Well, she certainly didn't kill McCain's chances

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Silence, Sep 4, 2008.

  1. Article 15
    Offline

    Article 15 Dr. House slayer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    24,673
    Thanks Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4,849
    Yeah ... if you focus on 2.3 seconds of the video and turn your ears off for the rest ...
     
  2. DiveCon
    Offline

    DiveCon gone

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    48,025
    Thanks Received:
    3,384
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +3,384
    i watched the whole thing
    and it all came back to the very same thing
    sorry you cant see that
    i but i didnt ignore any of it
     
  3. Ninja
    Offline

    Ninja Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Thanks Received:
    379
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Glorious People's Republic of California
    Ratings:
    +381
    Likewise, buddy:

    Famous Plagiarists.com © WarOnPlagiarism.org-- Political Profiles

    Someone get this poor man a TelePrompTer™:

    [youtube]ThEAO0lt4Dw[/youtube]
     
  4. Article 15
    Offline

    Article 15 Dr. House slayer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    24,673
    Thanks Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4,849
    He made two points ... one that he was able but not effective ... two, that his scope of responsibility was too small <--------------- that's where he points out how small Richmond is... Alaska has barely twice the population of Richmond which is 25 times bigger than Wasilla ...from three he continues to say that his appointment would be for political reasons only to shore up VA's electoral votes ...
     
  5. DiveCon
    Offline

    DiveCon gone

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    48,025
    Thanks Received:
    3,384
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +3,384
    well, AK only has 3 EC votes, and its fairly solid red
    so that clearly wasnt why Palin was chosen

    i still maintain it was to attract the conservatives back, and that is what i'm seeing
    conservatives that were either going to vote 3rd party or stay home, are now supporting the ticket
     
  6. frazzledgear
    Offline

    frazzledgear Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,479
    Thanks Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +541
    Its pretty obvious who wasn't alive under the Carter Presidency -the ABSOLUTE worst President in my lifetime. Whatever conditions you think are SOOO terrible now, it can't compare to the reality under Carter. But you better learn from it anyway -or pay the price for ignorance.

    Obama isn't offering anything NEW at all. His idea of "change" is a return to the same old historically proven failures of past policies. He offers the failed policies of both Herbert Hoover and Carter and calls it "change". He wants to inflict on us all Hoover's protectionist policies that directly contributed to the Great Depression combined with the economic disaster that resulted from Carter's policies.

    Hoover's protectionist policies that Obama advocates for us today and for the identical reasons Hoover did - resulted in massive factory closings across the country and a snowballing massive unemployment. With the least skilled and least educated paying the heaviest price for those protectionist policies. Carter's failed economic policies (which Obama promises to re-instate) of increasing income taxes (but only on the rich of course), payroll taxes, capital gains tax and business taxes -resulted in double digit interest rates, double digit inflation and nearly double digit unemployment rates. Carter turned a stagnant economy into an outright recession that was bordering on all out depression -and would have been if he had gotten a 2nd term. Oh, can't forget the gas rationing with mile long lines at the gas pumps -that was a lot of fun too. So the current 5.4% unemployment, 1.3% inflation and 5% prime interest rates represent AWFUL Bush policies that can't possibly get worse? ROFLMAO! Just install an unqualified liberal freshman Senator holding out Hoover's and Carter's failed policies once again and watch. While pretending Bush policies have resulted in a terrible economy that is inflicting mass suffering on Americans, keep in mind that France's turn to the left means they are thrilled anytime their unemployment rate drops from its longstanding norm of 10% to 9.8% before returning to 10% the very next month and Europeans pay $8.20 a gallon for their gas.

    The average unemployment rate during Bush's Presidency has been 5.25% -never achieved by any Democrat President in modern times and lower than the average unemployment rate for the previous three decades. Economists admit that a 4% unemployment rate is "full employment" on paper but in practice 5.0% is a more realistic figure of "full employment". We have historic lows on interest rates and historic highs on productivity and we stand at 4/10ths of 1% within full employment. In spite of the uptick in home foreclosures, there are still 3.9 million more people who own their own homes than they did under Clinton. Clinton crows about "his" economy despite the fact the average unemployment rate for his 8 years was 5.4% -exactly what it is today -but with less than half the productivity rate of today and when prime interest was 8%. And due to his change in policy two years before leaving office, "his" economy totally collapsed! It requires some real deception or dull minded ignorance to insist we had a better economy under Clinton when it is now known that economy was built on a phony bubble that economists repeatedly warned was unsustainable and would dramatically collapse. And did. We have an economy that may be teetering on becoming stagnant or about to make yet another correction check that is part and parcel of the normal economic cycle. So Dems insist the answer is to shove it over the edge into recession.

    Obama is NOT advocating a return to Clinton's economic policies. Not when Clinton continued pretty much with Reagan's economic policies for his first 6 years and those policies are actually much too consistent with McCain's policies. Obama is advocating a return to the proven failed economic policies of Carter -while promising it will result in a Clinton economy! Interesting but stupid delusion to believe the disastrous policies of Carter could possibly produce an economy as existed under either Clinton or Bush -when it can only result in an economy like Carter created.

