Oh OH- I guess Palin's Political career isn't OVER after all.

So the Bill Ayers association was no big deal with the media, it was down played.
Jeremiah Wright association was down played by the media.
Van Jones association was down played by the media.
His voting present at the state level was down played by the media.

Joe the plumber got more vetting with the media than did Obama....and Palin being the #2 pick got a hell of a lot more vetting than did Obama.
Your a left wing partisan, I get it, but a little honesty goes a long way.

Ayers blew up into a big deal ...... his association w/ Wright was front page for weeks .... Van Jones as well .......... voting record all out there to be seen.

Like i said, just because it was not covered ENOUGH does not mean it was not covered at all or not enough for your liking. That is the honest part of the problem.

Comes across as sour grapes. It was out there and voters took it for whatever they wanted to take it as. None of it was ever sugar-coated and nothing was ever left open-ended. Maybe they thought it was overblown BS, while others had a list of 46 other things that had more of an impact in their view, but it was out there.

There lies the issue -- coverage vs. desired outcome.

Again, bullshit....it wasn't out there like you claim. More like buried on the 12th page of liberal newspapers, whereas Palin and McCain was frontpage news. I got the LA Times on a dailey basis....I did see what was going on. Questions weren't asked by the media, and I understand why. It's simple, the media today whether be it right, or left, has an agenda.

Ok, so your argument is now Bullshit. buried on what other newspapers? You only read the Times, so how do you know about what coverage it got where and for how long and whether it was via op-eds, columns or actual factual stories?
It was covered from the Huntsville Times to the Fresno Bee to the Arizona Republic to Delaware State News.
It was the first big hurdle that Obama had to deal with from his past followed closely by Reverend Wright and both got huge coverage based on race, ethical and moral issues brought up by both the left and the right.
Same theory applies - just because it did not get the saturation level of coverage that you thought it needed or deserved or the story did not have the desired negative effect does not mean that it was not covered by the media. A presidential candidate does not go through a campaign (Even one that was only known as a hopeful keynote speaker at a Democratic convention in the past) and not get examined by every microscope in the known universe.
 
It just gets old to hear on a daily basis, oh, this is the true test of Palin's appeal. This crisis is the defining moment for Palin. Palin is not a serious contender for President. Time after time we get media spin. I know for a fact, whoever becomes the Republican candidate or a Tea Party possibility will have the full vemon from the left they accuse the right of having.

And that is the truth liberty. The two main conductors of the venom will remain the Republican "water carriers" to FOX and the left wing Dem lovers over at MSNBC with CNN continuing to straddle the middle for dear life.

I am just tired of Palin even being considered for any office other than Fish and Wildlife in Nome. And the sad part is i can blame it all on McCain.
If it was not for his Hail Mary attempt to boost his image and give himself a shot against an avalanche of Obama support by putting Palin on the ticket, she would still be fighting lawsuits in Juneau and maybe thinking about running for another term.

She has every right to run. We all have a right to choose. Palin wields some level of influence. Much of it earned SINCE the Presidential election. Liberals gave her as big a platform to speak form as the Tea Party has.

That much is true. She wants reaction, and boy does she ever get it.
 
So all told, how much damage has any perceived influence by Bill Ayers over Obama actually had? None. And that's why it was a red herring.

Speaking of fish, there are ones hanging from walls that didn't get the hook set as bad as you.
 
Lightweights don't stumble out of fear of perception after the fact. That is childish reasoning for her gaffes and overall lack of depth in the political arena.
Never said a word about her honesty or ethics, just her seat at the table of actual national debate.
Refused to attack him? the Media refused or just not ENOUGH of the media decided to do so? He has been attacked for everything down to his country of birth and those meatheads still hold onto that belief as some do in thinking Elvis is still alive in Kalamazoo.
I am also not saying Palin is the only lightweight stating their views in the media - just the most recognized, the most visibal and thereby the biggest example of absurdity based on her resume.

She was not running for President at the time, yet was vetted far more strongly than Obama. Biden wasn't vetted at all, by anyone, including Obama.

Obama had an entire network vetting him 24/7

Palin granted a couple of network interviews and then was hidden away until the election
 
Last edited:
an expose? no. you want it on 20/20 or 60 minutes for it to count? FOX went to town on it and i am sure they were not the only media outlet to do so, but everything was investigated down to papers that Obama wrote while in Chicago. All the pertinent information was out there, it is up to voters to decide what is hype, what is pundentry, what is conjecture and what is real. After that blaming the media for their coverage, or lack thereof, is just the last resort of the frustrated.

