your behavior? Insecure people are afraid...what makes you insecure?

We aren't afraid of change, we're just more practical. People who think Cap and Trade will work live in fantasy land. The cap and trade business has been tried with disasterous results in Europe. The same model Obama wants can be seen in Spain. As a result there, every "new job" you speak of comes at the cost of 2.2 jobs lost from other sectors; they are now at 18% unemployment, highest in Europe. Plus the cost of each "green job" is around $800,000 to create. If you want to read it for yourself, look here---> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...016_will26.html

You're creating some jobs, but you're killing off a lot more. What you're missing is that the industries here that emit carbon are going to move their operations overseas where there aren't regulations... so we'll be losing jobs here and the earth will still be getting the same amount of carbon put into the atmosphere.

If you want some eye opening facts that you'll never hear MSNBC or David Axelrod admit or talk about, read this story about the 50 reasons why the bill is a bad idea. Here are just the top 2 reasons:

quote:

1. The big doozy: Eighty-five percent of the carbon permits will not be sold at auction — they will be given away to utility companies, petroleum interests, refineries, and a coterie of politically connected businesses. If you’re wondering why Big Business supports cap-and-trade, that’s why. Free money for business, but higher energy prices for you. 2. The sale of carbon permits will enrich the Wall Street investment bankers whose money put Obama in the White House. Top of the list: Goldman Sachs, which is invested in carbon-offset development and carbon permissions. CNN reports: Less than two weeks after the investment bank announced it would be laying off 10 percent of its staff, ***Goldman Sachs confirmed that it has taken a minority stake in Utah-based carbon offset project developer Blue Source LLC. . . . “Interest in the pre-compliance carbon market in the U.S. is growing rapidly,” said Leslie Biddle, Head of Commodity Sales at Goldman, “and we are excited to be able to offer our clients immediate access to a diverse selection of emission reductions to manage their carbon risk.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?...NmM2MWE=&w=MA==

quote:

One of the biggest problems facing your nation right now is the fact that so many of your people do not have any kind of health insurance. Not just poor people. Not just the unemployed. Not just minorities. Many of your employed, white people don't have health insurance.

In that mystical number of 45 million uninsured, that counts illegal aliens and people who choose not to have any... not just the ones who supposedly can't afford it.

quote:

When a person is sick, he can't go to the doctor. He stays home and gets sicker. Finally, he goes to the emergency room and the state that he lives in absorbs the cost of his care. Instead of a $100 doctor visit, the state pays a $1200 for emergency care, alone. But wait. How can they? The people don't want to pay the state to absorb these costs...OMG what what what can you do?

What's your point? Free health care isn't "free". The cost to bear for universal health care will financially kill us. Have you seen how shitty V.A. hospitals are? Reform, yes... I'm all for it. But universal health care? Not the answer in terms of cost or quality.

quote:

What, pray tell, is so offensive about the question, "what do you read to stay informed?" Biden made blunders. Obama made blunders. McCain made blunders. We've all made blunders. Are you saying that you felt all Palin did in her interviews during the campaign was make a blunder or two? You can compare her to everyone else in the campaign and she comes up equal? I think not. You make yourself look silly by even attempting to put forth such a thought. Really, I can't keep playing back and forth with you. I'm not an economist nor even a political scientist. But before you type, please think.

I never said the question was offensive, I'm saying it is an inehrantly biased question. That's all. I'm definitely not saying she hit a couple speed bumps in her interviews... like you, I thought she was ill perpared and uninformed. I'm not defending the content of her words, I'm just saying she got much more harsh treatment than the others and it is very obvious. Please don't patronize me by telling me I need to think before I type... you're just not well enough informed and it's pretty obvious. Sorry.