    Carter/Obama policies have repeatedly PROVEN to hit hardest the very people Obama claims he wants to help the most. As a result, while unemployment under Carter sharply rose to nearly 10% - among minorities and the poorest, that rate skyrocketed to 22%. Have to be pretty stupid or just downright ignorant to believe it will suddenly produce the opposite result now. Voters threw Carter out after one term for good reason and the damage he did in just a few years took much longer to repair than it took to inflict. Carter had the balls to run for re-election on a platform that Americans hadn't tightened their belts enough yet. No longer claiming his policies would bring prosperity to families and the nation but promising we could expect only further despair and financial hardship. And here comes Obama holding out the identical loser policies, and repeating Carter's initial lie that these policies will bring greater prosperity to families and the nation. They will do no such thing.

    So I wonder about those who insist that in today's dangerous world, with very lethally real enemies, rogue nations seeking nukes, Russia and China both seeking to replace the US as superpower, still engaged in wars we are winning and cannot afford to lose because of the dire consequences to our security -we should elect someone who has never held a job of leadership in his life, one with zero executive experience, one with zero business experience, one who has never even CO-authored a single significant piece of legislation, one with no understanding of economics since he insists he can actually TAX the nation into wealth and properity and absolutely zero experience in energy, diplomacy, military and foreign affairs. In fact, his sole "qualification" is merely a gift for eloquently repeating the speeches someone else has written for him. But he isn't nearly as a gifted speaker when speaking off the cuff or in debates.

    So you are going for the single most unqualified Presidential candidate in at least a century and want him elected so we can all find out the hard way that unqualified, inexperienced freshmen Senators really don't make good Presidents after all. And learn the really hard way what we should already know for a fact -when the economy is teetering on turning south, raising taxes is a really, REALLY bad idea. But not to worry! Obama is also hoping to "save" our healthcare system. Another one who believes turning over an entire industry to government is not only the best way to help those who cannot afford adequate healthcare insurance on their own, it is the ONLY way to do so. Only if you also believe that the best and only way to fit an additional family member into your house is by tearing down the entire house and putting up a big flimsy tent instead -and call it an "improvement". That is the only kind of healthcare we can get with Obama's plan. Give us ALL flimsy, inadequate, inefficient and inferior healthcare instead -while making sure we all pay far more for it in taxes than we paid before. Kind of like having a $500 monthly mortage payment on that house and replacing it with that tent we now pay $1500 a month for instead. While the con artist who sold it to us tells us what a great improvement it is.

    I found it pretty funny that Dems just WAIL that Palin is unqualified to be VP after holding two different top executive offices. Dems sure didn't whine that Huckabee or Romney, also governors, weren't qualified to for an even higher job -so it must be that she was governor of AK instead of a state in the northeast that makes them believe that bs. But at the very same time they insist that being a junior freshman Senator for a few months makes Obama more than qualified for the job of President? Get real. Not only do Senators grossly overpay themselves for the number of hours they actually spend doing the work of a Senator and not only do they spend far more days not working at all than the number of days they spend on the job - their best skills are at figuring out to put pork into some unrelated bill and engage in partisan sniping. Obama hasn't done a darn thing of note as a Senator. In spite of the fact he has been one for EXACTLY as long as Palin has been holding the executive office of governor. But unlike Obama - she HAS done much of note while holding that job which explains her 80% approval rating among her own constituents.

    Palin is more qualified in terms of relevant experience for the job of President even though she isn't running for that job - than Obama and Biden combined. I think it is both sad and hilarious that the guy who claimed to be THE One to bring about "change" chose an old, angry bitter white guy as his running mate -while trotting out the same old historically proven failed policies of the past. He turned to the past in EVERY way possible and calls it "change". McCain looked forward and chose someone who is clearly going to be among the next generation of leaders in this country. Someone who is not only quite politically skilled, but one who actually has quite a remarkable record of significant accomplishments in that time given the fact she's had her job exactly as long as Obama has had the job of Senator. Yet he is the one with nothing at all to show for it except the title. While you may believe that makes him fully qualified for the most powerful job in the world, a job for which he has no relevant experience and no major accomplishments whatsoever -in my book that makes him totally unfit for the job.
     
  7. frazzledgear
    Offline

    frazzledgear Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,479
    Thanks Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +541
    He chose Palin for a specific reason - for the same vote that gave Bush the election in 2000. Rural and small town voters. In spite of the phony bs about who actually won Florida and the repeated counts and recounts -if Gore had been able to win his OWN state which is usually a given in every Presidential election - he would have been President even while losing Florida. But he lost big time among rural and small town voters, including in his own state which went for Bush. Bush won big time among rural and small town voters across the country. And these are the voters McCain intends to keep in his own camp while portraying Obama as a big city, out of touch urban guy who immersed himself in the Chicago political machine before emerging on the scene in Washington. Something rural voters cannot identify with at all and usually (and accurately) perceive as totally corrupt.
     
  8. DiveCon
    Offline

    DiveCon gone

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    48,025
    Thanks Received:
    3,384
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +3,384
    its going to be another close one
     
  9. Jeepers
    Offline

    Jeepers Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,399
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charleston SC
    Ratings:
    +59
    I guess Olberman is all seeing and all knowing... I watched that teleprompter all night...it had a 30 second hiccup and then kept going...
     
  10. Jon
    Offline

    Jon The CPA

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    8,101
    Thanks Received:
    1,274
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Fayetteville, AR
    Ratings:
    +1,279
    30 seconds is long enough for Obama to stammer through at least six words and change his entire speech. Palin never showed a bit of weakness in her speech.
     

Share This Page