Nope.

A candidate gave 4 different answers to one question.

Fox asked Bill Burton for an explanation. He refused to answer.

No ther major media outlet asked Burton or Gibbs for an explnatioon for 4 conflicting answers.

And mind you....

He gave the first answer...
Fox came up with evidence showing he DID know Ayers.
So he came up with answer 2...
Fox came up wioth evidence answer 2 was not true
So he gave answer 3
Fox came up with evidence that contradicted answer 3
So he came up woith answer 4.

So here are questions to you...and I know what your answer will be...

Why were you not curious about why he had 4 different conflcting asnwers to one simple question? Why did you not care that a candidate was caught lying THREE times about one topic? Why did you not care that the media did not feel it was important for you to know about this?

So all told, how much damage has any perceived influence by Bill Ayers over Obama actually had? None. And that's why it was a red herring.

Missing the point Maggie....or not missing it but making believe you are.

A candidate having 4 conflicting answers to one question is something that the media should question further.
They didnt.

Funny thing too....during the last debate McCain asked him about Ayers and what his real relationship was.

Obamas answer?

Paraphrased....

"others interact with him that have republican ties so what is wrong with me interacting with him"

Did anyone in the media think it may be a good idea to ask him if the others were asking the country to elect them to be president?

Funny thing......He sat in the pews of Wright but was not held accountable becuase he "did not know of his views"

Really? Should the media maybe question the viability of a man as president who did not know the views of a man that he called his mentor? Did anyone actually address that with him? All of his interviews and not one quesition of "why should the American People feel you would be a good diplomat on their behalf if you are such a poor judge of ahcaracter?"

LOL...no media bias huh....none.

Barbara Walters hugged Obama when she interviewed him...she stared at the freaking floor when she interviewed McCain.
 
Is there an echo in here?

you are becoming another Rinata.
good job

Why, that's a good thing!! And you are becoming an object of scorn because of all of your stupid, uninformative posts!! Half the board has turned on you. But you continue to insist everybody is out of step but you.

having you turn on me does not make half the board dear.
you make yourself look stupid and petty by always jumping into a thread you were not in before just to attack me. what your hardon with me is, who knows. and I for one could care less.
now how bout you go stalk someone else with your hate and silliness.
 
Last edited:
I am curious...were you around when Gary Hart was running in the presidential primaries?

Back then, it was revealed that he was at a party years earlier on a yacht by the name of "Monkey Business".

The boat was not his, but that of an aquaintance of his.

He was an invitee to the party...not a planner of the party.

Apprently, there were "promiscuous women" on the boat.

An intense media investigation took place regarding the party. It was found he did not know the women nor did he do anything with them...

But...

The media made it clear that anyone that has an aquiantance that knows promiscuous women is not worthy of President and he was forced to bow out. They ran stories on him that had no meat to them...but they pounded the issue. They ran bios on the women...even though they did not know Hart. They ran stories on the aquaintances of the boat owner...

And then Wright and Ayers comes up...and nada. Nothing but what Fox ran....

Obama gave 4 different explanations of Ayers...

1) Dont know him at all
2) know him, but nor personally
3) know him personally, but not friends with him
4) friends with him, but I thought he was reformed

Did the media EVER do an expose on that?

No bias my ass.....

Yes, they did, BIG TIME, to both the Wright and the Ayers claims. This is the problem, Jarhead. You only get your "news" from Fox, I presume. I watch CNN, PBS and MSNBC, and all of them were all over the Reverend Wright issue at the same time Fox was.

As for Ayers, the two had not been in the company of each other for years, did NOT know each other intimately as neighborhood friends, but only as fellows of the same philanthropic organization. I think fumbling for an appropriate response to the Bill Ayers allegations was the result of being fearful that whatever he (Obama) said would be taken out of context (which of course everything IS at least TRIED). He was relatively new to the vicious "reporting" constantly done by Fox. What he should have done regarding the Ayers nonsense was another Philadelphia speech which quelled all the rumors about his relationship with Reverend Wright.

Please note how you will quickly give Obama a pass for his errors with the media.
But Palin?
She is an idiot for her errors.

THAT is not honest debating.

And yes...I agree....his 4 answers were given out of fear of how the truth would be taken out of context.

