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

[bodecea]

but doesnt Palin have those 3 as well

Why yes she does.

so by that, Palin and Obama are equal

In that, yes they are.

 

[DiveCon]

we all know you are Mitt man Jake. So of course you are going to say that.

I would be saying that if it were Boehner or Pawlenty or you, for that matter. Yes, Steffie, I would accept you over Sarah and Michelle.

Because your skeered of them.

They would mop the floor with Obama

are you serious?

 

[JakeStarkey]

we all know you are Mitt man Jake. So of course you are going to say that.

I would be saying that if it were Boehner or Pawlenty or you, for that matter. Yes, Steffie, I would accept you over Sarah and Michelle.

Because your skeered of them.

They would mop the floor with Obama

You are a fool, meaning delusional in your thinking, if you believe that. Neither one will pull more than 39 to 41% of the voters, leading to a disaster for the GOP only rivaled by 1912 or 1964. The far conservative wings of the party nearly destroyed it for good. And you want to do the same.

 

[DiveCon]

I would be saying that if it were Boehner or Pawlenty or you, for that matter. Yes, Steffie, I would accept you over Sarah and Michelle.

Because your skeered of them.

They would mop the floor with Obama

You are a fool, meaning delusional in your thinking, if you believe that. Neither one will pull more than 39 to 41% of the voters, leading to a disaster for the GOP only rivaled by 1912 or 1964. The far conservative wings of the party nearly destroyed it for good. And you want to do the same.

was Goldwater a far right wing to you?

 

[JimH52]

GO PALIN GO! She is the ticket for a second Obama term. Between her and Bachmann, the GOP is totally screwed. Can you say Christine O'Donnell?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because your skeered of them.

They would mop the floor with Obama

You are a fool, meaning delusional in your thinking, if you believe that. Neither one will pull more than 39 to 41% of the voters, leading to a disaster for the GOP only rivaled by 1912 or 1964. The far conservative wings of the party nearly destroyed it for good. And you want to do the same.

was Goldwater a far right wing to you?

To every Nixonite, Fordite, and Rockefellerette, you betcha. wink wink

 

[jgarden]

She finished the year with $1.3 million in her campaign account.
Conservative Forum Strategy 101
1. put liberals on the defensive by throwing out "accusations" that have no basis in fact - the more outrageous the better
2. sit back and watch the liberals scurrying around trying to refute them
3. dispute and question the validity of any data source liberal's cite
4 make no attempt to provide liberals with reliable sources or references
5. don't bother reading liberal responses - responding to facts is a "fools'" game for liberals
6. repeat the same argument over and over again (researching and debating are not conservative strong points)
7. before the liberals totally "debunk" the original thread, conservatives should post another thread(s) thereby starting the whole process all over again
5. "flooding" the forum with "right-wing" threads is the easiest way of setting the agenda
6. liberals will always look for signs of "intelligent life" in conservative threads - where none exists

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

What exactly do you mean by "vetting" anyway? Obama was fully "vetted" by the CIA and FBI when he became a candidate, and even further by the Secret Service when he won the nomination. If you mean "vetted" by the press, obviously Fox took the lead for their obvious agenda--to bring him down. Even before the Reverend Wright issue, the RWNM had begun to pick apart Obama's books, looking for context they could quote that would "prove" he was a [pick one] black Muslim militant or a Communist. Is that the kind of "vetting" you mean?

Frankly, I don't think he had any idea that such vicious attacks would be unleashed against him before he even had a chance to begin his job.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Ouch.

But thanks for the factual material.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

A little history of her mayorship, including her weird campagine[sic] methods:

Mayor Palin: A Rough Record - TIME

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

All of the things you mention she is doing were started AFTER she resigned.

Your the DUMBASS, if you didnt know that.

Guess it was OK that she was a VP candidate while she was governor.... kind of like Obama running a 2 year campaign to be President while he was a sitting Senator who, BTW did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as a Senator.

You hypocrite!

My my, you're so sure of yourself that you used caps and underlined!! Imagine that. Now imagine this: Since he announced his candidacy on February 10, 1007, I'd say he was involved in a whole lot of legislation since that date, all revealed here as either initiating or co-sponsoring, and you can click on each proposed bill and see the results. (Some are quite important, and if I wanted to take the time, I could flag them. But this will get you started anyway.)

