Sarah Palin on SNL tonight - Page 7

RPK, unfortunately, no matter WHO wins you'll be "too busy working."  The AIG bail-out, the MANY bank bail-outs, the Fannie bailout, the Freddie bailout, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan...just HOW do you think this all will be paid for?  Whoever wins, God bless him, is walking into a MESS. 

Add to this the terrifying comments by McCain about going to war in Iran, and the even more incredibly terrifying comment by Sarah Palin that we may have to go to war with Russia (!!!!) if the problems in Georgia continue...

It's very strange.  McCain, Palin and their supporters continue to repeat the same nonsense, just as  alamen has in his last post, despite the fact that these claims have been proven to be false, not only by Obama's campaign, but by every reputable news organization - around the world.  Even Fox Noise, who god knows, would have loved to find even a modicum of truth to these rumors had to admit none of these claims holds water.  But McCain & his supporters keep repeating the same tired old bullshit.  Very odd.

Sue, you know the true definition of insanity .

You're right, Sue.  Their philosophy is obviously "just lie" and people will believe you because you're on tv.  LIke Palin's troopergate:  the report comes out and says that Palin broke no state laws, but that what she did was definitely unethical.  And then there's Palin, bold as brass, standing there talking to reporters saying "the report states that I did nothing illegal and I did nothing unethical."

Sarah, that's a LIE.  And she KNEW she was lying, but she said it anyway.

Let me just name a few of the chosen ones special  friends,

Michael Phleger, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis,Jeremiah Wright, New Party,Alice Palmer, Rezko, John McKnight, Saul Alinsky.

The people someone surrounds himself with speaks volumes. Some people try to ignore that fact, but it's the truth. You don't surround yourself with people whose views you have radical differences with......ie ......PETA member wouldn't hang around with Humane Society vets,  pro-abortion advocates would not surround themselves with pro-life protestors. You don't surround yourself with people whose views you have radical differences with.

That's not to say no one has friends or loved ones with opposing viewpoints. If you're pro-life, for example, it doesn't make you pro-abortion just because you've got a friend who is all for abortion. However, when every single friend and relative you have espouse the same rhetoric, the same viewpoints, the same ideals... every single one of them... can you really argue that those people have no effect on the person you are and what you believe?

How can anyone looking into Obama's past associations not be even a little disturbed? Obama's lack of experience aside, would you really want a President who hangs around with unrepentant terrorists and communist radicals? Would you really want a President who is surrounded by people who have shown nothing but hate towards our country? And while Obama can try to make these alliances and associations irrelevant by accusing anyone who points them out of being a RAAAACIIIIST!!!!, they are relevant. And they bring up very relevant questions.

RPK

Hodie,

  I am sorry that protecting our bill of rights is not an important enough issue for you.  What would you prefer to discuss? 

  How about Obama's Soviet-style idea about the redistribution of wealth?  Or his plan to allow thy Bush tax cuts to expire, which would raise taxes for millions of Americans including the middle class?  Or his plan to raise the top tax rate to near 40% so that Americans who create the most jobs have to reign in their expansion?  Or his plan to raise tax rates on capital gains, divedends and Social Security? 

  Care to discuss that?

  How about Health Care?  We need only look at Europe to know that government health care is not the way we should go.  The French wanted government health care and they got it.  Now 90% also pay for private health care plans to cover what the government won't.  Should we talk about the UK's shining example of universal health care?  

Care to discuss that?

How about energy dependence?  Why are we not drilling in ANWR; a frozen wasteland that was purchased for its oil?

  I seem to be running out of room, but please let me know what issues you care to discuss in depth. 

  Perhaps YOU should get the facts. 

Give up, Hodie, Sue, Tess et al. They keep repeating the same half truths over and over; it must be hard to see the big picture with a sheet draped over one's head.   

Jim Hensley, G. Gordon Liddy, Charles Keating, Raffaello Follieri, Rick Renzi, Rich Davis, Charles Black, Rich Quinn, Pastor John Hagee, Pastor Ron Parsley, Andrew McCain.

http://www.mnblue.com/node/1316

http://www.stopthinkvote.com/whatsnew/082408.html

Enjoy...........

Blitzen:  NEVER give up!  :-D

I know what you're saying, and I agree that the Palin supporters are willfully blind, but America was made great by never giving up when the chips were down.  For the past 8 years not enough Americans have challenged the lies sent out by this administration.  It's time to stop.

If whenever outright lies are said, they are met, not with silence, but with statements that no, that is not true, THIS is what's true....we can get back to what this country is about. 

Peggy Noonan, another conservative Republican, in the Wall Street Journal about Sarah Palin - note the final paragraph that I have shown in bold about the vulgarization of American politics. I think that is what some of us have been talking about when mediocrity is selected for the leadership of our country just because "she feels like one of us".

"But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office. She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite—a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.

But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things.

Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.

No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can't be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.

In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism."

online.wsj.com/article/SB122419210832542317.html