But the media refused to attack him for it.

But when Palin stumbles out of fear of how the media will take it out of context? The media AND THE LIKES OF YOU are all over her lack of intelligence, honesty and ethics.

And such partisanship is dishonest.

Okay, Sarah Palin is intelligent, honest and ethical. It's that damned lamestream media and MaggieMae types who try to bring her down. After all, she's a fine Christian protected from witchcraft and who follows The Golden Rule in all things, even politics. And she sure as hell doesn't pal around with terrorists.
 
Biden makes twice the gaffes and is next in line for office in the short term. How is that an intelligent decision on Obama's part? Nice of you to speak for the entire nation MichIndy. Repression of free speech, false crisis and mooing are your only tools it seems.

If Biden makes a gaffe about some historical or known political point, he immediately corrects himself. Sarah doesn't know she's making a gaffe. That's the difference.

Yeah...I know...

Just say it...

Anyone who thinks like you is bright and anyone who thinks differently than you is a fucking idiot.

You are acting like a child Maggie.

Love your "give a pass to the left" and "attack the right"

What you don't seem to get, and you never do, is that you do precisely the same thing only opposite. I never said you were a fucking idiot. I never said Sarah Palin is a fucking idiot. I posted plenty of information about her that justifies my position that she is incompetent and a fraud looking out for Sarah, and Sarah only.
 
Yep....took him two years to find his way.

Worst economy since the great depression....was a great time for us to have a CiC in training.

Now you're really entering deep water, my friend. Are you blaming Obama for the economic crisis? Oh dear.

Sorry, it really isn't worth my time to try to "debate" you anymore. Aren't you glad?

Yeah...thats waht I said Maggie.

You are so out there, you completely took what I said and tweisted it so you can take your high road again.

No maam. I do not blame Obama for the economy. I simply wondered if the timing was right for a CiC in training.

It wouldn't have mattered.
 
Nope.

A candidate gave 4 different answers to one question.

Fox asked Bill Burton for an explanation. He refused to answer.

No ther major media outlet asked Burton or Gibbs for an explnatioon for 4 conflicting answers.

And mind you....

He gave the first answer...
Fox came up with evidence showing he DID know Ayers.
So he came up with answer 2...
Fox came up wioth evidence answer 2 was not true
So he gave answer 3
Fox came up with evidence that contradicted answer 3
So he came up woith answer 4.

So here are questions to you...and I know what your answer will be...

Why were you not curious about why he had 4 different conflcting asnwers to one simple question? Why did you not care that a candidate was caught lying THREE times about one topic? Why did you not care that the media did not feel it was important for you to know about this?

So all told, how much damage has any perceived influence by Bill Ayers over Obama actually had? None. And that's why it was a red herring.

Missing the point Maggie....or not missing it but making believe you are.

A candidate having 4 conflicting answers to one question is something that the media should question further.
They didnt.

Funny thing too....during the last debate McCain asked him about Ayers and what his real relationship was.

Obamas answer?

Paraphrased....

"others interact with him that have republican ties so what is wrong with me interacting with him"

Did anyone in the media think it may be a good idea to ask him if the others were asking the country to elect them to be president?

Funny thing......He sat in the pews of Wright but was not held accountable becuase he "did not know of his views"

Really? Should the media maybe question the viability of a man as president who did not know the views of a man that he called his mentor? Did anyone actually address that with him? All of his interviews and not one quesition of "why should the American People feel you would be a good diplomat on their behalf if you are such a poor judge of ahcaracter?"

LOL...no media bias huh....none.

Barbara Walters hugged Obama when she interviewed him...she stared at the freaking floor when she interviewed McCain.

Final thought of the day before i go home and enjoy a good snow storm here in MI.
The media is there to report the story at hand by relaying facts. Be it for the New York Times or the Idaho Statesman or the Elkhart Truth or the Harlan Daily Enterprise in Harlan, Ky. They are not out to be hand-holders or shils or sponsors. These days i understand that the line for that has become hazy at best, but at the core of it, it is not the media's job to provide guidance, only to put forth what they find out and let people do with it what they will.
So whether something is under- or over- covered is in the eye of the beholder, but wanting the coverage to point someone in one direction or another is naive and wrong.
Nor is it the fault of the media for who is elected to office - it is the voters. The media has an influence over voters, there is no doubt; but there are innumerable facets of life that are also involved. The media may have moved up that list of significance in the past two decades, but it has not and will not ever be the sole reason for it.
Asking the tough questions and following up on those questions is their job, but if you want to know the answers to the questions you did not get answers to, then contact them personally, go to a town hall or call their office; otherwise, shut up and quit bitching.
For me, this all started with Palin being out of her league and i beleive she still is and can only hurt more than help her party, her reputation and her future aspirations, but as of now, she is only another cog in the media machine we have been debating and nothing else. And she is not even good at that job.
 