GovTrack: Search Legislation in Congress

 

[MaggieMae]

So we fire one clown because he is a bad leader and then hire another clown because she is just like or a little better than the first clown.
Not a strong argument ever.

Obama does'nt hold a candle to Palin.

He is a joke of a president!

Oh my, that's even stronger and so profound!! [My mom's better'n yers, nanner nanner nanner...]

 

[MaggieMae]

you are becoming another Rinata.
good job

As long as I never become like you, I'm happy. Do you have anything else to contribute to this thread that YOU started other than to use it to insult?

LOL, you chastise me for insulting and insult me all in the same post.how funny..
and you and Rinata make a fine pair, carry on.

The difference is you start right out of the gate and never stop. Post some facts to back up your blather, and I might show some interest.

 

[Stephanie]

As long as I never become like you, I'm happy. Do you have anything else to contribute to this thread that YOU started other than to use it to insult?

LOL, you chastise me for insulting and insult me all in the same post.how funny..
and you and Rinata make a fine pair, carry on.

The difference is you start right out of the gate and never stop. Post some facts to back up your blather, and I might show some interest.

really.
and speaking of echos.

 

[MaggieMae]

this guy?

Jon Huntsman, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's the buzz. He resigned as Ambassador to China today.

Oh dear. Another quitter.

With billions at his disposal, I'm sure he'll jump in. But then we'll have two Mormons as candidates. Should be interesting.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

or Abe Lincoln for that matter

All much more qualified than Hockey Mom Palin

My experience in my life time, and in reading up, is that once you're forced to start making the "Experience For President" argument for a job you do not yet have, you've lost. The experience argument works for incumbents, and that's about it.

The folks that win the election for POTUS do so based on a vision or plan for the future. Or because the other guys just really really sucked.

That's absolutely true. For all the snarky criticism over Obama's slogan "hope and change," those are precisely the values that all candidates run on, and precisely what gets them elected.

 

[MaggieMae]

And as for the lack of vetting and substance BS. -- there was two years worth of it from every corner of the globe and birther meatheads could not dig up their proof and all networks of every shape, stance, size, affiliation, and ownership had their chance and Obama sat with all of them. ALL OF THEM. and he got away with hiding what? got away with not saying what? got away with concealing what? He was laid bare like every other candidate who steps into the slaughterhouse of American politics.

so spare me that line of reasoning on how Obama was elected

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.

I guess I don't understand your definition of "downplayed" since we heard about all those things ad nauseum before during and even after the election.

Correct. And as I said, I don't even watch Fox News, so I must have heard/seen it all elsewhere. (But of course someone then suggested the rest of MSM wouldn't have picked up on it if Fox hadn't been there first. If that's the case, Fox should have received a Pulitzer for breaking news and/or investigative reporting.)

 

[MaggieMae]

good grief, your family voted for Obama because OF PALIN.

and they saw nothing wrong with Joe Biden as next in line to become President.

Palin gave her reasons for RESIGNING. If only more politicians would do what they felt is the RIGHT THING for their state and the people in.

so you all can go on with your SHE QUIT bs, nothing will stop you anyway.

Why do you hate Biden? What's in his record that is so discomforting to the right? (Especially since Biden his highly respected and well-liked by ALL up on the Hill, including Republicans of all stripes.)

Name something (other than the 35-year old plagiarism occurrence please).

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

And anyone who checked on their own rather than simply taking FOX news' word for it would have known that "other media outlets not covering it" was simply not true.

oh the other stations were covering it alright, and all of them were reporting it with scorn at the american people for EVEN questioning it. I guess there is some here who watch other stations besides Fox like you and others here love to regurgitate over and over.

^Proof positive you never watch anything BUT Fox. That's so untrue, it's absurd. Even Chris Matthews was visibly upset over the Reverend Wright thing.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

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.

You started to sound real good there until you stuck your foot in your mouth. This is a Message Board. You are free to Bitch, as the rest of us, that is what you are doing here. Grow up and stop trying to dictate what others can and can't do. Full disclosure won't hurt your cause you know. Your industry has enough problems do deal with, don't you think? You are welcome to contribute, both positively and negatively, as is the rest of the Community.

Do you admonish your right-wing friends on this board for demanding that people STFU? Shall I name names?