Yes, they did, BIG TIME, to both the Wright and the Ayers claims. This is the problem, Jarhead. You only get your "news" from Fox, I presume. I watch CNN, PBS and MSNBC, and all of them were all over the Reverend Wright issue at the same time Fox was.

As for Ayers, the two had not been in the company of each other for years, did NOT know each other intimately as neighborhood friends, but only as fellows of the same philanthropic organization. I think fumbling for an appropriate response to the Bill Ayers allegations was the result of being fearful that whatever he (Obama) said would be taken out of context (which of course everything IS at least TRIED). He was relatively new to the vicious "reporting" constantly done by Fox. What he should have done regarding the Ayers nonsense was another Philadelphia speech which quelled all the rumors about his relationship with Reverend Wright.

Please note how you will quickly give Obama a pass for his errors with the media.
But Palin?
She is an idiot for her errors.

THAT is not honest debating.

And yes...I agree....his 4 answers were given out of fear of how the truth would be taken out of context.

But the media refused to attack him for it.

But when Palin stumbles out of fear of how the media will take it out of context? The media AND THE LIKES OF YOU are all over her lack of intelligence, honesty and ethics.

And such partisanship is dishonest.

Lightweights don't stumble out of fear of perception after the fact. That is childish reasoning for her gaffes and overall lack of depth in the political arena.
Never said a word about her honesty or ethics, just her seat at the table of actual national debate.
Refused to attack him? the Media refused or just not ENOUGH of the media decided to do so? He has been attacked for everything down to his country of birth and those meatheads still hold onto that belief as some do in thinking Elvis is still alive in Kalamazoo.
I am also not saying Palin is the only lightweight stating their views in the media - just the most recognized, the most visibal and thereby the biggest example of absurdity based on her resume.

That's it, in a nutshell.
 
With all of this fund raising, conferences, reality shows, FOX appearances, tea party supporting and the 4 dozen other things Sarah Palin is involved in:
When would she have had ANY time to be Governor of Alaska?
Only a complete naive and gullible DUMBASS believes that she quit on the people of Alaska because of "frivolous liberal lawsuits".
The masses be they liberal or right wing wannabe "conservatives" ARE DUMBASSES.
 
Lightweights don't stumble out of fear of perception after the fact. That is childish reasoning for her gaffes and overall lack of depth in the political arena.
Never said a word about her honesty or ethics, just her seat at the table of actual national debate.
Refused to attack him? the Media refused or just not ENOUGH of the media decided to do so? He has been attacked for everything down to his country of birth and those meatheads still hold onto that belief as some do in thinking Elvis is still alive in Kalamazoo.
I am also not saying Palin is the only lightweight stating their views in the media - just the most recognized, the most visibal and thereby the biggest example of absurdity based on her resume.

She was not running for President at the time, yet was vetted far more strongly than Obama. Biden wasn't vetted at all, by anyone, including Obama.

Biden had 30 years under his belt already. Huh?
 
Nope.

A candidate gave 4 different answers to one question.

Fox asked Bill Burton for an explanation. He refused to answer.

No ther major media outlet asked Burton or Gibbs for an explnatioon for 4 conflicting answers.

And mind you....

He gave the first answer...
Fox came up with evidence showing he DID know Ayers.
So he came up with answer 2...
Fox came up wioth evidence answer 2 was not true
So he gave answer 3
Fox came up with evidence that contradicted answer 3
So he came up woith answer 4.

So here are questions to you...and I know what your answer will be...

Why were you not curious about why he had 4 different conflcting asnwers to one simple question? Why did you not care that a candidate was caught lying THREE times about one topic? Why did you not care that the media did not feel it was important for you to know about this?

So all told, how much damage has any perceived influence by Bill Ayers over Obama actually had? None. And that's why it was a red herring.

Missing the point Maggie....or not missing it but making believe you are.

A candidate having 4 conflicting answers to one question is something that the media should question further.
They didnt.

Funny thing too....during the last debate McCain asked him about Ayers and what his real relationship was.

Obamas answer?

Paraphrased....

"others interact with him that have republican ties so what is wrong with me interacting with him"

Did anyone in the media think it may be a good idea to ask him if the others were asking the country to elect them to be president?

Funny thing......He sat in the pews of Wright but was not held accountable becuase he "did not know of his views"

Really? Should the media maybe question the viability of a man as president who did not know the views of a man that he called his mentor? Did anyone actually address that with him? All of his interviews and not one quesition of "why should the American People feel you would be a good diplomat on their behalf if you are such a poor judge of ahcaracter?"

LOL...no media bias huh....none.

Barbara Walters hugged Obama when she interviewed him...she stared at the freaking floor when she interviewed McCain.

I think that question (regarding Wright) was more than answered during his Philadelphia speech. If not, he would not have had my support either. As for Bill Ayers, I stand by my assertion that he was a red herring thrown from a sinking ship. The man since his revolutionary days of the 60's has done nothing but good by promoting educational opportunities. Everyone has stuff in their past they're not proud of. Even you and even me.
 
Ayers blew up into a big deal ...... his association w/ Wright was front page for weeks .... Van Jones as well .......... voting record all out there to be seen.

Like i said, just because it was not covered ENOUGH does not mean it was not covered at all or not enough for your liking. That is the honest part of the problem.

Comes across as sour grapes. It was out there and voters took it for whatever they wanted to take it as. None of it was ever sugar-coated and nothing was ever left open-ended. Maybe they thought it was overblown BS, while others had a list of 46 other things that had more of an impact in their view, but it was out there.

There lies the issue -- coverage vs. desired outcome.

Again, bullshit....it wasn't out there like you claim. More like buried on the 12th page of liberal newspapers, whereas Palin and McCain was frontpage news. I got the LA Times on a dailey basis....I did see what was going on. Questions weren't asked by the media, and I understand why. It's simple, the media today whether be it right, or left, has an agenda.

Ok, so your argument is now Bullshit. buried on what other newspapers? You only read the Times, so how do you know about what coverage it got where and for how long and whether it was via op-eds, columns or actual factual stories?
It was covered from the Huntsville Times to the Fresno Bee to the Arizona Republic to Delaware State News.
It was the first big hurdle that Obama had to deal with from his past followed closely by Reverend Wright and both got huge coverage based on race, ethical and moral issues brought up by both the left and the right.
Same theory applies - just because it did not get the saturation level of coverage that you thought it needed or deserved or the story did not have the desired negative effect does not mean that it was not covered by the media. A presidential candidate does not go through a campaign (Even one that was only known as a hopeful keynote speaker at a Democratic convention in the past) and not get examined by every microscope in the known universe.

Be honest...with Rev. Wright, it was exposed on Fox News.....over and over, and Fox news exposed other media outlets as not covering it.
Look, Mich....you can spin it how ever you like, it makes for good debate on the boards, but like I said be honest. Palin had a lot more vetting than did Obama.
Yes, Obama may have been examined....but not reported becauase of the left wing agenda. Obama couldn't have beaten Hillary if they had done their job properly.
 
Here is the msot recent gem - trying to take a shot at Obama's State of the Union speech -- Palin - "That was another one of those WTF moments, when he so often repeated this Sputnik moment that he would aspire Americans to celebrate. And he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space, yes, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union."

it was the arms race that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and many, many, many other factors the space race NOT being among them. That is the sort of misguided, psuedo-smart and in reality idiotic debate that she is contributing to the discussion. It is like a high school chemistry student trying to have a conversation with an MIT Chemistry major. She will try to play along and guess at a few answers and try to sound like she belongs, but everyone is rolling their eyes and wondering WTF she is trying to prove by staying in the same company and wishing she would come back after she read a book or 20.

Wow. You really ARE a puppet of the left media personalities such as Maddow and Olberman.

I was just playing with you when I said that.

Truth is, the space race became such a fianncial burden on the soviet union in the 60's and into the 70's, that further sacrifices had to be made to support the arms race. If not for the space race, they would have been able to support the arms race with little difficulty.

Seems Maddow and Olberman forgot to mention that to you.

I suggest you read history and not just watch CNBC. They are making some very intelligent people look naive.


Try reading this history:
Continuous conflicts during detente continued between Russia and us and our surrogates, especially in the 3rd world and the middle east in 1973, saw both backing their respective surrogates with weapons and other war materials. We had the cash and the Soviets started bleeding. During the Viet Nam War the Soviets bolstered the north with weapons and war materials that they could not afford. Each side continued to aim thousands of intercontinental missles at each other, maintain numerous submarines with warheads, keep hundreds of nuclear armed aircraft maintained at treemendous costs and guard many borders with LARGE land forces. You compare that with the space race costs?
Space race costs were not 2% of those costs.
Throw in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Soviets were BROKE.
Had nothing to do with space race costs.
You have been listening too much to a big tittied BOOB from Alaska that is very cute but not Presidential material.
 
Yes, they did, BIG TIME, to both the Wright and the Ayers claims. This is the problem, Jarhead. You only get your "news" from Fox, I presume. I watch CNN, PBS and MSNBC, and all of them were all over the Reverend Wright issue at the same time Fox was.

As for Ayers, the two had not been in the company of each other for years, did NOT know each other intimately as neighborhood friends, but only as fellows of the same philanthropic organization. I think fumbling for an appropriate response to the Bill Ayers allegations was the result of being fearful that whatever he (Obama) said would be taken out of context (which of course everything IS at least TRIED). He was relatively new to the vicious "reporting" constantly done by Fox. What he should have done regarding the Ayers nonsense was another Philadelphia speech which quelled all the rumors about his relationship with Reverend Wright.

Please note how you will quickly give Obama a pass for his errors with the media.
But Palin?
She is an idiot for her errors.

THAT is not honest debating.

And yes...I agree....his 4 answers were given out of fear of how the truth would be taken out of context.

But the media refused to attack him for it.

But when Palin stumbles out of fear of how the media will take it out of context? The media AND THE LIKES OF YOU are all over her lack of intelligence, honesty and ethics.

And such partisanship is dishonest.

Lightweights don't stumble out of fear of perception after the fact. That is childish reasoning for her gaffes and overall lack of depth in the political arena.
Never said a word about her honesty or ethics, just her seat at the table of actual national debate.
Refused to attack him? the Media refused or just not ENOUGH of the media decided to do so? He has been attacked for everything down to his country of birth and those meatheads still hold onto that belief as some do in thinking Elvis is still alive in Kalamazoo.
I am also not saying Palin is the only lightweight stating their views in the media - just the most recognized, the most visibal and thereby the biggest example of absurdity based on her resume.
.....Not-to-mention her economic-expertise.​

‘Hard-Core Fiscal Conservative’ Sarah Palin Left Wasilla $20 Million In Debt

:boobies:

HERE
 
Last edited:
Please note how you will quickly give Obama a pass for his errors with the media.
But Palin?
She is an idiot for her errors.

THAT is not honest debating.

And yes...I agree....his 4 answers were given out of fear of how the truth would be taken out of context.

But the media refused to attack him for it.

But when Palin stumbles out of fear of how the media will take it out of context? The media AND THE LIKES OF YOU are all over her lack of intelligence, honesty and ethics.

And such partisanship is dishonest.

Lightweights don't stumble out of fear of perception after the fact. That is childish reasoning for her gaffes and overall lack of depth in the political arena.
Never said a word about her honesty or ethics, just her seat at the table of actual national debate.
Refused to attack him? the Media refused or just not ENOUGH of the media decided to do so? He has been attacked for everything down to his country of birth and those meatheads still hold onto that belief as some do in thinking Elvis is still alive in Kalamazoo.
I am also not saying Palin is the only lightweight stating their views in the media - just the most recognized, the most visibal and thereby the biggest example of absurdity based on her resume.
.....Not-to-mention her economic-expertise.​

‘Hard-Core Fiscal Conservative’ Sarah Palin Left Wasilla $20 Million In Debt

HERE

palin ran a city first, then a state.
what did the obama ever run? beside his CAMPAGINE for President, and we all know he didn't run that either, his Comrades in Arms did.
:eusa_whistle:
 
Last edited:
palin ran a city first, then a state.
what did the obama ever run? beside his CAMPAGINE for President, and we all know he didn't run that either, his Comrades in Arms did.
:eusa_whistle:

The Experience Argument....obviously a winning argument. Ask John McCain. Or Al Gore. Or George H.W. Bush. Or Jimmy Carter. Or Ross Perot.....
 

Forum List

Back
Top